Yo, what the fuck is the deal with Crowns?
>round band of heavy metal
>doesn't provide protection
>doesn't even keep your head dry
>sits super loosely on your head
>easy to knock off
>doesn't fit the head in a way that would make the spikes some crowns have useful for headbutting
Why the fuck does this silly headdress/crust cutter thing even exist?
>>46350427
>Implying you cant mount a crown onto a helm
Read a book
>>46350445
but there's no point to adding a crown to a helm, at best it just makes the wearer a target, at worst it can add an extra pound or 2 to your armor's weight
For all the reasons you listed.
It shows Royalty have no concerns for any of above because they are untouchable.
>>46350427
>Why is this thing that is intended to be ridiculous and frivolously expensive looking so big and frivolous
You're clearly not from a commonwealth country
>>46350489
So why don't they also wear boobplate and chainmail bikinis? they're no less practical or useful.
>>46350536
That's a dumb fucking point and you know it.
Because;
1) Women did not go into battle, Royal women even less so.
2) The royal body is private.
3) BIKINIS DID NOT FUCKING EXIST YET.
>>46350585
>3) BIKINIS DID NOT FUCKING EXIST YET.
yeah they did
>>46350427
>Being this much of a peasant
It's a symbol of wealth and royalty, Anon. Also,
>Implying they're not enchanted with powerful buffs
>>46350480
>at best it just makes the wearer a target
A target for fealty and devotion you mean
>>46350427
Crowns aren't meant to be worn into battle, you cretin. A crown is a fancy, shiny piece of jewelry the king wears on his head so you can see how rich and kingly he is.
Crowns were ceremonial wear.
When they became fashionable, kings were no longer wading into battle.
Prior to that, when kings would see regular combat, the diadem was far more common.
>>46350489
>>46350427
It's because most royalty were a bunch of insecure douchebags with no taste who just draped themselves with the most impractical, tacky, expensive shit possible so that hopefully no-one would notice their doughy, sickly, inbred bodies underneath it.
>>46350427
Gee, I wonder. Maybe for the same reason someone wears a heavy chain made out of gold around his neck?
>>46350480
And it leaves him with higher chances to survive a battle than some piss-poor peasant levy.
If it's obvious that you're the king, the opposing side is more likely to just capture you and ransom you later rather than kill you.
>>46350759
Depends on the king, really. Serious badass warrior-kings typically wore protection appropriate to their profession.
...and then you have dumbass kings like pic related, who got killed by his own peasants a year into his reign, while personally attacking them.
>>46350427
How else is a ruler supposed to show they're special? They have to be seen as important so that way their commands will be followed - if they just look like the average peasant, no one will listen to them in the heat of battle.
>>46350976
>>46351003
That could be any duke or equivalent of duke. Heck, it could be ANY noble from a wealthier province.
>>46350717
Morale is less important than the king's continued existence by avoiding getting shot in the face.
Same reason modern-day military uniforms all look similar.
>>46351003
That's obviously tournament armor. Do you think you're going to wear that into battle? It's made for taking a lance in a tournament, not taking all sorts of weapons on a battlefield. The left side of the visor doesn't have air holes to make it stronger where the lance is most likely to hit, and the neck is a lot more protected than it normally would be.
Also, not that big. No peasant is gonna be impressed.
>>46351116
>Same reason modern-day military uniforms all look similar.
It is an important but unknown fact that in WWII, the allies attacked the people with katana first because they were the most deadly of all.
>>46351116
Back then leaving high ranking (and rich) people alive was very common. Decorating your armor to highlight your wealth and your value as a hostage was common.
>>46351116
But in medieval warfare, ranged weapons weren't ubiquitous. There's not quite as much a worry about one person in a group being shot from thousands of yards away as there is today.
Keeping morale up and troops in control, especially when knights were almost forced to be eager to charge otherwise be shamed as cowards, and peasants were eager to do anything but actually fight, is really fucking important. Half the reason that Richard the Lion-Hearted did as well as he did in the Holy Land was because he had good control of his troops.
