Pillow Fight Set of Wild West Showdown pillowcases western cowboy rifle guns duel fight pulp retro UNIQUE Gift Black room old pillow case New

Royalkane

$27.95 

From our Original Art Series of PILLOW FIGHTING comes the highly sought after design, WILD WEST SHOWDOWN DUEL!
Be sure to check out all our different designs in our PILLOW FIGHTING section, new designs added daily!
What an ART statement to have these dueling pillowcases adorn your bed! Makes the GREATEST conversation piece! Two different fencers are ready for batlle, in this perfect play-on-words PILLOW FIGHT, ready to fight for their life! These pillows hilariously welcome you to pick them up and start fighting each other with them :-)
These moving ART pieces make THE most original and unique gift!
One of the only gifts that could look so sophisticated and swanky in an adults room, yet would look so cool and fun in a kid's room too!
What to get for the one who has everything or is too hard to shop for? These are the PERFECT gift, and since they are our original designs, they cannot be found anywhere else!
These pillowcases will fit any decor and be the greatest centerpiece of a room!
These pillowcases are also great for a gift shop or store as you can see exactly what you're getting on the label on the display front detailing it's contents! Please inquire about bulk discounts for larger orders. Our © PILLOW FIGHTING pillowcases

This listing is for the 2 pillowcases only; Fits perfectly standard / queen-sized pillowcases, 200 thread count percale, hotel quality-made to LAST!
50% cotton, 50% polyester , Durable for heavy washing
Single pick yarn, snow white: Dimensions: 21" x 32"
You will get so many compliments of warm goodness. We only sell gorgeous designs. Our piilowcase designs make otherwise mundane and ordinary pillows EXTRAORDINARY! This is a Royal Kane Original Design, can't be found anywhere else on the planet.
ABOUT DUELS:
A duel is an arranged engagement in combat between two individuals, with matched weapons in accordance with agreed-upon rules. Duels in this form were chiefly practised in Early Modern Europe, with precedents in the medieval code of chivalry, and continued into the modern period (19th to early 20th centuries) especially among military officers. During the 17th and 18th centuries (and earlier), duels were mostly fought with swords (the rapier, later the smallsword, and finally the French foil), but beginning in the late 18th century and during the 19th century, duels were more commonly fought using pistols; fencing and pistol duels continued to co-exist throughout the 19th century. Pistol duelling was employed many times in the Colonial United States until it fell out of favor in Eastern America in the 18th century. It was retained however in the American Old West for quite some time due to the absence of common law. The duel was based on a code of honour. Duels were fought not so much to kill the opponent as to gain "satisfaction", that is, to restore one's honour by demonstrating a willingness to risk one's life for it, and as such the tradition of duelling was originally reserved for the male members of nobility; however, in the modern era it extended to those of the upper classes generally. From the early 17th century duels became illegal in the countries where they were practised.
History: In Western society, the formal concept of a duel developed out of the mediaeval judicial duel and older pre-Christian practices such as the Viking Age holmgang. Judicial duels were deprecated by the Lateran Council of 1215. However, in 1459 (MS Thott 290 2) Hans Talhoffer reported that in spite of Church disapproval, there were nevertheless seven capital crimes that were still commonly accepted as resolvable by means of a judicial duel. Most societies did not condemn duelling, and the victor of a duel was regarded not as a murderer but as a hero; in fact, his social status often increased. During the early Renaissance, duelling established the status of a respectable gentleman, and was an accepted manner to resolve disputes. Duelling in such societies was seen as an alternative to less regulated conflict. The first published code duello, or "code of dueling", appeared in Renaissance Italy. The first formalised national code was France's, during the Renaissance. In 1777, Ireland developed a code duello, which was the most influential in American duelling culture. According to Ariel Roth, during the reign of Henry IV, over 4,000 French aristocrats were killed in duels "in an eighteen-year period" whilst a twenty-year period of Louis XIII's reign saw some eight thousand pardons for "murders associated with duels". Roth also notes that thousands of men in the Southern United States "died protecting what they believed to be their honor."[1] Duels could be fought with swords, the rapier and later the smallsword, or between cavalry officers with military swords such as the broadsword or the sabre, and from the 18th century onward, increasingly with pistols.[2] Special sets of duelling pistols were crafted for the wealthiest of noblemen for this purpose.
Rules and weapons:
