In a recent BBC quiz about the law it was stated that:

"it’s illegal to wear suits of armour in the Houses of Parliament. This
is according to the Statute forbidding Bearing of Armour 1313, where the
King (Edward II at the time) strictly prohibits “coming armed to
Parliament”.

Does that mean the ecilop officers wearing bullet proof vests are
breaking the law, or has this act been repealed?

Question 4 of

https://tinyurl.com/3c848dnb

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zhxbscw?at_mid=O4Oibw4CSc&at_cam
paign=Unusual_Laws_Quiz&at_medium=display_ad&at_campaign_type=owned&at_l
ink_origin=discovery_cards&at_link_id=gr07&at_product=bitesize&at_ptr_na
me=bbc&at_ptr_type=media&at_format=image&at_objective=consumption&at_bbc
_team=BBC

--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

Nicholas D. Richards wrote:

> "it’s illegal to wear suits of armour in the Houses of Parliament. This
> is according to the Statute forbidding Bearing of Armour 1313, where the
> King (Edward II at the time) strictly prohibits “coming armed to
> Parliament”.
>
> Does that mean the ecilop officers wearing bullet proof vests are
> breaking the law, or has this act been repealed?

Still exists

<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw2/7/0>

In article <2gqdnZxCbr5rXtL5nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
Tease'n'Seize <tease-and-seize@invalid.?> on Mon, 1 May 2023 at
14:51:50 awoke Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>
>> "it’s illegal to wear suits of armour in the Houses of Parliament. This
>> is according to the Statute forbidding Bearing of Armour 1313, where the
>> King (Edward II at the time) strictly prohibits “coming armed to
>> Parliament”.
>>
>> Does that mean the ecilop officers wearing bullet proof vests are
>> breaking the law, or has this act been repealed?
>
>Still exists
>
><https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw2/7/0>
>
I wonder whether we can expect to see some protester asking a policeman
to charge his mate with breaking said act.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

"Nicholas D. Richards" <nicholas@salmiron.com> writes:

> "it's illegal to wear suits of armour in the Houses of Parliament. This
> is according to the Statute forbidding Bearing of Armour 1313, where the
> King (Edward II at the time) strictly prohibits "coming armed to
> Parliament".
>
> Does that mean the ecilop officers wearing bullet proof vests are
> breaking the law, or has this act been repealed?

Ed II may well have been more concerned about his barons coming around
armed that the Sergeant at Armes or whatever passed for security then.
IIRC, his dear and intimate companions, the Hughs deSpencer pere et
fils were at various times first deported and then, upon unwelcome
return carried off and executed in creative ways by the barons.

Some sheddi who learned all about this in fpubby will perhaps correct
my Leftpondian inaccuracy and fill in the blanks.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

I'd have thought that there is a subtle difference between armour and a
bullet proof vest.
Armour is heavy for a start. I'd imagine a load of armour wearing people
stood about might end up in the basement.
Did you know that bullet proof vests are not bullet proof? They may be so
with normal weapons, but any assault weapon goes right through, or so I'm
told by an ex Sas person.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Nicholas D. Richards" <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote in message
news:AywvEUAoA6TkFAgm@salmiron.com...
> In a recent BBC quiz about the law it was stated that:
>
> "it's illegal to wear suits of armour in the Houses of Parliament. This
> is according to the Statute forbidding Bearing of Armour 1313, where the
> King (Edward II at the time) strictly prohibits "coming armed to
> Parliament".
>
> Does that mean the ecilop officers wearing bullet proof vests are
> breaking the law, or has this act been repealed?
>
> Question 4 of
>
> https://tinyurl.com/3c848dnb
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zhxbscw?at_mid=O4Oibw4CSc&at_cam
> paign=Unusual_Laws_Quiz&at_medium=display_ad&at_campaign_type=owned&at_l
> ink_origin=discovery_cards&at_link_id=gr07&at_product=bitesize&at_ptr_na
> me=bbc&at_ptr_type=media&at_format=image&at_objective=consumption&at_bbc
> _team=BBC
>
>
> --
> 0sterc@tcher -
>
> "O� sont les neiges d'antan?"

On 01/05/2023 12:19, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
> In a recent BBC quiz about the law it was stated that:
>
> "it’s illegal to wear suits of armour in the Houses of Parliament. This
> is according to the Statute forbidding Bearing of Armour 1313, where the
> King (Edward II at the time) strictly prohibits “coming armed to
> Parliament”.

Mmmm.
Coming armed (wearing a sword/carrying a mace/WHY) ≠ Wearing armour.

Or is it a time thing where the meaning of a word has subtly changed
over the years?
QI is full of questions like that were the real answer lies in what
words used to mean or there new meanings or an alternate meaning that
nobody uses or... anything so the panelists get it 'wrong'.

On 02/05/2023 11:29, soup wrote:

> Mmmm.
> Coming armed (wearing a sword/carrying a mace/WHY) ≠ Wearing armour.
>
Extendible baton/ nightstick, tazer?
>
> Or is it a time thing where the meaning of a word has subtly changed
> over the years?
> QI is full of questions like that were the real answer lies in what
> words used to mean or there new meanings or an alternate meaning that
> nobody uses or... anything so the panelists get it 'wrong'.

I suspect in this case, chain mail and plate armour were the only
alternatives when the law was drawn up, what with Kevlar not having been
invented yet.

Look a bit deeper into the purpose behind the law, and a decent legal
bod could probably make a case that your everyday Metvest, being stab
resistant, counts as armour under the law, and a tazer, as well as,
possibly, the extendible baton every copper has on their belt counts as
armed.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.