[ANSTHRLD] Jason III

[Jay Rudin]

Thanks for the confirmation. I was pretty sure it was true, but had no evidence.

Yes, I think that would have been a superior approach. But our history is what it is, not something else. 

We are stuck with our current method (regnal dates by SCA reign) because of our history, just as we are stuck with using the word "peer" for knights rather than barons, despite the fact that we know it's what the word "peer" meant in period.

I hope that we can find some method to make clear that Jason II and Jason III are not equivalent to Inman II and Inman III, or there will be confusion down the road.

The modern Meridian approach of Jason Dryfesdale & (later) Jason Dryfesdale II seems awkward to me, but I don't have a good alternative to suggest.

Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin

-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mitchell <sirgalen at gmail.com>
>Sent: Jul 17, 2016 7:48 AM
>To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA,
>	Inc." <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
>Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Jason III
>
>I remember, because I was still getting Popular Chivalry at the time, Mad
>Celt signing his letters as John II; while Bearkiller didn't use numbers.
>
>I long thought that if I ever won crown, I would reign as Galen II.
>
>- Galen of Bristol, Eclipse Herald