[Ansteorra] Provinces, a clarification

[Paul DeLisle]

Actually, Milady, you have it completely backwards.

I will admit, that my *original* assumption was that *either*, Kingdom was
worried that (to quote you) "a 'hat race' would tear this group apart"; or
that, indeed, for some reason, the group was "not capable" of becoming a
Barony.
Several subsequent posts have laid those assumptions to rest; but have
raised an even more disturbing one.

My new concern is that (from what others have stated) that they were
*eminently* capable of being a Barony, yet they *deliberately* chose a
modern, egalitarian model; instead of a Medieval (or even Rennaissance) one.
This bothers me, on several levels.

Now, I admit, this is an assumption...but, IMHO, we gather together in the
SCA to enjoy the *differences* between the Modern, Mundane world, and a
Medieval/Rennaissance model (choose your favorite one; but Feudalism is the
accepted standard.)

This group fought (and won), an argument *against* the Medieval model, in
preference to a Modern one.
This appears to lay the onus not only on the originating group, but on the
Kingdom Leadership that allowed it.

I continue to be disturbed, and disappointed.

Alden


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ansteorra-bounces+ferret=hot.rr.com at ansteorra.org
> [mailto:ansteorra-bounces+ferret=hot.rr.com at ansteorra.org]On Behalf Of
> Celeste Shelton
> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 7:50 PM
> To: ansteorra at ansteorra.org
> Subject: RE: [Ansteorra] Provinces, a clarification
>
>
> Alden,
> I may be speaking out of term here, but my complaint with your posts
> regarding this subject is that you seem to assume that this group was not
> "capable" of becoming a barony or that this group thought a "hat
> race" would
> tear this group apart.  I could be incorrect, but that is what I
> read into
> your words.  Instead what I see from this group is that they have
> more than
> enough "qualified" candidates (I can think of several at this
> very moment)
> to lead the group but they are so much a unified group, they feel
> that it is
> more important to their group to ALL be the leaders and inspirations that
> you speak of.  I do love my Barony.  I am proud of our Baron and
> I know that
> this group works very well under this system and can't imagine it
> being any
> other way.  I was also proud of my shire where I lived previously and
> although the Barony is different, I can't say that it is better
> or "so much
> more" as you suggest being a Barony to be.  I do also know that a
> Province
> is a unique implementation and it was intentionally made harder
> to achieve
> so that it would not become the norm.  I strongly support your
> right to have
> any opinions that you might have, and even your right to express
> them here.
> I am just disappointed that your words appeared to be very much a
> denigration of this group since you claim they have "settled for good
> enough".  May ALL groups aspire to their personal level of "good enough".
>
> HL Saundra
>
>
>
> >From: "Paul DeLisle" <ferret at hot.rr.com>
> >Reply-To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at ansteorra.org>
> >To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at ansteorra.org>
> >Subject: [Ansteorra] Provinces, a clarification
> >Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:24:58 -0600
> >
> >Thank you, Gunthar. I appreciate someone understanding why I
> posted what I
> >did.
> >
> >For the record, let me clarify a couple of things:
> >
> >I am *not* denigrating this or any group, or it's people, any more than I
> >would denigrate an individual for recieving an award or
> elevation I did not
> >think they deserved. Such a situation would not be their fault;
> it would be
> >the faults of those who allowed it to (or made it) happen.
> >
> >My post was (as the kind Lady Franchesca so gently put it) a dismayed
> >reaction to yet another part of the historical and cultural flavor or the
> >SCA being (as I saw it) eroded away; in response to the rising
> of more and
> >more problems with individuals, groups, and their responsible Leaders (or
> >lack thereof.) It seemed like the "easy way out."
> >
> >In response to my original post, someone wrote me privately, and and
> >suggested that a Province was a good idea, because this person
> knew so many
> >Nobles who were *bad* leaders, played favorites, put politics
> into people's
> >private lives, etc.
> >Is this the case?...Every story has two sides, but I suspect
> that there is
> >some truth to what was relayed to me. But that's not a reason to
> "throw the
> >baby out with the bath water."
> >
> >What *I* see is a lack of respect on both sides. If people don't respect
> >our
> >Nobles, then what's the point of trying to be a *good* one?
> >The first three responses to my post didn't use the term Baron,
> Baroness,
> >or
> >Noble; but the vulgar term "brass hat." How can Noblesse Oblige exist in
> >such an environment?
> >
> >I will freely admit, I don't know the people of Mooneshadowe. But if they
> >are  as vibrant, avtive and tight-knit an organization as many here have
> >attested; then they should have a *dozen* viable candidates for the
> >position
> >of Baron and/or Baroness. Candidates that would inspire
> others...who would
> >make newcomers and Old Farts alike say: "Wow, *that* must be why they are
> >Nobles. I want to be like them, someday."
> >
> >But, instead, we have a group of hard workers, who have a good group, and
> >more event space on the Calendar. All good things. but there could be so
> >much more.
> >I'm so tired of "good enough."
> >
> >In any case, thank you for listening/reading/whatever.
> >
> >In Service (such as it is), I remain
> >Alden Pharamond
> >Tir Medoin, Ansteorra
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at ansteorra.org
> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/ansteorra
>