Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1254Re: [Ayreton] Re: Questions about principality

Expand Messages
  • rdpierce@pobox.com
    Jul 3, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic