Main > The Round Table
Cross worn on back
Sir Gerard de Rodes:
I had to bite my lip, once, when I overheard a re-enactor telling a MOP that if they knew anyone with a haunched back that they must have had archers as ancestors. The MOP turned out to be a surgeon and no matter how much he argued about how he "thought" human anatomy worked, the re-enactor swore it to be true. I had to walk away in the end it was far too embarrassing :o :o :o :o
G.
Sir William:
That was hilarious...how is being hunchbacked attributed to an archer? Given the amount of strength needed to draw it, I think they'd be anything but hunchbacked, which could only limit their motion. Where'd that guy get his info from? LOL
Sir Edward:
Not to mention, activity-related impacts on physiology are not inherited genetically, by definition. :)
Sir William:
That's the soundest argument right there...and probably the very same one the surgeon tried to make.
SirNathanQ:
Thank you for the generous compliment Sir Mathew! :)
And I concur with what the rest of my brethren here, there is nothing I have seen or read that would evidence this. With crosses being a quite prominent symbol in Heraldry in general, I think this would cause some serious confusion.
And then with the Baltic crusades, The crusades of Europe, and the reconquista, there would be no bloody way to know if your cross is facing Jerusalem at all!
And at the reenactor, is he attempting to ruin our credibility? *Forehead slap*
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version