Since people are already starting to make suggestions and bring up details of
the baronial process in this discussion, I wanted to chime in with my opinion on
a couple of issues that have been brought up.

Group Name / Heraldry:
It is true that we don't have to care whether the name or badge of an informal
group can be registered, or follows the rules of heraldry.  However, if we wish
to put forward the group as a candidate for any other more formal status, or
even gain wider recognition as a totally cool group in the Kingdom, I think that
the whole endeavor will be taken much more seriously if we work within the
standard SCA practice and choose something acceptable to the College of Heralds.
If we wish to rally around an Aeryton banner, no matter the status of the group,
the heraldry rules are there for practical reasons.  We would want to have a
banner that is easily and readily identifiable on the field (and has room for a
laurel wreath).  Also, the heralds always say "don't try to tell your life story
on your shield, that's not what it's for".  While I haven't come up with a
specific design to nominate, I think that those who are designing should pay
heed to this advice.  Is there anything
  that denotes and defines Aereton as a region, other than a loose cooperation
among a number of pre-existing groups?


Baron/ess selection process:
There have been a number of suggestions for making sure that we choose two
people from different groups, or that are / are not a couple, and other such
details.  I think we should take a giant step back from meddling in those sorts
of details of this process.  I especially oppose any form of a chinese menu
approach (just picture President Barak Obama and VP John McCain).  From having
seen the baronial election process at work, it is absolutely critical that the
baronial candidates choose for themselves who, if anyone, they will work with. 
I have seen a baronial election fall to pieces half-way through because people
who had been running together to please political factions suddenly realized
that they would not make a viable team.  The candidate tickets should arrange
themselves as singles or pairs, and then give us an accounting of their own
strengths:  an established couple already knows that they will work well
together, people from different sub-groups will offer a
  diversity of viewpoint, a single person can offer a single strong vision and
centerpoint for the group to  focus on, etc., etc.


One of the biggest cons in the whole question of group advancement, to me, is
that we will probably spend the next many months having meetings and debating
and deciding these and other details of the process and implementation for such
an advancement.  I've been through the process before, and it took away a huge
amount of valuable time and resources from all the other projects that
individuals, groups, and the greater region could be working on (like putting in
a bid for a great Crown Tourney).  Also, as such things are debated and decided,
it pretty inevitably leads to hard feelings, people feeling not included, and
the political factions that are another downside of the whole process.


Yours in Service,
Teleri ferch Morgant



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
that gives answers, not web links.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

-------------- Original message --------------
From: TCD3125@...

 

First is do we want to have Ayreton transition from a household to a barony?

   > I was under the impression that this is what each individual group needs 

   > to be discussing and deciding that groups opinion on.

Second if so what form of barony, Shell, hub and spoke?

    > If enough groups decide yes, then this woudl be the next issue to be

    > discussed but I have been under the opinion that a Shell was the only

    > proposal a majority would consider.

Third how will the vote be done, each group individually or as one large group vote? (This is important if we need to be worried about continuity and also individual group preferences)

     > Each group indivudally since those groups have to decide if they want

     > to be part of this or not.

 

Forth what does each group want to get out of the barony?

    > Why is this a question?  The pro's and con's of being part of

    > or not part of have been listed here and would apply to each

    > group, maybe not in equal importance.....

Fifth what is each group willing to give or give up to the barony?

    > This is pretty self explanatory.

Sixth what time frame are we looking at to do this in?

    > Time frame is not something easily worked on outside of the initial

    > group voting.  Assuming enough groups say yes, then there are steps that

    > would need to be done and those could go quickly or not, depending

     > on how many people were involved and how hard they worked.  Then

     > there is how long kingdom would take to do thier end.

I hope that these questions will help each group a starting point for discussion of seeing if each group wants to do this and why they want to do this.  For this to work we will need a consensus from all and not just the will of a few.  And with the repercussions if Ayreton tries to transition to a Barony and fails being so high if this is what is wanted we need to make sure we do it correct.