>>46351116
Not actually true. Remember, the accuracy of firearms was utter shit up until about the 19th century. Snipers targeting officers and such is the product of 20th century warfare. Before then, the opposite was true; officers/noblemen dressed to stand out specifically so their visible fighting presence would inspire their troops.
>>46350646
You're referring to the islands, yes?
>tfw /tg/ is so bad now that you can't tell if shitposting, ironically shitposting, or just that dumb
![1373484216339[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6h3dDzc.jpg "1373484216339[1].jpg")
>>46351040
>That could be any duke or equivalent of duke. Heck, it could be ANY noble from a wealthier province.
This is why the main characters in movies rarely wear helmets. In reality knights had a better solution: their headgear, crests on their shields, certain things draped or forged into their armor etc. would ensure you knew who is who from a great distance away. If you saw someone with a blue tabard covered in golden lillies, you knew it was the king of France and you'd better recognize because the guillotine wouldn't be invented for another 800 years.
>>46351116
>Morale is less important than the king's continued existence by avoiding getting shot in the face.
You think the king couldn't afford armor that makes ranged peasant sticks borderline useless? Even crossbows only penetrated full plate at close range, while prior to that chainmail combined with a gambeson resisted most arrows.
>>46351153
This too: medieval warfare was the game of the nobility. Sure a peasant or two (or a thousand) would die but generally you were kept alive because you were worth much more alive than dead. Agincourt and Muret were noteworthy because they were exceptions.
>>46351246
>Evermore shall I wear this piscine helm upon the day thou shalt like it.
>>46351116
>Morale is less important
Hah, no
If it was the king wouldn't have bothered to show up on the battlefield himself
![anime-girl-questionmark[2].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5LbyTRk.jpg "anime-girl-questionmark[2].jpg")
>>46351623
I might be either stupid or entirely unable to empathize with premodern man, but how/why would the presence of the king give such a huge morale boost? Unless the king was already widely known to be a badass or a brilliant tactician, I don't see the added value compared to a regular old general or any given nobleman.
>>46351003
>fullplate landsknecht
>>46351692
The king was more than just some guy with a title. He was a divine vessel and fount of all justice and prosperity. It's how soldiers knew they weren't fighting some petty squabble but for the crown, the royal banners, the holy relics, and everything else the kingdom stood for.
>>46351692
Because then you at least have some assurance you aren't being thrown in the mud to die because the king himself is willing to potentially die on this battlefield, same as you (even though he's not and he won't)
>>46351692
The same reason when the boss is working on the project with you you feel better than if he's just sending you to do busy work
If the kings fighting with you it means this is a proper damn fight he's going to win, you aren't a tactical force sent to kill yourselves do a phyricc victory, your not being used by your Lord, you're fighting beside him for his and your soil.
>>46351806
>>46351815
Anon from the World-building thread gave a very succinct explanation on this;
>Feudal Society was three separate societies operating in tandem; you had the matters of war or the body (nobles, who were ultimately military commanders), the matters of mind and soul (the clergy), and the matters of production and fertility (the commoners.) This is a fancy way of saying you had the Nobility, the Clergy and the Commoners/Burghers all living in their own little worlds, often interacting with the other societies but never really immersing themselves into their culture.
>That is, unless you were the king. The king was a pseudo-religious title that unified all the other societies into a single government. The king was a religiously-anointed protector of the lands - which is to say, he encompassed all three of the societies like the center of a triple-circle Venn Diagram encompasses all aspects of those circles. The king's importance can not be understated, for without the king there is no kingdom.
>>46350536
>In the game world the traditional mark of royalty is form fitting boobplate designed to show off the Queen's or princess'sor maybe even the young prince'scurves (and probably enchanted to give/enhance said curves)
I'm okay with this
>>46351116
>Getting shot
How ignorant are you?
