[ANSTHRLD] a couple questions

Brian O'hUilliam brianoftheloch at gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 08:50:33 PDT 2009

I have never seen that done with Shires, only with Cantons.  From past
discussions on this list, it was stated that the "Lord" of a Shire would be
the King.  Shires are completely separate groups with no noble officially in
charge of them, so there should not be a "Lord of X", X being a Shire.
Let's take a real example.  Sir Godwin of Eddington was once Baron of
Stargate, Lord of Gate's Edge, Lord of Westgate. Westgate and Gate's Edge
were both cantons of Stargate.  However, during his tenure as Baron, Gate's
Edge grew and became a shire.  Baron Godwin would no longer be Lord of
Gate's Edge.  This is similar to how he would not be able to claim Lord of
Loch Soilleir even though Loch was once a canton of Stargate because Loch
has since become a shire and a full barony (well before Godwin actually
became Baron of Stargate).

In Service,

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Tom Johnson <tdj_ent at hotmail.com> wrote:

> If a Canton has passed the incipent status, it is its own territory.  And
> because of strong links the Landeds from which it came will attend events
> and hold court in order to present awards.  This I have seen done with
> Shires as well and have heard the term Baron of Y, Lord of X used and the x
> is the shire.  And Shires are separate terr. as well.  Seems to fit the AS
> model.
> Aim, Shoot and Be Merry
> HL Thomas Quilliam, CAO
> Candelaio Pursuivant

More information about the Heralds mailing list