Tim Dinan

TCD3125@aol.com

---

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

OK so it's not really a worm or called one.  Found this modern plan that may
give people an option or ideas when considering a "mock" period tent:

The Grey Gargoyles Loaner:
http://homepage.mac.com/technoking/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2006-0
8-22%2010.49.21%20-0700/Image-C779761A320211DB.jpg

A modern plan on a similar structure with modern PVC technology:
http://www.littlegreenhouse.com/accessory/pvc2.shtml

Direct link to PDF File:
http://www.littlegreenhouse.com/plans/hoop-greenhouse.pdf


--
Leopoldo Lastre
3818 West West End
Chicago, Illinois 60624
773-638-6797 Telephone
http://leolastre.com

At the risk of there being a later reponse than this.....

Some years ago there were serious conversations at the Kingdom curia
level about whether one of the ways to make the Midlands a bit more
'workable' (my term, not theirs) was to create it as a principality, one
never intended to become a kingdom. It's not a heretical thought, but I
suspect you'll only find support for it as the entire Midlands, not just
everything North of I-80.

Dietrich von Andernach

Drew Nicholson wrote:
>
> If we're going to consider that, we should be considering the entire
> region, not the NE chunk of IL.  We don't have the fighters, the
> peers, or the populace to support a principality, PLUS that would
> defacto pull our out of the Midlands Region.  No, thanks.
>
> On 6/29/07, *Dougal MacAlister* <scadougal@...
> <mailto:scadougal@...>> wrote:
>
>     "Principality....now that's something I've never thought of.
>     What, uhm, how,.  Wow.  Now that's something to think over.
>
>     Do we have the Population, as far as the BoD / Society level
>     requirements are concerned, to pull that off?
>
>     Lord Dougal MacAlister the Tardy
>
>
>
> --


--
Steven Krause                              Dietrich von Andernach
Harried Engineer                           Captain of the Red Company
                     So Many Things, So Little Time

Opinions here, and info next.

     A principality would be a shortcut fraught with peril. Although it would sidestep the problem of maintaining TGS's status of Province, it would engender seperatist fears from the Midlands, and possibly even the Kingdom. No group in the history of the Midrealm has gone Principality without then proceeding to independent kingdom.

   I'll have more info from some of the folks from the Shell Barony of Brendoken on the next post. I just got back from RUM there, and spoke to a few of the principle people who helped create it. Very informative!

Hizzoner

-------------- Original message from Steven Krause <s_krause@...>: --------------

At the risk of there being a later reponse than this.....

Some years ago there were serious conversations at the Kingdom curia
level about whether one of the ways to make the Midlands a bit more
'workable' (my term, not theirs) was to create it as a principality, one
never intended to become a kingdom. It's not a heretical thought, but I
suspect you'll only find support for it as the entire Midlands, not just
everything North of I-80.

Dietrich von Andernach

Drew Nicholson wrote:
>
> If we're going to consider that, we should be considering the entire
> region, not the NE chunk of IL. We don't have the fighters, the
> peers, or the populace to support a principality, PLUS that would
> defacto pull our out of the Midlands Region. No, thanks.
>
> On 6/29/07, *Dougal MacAlister* <scadougal@yahoo.com
> <mailto:scadougal@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> "Principality....now that's something I've never thought of.
> What, uhm, how,. Wow. Now that's something to think over.
>
> Do we have the Population, as far as the BoD / Society level
> requirements are concerned, to pull that off?
>
> Lord Dougal MacAlister the Tardy
>
>
>
> --

--
Steven Krause Dietrich von Andernach
Harried Engineer Captain of the Red Company
So Many Things, So Little Time

Steven Krause said:

>Some years ago there were serious conversations at the Kingdom curia
>level about whether one of the ways to make the Midlands a bit more
>'workable' (my term, not theirs) was to create it as a principality, one
>never intended to become a kingdom. It's not a heretical thought, but I
>suspect you'll only find support for it as the entire Midlands, not just
>everything North of I-80.

My $0.02:

Based on what I've heard so far, I am rather in favor of a Midlands
Principality with no Kingdom potential, and somewhat against an Ayreton
shell barony.

I've heard talk of better communication on shared events if we
had a shell barony. That, in my mind, is a red herring. Event planning
across groups can be improved regardless of baronial status, and there
is no guarantee that even if a barony did exist, planning would be
better.

While we have had plenty of cooperation between the Ayreton groups, I
think there is a very real possibility that this is happening precisely
because the groups are completely independent and autonomous, and that
introducing a barony, even a shell barony, could cause a breakdown.

