An amusing detail from the article: “Originally the custom was meant to foster vocations to the priesthood by giving youngsters a taste of liturgical officiating, but once it moved to within the Twelve Days of Christmas, it became linked with more riotous topsy-turvy customs like the Feast of the Ass or the Lord of Misrule. In an effort to put an end to this nonsense, Church authorities decided to move the custom to the feast of St. Nicholas on December 6, safely out of the way of the Christmas mayhem. The plan, however, backfired. Instead of stemming abuses, it prolonged them: the Boy Bishop would now preside from December 6 to December 28.”
A crucial Christmas entertainment was the temporary government of the Lord of Misrule. At the royal court, in noble houses, Inns of Court and university colleges, Misrule presided, mocking and turning the world upside down. He even had a gibbet for mock executions. Similarly, in cathedrals and churches, boys from the choir were ‘appointed’ as bishops. Such inversion of the norms was fun and necessary.
This is really strange. Did Manorialism exist at this time, and did the peasants do this with their Lord?I feel like we’ve lost something important in the loss of this yearly moment of re-enactment of incarnation’s radical weirdness and challenge to establishment; the 14th century cleric’s remarks in the article seem pretty wise.
Don’t wine skins and barrels burst very often if the air-hole is not opened from time to time? We too are old barrels.
plantagenets will rise again
Anyway, I like the idea of saying that _this_ dynasty which won the throne through vast acts of violence is legitimate, and any subsequent wresting of the throne through the sword is illegitimate. Wasn't legendarily Briton originally settled by refugees from Troy? I wonder if we can determine which of us is the closest male patrilineal descendant of Brutus. Make them king.
Edit: got my ancestors and descendants confused :).