Principalities

[Rik Packham/Angus mac Taggart]

> 
> It's actually a rather finicky point.  I guess what I'm getting at is
> that, while there may be reasons to point to for splitting into
> principalities, decreasing the burden on the Crown is *not* a valid one. 
> The Crown may even have more problems, dealing with three
semi-autonomous,
> semi-independent nations, all of whom have their own royalty, their own
> quarrels, and their own ideas of how the game should be played.  You
would
> do better to base your arguments on more persuasive reasoning. 
> 
Actually, I would rather the kingdom remain one kingdom (you know: ONE STAR
... ONE KINGDOM) and not go into one kingdom with three principalities. But
I also see that there are people here in this kingdom that are thinking
favorably on the idea of principalities. And being a non-participant in the
ways of SCA politics (and politics in general) I may not see all of the
issues facing the topics I address. I do thank both you, Countess Margaret
ny Connor, and Sir Kief in addressing the issues that I have placed before
the (virtual) populace of Ansteorra. I have learned many things during
these three days (far more than I really wanted to know ;-). I am being the
devils advocate on this principality issue, because if the principality
proposal does go through I would like the people to have already thought of
these issues (I'm sorry about all of the 'issues' in this post, but I'm
tired and my thesaurus-like brain (*chuckle*) is not operating fully).

Just doing that non-medieval thing, you know, freedom of speech. ;-)

Angus
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ld. Angus mac Taggart
512.837.6688
aquinas at eden.com
Crossroads to the SCA:
http://www.eden.com/~aquinas/sca/sca.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~