>>44500057Was for a while, I'm a little defunct on that hobby now.
>>44500094I feel you weren't paying attention to the crux of my post. Purple certainly has historic ties to royalty, and if this were still the 1600's I'd take no issue of it. But the culture has evolved, it is no longer the case that the color purple has anything REMOTELY to do with royalty or authority.
Like, the color red is always going to be associated with anger and violence, because it will always be the color of human blood. Blue will always represent freedom and calm because of Earth's sky and water. But the purple = royalty connection is GONE man, it's been gone for hundreds of years. It was once a strong symbolism people USED to have, but that's in the past. Color has no inherent meaning, not if the reasons for certain associations being there in the first place have long since died out.
I wouldn't care, either, if people didn't insist on mindlessly repeating the connection constantly. You got like, cartoon kings who wear purple sometimes in media. That's as far as the connection remains.