It's be better than any other armour on the field, no ransom for a dead king so he'd be protected from nearly all ranged weapons as they might kill him.
>>46351692
For the medieval people, just about everything was interconnected. Science and religion still walked hand in hand and sometimes were mixed with magic, things in the mortal realm imitated the works of heaven. The sky was above the earth, just as the elements were ordered from closest to the heavens to the basest. Just like God was king over creation, so was the king lord over his kingdom, divinely ordained and considered fit to rule, with everything ordered beneath him just as the angels and layers of heaven and earth were ordered beneath god. When the king is on your side, God is on your side.
>>46350427
I'm kind of ashamed of /tg/ right now...
The "civic crown" of oak leaves that eventually came to be associated with Roman emperors evolved into the diadem, which was basically a civic crown made of precious metals. Every monarch since then has in some way attempted to channel the legitimacy of the Roman emperors, and in so doing, created more elaborate diadems. Eventually you started getting the pointy crown (coronet), adding symbolism of the radiance of the sun, alluding to the king's divine right.
Then it would show up on helmets, in coats of arms, &c as you would expect.
>>46350427
pretty sure they didn't wear crowns in combat very often m8
>>46351692
because holy shit the fucking KING is here on the field guys, I only have one shoe and we all smell like shit and only have a spear that I made out of a farm tool but fucking hell lads THE KING is here we might not actually all die if he thinks it's important enough to turn up
>>46352909
>I only have one shoe and we all smell like shit and only have a spear that I made out of a farm tool but fucking hell lads THE KING is here we might not actually all die if he thinks it's important enough to turn up
Men-at-arms and general infantry were actually very well-equipped, anon. What you're describing is a very shitty peasant levy, which simply weren't a thing after the 7th century.
>>46350427
It's an evolution of the browband, because big fat surprise, the head is a very good place to put the thing that shows off how wealthy and powerful you are, because it's very visible, that's the whole deal with crowns.
Don't be a retard who can't understand the point of anything that's not directly contributing to slaying goblins faster.
The typical jagged/spiked look of a crown is a throwback to symbols of the sun.
>>46352747
>The "civic crown" of oak leaves that eventually came to be associated with Roman emperors evolved into the diadem...
The Achaemenid emperors had precious metal browbands before the romans, Constantine the Great adopted the practice from them.
If you're going to be patronizing at least try to be right.
>>46351692
Imagine you're at a party, and it's an OK party.
And suddenly Michael Jackson shows up and starts gettng down. Even if you don't much like MJs music, you're still gonna look at that suave motherfucker and think to yuorself, 'yeah this party's aight".
>>46352014
What do the other overlaps in this Venn Diagram represent? Aspects of the royal court or middlemen that handle those interactions between these societies?
>>46353720
>Clergy+Commoners = Bishops and Cardinals
>Clergy+Nobility = Militant Orders
>Nobility+Commoners = Mercenaries (who were often led or funded by exiled nobility.)
>>46353927
I'd say:
>Clergy + Commoners = priests and friars
>Clergy + Nobility = bishops and priors
>Nobility + Commoners = mayors and sergeants
>>46350646
Nigga, the first two piece bathing suits didn't come out until 1946, and people said they were so scandalous, it would be "the end of the noble culture we have just fought so hard to protect."
>>46354080
Nobility is very closely tied to the military, though, which is where militant orders come into play when you give them a religious spin.
Everything about a nobleman is tied to your ability to be a good soldier or lead a bunch of good soldiers.
>>46353153
>And suddenly Michael Jackson shows up
Am I a high level cleric?
Can I Turn Undead?
>>46354141
No, nobility was only tied to the noble house with special property rights. While many are soldiers, many others are diplomats and bureaucrats as well as prolific philanthropists. Plenty of noble sons and daughters who didn't become patriarchs or matriarchs of their own houses instead became high ranking officials of the Church, or became the heads of family-dominated monasteries.
