principalities...borders/Regional differences...

Lori Jones LJONES at bashful.ossm.edu
Wed Sep 25 11:56:12 PDT 1996


>>>(NOTE! THIS IS NOT ANY TYPE OF "OFFICIAL" PROPOSAL FROM EITHER
>>>CROWN OR KINGDOM SENESCHAL! Just my thoughts! Sir Kief.)

>>>For instance: 
>>>The "Northern principality" would consist of (snip) 5 baronies 
>>>and 6 other groups. 
>>>The "Western principality" would consist of (snip)  3 (large 
>>>and strong) Baronies, and 12 other groups.
>>>The "Eastern principality" would include (snip) 5 baronies,... 9
>>>other groups.

>>>Sir Kief av Kiersted.

>>This works much better, but still leaves much of the present 
>>Western Region without the Barony which gives them support.  
>>Why not put Bonwicke in the western principality,

>>V. Allan Endel, Laird Alan MacRonan MacCalum

I think it's pretty silly to cut off the small western region groups 
from their only Barony.  Also, the west happens to suffer from a
lack of participation from individuals outside their region.  This most 
likely won't change much, no matter where the lines are drawn.  Truth 
is, the Western region groups should decide which way THEY want to 
go (if at all).  After all, it will decide their future.

>One of the problems with putting Bonwick in the Western 
>Principality is that leaves the northern principality with too small 
>of a population base to be viable.  Remember that the Stargate-Loch 
>area and the Steppes-Elfsea area each have over 3 million people to 
>draw upon.  The entire northern region has less than 3 million people 
>to draw on.  

In 1992, Dallas/Ft Worth had 4.2 million,  Houston had 3.9 million.
The ENTIRE state of Oklahoma had only 3.1 million - only 900,000 
in the greater OKC (incl. Norman) area, and only 700,000 in Tulsa.  

>When you look at the size and the potential for growth of the 
>groups in question the Oklahoma area (8 at present) has the potential
>for maybe 2 more groups in the not too distance future.  When you add
>in.. Bonwick,..Adlesruhe, and.. Brad Leah that brings to number 11 
>current groups.  That would be about the minimum number 
>(considering group sizes) required to maintain and grow the area.  

Our potential growth from those regions would be almost insignificant, 
as Lubbock has a population of only @200,000 (maybe more if they 
increased significantly since 1992).  Amarillo has a similar 
population base from which to draw.  In fact, the Western region, 
comparatively speaking, has much fewer numbers from which to draw 
members than either of the other two regions in question.  They will 
probably be considering which region will give them the most support 
when/if they decide to support a break.  Truth is, it is much more 
beneficial for the Western region to be able to draw from BOTH the 
Northern and Central regions (not that they get much support from 
either one at the present time). 

>My original thoughts would have been to split the Kingdom north--south 
>at a line just south of Emerald Keep.  This would make two strong 
>Principalities each with large populations to draw upon.

I agree.  That way would be much more beneficial to both new groups.  
However, I doubt that the Dallas/Ft Worth area would give much 
support.  Their ties with Bryn Gwlad and Bjornsborg are pretty 
strong, and the perception would be that the "invisible barrier" 
would divide the two areas (whether or not that is ACTUALLY true).
Also, it would easily give one principality or another the 
potential to quickly form another Kingdom. IMO, the intent with 
creating fairly small principalities in the North and South is to 
prevent that from happening for quite some time.

>Burke McCrory
>Sir Burke Kyriell MacDonald
>burkemc at ionet.net

Lori Jones, OKC, OK
Bs. Kat MacLochlainn
LJONES at ossm.edu



More information about the Ansteorra mailing list