As a long-time SCA member, I think the original poster's best choice of action would be to ask their intended hostess/inviter, as she did mention that she was going to. The hostess would be the best source for knowing local SCA levels of tolerance for such things. Personally, I live in a relatively relaxed kingdom that has written sumptuary *customs.* I'd think the gentleman in question would *probably* be okay with his gold chain, especially if he went with a style that wasn't simple gold links--maybe a Lancastrian collar (aren't those the ones with the "s" shape?)?? And even more telling, if he refrained from wearing a white belt, which is the other main piece of regalia/clothing specifically associated with SCA chivalry members. In my part of the Known World (Artemisia, which comprises Montana, southern Idaho, Utah, and bits of Wyoming and Colorado...for the non-Americans, that's the northern part of the Rocky Mountain states), I can't recall a time when I *didn't* see members of the chivalry wearing *both* the chain AND the belt. And frequently spurs, as well. A while back, I asked a number of them about the feasibility of wearing just a plain gold chain with really big links, since I was thinking of wearing a GermanRen gown to Coronation, and wanted the proper jewelry. None of them had a problem with it, because, they said, it would be obvious from context. Also, as a member of the other SCA peerage orders, I'm allowed (in this kingdom at least) to wear a plain gold chain with the medallion(s) of my order(s) dependent from the chain, when I'm in fealty to the Crown. So I could have done that, as well. --Sue in Montana
----- Original Message ----- From: "michaela" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Historical Costume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:01 AM Subject: SCA symptuary laws Re: [h-cost] Tudor Jewellery > > That is a real pity, as if my husband were to wear a jewelled or > > decorated chain in England it would be considered to be pretentious > > and inaccurate, as it is not seen in portraits as far as I can > > remember.He will probably have to go without altogether in that case, > > as I don't want to spend money on something he can't wear here. > > Or just do something extremly unobtrusive. I have heard of people wiring in > a tiny little bead so that when someone was rude enough to confront them > (and there are people who are sticklers for this) they could show that it > was indeed decorated. There is no rule that stipulates just how obvious hte > decoration needs to be as far as I know. People have also put a ribbon in > theirs as well. I suggest this only for those with a sense of humour and who > can have a good gentle giggle about it. I personally like pushing comfort > levels but know that there is a fine line before pushing buttons;) > > The only wide chains I can think of are chains of office which do have a > dangling pendant quite often. but then I keep imagining men from Henry > VIII's reign and of high rank. > > I face the same issue myself as I do German renaissance, and there are a > large number of unadorned chains. In fact my next big item has a matching > guertel and kette in plain gold chain. I'm going to swap out those items for > ones seen in different portraits. ANd probably whack a pendant on the end of > the kette. > > I also worried about the headdress for my Valois gown as it was extremely > decorative and could look like I was assuming status I don't have as a > Pointy Hatted person. But it was far enough on the back of my head to not > look like a circle or coronet at all. > > Some kingdoms have actual written suptuary laws, some are just tradition. > They are a handy way of instant recognition, but don't work in every case, > and when not everyone knows the rules. > > Michaela de Bruce > http://glittersweet.com _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
