[MR] Re: [AtlantianHeralds] Queen's Arms

[Beiskaldi at aol.com]

Well, since I see my comments on another list have been posted here, I might 
add without my knowledge or permission, I will also post my response here.  I 
find it unfortunate that the person who did so failed to attach my entire 
post & all comments made, but then again, perhaps they would not have made 
her argument as easy.

> 
> In a message dated 03/29/2002 9:58:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> silverdragon at Charleston.Net writes:
> 
> 
> 
> >> However, there is no grounds at all for the personal attack on Her 
>> Highness 
>> merely for taking an action that all those who have an appreciation for 
>> Atlantian history should applaud.
>> 
>> After all, it does make one wonder what will be the next Atlantian icon to 
>> fall in the name of theoretical politically incorrect allusions.  "Spike" 
>> would be a really obvious candidate, I suspect.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> And I suppose since I come from Virginia I should laud a return to slavery 
> and human ownership since it is our history and 'tradition'.  (So sorry for 
> not being politically correct there, but we shouldn't let that get in the 
> way, right?)  Quite frankly that is the kind of bs that has given the sca a 
> bad name to a lot of ex members, potential members that are turned off 
> after their first introduction & those that look down on it.  I fail to see 
> how offending and attacking your fellow CoH members (that lack of history & 
> reality thing) is an improvement over what I said.
> 
> My comment made several assumptions:  1.  HRH knows of the allusion, 2. If 
> she did not, which I would find hard to believe if she has been in the SCA 
> and in Atlantia for the past 3-4 years, her advisors would have told 
> her--after all, that is what they are there for, and 3. for whatever reason 
> she is choosing to disregard that information.
> 
> As I mentioned, that allusion is the very first thing I noticed upon ever 
> seeing the queen's arms, *as a newbie*, with no knowledge of heraldry & 
> little knowledge or history of the sca, so I can't imagine that noone else 
> ever saw it.  After all, since my world has 'little sense of history or 
> reality', I can hardly be expected to pick up on things that noone else 
> does--in fact, I should not be able to pick up on much at all if that were 
> true.
> 
> Your commentary on the history of the arms itself shows a history of moving 
> forward, not going backward, which is exactly what this proposal entails.  
> And you also point out that nowhere in that time were any suggestions of 
> impropriety made about the arms.  However, the fact is that there currently 
> *is* such a suggestion about it.  Regardless of what was, the crown, and 
> the populace, must deal with what is.  Even if there were no negative 
> connotations in the past, they are there now, and will continue to be there 
> in the future.
> 
> dawn/thyra, speaking for myself & not as a rep of anything, whose comments 
> have already been taken out of context, so won't bother with disclaimers
> 
> 
> Don't fret about growing older; it is a privilege denied to many.
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/pipermail/atlantia-atlantia.sca.org/attachments/20020329/e7a8a0fc/attachment-0021.htm>