SR - Re: coastal principality?

[Casey&Coni]

Meadbh wrote:


>On the statement that a group may be added to a principality against their
will.. I
>asked Mistress Clare about this.  She stated that a group could not be
included in a
>principality if the group voted against  being a part of it.  To be honest,
I
>couldn't see forcing a group to join a principality against its will. That
is one
>way to lose a lot of members.
>
>meadhbh


I totally concur.  I think it only appropriate that if either La March
Sauvage (LMS), LMS AND Seawinds (SW), or LMS, SW, AND Rivertree, wanted to
join in proposal #1 from the meeting, it would be acceptable.  To take a
more northern group and exclude a group farther south is implausible and to
try to force a group to come is, in my opinion, immoral and unchivalrous.  I
would not wish to strong-arm any group into coming into a Principality.
Smells of teamsters and other icky things.

Dieterich

============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.