[ANSTHRLD] a couple questions

[Crandall]

A Sheriff is a Shire Reeve. 
The tax collector to be clear. 

Crandall, Olde Phart 

"In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong." -John Kenneth Galbraith


--- On Wed, 7/22/09, Mike Wyvill <wyvillmike at hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: Mike Wyvill <wyvillmike at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] a couple questions
> To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
> Date: Wednesday, July 22, 2009, 12:03 PM
> 
> And mentioning Shires begs the question:
> 
>  
> 
> Why isn't the seneschal of such a group a Sheriff?
> 
>  
> 
> EdV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD
> Join me
> 
> 
>  
> > Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 08:24:13 -0700
> > From: alden_drake at sbcglobal.net
> > To: heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> > 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), whereas
> shires/provinces would require the Kingdom Seneschal to
> reallocate zip codes to nearby groups.
> > 
> > Alden
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: "kevinkeary at aol.com"
> <kevinkeary at aol.com>
> > To: heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:51:32 AM
> > Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] a couple questions
> > 
> > Sure, but IS a canton 'contained within' its barony? I
> understood that once it was past incipient status it had to
> have its own separate bank account, and before that its
> membership tally was no longer included within the barony's,
> so the barony had to have sufficient membership to remain a
> barony WITHOUT the canton before the canton could even
> become incipient. Besides being geographically
> distinct/distinguishable.
> > 
> > Am I wrong about that? I don't care much -- I still
> carry Chemin Noir in Northkeep's OP, for instance.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tmcd at panix.com
> > Sent: Wed, Jul 22, 2009 8:45 am
> > Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] a couple questions
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, rbculver at sbcglobal.net
> <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
> wrote:
> > > I thought that some of the early Norman and
> Plantagenet kings were
> > > listed in such fashion: King of England, Duke of
> Normandy, County of
> > > Anjou, etc.
> > 
> > Thank you for pointing out a period example of use of
> multiple landed
> > titles.  But in distinction from the SCA "Baron
> of X, Lord of Y"
> > (where Y is a canton contained within X), the
> Plantagenets' England,
> > Normandy, Anjou, Maine, Aquitaine, Ireland, et cetera,
> did not
> > overlap.
> > 
> > Daniel de Lindecolina
> > --
> > Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Heralds mailing list
> > Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> > http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Heralds mailing list
> > Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> > http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Heralds mailing list
> > Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> > http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
>