NR - Principality or Not?

Darin K. Herndon darin-herndon at utulsa.edu
Thu Sep 7 02:40:46 PDT 2000


I only get to check my email every couple of days so I tend to get 
this list in bunches.  I have greatly appreciated a significant 
portion of the list discussion, emotions and all, because it talked 
about something important to me.  Earl Barn posted a reply with 
several reasons not to do a principality move.  I am going to reply 
to that.

However, there are topics which have come up on the list which have 
removed the fun in participating on the list.  I will remain on this 
list for a week after this post in order to answer any questions or 
responses my post may generate.  (Though I cannot check daily.)  But 
after a week, I am withdrawing from this list.  To be blunt, I have 
nicer things to read that actually are my business.

So, I excerpt from what HE Barn wrote and try to keep a running reply:

>But that does not mean that I support it, I don't!  And here are
>my reasons.
>
>1)  Other than a few groups and households and political buddies there is not
>the cohesivness in the North that is being portrayed here.

With all due respect, there is the cohesiveness being displayed here. 
There are groups, individuals, etc. who have problems with each 
other.  But, the rest (dare I say the majority, IMNSHO) of us who are 
not directly involved in those disagreements really are that cohesive 
with each other.  We are northern Ansteorrans!  We support each other 
in war and we support each other in need.

>The lack of
>participation from certain groups in the north last weekend kind of makes
>that obvious.

Lack of participation means lack of cohesiveness?  Again, with 
respect, lack of participation means "other things came up".  I'm 
sorry if participation was down.  I know more people than usual from 
my barony went to Gothic War this year but we have always had a 
strong Gothic contingent (they prefer melee to tourney) and the visit 
of HE Bonwicke encouraged a few others to go melee/war this year 
instead of tourney.  In my personal case, work and a funeral 
interferred and I'm sorry if that predisposes you to disagree with a 
principality.

>Right now in this region you have the political pirhana chewing
>away at everything that isnt thier way of doing it or not their idea.

I will presume that your feelings on a principality do not fall into 
this category and pass this without comment.

>Then
>you have the people who are trying to have fun and remember what the game was
>about.  The majority of the people who just want to have fun aren't going to
>participate in this discussion one way or another because they see it as
>"just another argument" in a region that has had more than it's share in
>recent years.

It didn't turn into "just another argument" until certain things came 
up that should have stayed off-list.  Until then (and some discussion 
since) it has been a fairly good discussion.  And if you reread again 
most peoples writings who are interested in a principality, I think 
you will find a common thread of people who are trying to have fun, 
who remember what the game is about, and who are trying to enhance 
the game and our region.  The majority of commenters show good 
gentles who believe that a principality is a benefit to the region 
and the game.

>2)  Unless the State of Oklahoma triples in population it does not have an
>adequate base to ever attain Kingdom status. IMHO.

That is possible.  I don't know.  Of course, it's all opinion and 
speculation until we actually get there.  And, we cannot prove the 
opinion right or wrong until and unless we do get there.

>I just don't see the
>point in becoming a Principality just for the heck of it.  What we have now
>seems to accomplish the same things a new name, more banners, more brass,
>etc. would accomplish.

To not become "a Principality just for the heck of it" actually makes 
sense.  There must be reasons.  To be blunt, from the point of view 
of a non-peer, non-noble, what we have now does not accomplish the 
same things being a principality would accomplish.  If it did then we 
would have royalty at more of our events now.  We would have 
(regardless of politics, specific people who did not get along, and 
behind the scenes stuff) a unified identity now.  We would have one 
or two principality events which would likely absorb/include many of 
the things (and much more) discussed on this list about our two 
regional events now.  (And no confusion on anyone's part about the 
status of the event.)  We would have now "more brass" with all of the 
tradition, stories, and history (good and bad) that builds.  We would 
have regional AoA level awards (if allowed in the structure of the 
created principality) that could be bestowed for a&s, service, and 
chivalric skills by local royalty who actually have a better chance 
of knowing the recipients.  We would have local royalty to be the 
embodiment of our pride when we function as a collective group now. 
There are many things we would have now, but do not, if the status 
quo accomplished the same thing.