When I started in the SCA around 11 years ago, Grey Gargoyles was
in a rather liminal state, acting like a Shire but called a College,
and, depending on who you asked, potentially subject to Tree-Girt-Sea.
Once Gargoyles was elevated to a Shire, the political atmosphere
between the groups, from what I remember, seemed to change quite
favorably. I get the feeling that Ayreton groups are fiercely
independent.

So... things might work well with a barony, but then, they might not.
Then what? Sure, within a few years a new pair of people get pointy
hats, but if the problem is the actual or perceived level of group
autonomy, that's not going to change based on who wears the hats.
We can't try a barony on for size, decide we don't like it, and get
rid of it. At least I've never heard of any precedent for that happening
in this Kingdom for reasons other than not enough paid membership.

So, a barony is a gamble. It has a nice upside (schtick, awards, pageantry,
better communication and coordination), but it also has a rather bad,
and permanent, downside should things go sour. What we have now works;
why risk it all?

Now a principality, on the other hand.... If it encompasses the
entire state, and is not just focused on the Chicagoland area, then I would
imagine that it really doesn't lead to any loss of group autonomy.
And all the upsides of a barony apply, and then some.

In service,
Ryan Mackenzie

If you found Ghita's pun-age make her unworthy of your
mead, I will always be willing to sacrifice myself and
help you get rid of any mead. :D

It's hard work, but I'm willing to step up and help
you dispose of it.  After all my Mistress and Master
are always telling me to help out... ;)

Yours in Service,

Metylda, cup in hand... ;)

--- Earik MacSkellie <erickmaxskelly@...> wrote:

> Your vanilla mead is almost ready. Puns like that
> won't inspire me deliver
> it any time soon. Bad Peer!
>
> On 7/2/07, suzanearley@...
> <suzanearley@...> wrote:
> >
> >    I just had the worst idea for arms: a cask, end
> on, shown exploded so
> > the side slats are flat in a star formation. (an
> airy tun)
> >
> > Ghita (ducking and running)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ld. Earik MacSkellie
> Squire to Sir Galem Lionel Ostwestly
> Marshal, Incipient Shire of Foxvale
>
>
http://www.google.com/calendar/feeds/michael.labny%40gmail.com/public/basic
> http://earikmacskellie.blogspot.com/
>


There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast.

*****

Me þæt wyrd gewæf



________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

I think it's been said on multiple other postings, including just very
recently by our Lord Mayor, that the principality idea, while interesting ,
is a longshot at best.  That both the BOD and I'm sure more than likely the
rest of our Kingdom would be very against the idea of our becoming a
principality.  Particularly if we do not intend to go the full course and
forming our own kingdom, which I feel everyone here agrees would very be a
bad idea.  Instead of spending valuable time and energy on something that
from what I've read is all but assured to NOT happen or be allowed by the
BOD, let's spend that time and energy on something that does have a strong
chance of becoming a reality.  That being a Barony.
   As for the comments on politics and whatnot.  We are all adults or at
least are at the legal age of being one.  The only politics in this game we
play are those we bring into it, and if some find political manuevering more
enjoyable than getting along then it's on them and not the rest of us.  This
should not be held as a "con" of there being a barony because these kinds of
people will always find something to complain about or try to control or
pretty much be kill joys.
   I have heard from multiple people that they fealt it would be nice if more
people from Ayreton received recognition, at least at the kingdom level.
Here is a way to achieve that.  To have someone champion the merits of those
in this area and highlight our achievements.
   If we go the shell barony route in my eyes the vast majority of the
populace wins and gets what they want.  More unity, kingdom level awards for
those who I'm sure long ago earned them, someone who at the end of the day
can cut through any political red tape and end squables, and canton autonomy
on most things.  Also, as Ian has pointed out the various groups have
already done multiple things together and we all play nice.

_________________________________________________________________
http://newlivehotmail.com

spdesroches@... said:

>     A principality would be a shortcut fraught with peril. Although it would
>sidestep the problem of maintaining TGS's status of Province, it would engende
>r seperatist fears from the Midlands, and possibly even the Kingdom. No group
>in the history of the Midrealm has gone Principality without then proceeding t
>o independent kingdom.

I think the seperatist fears are largely unfounded.

