The intent of this ordinance was to suppress the conditions that encouraged brawling and duelling, and in that sense is a concern with keeping of the peace, but might also be considered part of the "recreational activities" of a certain set within London society – largely adolescents who roamed around, often in gangs, to challenge each other. The king and aristocracy were offended by what they saw as the degradation of their values based on honorable combat, as well as the risk of death or injury from this sort of behaviour (even though swords and bucklers were often made of wood). In 1310, one Roger, surnamed "the Skirmisher", was brought before the courts for teaching fencing skills to the sons of respectable citizens.

The context of this passage is a set of ordinances prescribing curfew and, particularly, ordering taverns and alehouses to close by curfew. The connection presumably being that, under the influence of drink, the men of London were more inclined to brawling, and training in swordplay only made this situation worse. It is not certain whether the last part of the passage is connected with the first.

FitzStephen had described, ca.1180, as one of several recreational activities of a martial bent that took place on holidays, how the youth of London would duel with sword and buckler. Some 300 years after his time an Italian visitor to London, Dominic Mancini, also remarked on the martial games of the city youth on holidays: arming themselves with shields and blunted swords or staves, for duelling. Evidently it was a popular activity that contributed to the defensability of the city, but could also contribute to disorder.