>3)  Another level of Royalty.  CPs can't bestow any awards except
>Principality awards without permission of the crown.

That is a matter in the set-up of the principality.  Calontir had AoA 
and Grant level awards as a principality but then the Midrealm was so 
darn big.  While nothing says a Crown has to listen, if we really 
want AoA award capability then we can certainly ask (plus 
non-armigerous principality awards and honors).  More cookies is not 
in and of itself better but it does offer more opportunities to 
recognize appreciated ability and service in a formal manner.

>CP's are subject to the
>Crown's will.  The Crown approves changes to principality laws, etc, because
>they are part of kingdom law.

But they have a defined law.  We have no regional law today and that, 
my opinion, is an element we are missing in being more unified but 
distinct from kingdom.  The Prince and Princess are vassals, just as 
baronages, and this is appropriate.

>CP's do what the Crown says and go where the
>Crown says.

So does any vassal.  But this vassal would have a focus which 
benefits this region and its people.  And in the absence of Crown 
orders (you need to be at this event for a peerage ceremony, etc.) 
the CP's go where they will and quite likely that will be where the 
Crown is not in our region.

>Frankly I think we have enough representation if the peers and
>the Landeds do our job by recommending people for the awards they deserve.

That would help, but I've yet to meet one of our current landed in 
the north who didn't do their job in this area of awards 
recommendations.  But representation by peers and landed to get an 
award is not the same as a CP deciding to give the award.

>  Anyone can recommend anyone for any award.  If there is an abundance of
>people who deserve recognition but aren't getting it, then that reflects
>badly on everyone in this region because they aren't doing what is necessary
>to get that recognition for the folks who deserve it.

This is a straight up true sentence.  But, as Owen noted, the Crown 
doesn't always listen to him.  But if an award is more likely to be 
given if the recipient is recommended by a peer or landed, then how 
much more of a recommendation is it for a CP to give the principality 
award.  The receipt of that award is a recommendation for kingdom to 
watch that person closer.

>The idea that we need
>another level of awards to recognize people for thier work in the region is
>ridiculous at best.  The Region is part of the Kingdom, and anything that
>betters the kingdom or region and not an individual group is already covered
>under the current award structure. Unless of course you're only in it for
>more cookies, not the dream.

I'm not in it to get cookies yet I disagree with your statement.  (I 
wonder where that leaves me since you seem to have left no middle 
ground.)  Yes, there are kingdom awards for every type of thing we've 
thought of so far.  But if I accept your logic at face value then 
there should be no baronial orders or awards.  After all shires don't 
have them and everything is really covered by kingdom if you stretch 
the Sable Comet to cover baronies.  But why have an award for 
supporting a local group at all?  Unless there is value is 
recognizing service, etc., on a smaller scale than the kingdom.  And 
in that case, supporting this region and its populace is well worth 
the "ridiculous" other level of awards.  I believe that supporting 
this region is worth as much (not more, just different) as supporting 
a local group.  But then I'm also one of those who seem to be finding 
inter-group cohesiveness that you are missing; so either I am mad and 
deluded or I feel sorry that you are involved in things which hide 
this valuable asset from your eyes.

>4) It frees up the Kingdom calender.  How is this possible? The deputy in
>charge of the calender already checks to see if there is anything in the
>region and ajoining region for conflicts.

I did not realize about the adjoining region.  Must suck to be Central.

>That argument doesn't wash.  If
>anything it clutters it up more with four more events on the calender

(or just two if coronation and tourney are same weekend)
(also just two if NRT and NRW are replaced or held concurrent with)

>with CP
>tournaments and CP coronations.  As a landed noble, I must travel in the
>kingdom to baronial investitures, Crown Tournaments and Coronations.

Are you saying you really want to travel and interact more with 
groups other than your neighbors but feel constrained to stay close 
to home?  And two or more principality events would interfere with 
that worse than the status quo?  Then maybe we have enough events in 
this region that we need to be a distinct body.  A friend of mine 
from Calontir remarked once that our region seemed to have almost as 
many events and baronies as his kingdom.  Despite population, that 
says something vital about us.  I'm sorry if you feel constrained by 
what he saw as a strength.

