[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?
Kevin
-----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
still
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
without
issue),20whereas shires/provinces would require the Kingdom Seneschal to
reallocate zip codes to nearby groups.
Alden
More information about the Heralds
mailing list