From the Seneschale

[Galen of Bristol]

dennis grace wrote:
> 
> Hi Sir Kief.  Aquilanne here.
> 
> Sir Kief wrote:<snip>
> >Show me please, the "different culture" argument as it applies to the groups or
> >regions in this Kingdom? We learn from peoples in different _Kingdoms_... Our
> >whole Kingdom from the smallest group up to the Kingdom it's self is already
> >diverse... Every group has early, middle, and late period players. The biggest
> >"division", if one can call it that, is the difference between the die-hard
> >"heavies" v. "light" camps...
> 
> I suppose it is possible that the Kingdom of Ansteorra is blandly
> homogenous, but I tend to doubt it.  In the so-far relatively few occassions
> we've met with folk who have talked about different areas of the kingdom, it
> would seem that different areas do indeed own their own identities, and that
> is a wonderful thing.  Ever heard of genetic diversity enhancing the
> strength of a species?  In a homogenous kingdom, most of the incentive to
> travel would be demolished, except for those who revel in monotony.
>You're right, Aquilanne, Ansteorra is not "blandly homogenous", but I would 
argue that differences have more to do with local groups than regions.  Kief's
argument focusses on the question of where to draw the lines.  I understand
that at the Seneschal's meeting at Elfsea Defender (this was announced by my
local Seneschal at our last meeting), Duke Inman said the borders would be the
TX/OK Border, extended West to leave the TX Panhandle in the northern 
principality, then the rest of the kingdom would be divided down I-35, leaving
Steppes and Elfsea in different principalities (rather like dividing Stargate
from Loch Sollier), and I don't know what that does to Bjornsborg, Bryn
Gwlad, Tempio, or Emerald Keep.
 
> >Folks...this principality "thing" is being forced on us from the _top_ down.
> >Not from the "bottom" up... Whose "hidden agendas" is forcing this on us...
> >Think!
> 
> It sounds to me as though people are thinking, quite a bit, in fact.  They
> may not all be agreeing with your point of view, and your frustration shows.
> It's worthwhile to listen to opposing viewpoints while temporarily resting
> the eye that sees the opportunities to rebut. It can be difficult to gain
> rhetorical ground without acquiesing to the opposition (if you need to see
> this subject in that light) some of the time.
> My question remains:  What set in motion the process we're witnessing?  Where
did the borders Duke Inman described to the local seneschals come from, and
how firm are they?

<snip>
> 
> >We have a _choice_! This is no "done deal" like many at the Baronial and
> >Kingdom level would have us believe... DO NOT BE DUPED! This whole thing is
> >politically motivated... It is not the will nor the desire of the populace.
> 
> Who exactly do you think is/are out to dupe us?  What exactly are the
> political motivations you so fear?  And I might point out that it is not
> *your* will or desire, obviously, but there are (just as obviously) those
> who disagree with you.

I could offer half a dozen paranoid scenarios to answer the question you've
asked, Aquilanne, that would not be a factual answer to my question.  We
need answers, not the accusations I could offer.

As for those who are supportive of the idea of principalities, not one of 
them has worked to get the signed petitions that would be needed to form
a principality in their area.  All they've done is say, "hey, neat idea", 
when the issue came up.  No one has come up with a solid proposal that
could be voted up or down.  No one has jumped up and said, "I'm going to do
what it takes to get a principality started in my area," and then followed
through.
> <snip> 
> Until later
> 
> Mst. Aquilanne
> 

-- 
Viscount Galen of Bristol, KSCA, CSM, etc. (now upgraded with ASTA!)
Paul Mitchell, pmitchel at flash.net / "noblesse oblige"
http://www.uta.edu/student_orgs/CSA/officers/paul/mitchel2.html