>As
>Baron, I'd like to travel to as many baronial championships around the
>kingdom as I can.  I constantly find myself unable to travel to these events,
>though, because there is the strong perception that the landeds *must*
>support events in this region.

I remember Michael saying something when he elevated Northkeep about 
lands growing to the point that the Crown could not provide 
sufficient attention and the need for local nobles.  Chicken or egg? 
It does work both ways.  Bigger may mean that more attention is 
needed but more attention can also encourage growth.  I suppose that 
you can only focus on your barony and travel where ever you wish. 
But does not the direct support you give your barony also imply 
supporting surrounding lands so they can also grow and support you in 
turn?  Does not the added duty of representing the Crown at shires 
when they cannot be there extend beyond the handing out of awards? 
You are a physical representation of the Crown, with emphasis on 
supporting a specific local group, but you represent the Crown 
wherever you go.  The perception you mention is an opinion.  You do 
not have to share it.  But you ought to understand the benefit that 
supporting your neighbors brings back to you and why some people have 
that opinion.

>5)Over the last five or so years the SCA has been undergoing a steady drop in
>membership.  This Kingdom has been losing the equivalent to a Shire a year in
>population.  All of the groups in the North have been fluctuating at a pretty
>steady basis and in some cases recruitment efforts right now are marginal at
>best.  We get some new members, but we lose an equal number of older members
>for different reasons, ie, moving, politics, arguing, or just get tired of it
>and go on.  These are facts.

I would have to look at the data to confirm but I'll accept this.  Of 
course, if there are groups losing membership then maybe we need 
something different because the status quo is not accomplishing 
enough.  A principality may not be the answer; but it might be a 
catalyst.

>It is obvious to me that there are people here with PERSONAL differences.  We
>all have the right to our personal opinions but when it comes to flaming
>someones peerage because of their opinion, this has gotten out of hand.

I've already expressed my withdrawl off this list for that reason. 
It would not matter if I agreed with the comments, there are devisive 
things you don't bring up in public and then talk about unity at the 
same time.

>Over
>the past several years, Northern unity has decreased.  To get back what we
>once had, this community needs all the support it can get.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that.  But many of us see a 
defined principality as a tool to help this.  Not as the Little Shop 
of Horrors you describe below.

>I'm afraid that
>serious principality discussions will end with folks tearing each other
>apart, rather than respecting differing opinions.  With that kind of internal
>politics we will never make it as a principality.

We were having a good serious discussion for quite awhile here.  I'm 
sorry if your approach is that one bad incident means the whole idea 
is bad.

>The ideals we try and
>follow are our own.  No one else's, just ours.  If you try and jump into a
>principality with politics like they are at present, you will fail.

I agree we are not ready right now, today.  But if working toward 
becoming a principality requires that we "all just get along" and 
that we support each other and that we work together, then you ought 
to be encouraging people to try and get there.  You may personally 
think a principality is bad and you can vote against it when the time 
comes.  But you should encourage people to do those things which 
strengthen this region and this kingdom.  And if they are doing it 
because they want to become a principality, then you deal with 
whether that is a good idea when it comes time to do the paperwork 
and vote.

>Years
>ago I might have been persuaded to change my mind about principality for the
>North.  But in the recent years there have been some serious political games
>between some of the higher ranking members of this region.  Things are only
>just now dying down a bit.  I think to push this issue now would reopen all
>of those cans of worms (and we only just now seem to be getting them back in
>the can).

For the principality issue to be a cause for the effect of opening 
that "can of worms", it would have to be part of the cause of the can 
of worms.  They have to be related.  Otherwise you just have people 
creating a can of worms to distract from the independent idea of a 
principality.

>I have seen what politics and power grabbing can do to a Kingdom,
>a region, and a local group and trust me people if you think its bad now just
>wait till you have a principality.

I know that there will be bad times.  It happens in any family.  And 
you always have bad apples.  Should we start shutting down existing 
groups because of these incidents?  Or do we deal with them and grow? 
I choose growth and that means I'm not afraid of single incidents and 
learning from mistakes.  I would much rather move forward to new 
ground than sit in one place and watch the world pass me by while I 
stare behind at the past.

Just my opinion,
Etienne
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.



More information about the Northern mailing list