Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 22:56:52 -0400
From: cent@tower.lcs.mit.edu (Pandora Berman)
Message-Id: <199404200256.WAA03591@tower>
To: carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
Subject: the mention of aonghais, or lack thereof

In response to numerous people who were commenting here about a week ago
concerning the Eastern Roll of Kings and Queens (I'm perenially behind in
my mail):

I have always found the reading of the Roll, done as the just-replaced king
and queen retire from court, to provide a powerful symbolic moment.  Even
just as a list being read.  I thought the Bridge's accompanying Pageant of
Royal Arms was a clever addition.  Yes, there were a few technical
problems, but no worse than one might expect from any bit of pageantry done
with volunteers recruited at the last minute.  And the reason the audience
was so on the ball about mistakes in which arms were displayed was that it
included a high proportion of people who have been around a good while and
done a fair amount; I think that most of us who aren't heralds by trade
have even so had some knowledge of the devices of notable folk rub off on
us simply by habitual exposure.

I found the omission of Aonghais's name and arms, well, let us say
intriguing.

What many Carolingians may not know -- at least I don't think I've seen it
mentioned in this forum -- is that during the feast (most of you left
before the feast), after the usual sorts of toasts, Master El Two Knives
arose and gave a somewhat lengthy but very eloquent toast to Duke Aonghais,
listing certain virtuous actions El asserted Aonghais had performed during
his reigns.  One that I recall was sharing the royal power with his queens
to such an extent that the BoD of that time objected.  I do not know the
truth of El's assertions; I was around when Aonghais was king, but I was
not at that time paying attention to politics.  However, El was Seneschal
of the East when Aonghais was king, and thus likely to remember more, both
good and bad, than I do.  (Among other incidents, Aonghais was King, and El
was Eastern seneschal, when John was Baron of Carolingia and the St.
Valentine's Day Massacre took place.)  And I trust El to speak the truth.
In any case, having put the case that Aonghais deserves to be remembered
for his place in Eastern history, El called on all who would agree to
answer with Vivat.  After an astonished pause, many did so answer.  Some
did not; I was at table with Megan Baroness Stonemarche, who told us that
she could not drink the toast as El had worded it.  I myself, after brief
thought, responded that I could drink to the man Aognhais had been, and I
did so.

Later, Baroness Megan went to speak to Their Majesties concerning the
omission of Aonghais's name from the Roll.  She returned to tell us that
Lucan had explained that Aonghais's name had not been stricken from the
Royal Roll.  Rather, Lucan had simply decided that he did not wish to hear
Aonghais's name during his reign.

Now, the royalty are permitted their whims and even (when not unreasonable)
their edicts.  I would hold that specifically not having one of his
predecessors named during his reign may not be too unreasonable an edict
for a king to make.  However, doing so without telling people first doesn't
work.  (Strictly speaking, I believe that edicts -must- be announced and
published before they are Eastern legal.)  Lucan, or Fridrikr, or someone
official, could have announced, at some point before the reading of the
Roll, that Aonghais's name would be omitted.  Lucan did not even enter Last
Court until the transfer ceremony; someone could have made such an
announcement without having to sully his ears with the name.  But doing as
they did -- simply omitting him without any mention of why -- may well have
raised more questions, and cast Their Present Majesties in a worse light,
than such an announcement would have.

Eowyn