Mistaken Impressions

[dennis guy grace]

Greetings Unto All and Sundry, 

At 10:29 AM 9/27/96 -0500, Mistress Gunnora wrote:

>I agree that a Crown returning to the throne does in fact have a much better
>grasp of what the job is and what to do about crises... they've encountered
>them before.  But isn't the whole "Royal Family" setup (non-official and
>unregulated as it is) really a support group for sitting Crowns, providing
>them a pool of people who have "been there, done that, got the t-shirt"?
>
>My problem with seeing the same ol' people over and over again, and why I
>hate the practice so much, is that even though I personally like the people,
>when you have the same ones, you don't get new blood.  Which means that you
>don't get new managements styles, you don't get a chance at really new ways
>to look at things or do things... a repeat Crown certainly may have new
>ideas, but their "style" remains the same, they are the same people, and it
>limits how different their approaches to things can be.  Plus, it's boring.
>Even if you get a really bad Crown (and every Crown that has ever sat has
>had someone in the kingdom who didn't like them, human nature being what it
>is) at least you have something new to complain about for six months.
>
>The turn-over built into the Crown keeps it vibrant and alive.  It also acts
>as a very real check on the power of any given Crown.  I mean, what if we do
>get a fighter as King, but as soon as the Crown hits his head he manifests a
>huge psychosis and he acts like Godzilla all  reign?  We all know what we
>do!  If you are absolutely frothing at the mouth about King Godzilla, you
>sit out six months (or you start a very public fight with K.G., and get
>banished for the same length of time :-)   )  A more usual scenario is that
>everyone who doesn't like King Godzilla and his policies grumbles for six
>months, perhaps practices their own fighting skills prior to next Crown
>Tourney, and then heaves a huge sigh of relief when the next Coronation is
>held.  Luckily for the people living under King Godzilla's reign, when this
>has happened in real life we usually do not see them ever sitting on the
>throne again... why I don't know... subtle pressure from the Chivalry?
>pressure from the Royal Family?  a ban on fighting in Crown Tourney by the
>sitting Crown?
>

Allow me to admit, at the outset, to a personal bias in favor of repeating
royalty.  The knight who took me on as a squire lo these many years ago is
currently in the process of completing his eighth reign in Atenveldt, and
IMHO he grew more proficient, more conscientious, more glorious with each
passing reign.  Numerous reigns mean numerous opportunities for
experimentation--in courtly and ceremonial styles, in award and recognition
methodology, in interkingdom diplomacy, in combat logistics and strategies,
and in political organization.  Numerous reigns mean numerous opportunities
to hone the royal repertoire.  By comparison, first reigns (especially in
that rare case wherein the new sovereign has somehow severed ties to the
unofficial royal family) are often clumsy; their courts, mis-organized and
tedious; their combat strategies, poor; their logistics, an afterthought.  

That said, I must admit to a degree of sympathy for the good Mistress's
position with regard to repeat reigns.  Yes, the repeating Crown _does_ tend
to defeat the intent of six-month reigns.  Yes, the kingdom _does_ tend to
seem a bit stagnant after X number of repeat reigns (though usually this
tends to parallel the Sovereign's attitude--a burnt-out King and Queen tend
to infect the populace). So what do we do about this?

Mistress Gunnora has suggested term limits (no, it isn't a medieval concept,
but neither is two kings per annum).  I object to this concept because,
though we would receive an infusion of new royal blood more frequently, we
would lose much of the pomp and majesty, much of the savvy and wisdom that
comes only with experience.  Perhaps we could reach a compromise position on
this matter.  Instead of limiting individuals to two crowns, perhaps we
should increase the time between eligibilities.  Obviously this won't
entirely alleviate the problem.  If the departing Sovereign must skip one
crown tourney after stepping down, we might get stuck in a cycle of three
rotating Sovereigns.  Likewise if the departing crown must skip two crown
tourney's, we could have four rotating Sovereigns.  The longer the wait,
however, the less likely the repetition seems. 

Any other thoughts on compromise positions on this situation?

<snip>
>I reiterate:  I have no problems with individuals who happen to be Repeating
>Royalty, it's the custom of doing it over and over and over and over that I
>find boring and stagnating.  It's like too heavy a rotation of a pop song on
>the radio!  Variety! (Plus, you must be even more masochistic than I am to
>*want* to be on the Throne more than once, even, but that's another story!)
>
As a writing teacher, I sympathize with the Mistress's situation.  To often
we tend to mistake criticism of our methodology for criticism of character.
The good Mistress is clearly an outspoken and articulate woman.  I'm
certain--had she any personal criticism to level against anyone--she would
have been direct and incisive (and Gods help the target).  

As to that last, parenthetical statement, Mistress, _de gustibus non
disputandem est_.  Until my next foray into this bizarre electronic
nullspace, I remain as always

Yours in (Fairly) Diligent e-Service

Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace
____________________________________
Dennis G. Grace
Postmodern Medievalist
Assistant Instructor
Division of Rhetoric and Composition
University of Texas at Austin

For every wight that lovede chivalrye
And wolde, his thankes, han a passant name,
Hath preyed that he myghte been of that game.
                --Jeff Chaucer (obviously describing the SCA)