[ANSTHRLD] a couple questions

kevinkeary at aol.com kevinkeary at aol.com
Wed Jul 22 08:44:05 PDT 2009

Then I feel comfortable in contending that it IS proper for a baron to 
be styled as Baron of (Barony), Lord of (Canton), and for that matter, 
that Lord of (Barony), Baron of (Canton) would be equally Period, but 
less SCAdian.

Baron of (Barony), Lord of (Shire), as Thomas cites, I'm less 
comfortable with. The Lord of (Shire) is the Sovereign of (Kingdom), 
where (Shire) IS an integrated part of (Kingdom) and doesn't need to be 
listed separately in a string of titles.

Not that it doesn't suggest interesting schtick. In October, if they 
have their way, the B&B of Northkeep will step down in MORNING court, 
with the Crown's choices for our new B&B being invested at EVENING 
court. In the interim, the Crown will be Baron and Baroness of 
Northkeep, if I understand correctly. It would be redundant to CALL 
them such when reopening court for the evening, but it would be fun.

Are there applicable laws or precedents?


-----Original Message-----
From: Alden Drake <alden_drake at sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wed, Jul 22, 2009 10:24 am
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] a couple questions

They are separate and for business purposes independantly operated, but 
tied to the sheltering barony.  You can't be a canton without 
a sheltering
barony - those are shires.  If the canton is ever disolved, the 
associated zip
codes and membership numbers revert back to the barony (I believe 
issue),20whereas shires/provinces would require the Kingdom Seneschal to
reallocate zip codes to nearby groups.


More information about the Heralds mailing list