The idea of the Midlands splitting off from the Midrealm is laughable.
We don't have the fighters, the peers.... We'd be playing in a pretty
small pond. We play nicely with the rest of the Kingdom. And there's that
nagging issue that the Midrealm originated here, so we can't exactly walk
away and take the name Middle Kingdom with us.

Admittedly, all Midrealm Principalities have ultimately split off into
their own Kingdoms, but this model isn't necessarily true elsewhere in
the Society. The BoD knows this. There are plenty of reasons to have the
Midlands be a Principality that have nothing to do with independence.
Recognition of the populace, more of a Royal presence, the schtick and
pageantry... all of these are Good Things. We know this. The Kingdom
knows this. The BoD knows this.

Throughout history, there have been plenty of compromises attached to
the change in status of land, such the Missouri Compromise, the
Kansas-Nebraska Act, etc. Elevating the Midlands to a Principality
could be tied to a provision in Kingdom Law stating that the Midlands
cannot leave to become its own Kingdom. The only way that could happen
would be if every other region became a Principality and chose to leave
the Midlands.

Also, if a goal is to get people recognized, then, I think, a Principality
would be far more effective than a Barony. Territorial Princes and
Princesses are allowed by Kingdom law to give AoAs. And, I imagine,
having a territorial Prince and Princess would greatly increase the
likelihood of having some form of Royalty at Midlands events.

Other than the perception issues of seperatism and fear that it isn't
possible, are there any downsides to a Principality? Already there are
plenty of issues raised regarding an Ayreton shell barony; I wonder if
it would be easier to reach consensus on a Midlands Principality than
an Ayreton Barony.

If there has been serious talk in the past about this within Curia,
then why not explore it further? I don't think we should dismiss it
out of hand.

In service,
Ryan Mackenzie

Greetings unto the populace of the Area (NOT HOUSEHOLD) of Ayreton
and unto all others to whom these presents may come,

We seem to have reached the point where the conversational ground is
becoming well plowed so to speak.  We now have some of the same
people saying the same thing in different ways.  People are
discussing rumor as if it were fact and whilst it may be "on good
word" rumor it is still merely rumor and until we get an official
word from an official person with the official authority to give
official word it shall stay as rumor.

We have started to discuss two (well three) transitional options.

Barony which has several options.  Those groups that wish to join
get subsumed into one Barony;  One group goes Barony and others
attach themselves to it;  The groups that wish it join together to
create a Shell Barony, keeping their individual identities AND
getting to play in a Barony.  Barony would include at most all the
groups currently in the Area (NOT HOUSEHOLD) of Ayreton and not
include any groups outside of it.

Principality.  This could include just those groups in the Area (NOT
HOUSEHOLD) of Ayreton and up to the entire Midlands Region.

Problems we are facing.

1) Simply put we do NOT have enough formal information on the
subject.  It seems to me that we would all benefit from creating
contact with those officers of the Middle Kingdom who have the
authority to discuss and inform us of what "the real deal" is.
Until we do this, we have well intentioned but still unofficial
rumor and conjecture based on rumor.

I strongly recommend that everyone who participates in this
discussion please read the documents associated with baronial
advancement and polling therefor as well as the documents associated
with polling for a Baron and/or Baroness.  They are in the files
secion.

If people would like I can locate and make contact with the
appropriate Kingdom Level Officer(s) and see if they are able to
give us the information we are lacking in a format accesable to
everyone interested.

2) Tempers seem to be beginning to fray potentially.  You may
personally have a strong opinion on any given topic of this
discussion.  Thats a good thing.  Please try to remember though that
you may be the only or just one a few who hold that opinion.
Repeating yourself, even in different ways, creates an unhealthy
environment for discussion.  Also please try to voice your opinions
with, "I feel" and "I believe" and that will help clue everyone else
that it is your opinion not a statement of fact.  And remember, we
can, and should in this discussion, agree to disagree.

Ian the Green
Ayreton Towne Cryer

PLAYING NICE TOGETHER

No, you do not have to have a Barony to play nice together.  In fact we are and have been doing so.  I think many people recognize that we do.  However, you do need to play nice together as groups who wish to join, create or be a part of a Barony.  Thus the Area of Ayreton meets this requirement.

RECOGNITION

In my mind this falls into two categories.

1 - Area recognition.  How well is the area recognized outside the area and what is the opinion of the area from the outside of the area. 