>>46354221
There is no possible turn check that would succeed against the funk of 40,000 years, anon
>>46350427
It's a physical symbol of the King's sovereignty and right to rule. You see a crown on someone's head, and it becomes immediately obvious that they run the country, either by being a badass conqueror or being directly descended from one.
On top of this, as others said, it's also a perfect display of material wealth; the rarer the metal and more gems encrusted, the better.
In some cases, a crown (or some other jewelery or heirloom) can be a powerful political item and proof of heritage; it could have belonged to a notable hero and owning it is basically saying "My Dad gave me this, therefore I am his son and heir". This means that owning it could be precisely what a noble needs to take the throne, and why even the King's own child may ask you to retrieve it if stolen, to help settle disputes over the throne. And if some duke does come up with the crown and try to overtake the Prince, it may quickly lead to civil war. So in that sense, these sorts of items are vital for political stability.
>>46350427
>Yo, what the fuck
I love it when anonymous people of pallor try to seem street.
1st for OP is a faget.
![latest[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/SoEh0wm.jpg "latest[1].jpg")
>>46356861
>"Ayyy yo lemme holla atchu. Gimme a sick beat and amma spit some wicked rhymes"The song is about how the monarch's ancestors were kangz 'n shiet
>>46350427
To prove they had ass-tons of wealth and power, on the one hand, and to symbolise a divine halo as the king was supposed to be assigned by God himself.
>>46356861
I see you like opulent gold jewelry and a flamboyant lifestyle that reflects upon your reputation as a king among your peers. I myself am a student of invective rhyming couplets and disdain for plebeians unable to perform at our level of strategic posturing and habits.
>>46350585
>Women did not go into battle
That is wrong.
>>46357282
They did stop after a while though. In Ireland anyway.
Funny story about that. Some monks mother saw a fight between 2 celtic tribes in which a woman got speared in the tit so she wrote to her son to get him to write that it was an abomination against God for women to fight in battle.
Thus, when all the Irish celts converted and shit, the women stopped fighting.
>>46357282
>>46357442
>Implying women fighting at all wasn't highly exceptional and a move of desperation
Also, the armies that were desperate enough to recruit women had a tendency to get their asses kicked. Only today can we afford to put women in the army (and even then only 2% of the entire army is female, most of them non-combat roles) because modern warfare is a fucking cakewalk. It's using what might as well be sci-fi weaponry against sandfolk with outdated Soviet rifles.
>>46350427
Why do hats exist?
It's a fashion statement and that statement is "Hey look, I'm THE FUCKING KING."
>>46357990
I did not say it was common fag lord.
>>46358145
You heavily implied it.
>>46358178
You would only think that if you did not use your brain.
>>46352747
>>46353055
And the Egyptian pharaohs had really elaborate crowns too. The reason that the Romans used laurels was to intentionally avoid a crown - the emperor was a champion of the people and wore a champion's laurels, but was NOT a king.
>>46354119
The Romans had bikinis.
>>46357990
>sandfolk with outdated Soviet rifles
Yes, and those outdated rifles start kicking invaders' asses once they've invaded and the initial Blitzkrieg wore off. Partially because the sci-fi weaponry starts to suck if weather conditions aren't absolutely perfect.
>>46358827
>start kicking invaders' asses
Not really, rather they're like cockroaches: there are always more of them and they'll outlast fucking everything. To make a country like Afghanistan stable it'd need to be occupied for at least 60 years, where 6 is about the max a modern democracy can maintain before its population grows sick of their armies being overseas in such large numbers. It has very little to do with them "kicking asses".
Same with the Vietnam War, the Vietnamese themselves best expressed why America lost that war: "For every ten of us you kill we will kill one of you, and in the end you will beg for peace".
>>46357282
Myth is not real
>>46358909
>To make a country like Afghanistan stable it'd need to be occupied for at least 60 years,
Occupation does not pacify countries.
>>46358967
Said the retard.
