Sword Question?

[jkdesq]

[QUOTE=Doc Hudson]Balderdash!!

If you read my post, I was only bringing forth an aspect of this silly sword idea for discussion. If you note, I posed questions, not answers. I see no reason to call it "balderdash!!"

To comment on your point: my understanding of British Victorian and Edwardian culture, I find it difficult to believe that just any man could put a sword on and go prancing out to Balmoral Castle to visit the Queen. Certainly, anyone who donned a sword would have needed some sort of claim to nobility or a high office. The Victorians and Edwardians took class distinctions very seriously. It is not believable that swords were simply very large accouterments available, like cufflinks, for all to wear.

I would suggest that the more likely view is that the sword, by Victorian times, was part of certain army or state uniforms. A military officer might wear one with his brushes and a governor might wear one with his ostrich feather hat. I find the idea that, say, a Victorian banker (with or without noble ancestors) or the Governor of Hong Kong would wear a sword with his tuxedo to going see the latest G&S completely unbelievable.

"Restrictions"? We are talking about fashion and class appropriate apparel. These are things governed by law but by convention. From a conventions point of view, a Victorian who donned a sword with out noble pretensions or a high office would be seen as a, to use a modern term, a poser.

By the way, I'm writing from Canada, where Her Majesty has granted us freedoms similar to Americans but where we still, to some extent, pay attention to the charms of the old world.

[Doc Hudson]

[QUOTE=jkdesq]

Balderdash!!

If you read my post, I was only bringing forth an aspect of this silly sword idea for discussion. If you note, I posed questions, not answers. I see no reason to call it "balderdash!!"

To comment on your point: my understanding of British Victorian and Edwardian culture, I find it difficult to believe that just any man could put a sword on and go prancing out to Balmoral Castle to visit the Queen. Certainly, anyone who donned a sword would have needed some sort of claim to nobility or a high office. The Victorians and Edwardians took class distinctions very seriously. It is not believable that swords were simply very large accouterments available, like cufflinks, for all to wear.

I would suggest that the more likely view is that the sword, by Victorian times, was part of certain army or state uniforms. A military officer might wear one with his brushes and a governor might wear one with his ostrich feather hat. I find the idea that, say, a Victorian banker (with or without noble ancestors) or the Governor of Hong Kong would wear a sword with his tuxedo to going see the latest G&S completely unbelievable.

"Restrictions"? We are talking about fashion and class appropriate apparel. These are things governed by law but by convention. From a conventions point of view, a Victorian who donned a sword with out noble pretensions or a high office would be seen as a, to use a modern term, a poser.

By the way, I'm writing from Canada, where Her Majesty has granted us freedoms similar to Americans but where we still, to some extent, pay attention to the charms of the old world.

If that is a prelude to a challenge to a duel, be aware that even though contrary to Mississippi State Law, I will accept. I will stipulate that weapons will be fresh cowpies at 10 feet.

Also please note that I said:

Up until the Victorian Age, the well-dressed gentleman's formalware included a sword of some sort, which type varied with the era and the location.

It is my understanding that right up until the reign of William IV or possibly George IV, a small sword was part of formal court dress.

Even in earlier times, as far back as the Norman Conquest, many non-nobles bore the sword. Sargeants, who were not knights, and were not noble were not only armed with sword but they were mounted troops as well.

Even in the Victorian Era, I doubt if a gentleman wearing a sword would have gotten more than odd glances and earned a reputation as being an odd duck wearing the acouterments of an earlier era, and that the constabulary would only have taken notice if he's drawn the sword and started acting in a belligerent or threatening manner.

Oh, and the exact comment that brough the balderdash comment was this one, from you:
[QUOTE]I am aware that, historically, only members of the nobility could wear a sword. It was inappropriate for non-nobles to wear a sword.[/QUOTE}

BTW, my seconds will have enough experience with fresh cowpies that you won't have a chance of running in dried ones into my sack. :-P

[James]

Heinlen is of course right-me biased-never!

The law in respect of weapons here in the UK is iffy-and certainly if I defended myself with my 'stick' I risk being charged with using unreasonable force.

However, and this is the point, I can carry the stick without being charged with carrying a weapon: I'll worry about the rest after any incident.

Here my first recourse is always to remove myself from trouble-if at all possible-prior to any violence: the word here is 'street wise'.

