SR - A question concerning

[Galen W. Bevel]

Lee wrote:
> 
> Let me start by saying: I am Ansteorran and I love this KINGDOM.
> 

As am I my friend. And I might hope that there is no one out there who
would question my love for, or loyalty/service to this Kingdom.

> The only reason to form a principality is to work toward forming a new
> Kingdom.  

I would like to interject something here, which I believe no one else
has stated up to this point.  If you substitute "region" for the word
"principality" in the above statement, then this is _exactly_ the
argument we heard over and over again when the regional system was
instituted.  I spent a large portion of my time as kingdom seneschal
talking to each local group and reassuring them that this was not the
case.

>If all you want to do is form this group for administration
> purposes than I guess the whole regional program needs to be stopped.
>

Although it was _one_ of the reasons (a weak one in my opinion) I don't
recall anyone espousing this as their sole reason for wanting a
principality.
 
>In a letter it also compared the US and States to the Kingdom and
> Principality.  The formation of states never had the precedent of
> leading to form there own country; however, many principalities have
> been formed and become there own kingdoms.  This comparison is not
> valid.
> 

It is valid in that it is an example that a subsidiary unit does not
_have_ to break up the superior.  In any case, some states did try split
off, if you remember....a little ruckus called the Civil War. Not to
draw any comparisons here *g*


> I must say that Crystal(not the Baroness)and Gilli are saying many of
> the things that some people are feeling.  I have heard there like in
> many areas of the Kingdom.
> 

If most of the people in the region do not want a principality, it won't
happen.  Remember, at the end of all of this, there is a vote, as well
as the fact that the BOD looks for consensus.  If a sizable portion of
the populace rejects the notion, then it will not go through. However,
until everyone gets a chance to speak their part, we don't really know
how everyone feels.  I have heard this stated over and over and over
again by those in favor of the principality.


> I also have a very large problem with how this is being handled as far
> as distribution of information.  Many people can not attend populace
> meetings and most of the meetings on this subject have been announced
> with only a short time before the meeting.  

> These ways of distributing information and taking votes are also easily biased.  I > work in medical research and have seen this happen.  I also have a problem with > this
> being handled on 1)the web in general and not more in the public, I did
> not know about these newsgroups until a short time ago and I believe
> many people are left without any information, and 2) a special sub list
> that I just so happen to come across by accident.

I have seen and heard of announcements at least two to three months
before a meeting, never really less than a month.  I know that efforts
were made to inform all seneschal's, etc.  If one is not on the net,
doesn't go to populace meetings, or fighter practises, or wherever news
is distributed in your group, then how should information such as this
be distributed?  These are just get togethers to discuss the idea of a
principality. As far as I have seen, no one has started any official
petition or other official action.  Are you saying that unofficial
disscussion meetings must always be advertised in the BlackStar, months
in advance? Or should those who like the idea of a principality go
personally to everyones door, knock on it and ask their opinion? 
(Actually, in a way, that is ultimately what will happen, at least by
way of the mailbox, rather than the door.  It just seems a little early
to be this upset about it.) I have seen events go off with less warning
than these meetings have had, on or off the net. As to these discussions
being on a special sub-list....they were on the main Ansteorra list for
months, (well, it felt like months) up to the point of taking over all
discussions on that list, until they were moved here where people not
interested didn't have to wade through them.

> 
> On the subject of polling and groups wanting to join this principality.
> There are some groups that are not being listened to who do not wish to
> seperate such as La Marche Sauvage.  What if you were suddenly told that
> you were annexed by Mexico and no longer part of the US. (Remember that
> the only reason to form a principality is to eventually form a new
> kingdom.)
> 

I disagree that such groups are not being listened too....if a petition
goes through, with their area included, they will get a vote.  Any
pro-principality movement which would conscript an unwilling group would
simply be diluting their own voting strength, not a good idea. It may be
that the groups don't feel that they are being listened to beccause they
don't get any kind of formal response.  That is understandable, because
at this time there is no sort of formal organization to draft such a
response.  Those who are pro-principality are working on developing some
sort of organization for that, but things take time.  As to your last
sentence in the above paragraph, I can only reiterate...I disagree.


 I also do not want to see a principality form just to break off.  But
that is a misleading concept.  If there is such a call for division that
a part of the kingdom wishes to break off, they don't need a
principality to do it.  In fact, a principality might serve as a sort of
"relief valve", allowing those who want change, who want to be involved
in the creation of something new, who want all of the things that are
involved with an undertaking like this a chance to do it _without_
splitting the Kingdom.  With all of the energy, focus and drive need to
make a new principality, I don't think anyone would be ready to leap off
into making a new kingdom for a long, long time.  As I said, I believe
that this kingdom is a lot stronger than some people give credit for and
I refuse to believe that simply creating a subdivision within it will
lead to its demise and downfall.  If that were true, the differences in
our geographic and cultural regions within the Kingdom would have torn
us apart years ago.

I am not part of the group supporting the principality movement, I don't
live in the area. But I also don't want to see them given a bad name, as
if they were trying to do something behind peoples backs.  I have
watched from a distance, and as far as I can see these people have done
everything they can to be inclusive, to spread information both on and
off the net, and to be sure that _everyone_, pro and con, has had a
chance to have input.  Has everyone had that chance yet?  No, they
haven't, but this is just getting started.  Have some people slipped
through the cracks?  Of course, but that is why there will be many more
such discussions in the future.  If you have heard about things now,
then you are still getting in on the ground floor, nobody has started
building anything yet, they are just trying to get ideas for a
prospective blue print.

> I thank you for you time,
> 
> Jason MacPherson
> 
> ONE STAR--ONE KINGDOM

One Star, One Kingdom.....I agree.  But a Principality needn't change
that.


Graf Galen Eadwin Kirchenbauer, KSCA
Loyal subject of the Crown of Ansteorra

-- 
Galen W. or Rebecca Bevel
galenbv at ix.netcom.com
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.