>>46356861actually was doing a sweary seinfeld
>>46358714
Though ironically, no concept of pants to the extent that contact with the romans led to nearby cultures losing the concept of pants until the 17th century - even up to the 16th century it was fairly common for people to still wear just individual leggings that didn't join up at the crotch so people just wore long shirts to cover their junk.
>>46358968
Constantinople was pretty passified after the franks were done occupying it.
>>46358968
It worked out pretty damned well for Germany, the country that saw it fit to ruin Europe twice.
>>46359653
It wasn't occupation that pacified Germany after WW2. It was wealth.
>>46350585
Mosaic from the Villa Romana del Casale
>>46350521
And damn proud of it.
What are some potential alternatives to crowns? Maybe a heavy cloth/metal mantle to symbolize the weight of ridership?
>>46360077
Sword of Damocles
>>46360077
Banners, belts, robes, elaborate headdresses or facial hair, turbans or armbands
>>46360077
pauldrons
>>46360077
Pauldrons. The answer is always pauldrons.
>>46360077
Being carried on a pedestal.
>>46360077
What about a bicycle as a royal ambulatory device?
Just think about all the pig grease they'd need to use to grease up the gears.
>>46359158
>>46350427
Crowns are jewelry. ONLY jewelry. You wouldn't wear one outside of its corresponding costume. Royalty don't just slip one on whenever they go hunting.
>>46357442
Irish were a bit strange. For a while they actually allowed female bishops and priests.
>>46358320
This is bait
>>46360077
Gotta say something big that still goes on the head. Good thing about crowns/pope hats is that it makes sure every peasant in the crowd knows where the big shot is.
>>46362404
Kind of them to make themselves targets.
>>46362583
Is that Aoi Cast? I love the girls but overly ugly male characters sort of ruin it for me.
>>46351692
>>46350427
The King is The Land, The Land is the King. The King serves The Land, The Land serves the King. The King and The Land Are One.
What this means is, a king /must/ be in the battle because, in a way, he represents the nation itself. The King IS The Land, where the king goes, where he raises his standard, that is the nation. "We (royal "We", not collective) are England" kinda thing.
The King without a crown is a King without his sovereignty. His authority, that which makes him king, not being upon his person means that his authority is not there. That's why the crown is important, it's a mantle of power, in physical, political, and spiritual sense all at once. Even when not wearing the crown of state, a circlet or diadem is always worn. That's why Aragorn is so special in LOTR: he doesn't even wear his circlet, the Star of Elendil, until the Battle of Pellenor. When he /does/, his authority is instantly recognizable to everyone, especially Sauron. Remember the Palantir? Strider deliberately puts the mantles of authority, his crown and sword, in full view of his enemy, as a direct challenge (and also a diversion) against Sauron's authority. That is how power works in myth, and when one is talking royals, one is living inside a myth. A myth that is also reality, but not any less mythic, because the scope of responsibility is only containable in something as big as a myth.
Royalism is cool, man.
>>46358967
"Who is Boudicca of the Iceni" for $500, Alex.
>>46363296
No, a war leader is not a warrior, Mr. Connery
>>46363332
Now you're splitting hairs. I suppose Zenobia of Palmyra doesn't count either?
>>46362330
Your mom is bait.
>>46363437
>My example isn't valid
>You're splitting hairs
>After these initial forays, Zenobia became known as a "Warrior Queen". In leading her army, she displayed significant prowess: she was an able horse-rider and would walk three or four miles with her foot soldiers.
No, she doesn't. Do better research.
>>46363296
>>46363437
In the same sense that he is.
>>46363696
What the hell happened to his eye?
>>46354221
Nigger there is not enough cleric levels to turn Thriller.
>>46350427
>shows that you're rich as fuck
>shows that you're the king
>why the fuck would anyone wear a helmet outside of battle
>totally rad
>basically a diadem with more swag
That's why.
>>46356861
>muh street
k
>>46364035
single manly tear
>>46352747
But that's completely wrong.