2 - Personal recognition.  Will having a Baron and Baroness bring greater recognition to local individuals.  Almost certainly yes.  After all the Barony is their area of focus and as that area is smaller than the kingdom there will be more recognition recieved by those within the Barony.  Will there be more Kingdom level recognition of individuals with a Barony?  Perhaps.  I would THINK (don't know but it makes sense) that if the Baron and/or Baroness write a letter to the crown asking the crown to recognize someone that that letter would hold more weight than say the average Joe/Jane SCAdian.  Does it gaurantee it?  No.   And what have you lost if that doesn't work?  That is something for each of us to answer ourselves.

ADDENDUM TO TRANSITIONAL TITLED POSTING

I had said that there were two (really three) topics for transitioning.   I never mentioned the 3rd one.  The other topic is of course to not transition into another type of group.

I again reiterate my willingness to contact the appropriate Kingdom Level Officer(s) so that we may work with fact and current information instead of the well intentioned rumor and conjecture we currently have.

Ian the Green

Ayreton Towne Cryer

Can we stop the whole idea of principality before those with
delusions run too far amuck?  First, this is a discussion about
barony, not anything more or less.  This line of discussion is
diversionary and impeding the active discussion at hand.  Second, if
you review Corpora, we don't really qualify as a principality (IMO, I
don't want to go into why, as it is a long and moot argument), and it
would only serve to separate us from the kingdom, not draw us
together.  It might have been a "brainstorming" moment (alternatives
to barony), but its NOT a good idea.  If you don't want a barony,
just state your reasons and leave it at that.  If you do, then become
active in the process.  For that matter, if you don't, then still
become active in the process.  The talk about principality, though,
is counterproductive and leads us astray from the matters at hand.

Sir Kilian

WIth all due respect, Sir Killian, there are many who might disagree with you.  To simply dismiss that as a "delusion" cannot possibly be any less counterproductive than believing in the "delusion" to begin with.

In service,


Andrew

On 7/3/07, Mike / Kilian <sirkilian@...> wrote:

Can we stop the whole idea of principality before those with
delusions run too far amuck? First, this is a discussion about
barony, not anything more or less. This line of discussion is
diversionary and impeding the active discussion at hand. Second, if
you review Corpora, we don't really qualify as a principality (IMO, I
don't want to go into why, as it is a long and moot argument), and it
would only serve to separate us from the kingdom, not draw us
together. It might have been a "brainstorming" moment (alternatives
to barony), but its NOT a good idea. If you don't want a barony,
just state your reasons and leave it at that. If you do, then become
active in the process. For that matter, if you don't, then still
become active in the process. The talk about principality, though,
is counterproductive and leads us astray from the matters at hand.

Sir Kilian

-- 

It is, perhaps, time to uncloak for a moment.

First disclaimer: This is a decision for the people living in the area. My opinion is worth the electrons that communicate it. But I'll express it anyhow, because I think there's a slightly different twist on this.

I've been active for something like 19 years. In that time I've seen the Chicago area go from a group of strong but nearly violently independent groups to a much more cohesive whole. My sense from the traffic is that there is an agreement that everyone can play together, which is a new and novel thing compared to, say, 10 years ago.

There are some fun things being done between Illiton and Shattered Crystal with Baronial Alliances, etc. It's good theater, and it's good fun. Adding an Ayreton into the mix would make for more opportunities AS A REGION to do these sorts of things. So, from my perspective, the region would benefit from a new active Barony.

The merits of what it does for the groups involved I think has been pretty well covered otherwise.

I'll also observe that the Midlands as a fighting force was by no means a painless thing to develop, and it needs a constant level of maintenance to keep it viable. This would not be painless either, but I think it could be handled very well as long as everyone understands it does NOT mean that Ayreton is going to become insular. I haven't gotten any hint of that from the discussion, but people will make assumptions lacking other knowledge. The mundane state of affairs doesn't help that perception.

Dietrich "just running on at the fingers" von Andernach

-------------- Original message from Sir Ix <ix@...>: --------------

While I am an adamant believer in a principality for the Midlands and have been for 15 years, I have to agree with Killian that it is counter productive and irrelevant to the discussion of a Barony in Ayerton. In fact I think that having a Barony in the Chicagoland area would but a useful thing to show that we are ready to be a principality. But there is no need to mix the two of them up, IMO.