Offense and satisfaction The traditional situation that led to a duel often happened after the offense. Whether real or imagined, one party would demand satisfaction from the offender.[3] One could signal this demand with an inescapably insulting gesture, such as throwing his glove before him. This is the origin of the phrase "throwing down the gauntlet". This originates from medieval times, when an individual was knighted. The knight-to-be would receive the accolade of three light blows on the shoulder with a sword and, in some cases, a ritual slap in the face, said to be the last affronts he could accept without redress.[4] Therefore, anyone being slapped with a glove was, like a knight, considered obliged to accept the challenge or be dishonoured. Contrary to popular belief, hitting one in the face with a glove was not a challenge, but could be done after the glove had been thrown down as a response to the one issuing the challenge. Each party would name a trusted representative (a "second") who would, between them, determine a suitable "field of honour". It was also the duty of each party's second to check that the weapons were equal and that the duel was fair. Although generally demanded by custom, similarity of weapons is not essential; neither are witnesses, seconds, etc. In the 16th and early 17th centuries, it was normal practice for the seconds as well as the principals to fight each other. Later the seconds' role became more specific, to make sure the rules were followed and to try to achieve reconciliation,[5] but as late as 1777 the Irish code still allowed the seconds an option to exchange shots. Field of honour[edit] The chief criteria for choosing the field of honour were isolation, to avoid discovery and interruption by the authorities; and jurisdictional ambiguity, to avoid legal consequences. Islands in rivers dividing two jurisdictions were popular duelling sites; the cliffs below Weehawken on the Hudson River where the Hamilton-Burr duel occurred were a popular field of honour for New York duellists because of the uncertainty whether New York or New Jersey jurisdiction applied. Duels traditionally took place at dawn, when the poor light would make the participants less likely to be seen, and to force an interval for reconsideration or sobering-up. For sometime before the mid-18th century, swordsmen duelling at dawn often carried lanterns to see each other. This happened so regularly that fencing manuals integrated lanterns into their lessons. An example of this is using the lantern to parry blows and blind the opponent.[6] The manuals sometimes show the combatants carrying the lantern in the left hand wrapped behind the back, which is still one of the traditional positions for the off hand in modern fencing.[7] Conditions[edit] At the choice of the offended party, the duel could be fought to a number of conclusions: To first blood, in which case the duel would be ended as soon as one man was wounded, even if the wound was minor. Until one man was so severely wounded as to be physically unable to continue the duel. To the death (or "à l'outrance"), in which case there would be no satisfaction until one party was mortally wounded. In the case of pistol duels, each party would fire one shot. If neither man was hit and if the challenger stated that he was satisfied, the duel would be declared over. If the challenger was not satisfied, a pistol duel could continue until one man was wounded or killed, but to have more than three exchanges of fire was considered barbaric and, on the rare occasion that no hits were achieved, somewhat ridiculous.
A fictional pistol duel between Eugene Onegin and Vladimir Lensky Under the latter conditions, one or both parties could intentionally miss in order to fulfill the conditions of the duel, without loss of either life or honour. However, doing so, known as deloping, could imply that your opponent was not worth shooting. This practice occurred despite being expressly banned by the Code Duello of 1777. Rule 13 stated: "No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case... children's play must be dishonourable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited." Practices varied, however, and many pistol duels were to first blood or death. The offended party could stop the duel at any time if he deemed his honour satisfied. In some duels, the seconds would take the place of the primary dueller if the primary was not able to finish the duel. This was usually done in duels with swords, where one's expertise was sometimes limited. The second would also act as a witness. Participation in a duel could be honorably refused on account of a major difference in age between the parties and, to a lesser extent, in cases of social inferiority on the part of the challenger. Such inferiority had to be immediately obvious, however. As author Bertram Wyatt-Brown states, "with social distinctions often difficult to measure," most men could not escape on such grounds without the appearance of cowardice.