>>46350585
>1) Women did not go into battle, Royal women even less so.
I'll take "Who is Matilda of Canossa," Alex. Not to mention Boudica, the Japanese Onna-Bugeisha, Catalina de Erauso, SAINT Joan of Arc, etc.
History is stranger than fiction. It is true that women were often not allowed to fight. But people rarely do only what they are allowed.
>>46350585
>3) BIKINIS DID NOT FUCKING EXIST YET.
>>46354119
>until 1946
Oh my sweet christ.... So much foolishness in this thread. Im only picking a few.
>>46351124
Negative, its foot tournament/parade armour, and most Armets had no breaths on the left side.
>>46351801
Not everyone in the 16thC was a landsknecht, and even then, most landsknecht wore armour under and over their clothes.
>>46350585
>>46350646
>>46354119
>>46358714
>>46359720
I assume you're talking about underwear.... Which if people wore anything swimming rather than going buff, then yes, women wore their brassier and braes.
>>46359254
Trews never went away, and were worn by the working class all throughout the medieval period. The Goths, Gaul, Celts, Iberians etc wore pants long before the Romans, and the Romans adopted pants for cold weather in the form of bracae.
Chauses, split hose and later joined hose are all evolved from stockings, and were worn over braes, or underwear. The braes for chauses and their following split hose looked like boxers, Joined hose saw more brief like under garments. Following joined hosen, you get wams, which are basically short shorts with tall stockings, which grow longer and longer until you get to knee length and into what will be known as breeches. All within the same 60 year span of the 16thC. This isn't even touching that trousers existed the whole time (but were horribly unfashionable work clothes) and trunk hosen, plunder hosen and other pants also existed.
You don't see it often in art as it was not fashionable.
>>46358909
Funny, because North Vietnamese agreed to peace terms which ended the Vietnam War with South Vietnam as a sovereign state after which the USA withdrew. It was two years later when the North restarted their war with South Vietnam and conquered it.
Also Afghanistan is less a country and more general geographical area containing a dozen or so competing ethno-political groups.
>>46350427
>round band of heavy metal
>>46350427
Yo, what the fuck is the deal with necklaces?
>round string with metal/other useless shit strung on
>doesn't provide protection
>doesn't even keep your neck safe
>sits super loosely on your neck
>easy to strangle you with
>doesn't fit the neck in a way that would make the necklace protect your vitals
Why the fuck does this silly neckbrace/head weight thing even exist?
>>46368473
It's an extra slot for a magical trinket.
>>46350427
>bitches about a crown.
>post pics of a girl in high heels
>>46369233
High heels would be tolerable if the armor protected her properly. No one expects her to join the fray, so there is no need for her to be nimble on her feet. But those exposed legs are pure fantasy.
>>46369281
>Magic armor
>>46371404
Then why wear armor at all?
Why not a magical dress?
>>46371910
It's what she has available, it's more comfortable, it suits her tastes, she just happens to be wearing it today but has an extensive wardrobe etc.
>>46350480
You don't kill kings anon. You capture them.
>>46362583
You don't kill people of such stations without good reason anon. Do you really think you can kill the pope without your ass being burned at the stake multiple times?
>>46359254
The Romans and the Greeks regarded people who wore pants as barbarians anon. Pants have been a thing since early antiquity. As time went on it found a place in civilized societies cause apparently it was cold up north.
>>46372256
>Romans and Greeks regarded people who wore pants as barbarians
Well that explains their culture
>>46371939
anon stop defending it and just say that its a fetish.
Its like your saying its proper to good naked outside during a blizzard.
>>46372285
Well if you study the garments of the high civilizations. You'd find that the people Greeks, Akkadians, Persians, Romans, Mesopotamian, Egyptians etc. Wore clothing's similar to dresses or togas. Which makes me wonder what the Romans thought of the Scots.