WIth all due respect, Sir Killian, there are many who might disagree with you.  To simply dismiss that as a "delusion" cannot possibly be any less counterproductive than believing in the "delusion" to begin with.

In service,


Andrew

On 7/3/07, Mike / Kilian <sirkilian@comcast.net> wrote:

Can we stop the whole idea of principality before those with
delusions run too far amuck? First, this is a discussion about
barony, not anything more or less. This line of discussion is
diversionary and impeding the active discussion at hand. Second, if
you review Corpora, we don't really qualify as a principality (IMO, I
don't want to go into why, as it is a long and moot argument), and it
would only serve to separate us from the kingdom, not draw us
together. It might have been a "brainstorming" moment (alternatives
to barony), but its NOT a good idea. If you don't want a barony,
just state your reasons and leave it at that. If you do, then become
active in the process. For that matter, if you don't, then still
become active in the process. The talk about principality, though,
is counterproductive and leads us astray from the matters at hand.

Sir Kilian

-- 

Sir Ixtilixochitl
Middle Kingdom - http://www.midrealm.org
Midlands - http://www.themidlands.org
House Terrae Finis - http://www.terraefinis.org
March of Lochmorrow - http://www.lochmorrow.org
KSCA, OP

(Bo Ring - TriLutions - http://www.galesburg.net)

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Sir Ix <ix@...>

While I am an adamant believer in a principality for the Midlands and have been for 15 years, I have to agree with Killian that it is counter productive and irrelevant to the discussion of a Barony in Ayerton. In fact I think that having a Barony in the Chicagoland area would but a useful thing to show that we are ready to be a principality. But there is no need to mix the two of them up, IMO.

WIth all due respect, Sir Killian, there are many who might disagree with you.  To simply dismiss that as a "delusion" cannot possibly be any less counterproductive than believing in the "delusion" to begin with.

In service,


Andrew

On 7/3/07, Mike / Kilian <sirkilian@comcast.net> wrote:

Can we stop the whole idea of principality before those with
delusions run too far amuck? First, this is a discussion about
barony, not anything more or less. This line of discussion is
diversionary and impeding the active discussion at hand. Second, if
you review Corpora, we don't really qualify as a principality (IMO, I
don't want to go into why, as it is a long and moot argument), and it
would only serve to separate us from the kingdom, not draw us
together. It might have been a "brainstorming" moment (alternatives
to barony), but its NOT a good idea. If you don't want a barony,
just state your reasons and leave it at that. If you do, then become
active in the process. For that matter, if you don't, then still
become active in the process. The talk about principality, though,
is counterproductive and leads us astray from the matters at hand.

Sir Kilian

-- 

Sir Ixtilixochitl
Middle Kingdom - http://www.midrealm.org
Midlands - http://www.themidlands.org
House Terrae Finis - http://www.terraefinis.org
March of Lochmorrow - http://www.lochmorrow.org
KSCA, OP

(Bo Ring - TriLutions - http://www.galesburg.net)

-----Original Message-----
From: Scribesquire@...
Sent: Jul 3, 2007 1:42 PM
To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Ayreton] Principality? No, I think not.

I also concur with Sir Killian.  This was and should be a discussion on whether to become a barony or not.

 

Henry

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Sir Ix <ix@terraefinis.org>

While I am an adamant believer in a principality for the Midlands and have been for 15 years, I have to agree with Killian that it is counter productive and irrelevant to the discussion of a Barony in Ayerton. In fact I think that having a Barony in the Chicagoland area would but a useful thing to show that we are ready to be a principality. But there is no need to mix the two of them up, IMO.

WIth all due respect, Sir Killian, there are many who might disagree with you.  To simply dismiss that as a "delusion" cannot possibly be any less counterproductive than believing in the "delusion" to begin with.

In service,


Andrew

On 7/3/07, Mike / Kilian <sirkilian@comcast.net> wrote:

Can we stop the whole idea of principality before those with
delusions run too far amuck? First, this is a discussion about
barony, not anything more or less. This line of discussion is
diversionary and impeding the active discussion at hand. Second, if
you review Corpora, we don't really qualify as a principality (IMO, I
don't want to go into why, as it is a long and moot argument), and it
would only serve to separate us from the kingdom, not draw us
together. It might have been a "brainstorming" moment (alternatives
to barony), but its NOT a good idea. If you don't want a barony,
just state your reasons and leave it at that. If you do, then become
active in the process. For that matter, if you don't, then still
become active in the process. The talk about principality, though,
is counterproductive and leads us astray from the matters at hand.

