Home of the Sovereign Protectors

I'd like to see pictures from ROTJ showing the guards wearing red boots...

I appreciate the recommendation to request leniency from the GMO. I will try that route for myself. To be honest though, the impression I got from reading up on things membership requirements didn't make it sound like that is much of an option. The approval process really has an intimidating aura to it.

For others who maybe don't read this forum, is it possible to at least include a dated note about the changes in the CRL? I think it might help avoid some confusion and surprise to people who have been caught blindsided by it. I don't know what kind of internal communications are sent between GMOs, but I can imagine it would only make their jobs easier to have such a note on it, as well.

pfiasse wrote:I'd like to see pictures from ROTJ showing the guards wearing red boots...

The guard on the far left of the photo you can see the shoe on the bottom.

Sascha_Wilsing wrote:If anybody is making a guard cause it is supposed to be a cheap option to get a costume i am sorry.

Totally agree with this. If they want cheap, do Bridge Crew or a Jawa.

Sascha_Wilsing wrote:I will change the waterfall part for better understanding. We dont forgot the flat guard as we said "should".

The modern use of the word 'should' implies 'need' or 'must'.
It might better to state that: "It is desirable that the front should fall in a wavy 'V' pattern from under the tip of the helmet."
This would alleviate any confusion a GML might have.

I'm just trying to help get the language right as my GML understood 'should' to mean 'must have''

Or replacing should, with NEEDS TO HAVE. That would be no error for the GML to misinterpret the wording.

LuciousTalvloinne wrote:Or replacing should, with NEEDS TO HAVE. That would be no error for the GML to misinterpret the wording.

Unless the intended meaning of "should" was not so strong, in which case "strongly recommended/encouraged to have" may work?


Also, I seem to remember the previous edition had a mention of discrete zippers for fitting being passable. I don't see any mention of zippers in the new CRL. Is my memory playing tricks on me? Is this no longer allowable?

That zipper would be reference to the thawb or underrobe for easier access to put on and remove.

First, please don't hate me. I am still new to the royal guard and am actually glad the CRL is updated with more info than before. For someone who is looking at this from the outside, having that extra info is extremely helpful.
My one concern is the inner robe wording. I agree with the velvet part, but can you remove the "cloth" part? or use something similar to "same as lining material". If it's suppose to match the outer robe lining, they really should be the same material, correct? If not, I would think they would look weird.

Cloth does have a tendency to get broad phrased as an alternative of "FABRIC". I believe replacing cloth with fabric would solve that confusion.

LuciousTalvloinne wrote:Cloth does have a tendency to get broad phrased as an alternative of "FABRIC". I believe replacing cloth with fabric would solve that confusion.

I agree with this. When I first read cloth on the CRL I immediately thought of a cotton weave (or similar) type of fabric. This is similar to the clarification question I posed in the detachment section when the new CRL was posted here.