ANST - Re: SR - Why a Principality?

[PKieferjr]

In a message dated 98-04-08 08:28:09 EDT, you write:

<< PKieferjr said something that sounded like:
 > Thus the reasoning that I had for creating a principality.  I reasoned that
if
 > such a body of government were created, its purpose would be twofold:  (1)
To
 > allow TRMs to share the burdon of representation with one or more
territorial
 > Princes, thus easing the workload and giving more flexibility and capacity
for
 > attending events, and
 
 There is already an infrastructure in place to help the Crown be in more
 than one place at a time.
 
 The Landed and Court Baronies and the Royal Family. This nobility can
 be used to confer awards (besides Peerages) unto the populace in the
 name of the Crown.>>

I believe Pendarin expressed the opinion that he would be overworked on this
basis, and would gladly seek some relief.
 
 <<As a matter of fact, if we have a Principality the Coronet will be doing
 it in the name of the Crown for a number of the awards.>>

That was similar to my opinion.
 
 <<Honestly I don't know if getting an award from an unknown Crown/Coronet
 means as much to me as getting it from a Noble friend. That is of course
 for myself and not the opinions of everyone in the Society. I am also
 lucky in that I live an a Barony where this is Landed Nobility.>>

So am I.  However, I note that recognition is still recognition, be it Crown,
Coronet, Baron(ess), or any other Noble.  All are equally as important to me,
even if I am not that familiar with the person.  Using myself as an example,
referring back to my AoA, I understand that I would have recieved it at Bryn
Gwlad's Baronial Fair while Kein still held the Throne, who I am familiar
with.  However, due to my primary mundane concern, I was forced to miss this
opportunity, settling instead for Candlemas, during Jean Richard's reign, who
I am not that familiar with.  However, that part was not important.  What was
important was that I was recognized for my efforts, location and time
notwithstanding.  That was all that mattered to me.
 
<< > (2) easing the workload on the beuracracy by allowing
 > the further distribution of that workload.  This second reason is currently
in
 > dispute.
 
 Personally, I argue that the creation of a Principality will cause
 *more* work to these individuals. Currently the Regional officers are
 little more than glorified paper pushers. (No offense!!)>>

None taken (from this mundane taxman, who is also a paper pusher).

<< The Herald's office will have to keep track of more items; they will have
 to keep a Principality OP, Principality regalia, Principality awards, etc.
 
 The Chronicler's office will have to produce a newsletter. Although they
 can do it at whatever rate they want, most of us would prefer monthly.
 
 The Seneschal's office will be the legal liaison for the Principality.
 
 Etc.
 
 These officers will be responsible for hiring and firing. They will be
 responsible for maintaining handbooks and ensuring that people are
 obeying them. They will be responsible for more, not less.
 
 The local officers would have now 2 bosses. You under the mistaken
 impression that a Principality is autonomous? The Kingdom is still
 superior in law, organization, function and tradition. If the
 Principality officers do their job right, the locals are buffered from
 this, but that is then again more work for the Principality officers.>>

As I have said, I have conceded that this reasoning was in dispute.
 
 <<> As to the matter of where we should draw the boundary line, I would lean
 > toward the proposal of including both the Southern and Coastal Regions,
with
 > the inclusion of some Central Region chapters upon invitation.  However,
Sir
 > Conor Mac Cinneade's objection to the inclusion of Stargate (for various
 > personal reasons) is noted.
 
 Personally, I think that if the Kingdom Seneschal or BoD realize that we
 have created a Principality to exclude a certain group, they can either
 deny the request or force addition of the group in question.
 
 This was in part pointed out by Richard Fairborne this last weekend when
 he stated that inclusion of a group can be done without the consent of
 the group. (The example was La Marche Sauvage being forced if Seawinds
 joined.)
 
 As well, the creation of a Principality because we don't want So-and-So
 is an ugly way to do it. Let's try to be friendly about this folks.>>

I will state that I have never been in favor of excluding anybody for any
reason whatsoever.  I merely note the options and any opinions given as far as
those options are concerned.
 
 <<This is not to mention that Southern/Coastal makes an ideal geographicly
 appealing Principality.>>

I must agree.  Any access to maritime activity is always ideal.
 
 <<> As an alternative, the Western Region was a
 > consideration, although I have heard that they would prefer not to become a
 > principality, and, therefore, must also be taken into consideration.
 
 Actually, the Western Region is very interested. As a whole!>>

I stand corrected.
 
 <<> Previous attempts to plant the seeds of creating a principality were
shouted
 > down because these ideas came from the top, which was most likely to meet
 > resistance from the populace.
 
 Personally I think this was a very bright idea on their part. They have
 achieved exactly what they wanted without having to do the dirty work.
 
 > Today, the idea is now coming from a grass
 > roots level, which is the fastes way to garner support.  There is your
 > indication that the people are ready for such a concept.  Cultivate wisely.
 
 Yes, the seeds were planted (2 or so years ago), fertilized and are now
 rapidly growing into fruition.>>

Sounds like you believe in conspiracy theories.  Personally, I usually take
them with a very tiny grain of salt.>>
 
 <<Anyone heard any rumors on what the previous individuals who thought
 this was a good idea feel now? Any bets that it's that they now think
 it's a bad idea?>>

Not that I'm aware of.  I'm not sure if His Grace Duke Inman has access to the
Net.
 
 <<Then again, maybe I'm just cynical.>>

Could be.
 
<< Personally, I'm going to stop discussions on the net and only do them at
 events where those not on the net can listen as well. I'm sure we'll get
 tired of hearing the same old thing over and over again.
  >>


Sorry, this is my only access to the issue at the moment, but I did say that
if someone wanted to represent my views to the public at large, I would gladly
accept it.

Lord Johann Kiefer Hayden  (Paul E. Kiefer, Jr.)
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.