Sir Kilian

-- 

Sir Ixtilixochitl
Middle Kingdom - http://www.midrealm.org
Midlands - http://www.themidlands.org
House Terrae Finis - http://www.terraefinis.org
March of Lochmorrow - http://www.lochmorrow.org
KSCA, OP

(Bo Ring - TriLutions - http://www.galesburg.net)

Recent Activity

•  6
  New Members

Visit Your Group

SPONSORED LINKS

• Society for creative anachronism
• Medieval costume
• Medieval knights
• Medieval costume woman

Yahoo! News

Kevin Sites

Get coverage of

world crises.

Yahoo! TV

Staying in tonight?

Check Daily Picks &

see what to watch.

Yahoo! Avatars

Express Yourself

Show your face in

Messenger & more.

.

My understanding from what I have gathered and my, not vast,
experience on this matter is, Yes.

Yes, individual groups that become Cantons of a Shell Barony will
still be able to operate individually including to the point of
holding their own events.

Ian the Green
Ayreton Towne Cryer


--- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, Scribesquire@... wrote:
>
>     This question came up at our moot and I thought I would ask it
here as it could be a question others have.
>
> If the shell barony idea became a reality and a shire became a
canton, would they still be able to plan and organize events
independently?  I assume the answer is yes as long as they were
referred to the event as being sponsored by Canton X.  If they
wanted to do a baronial level event then they would have to get
baronial approval, correct?
>
> Henry
>

While I am an adamant believer in a principality for the Midlands and have been for 15 years, I have to agree with Killian that it is counter productive and irrelevant to the discussion of a Barony in Ayerton. In fact I think that having a Barony in the Chicagoland area would but a useful thing to show that we are ready to be a principality. But there is no need to mix the two of them up, IMO.

WIth all due respect, Sir Killian, there are many who might disagree with you.  To simply dismiss that as a "delusion" cannot possibly be any less counterproductive than believing in the "delusion" to begin with.

In service,


Andrew
On 7/3/07, Mike / Kilian <sirkilian@...> wrote:

Can we stop the whole idea of principality before those with

delusions run too far amuck? First, this is a discussion about

barony, not anything more or less. This line of discussion is

diversionary and impeding the active discussion at hand. Second, if

you review Corpora, we don't really qualify as a principality (IMO, I

don't want to go into why, as it is a long and moot argument), and it

would only serve to separate us from the kingdom, not draw us

together. It might have been a "brainstorming" moment (alternatives

to barony), but its NOT a good idea. If you don't want a barony,

just state your reasons and leave it at that. If you do, then become

active in the process. For that matter, if you don't, then still

become active in the process. The talk about principality, though,

is counterproductive and leads us astray from the matters at hand.

Sir Kilian

-- 

Sir Ixtilixochitl
Middle Kingdom - http://www.midrealm.org
Midlands - http://www.themidlands.org
House Terrae Finis - http://www.terraefinis.org
March of Lochmorrow - http://www.lochmorrow.org
KSCA, OP

(Bo Ring - TriLutions - http://www.galesburg.net)

-------------- Original message --------------
From: rdpierce@...
Other than the perception issues of seperatism and fear that it isn't
possible, are there any downsides to a Principality? Already there are
plenty of issues raised regarding an Ayreton shell barony; I wonder if
it would be easier to reach consensus on a Midlands Principality than
an Ayreton Barony.

Your vanilla mead is almost ready. Puns like that won't inspire me deliver it any time soon. Bad Peer!

On 7/2/07, suzanearley@comcast.net <suzanearley@comcast.net> wrote:

I just had the worst idea for arms: a cask, end on, shown exploded so the side slats are flat in a star formation. (an airy tun)

 

Ghita (ducking and running)

--
Ld. Earik MacSkellie
Squire to Sir Galem Lionel Ostwestly
Marshal, Incipient Shire of Foxvale

http://www.google.com/calendar/feeds/michael.labny%40gmail.com/public/basic
http://earikmacskellie.blogspot.com/