>>46372297
This, things are so much simpler when you admit you put something on her because you felt it made her more attractive
>>46350585
Ill take "Who was Boudica?" for 400 Alex
>>46350427
It is an uncomfortable, useless thing easily removed from you unless you're alert and careful around anyone who could try, even if you think they wouldn't dare.
That's kind of a reminder of what it's like to be King, man.
>>46364432
BTFO
T
F
O
>>46372181
There's a lot of dead kings that would say the opposite - basically once you've caught a king, you can't really ransom them to anyone, as there's no "higher authority" who could pay for them except for people who would, if you killed the king, be themselves liable to become king.
Direct Heir Apparent to a particular position is always worth more than the actual current position holder.
>>46372555
Wrong, retard. If you capture the enemy king then you can probably end the war right there by forcing him to sign whatever treaty you want. There is no "home government" in the feudal system, he is the highest authority and the only one capable of agreeing to peace terms.
>>46372603
And if the high nobles of your kingdom lose out in whatever treaty you just signed they won't abide by it, they'll just crown a new king - the exception is when the king in question is a minor monarch who rules over a key part of a wider alliance of kingdoms, in which case the more important monarchs will likely pay your ransom (and then have you pay it back from your kingdom's profits or more troops from your kingdom) just so they can know who keeps that section of the alliance locked down.
>>46351163
>Snipers targeting officers and such is the product of 20th century warfare.
Try 18th century warfare. Colonial sharpshooters using Kentucky rifles would go after British officers during the American Revolution, which the British thought was terribly unsporting.
>>46373903
>which the British thought was terribly unsporting.
They're right; war today would be a much more glorious and gentlemanly affair if we stuck to standards, rather than being savages.
>>46373973
I see nothing "savage" about unleashing an army of marauding murderbots upon enemies of the empire, good sir.
>>46352747
The kings of Israel didn't wear crowns either. They were anointed with oil.
The Emperor of Japan has the Sword, the Mirror, and the Jewel. To my knowledge, japanese emperors don't wear crowns.
A very few Korean kings wore crowns, but only at ceremonial events for ritual purposes.
Boxing promoter Don King doesn't wear a crown, though his hair has often been described as reminiscent of royal regalia.
In fiction, the kings of Numenor had a scepter but were also famously crownless.
At Burger King, crowns are worn by the king himself, and also by children who come as his guests and sup at his table.
Neither John Hall nor his bandmates regularly wear crowns, though some have worn rather fetching hats. Their most popular song describes their rather eclectic regalia, but there is no evidence that this is actually part of their royal costume.
What kind of spells would you enchant your own crown with?
>>46374447
at will disintegration against those fools who draw your ire.
>>46352304
heh, i like
whoever has the fanciest hat is in charge
The crown is the fanciest hat, so the man who wears the crown is in charge.
>>46350427
>Doesn't provide protection
>Easy to knock off
>usually pretty uncomfortable to wear
Wanna know why? because ruleship, like a crown, is not a gift, it's a burden. Whoever becomes king or queen must always be remembered that they are fragile, fallible mortal beings and that they can lose their power as easy as they earned it. They cannot see the crown as something to boast about, but as something they must do for the good of their own people and that never too soon will they be delivered from this burden
>>46378298
Did somebody say fancy hats?
>>46378444
But i only see maybe two or three hats here and they are not that fancy.
>>46378298
>whoever has the fanciest hat is in charge
That's why this fucker always does whatever the hell he wants.
>>46378298
>>46379172
Step aside. King of kings coming through.
>>46350480
Besides the fact that a King probably wouldn't go make himself vulnerable to becoming a viable target on the battlefield most of the time, the removal of his crown would be a blow to morale for his men
>>46350761
this would have been a perfect post for the classical painting of Louis XIII, the one with the red shoes.
>>46378444
Why is Reimu so shameless? Does she really think letting people gaze upon her nubile breasts and plump mons will encourage donations?
>>46372213
Worth it.
No Gods, no Kings, no Presidents!