[8] Pistols[edit] For a pistol duel, the parties would be placed back to back with loaded weapons in hand and walk a set number of paces, turn to face the opponent, and shoot. Typically, the graver the insult, the fewer the paces agreed upon. Alternatively, a pre-agreed length of ground would be measured out by the seconds and marked, often with swords stuck in the ground (referred to as "points"). At a given signal, often the dropping of a handkerchief, the principals could advance and fire at will. This latter system reduced the possibility of cheating, as neither principal had to trust the other not to turn too soon. Another system involved alternate shots being taken, beginning with the challenged firing first. Many historical duels were prevented by the difficulty of arranging the "methodus pugnandi". In the instance of Dr. Richard Brocklesby, the number of paces could not be agreed upon;[9] and in the affair between Mark Akenside and Ballow, one had determined never to fight in the morning, and the other that he would never fight in the afternoon.[9] John Wilkes, "who did not stand upon ceremony in these little affairs," when asked by Lord Talbot how many times they were to fire, replied, "just as often as your Lordship pleases; I have brought a bag of bullets and a flask of gunpowder." Unusual duels In 1808, two Frenchmen are said to have fought in balloons over Paris, each attempting to shoot and puncture the other's balloon; one duellist is said to have been shot down and killed with his second.[10] In 1843, two other Frenchmen are said to have fought a duel by means of throwing billiard balls at each other.[10] In the 1860s, Otto von Bismarck was reported to have challenged Rudolf Virchow to a duel. Virchow, being entitled to choose the weapons, chose two pork sausages, one infected with the roundworm Trichinella; the two would each choose and eat a sausage. Bismarck reportedly declined.[11] The story could be apocryphal, however.[12]
Tp decline a challenge was often equated to defeat by forfeiture, and sometimes regarded as dishonourable. Prominent and famous individuals were especially at risk of being challenged. The Russian poet Alexander Pushkin prophetically described a number of duels in his works, notably Onegin's duel with Lensky in Eugene Onegin. The poet was mortally wounded in a controversial duel with Georges d'Anthès, a French officer rumoured to be his wife's lover. D'Anthès, who was accused of cheating in this duel, married Pushkin's sister-in-law and went on to become a French minister and senator.
Alexander Hamilton fights his fatal duel with Vice President Aaron Burr, July 1804 In 1598 the English playwright Ben Jonson fought a duel, mortally wounding an actor by the name of Gabriel Spencer. In 1798 HRH The Duke of York, well known as "The Grand Old Duke of York", duelled with Lieutenant-Colonel Charles Lennox and was grazed by a bullet along his hairline. In 1840 the 7th Earl of Cardigan, the officer in charge of the now infamous Charge of the Light Brigade, fought a duel with a British Army officer by the name of Captain Tuckett. Tuckett was wounded in the engagement, though not fatally. Four Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom have engaged in duels, although only two of them – Pitt and Wellington – held the office at the time of their duels. William Petty, 2nd Earl of Shelburne fought a duel with Colonel William Fullarton (1780) William Pitt the Younger fought a duel with George Tierney (1798) George Canning fought a duel with Lord Castlereagh (1809) The Duke of Wellington fought a duel with Lord Winchilsea (1829) In 1864, American writer Mark Twain, then a contributor to the New York Sunday Mercury, narrowly avoided fighting a duel with a rival newspaper editor, apparently through the quick thinking of his second, who exaggerated Twain's prowess with a pistol.[13][14][15] The most notorious American duel was the Burr-Hamilton duel, in which notable Federalist and former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton was fatally wounded by his political rival, the sitting Vice President of the United States Aaron Burr. Another American politician, Andrew Jackson, later to serve as a General Officer in the U.S. Army and to become the seventh president, fought two duels, though some legends claim he fought many more. On May 30, 1806, he killed prominent duellist Charles Dickinson, suffering himself from a chest wound which caused him a lifetime of pain. Jackson also reportedly engaged in a bloodless duel with a lawyer and in 1803 came very near duelling with John Sevier. On September 22, 1842, future President Abraham Lincoln, at the time an Illinois state legislator, met to duel with state auditor James Shields, but their seconds intervened and persuaded them against it.
*All pillowcases and printing may vary ever so slightly from what is shown, as you are supporting local artists who do everything old school by hand. We'll even sprinkle in a little love for free.
We at Royal Kane always display our own designs, as we won't design them unless they're awesome enough for us. Makes the best gift around!
BRAND NEW and hot off the silk screen press.

SHIPPING:
US First Class Mail


Return Policy:
You have up to 3 days of receiving an item to ship it back for exchange or store credit. By purchasing an item you are agreeing to these terms.
Royal Kane proudly donates to SmileTrain! We have authorized written consent from SmileTrain for this solicitation, and we have a scanned copy of this consent. SmileTrain is a recognized 501c3 Charity. Thanks and God Bless!

X