Charles I

[LIB_IMC at centum.utulsa.edu]

<Endel at tarleton.edu>
>...I personally feel that by allowing a little leeway the SCA attracts more 
>people and is less likely to have splinter groups.

You are, of course, aware that the use of the term "splinter groups"
to describe narrow focus groups promulgates a mistaken impression that the
SCA somehow feels itself to be the Sun Source of all funny costume
groups (which is one of the things that makes non-SCA people REALLY
unfestive about the Society)?  As in splinters breaking away from a solid
mass of wood.

While it is true that there are some small groups whose origins can be found
with getting fed up with "SCA crap" and moving onto something they enjoy
more (often using a more narrow historical focus), this is not always the
case.

For example, The English Civil War groups had their origin in a 1966 
backyard "fancy dress" party in *England*, and therefore never had 
anything to do with the SCA.  In this country, The Marklands also 
developed on their own during the 60s.

Most of these groups *aren't* "splinter groups".

In fact, I suspect that the closest thing we will have to "a Splinter
Group" will be when we have finally finished driving off the 17th century
people (which I figure will happen in the next ten years).

>  The SCA has not gained many members in Great
>Britain; I think this is because Great Britain has a large number of narrowly
>focused groups.

You are probably correct in this, though.

>  On the internet I have seen groups in Great Britain that
>were limited to the Celts, to the Vikings, to the Norman Conquest, to
>Elizabethan and Jacobean periods, etc.  I think there is strength in numbers,
>and this helps sustain the SCA.

I certainly will not dispute with you on this.

Diarmuit