The actual wearing of swords as a part of various uniforms is acepted here in the UK-from the military through the diplomatic service.

However a sword whilst a dashing thing to wear in theory - is not so good in reality when thinking about modern life. Here I speak from experience, when wearing one with uniform and having to get in and out of vehicles and the like. It's a bit like walking down stairs in spurs-a great idea: but!

Though I'll admit to having a slight problem with weapons-an excess interest based upon the military-competition shooting etc [rifle-I cannot hit a barrel from the inside with a pistol].

Having said that I think to import reality into my thinking: the need is to preserve the spirit and best of the old, yet live today. What do I mean?

A simple illustration would be relishing the modern kilt, rather than having to go through all the haroosh of donning a belted plaid for my day to day activities.

James

[Archangel]

This part is more for fun:

And I consider any city, state, or country that forbids a Free Man (and this isn't a sexist remark, I an old fart who learned to use Man to refer to all of humanity, not just one gender, and I refuse to change with the times) the right of self defense to be in a mighty sad state of affairs.

First, I'm fifty but I'm learning not to say "army refers to all armed forces, not just one service, and I refuse to change with the times." Obviously, you've changed to the age of computers from the era of pencils. Something to think about.

Second, Freeman is a title, a rank, and specifically did not include women, so there's no need for a disclaimer anyway.

Swords and I, I started fencing in Edinburgh when I was eight. Foolishly declined the Canadian Olympic team at 16 having just discovered girls and motorcycles. Refused entry into the states at 17 for carrying fencing swords, to a competition, go figure. Routinely use a katana and bokken to trim hedges and bushes and sober up hungover neighbours (long story). All this to say that, unless you have a second to carry it most of the time, a sword is as James described it.

Legal stuff, usual disclaimers, but I understand British and Canadian laws are more similar. A cane would be legally safer but it would still be a weapon if the police chose to call it that. Usually it comes down to one more whack than legally necessary (my students learn the difference between the two defence laws: "to stop and attack" and "to stop a continuing attack".)

Having said all that, I still find myself quite aware when I see swords at Celtic festival that they're out of place. They're not toys.

May I ask, Doc, if your statement regarding rapiers and small swords represents a slippage from your usual stance on carrying firearms?

[Archangel]

BTW, regarding carrying swords at Balmoral. The woman I married has, for her great-grandfather, the last of the heridatary Queens' Champions. The male line ran out with that generation. Shame, that would be an interesting relative to meet up with.

[Doc Hudson]

May I ask, Doc, if your statement regarding rapiers and small swords represents a slippage from your usual stance on carrying firearms?

Hardly!

Handguns are more effective, but a sword is more elegant.

If I were wearing a sword as part of daily dress, I'd still have a revolver to lend support if needed.

Some folks would say that Colonel Colt made all edged weapons obsolete in 1835. Then again, some folks consider kilts to be an obsolete mode of dress. I disagree with both groups.

[highlander_Daz]

In britain the law says one can use "reasonable force" thats about it, on a like for like basis. if someone has a knife then I assumethat I could use a similar knife for defence, if I were to bump into a gun toting mugger, I assume I would be justified in gunning him down where he stood. I would however be breaking the law just haveing the aforesaid gun in my possesion.

Lets not get into an argument about the rights and wrongs of guns etc. My point was and still is a sword is not appropriate for carrying around for self defence or what ever reason. what next towing a cannon behind our cars i case were the victim of road rage?

Oh by the way Japans greatest swordsman was defeated by a man with a stick.

[highlander_Daz]

Doc I agree with you about the abuse of the term "man" when attached to another word like postman or chairman with the "a" sound silent , then the word is non gender specific. How I laughed when i first saw the words Chairperson and postperson.

[Archangel]

Oh by the way Japans greatest swordsman was defeated by a man with a stick.

Japan's greatest swordsman defeated the last challenger, also Japanes, with a stick, true. Is this the same story?

[Archangel]

Doc I agree with you about the abuse of the term "man" when attached to another word like postman or chairman with the "a" sound silent , then the word is non gender specific. How I laughed when i first saw the words Chairperson and postperson.

without going there, I always like it when they get "neutral" (read indecisive) and call the person a "chair". Now, they've either really objectified the person or, even funnier, given that person the title of traditional carrier of the royal toilet, and royal bum wiper (which sometimes fits).