SR - Principality law question

[maddie teller-kook]

While I can agree that requiring the crown is another 'burden' for them. I think
not including the crown in the investiture is a big mistake.  The 'proposed
principality' is still part of this kingdom. Therefore, the prince and princess
hold these lands in fief for the crown. The crown should be there to invest the
prince and princess just as they would invest a baron and baroness.  I could
understand not requiring the crown's presence IF the region was one that was
fairly isolated but the southern region is anything but that!
This also gives the impression of separation from the rest of the kingdom
(IMHO).
I think you lose that connection with the kingdom without the crown being
there.... especially when we live in the region that the crown visits on a
regular basis.
Even with your 'required' meet the crown in 30 days.. .what if this obligation
is not fulfilled?  This can set up a complicated system of 'swearing fealty
within a proscribed time period.

Just my 2 cents again,
Meadhbh

Galen Bevel wrote:

> Brent & Susan Rachel wrote:
> >
> > I received a very good comment/question re the proposed Principality
> > laws.
> >
> > The proposed laws currently would establish a system in which each
> > outgoing Coronet would invest the incoming one.  The investing would
> > officially end one reign and begin the next.
> >
> > The comment concerned the degree of separation that might create between
> > a Principality and it mother Kingdom.  Could we not arrange for the
> > Crown to invest each successive Coronet.
> >
> > There are pros and cons to each side.  I'll insert our reasoning for
> > settling on our proposal if no one else voices it.  Otherwise, I'd like
> > to sit back and get a feel for strength of feeling in this question.
> >
>
> >
> > Kazimir Petrovich
> >
>
> Though I am not a resident of the Southern Region and thus will probably
> not be a resident of the proposed Principality, I would like to chime in
> on this one, as it will affect people outside the Principality borders,
> specifically the Crown.  If require the Crown to invest the Coronets,
> then obviously, the Crown would be required to attend the event.  While
> it is more than likely that the Crown would _want_ to present, I think
> it would be good to resist adding more events they are _required_ to
> attend.  There might be cases where they could more efficiently use
> their time by going elsewhere in the Kingdom.  Perhaps the link to the
> Mother Kingdom could be preserved by requiring the Prince and Princess
> to attend upon the Crown within a specified time limit (one month?)
> after the investiture to swear their fealty to the Crown and Kingdom.
> This could take place anywhere, inside the Principality, or outside, and
> would leave a little more flexibility in everyones schedules.
>
> Graf Galen K.
>
> ===========
> Galen W. Bevel
> galenbv at ix.netcom.com
> ============================================================================
> Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.



--
ÿWPCT


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