ANST - Princes and Princesses

[Paul Mitchell]

Galen of Bristol here!

<Galen said:>
> > > > When a shire goes for barony status, no one complains that they
> > > > want to leave the kingdom.

<Bear (Decker, Terry D.) said:>
> > > The change of status from shire to barony does not normally affect any
> > other
> > > group.

<And Galen answered:>
> > What "other group?"  If we take the Southern Region as an example,
> > then all the branches _within_ that region are affected if it
> > becomes a principality.  Branches in other regions would probably
> > also be affected.  Likewise, I strongly suspect that Greywood,
> > Stargate, Shadowlands, and other groups were affected when Raven's
> > Fort became a barony.

<Bear replied:>
> Shires and baronies have defined territories.  The elevation of a shire to a
> barony does not normally cause territorial problems.  The creation of a
> principality within a kingdom may cause territorial problems and therefore
> is more analogous to a canton being raised to a shire.  My point was, your
> analogy of a shire being raised to a barony was not necessarily correct
> given the focus of the discussion.

And now Galen asserts:
I can't go along with the Canton to Shire analogy, though.  When a 
canton changes to a shire, the barony involved loses territory and
people.  When a region goes for principality status, the kingdom
doesn't lose people or territitory.  The residents of a principality
are still residents of the kingdom, just as Texans are still 
Americans.

<Bear said:>
> > > While there are examples to the contrary, the general experience has
> > been
> > > that principalities become kingdoms.

<Galen answered:>
> > I submit that when talking about SCA branches, experience is less
> > indicative than is intent.  I don't believe that _any_ region in
> > Ansteorra could _ever_ generate enough support for secession to
> > get it.

<Bear replied:>
> Intent is a matter of the moment.  Experience occurs over time.  Both views
> can be completely correct in the context of this discussion.
> 
> The intent now is to form principalities without going for kingdom status.
> What is the intent in 5 years?  10 years?  Current intent is not indicative
> of future intent.
> 
> Experience says principalities aspire to become kingdoms more often than
> not.  So there is a good chance that some of the principalities of Ansteorra
> will try to become kingdoms.
> 
> It is my opinion that intent and experience would intersect after the people
> involved in the creation of the principality drop below 20 per cent of the
> population.  As for generating support for secession, there have been times
> when it could have occurred.  They may come again.

There have been times when some tried to push a principality with
the _specific_ intent of breaking away from Ansteorra.  They couldn't
generate the support.  I opposed those efforts because 1.) I don't
want to leave Ansteorra, and 2.) I believe that SCA branches shouldn't
be created just because some people can't play nice together.

<Bear said:> 
> > Once a region
> > > becomes a principality, the threat of secession becomes real, even if
> > the
> > > reality is not likely.

<Galen answered:>
> > The Western Region could seceed to join the Outlands, or the Northern
> > Region
> > could join Calontir, and I don't find either of these more or less
> > likely
> > than the idea that they would ever want to leave Ansteorra to stand
> > alone.
> >
> > But if a principality has a population that _doesn't_ _want_ _to_
> > _leave_
> > _its_ _parent_ _kingdom_, then it will stay in the Kingdom.  No
> > principality
> > will be created without a consensus of the membership of the proposed
> > principality.  And no principality can ever become its own kingdom
> > without a consensus of its membership for that seperation.

<Bear replied:>
> Interesting you should pick the two regions which have a regional identity.
> I would expect them to be less likely to leave unless they can stand alone,
> or pick up part of another kingdom's territory.

My point with that is that secession is a possiblity with our regions,
and even with the local groups on our borders.  You don't want to see
Ansteorra broken up?  Fine; neither do I.  I don't expect to change
my mind, and I would strongly oppose any effort to break up this
kingdom.  I expect that will always be the case, notwithstanding
what AEthelmarc or Artemesia or Ealdermere might have decided.  They're
not Ansteorrans.  The threat of secession doesn't _become_ real
with principalities, it's here now.  And I don't believe that
Ansteorran principalities would be any more likely to seceed than 
the regions are.  They are, after all, the same groups of people.

> Ten years ago, principalities were anathema.  Today, it looks as if we may
> actually have principalities.  The fact is, consensus often changes.

No they weren't.  Principality efforts then failed because they lacked
widespread grassroots support, and proved unable to generate that
support.  But they weren't anathema.  Today, the jury is still out
on whether any region can generate the internal popular support to
launch a principality.  But the leadership is coming from the 
grassroots level; people who don't hold offices, people who don't
have hidden agendas, they are the leaders of this effort.  Why
do they want to live in a principality?  Because they think it
would make living in the kingdom more fun.  What about all the
work involved?  The supporters of the principalities expect to
have fun doing the work.  What about crowding the calendar?  The
SCA exists to have events; people want to found a principality
in order to hold events, not in spite of the necessity.

- Galen of Bristol
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.