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

Re: [Ayreton] Barony Question

Expand Messages
  • Scribesquire@comcast.net
    One of the appealing ideas of a shell barony is that the overall barony would in theory have the input of all the groups (in the way of baronial officers and
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007

      One of the appealing ideas of a shell barony is that the overall barony would in theory have the input of all the groups (in the way of baronial officers and what not). 

      Anything with a particular group becoming a barony/crown province/grand poo bah would have the issue of the other area groups than being beneath that group.   

      Again, it is up to each group to decide if thay want to go the baronial route or not.  My suggestion is that at the July meetings for all the 6 area groups, the topic be brought up and dicussed.  Then at the August meetings, each individual group can vote on it.  The seneschals of each group can then either appoint someone to be the laison from thier group to the mayor for this or the seneschal can do it themselves.

      Henry

    • nadezda_zezastrizl
      The handful of people I ve talked to in TGS do not have any inclination towards a TGS barony of any type, but would support a shell barony--as we discussed at
      Message 2 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
        The handful of people I've talked to in TGS do not have any
        inclination towards a TGS barony of any type, but would support a
        shell barony--as we discussed at the town meeting this past Saturday.
        The feeling is that nothing else would be practical in the current
        political climate of the area. As Lord Ryan pointed out, all area
        groups have been working on an equal footing for some time. There is
        no reason to presume to want to change that now. To do so would be to
        the detriment of what we've built up in the Ayreton area the last 5
        years.
        We will discuss it at out upcoming moot in greater detail and with the
        full group, however, to determine our participation due to the impact
        of a potential status change to a canton.
        -Nadezda
      • ayretontownecryer
        Principality Requirements (shortened but good summary due to being at work) From Corpora http://www.sca.org/docs/govdocs.pdf Pg 18 of the .pdf Pg. 7 of the
        Message 3 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
          Principality Requirements (shortened but good summary due to being
          at work)

          From Corpora http://www.sca.org/docs/govdocs.pdf

          Pg 18 of the .pdf Pg. 7 of the document III C 4.

          100 members

          Canditates for great officers are acceptable

          Name and device registered with College of Heralds.

          Concensus favoring advancement

          Record of well attended events.

          Sufficient members of Orders confering patents to foster development
          in the appropriate areas

          Sufficient fighters as to provide competition for Coronet

          A body of principality law.

          IN short we have the raw number of members for supporting a
          Principality. We have many Peers (orders confering patents) but I
          don't know the exact numbers or if they would be sufficient.

          Ian the Green
          Ayreton Towne Cryer
        • twlyon24
          Just as a point of history .... Traditionally, the Middle was only interested in awarding principality status to those regions that were seen as moving toward
          Message 4 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
            Just as a point of history ....

            Traditionally, the Middle was only interested in awarding
            principality status to those regions that were seen as moving toward
            kingdom: Calontir, Ealdomere, and Northshield. This attitude may have
            changed, but I doubt it.

            There was some discussion of the Midlands becoming principality, but
            it went nowhere because many felt that as the original core of the
            Middle Kingdom, why should it become a principality? Of course there
            are many in Michigan who dispute that Illinois and TGS are the
            original core and founding group of the Midrealm. (It's a friendly
            dispute.) Some hold the view that if either Illinois or Michigan go
            Principality, they would concede away their claim as the core of the
            kingdom. I realize it's goofy, but it's out there.

            Logos
            --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, "ayretontownecryer"
            <ayretontownecryer@...> wrote:
            >
            > Principality Requirements (shortened but good summary due to being
            > at work)
            >
            > From Corpora http://www.sca.org/docs/govdocs.pdf
            >
            > Pg 18 of the .pdf Pg. 7 of the document III C 4.
            >
            > 100 members
            >
            > Canditates for great officers are acceptable
            >
            > Name and device registered with College of Heralds.
            >
            > Concensus favoring advancement
            >
            > Record of well attended events.
            >
            > Sufficient members of Orders confering patents to foster
            development
            > in the appropriate areas
            >
            > Sufficient fighters as to provide competition for Coronet
            >
            > A body of principality law.
            >
            > IN short we have the raw number of members for supporting a
            > Principality. We have many Peers (orders confering patents) but I
            > don't know the exact numbers or if they would be sufficient.
            >
            > Ian the Green
            > Ayreton Towne Cryer
            >
          • Tedesco da Venezia
            That is what is supposed to happen as per the town meeting that was held at Border Skirmish... ~Tedesco~
            Message 5 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
              That is what is supposed to happen as per the town meeting that was held at Border Skirmish...

              ~Tedesco~


              On 6/29/07, Scribesquire@... <Scribesquire@...> wrote:

              One of the appealing ideas of a shell barony is that the overall barony would in theory have the input of all the groups (in the way of baronial officers and what not). 

              Anything with a particular group becoming a barony/crown province/grand poo bah would have the issue of the other area groups than being beneath that group.   

              Again, it is up to each group to decide if thay want to go the baronial route or not.  My suggestion is that at the July meetings for all the 6 area groups, the topic be brought up and dicussed.  Then at the August meetings, each individual group can vote on it.  The seneschals of each group can then either appoint someone to be the laison from thier group to the mayor for this or the seneschal can do it themselves.

              Henry


            • Wendy Pastrick
              I seem to recall somewhere that previous Crowns had determined there will be no more principalities in the Middle Kingdom, *unless* each state (midlands,
              Message 6 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
                I seem to recall somewhere that previous Crowns had
                determined there will be no more principalities in the
                Middle Kingdom, *unless* each state (midlands,
                constellation, etc) were to become a principality,
                thusly making the Middle Kingdom a collection of
                principalities.

                I don't remember where I heard that previously, but it
                was around the time Northshield went Kingdom.

                Your mileage may vary...

                Smiles,
                Jale

                --- ayretontownecryer <ayretontownecryer@...>
                wrote:

                > Principality Requirements (shortened but good
                > summary due to being
                > at work)
                >
                > From Corpora http://www.sca.org/docs/govdocs.pdf
                >
                > Pg 18 of the .pdf Pg. 7 of the document III C 4.
                >
                > 100 members
                >
                > Canditates for great officers are acceptable
                >
                > Name and device registered with College of Heralds.
                >
                > Concensus favoring advancement
                >
                > Record of well attended events.
                >
                > Sufficient members of Orders confering patents to
                > foster development
                > in the appropriate areas
                >
                > Sufficient fighters as to provide competition for
                > Coronet
                >
                > A body of principality law.
                >
                > IN short we have the raw number of members for
                > supporting a
                > Principality. We have many Peers (orders confering
                > patents) but I
                > don't know the exact numbers or if they would be
                > sufficient.
                >
                > Ian the Green
                > Ayreton Towne Cryer
                >
                >
              • Dougal MacAlister
                Thanks Ian for the look-up. Saves me some time here at the office. Lord Dougal MacAlister the Tardy Archery Marshal for the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea
                Message 7 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
                  Thanks Ian for the look-up.  Saves me some time here at the office.
                   
                  Lord Dougal MacAlister the Tardy
                  Archery Marshal for the Province of Tree-Girt-Sea
                  Drop-Dead Deputy Midlands Regional Archery Marshal


                  ----- Original Message ----
                  From: ayretontownecryer <ayretontownecryer@...>
                  To: Ayreton@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 12:34:44 PM
                  Subject: [Ayreton] Re: Barony Question

                  Principality Requirements (shortened but good summary due to being
                  at work)

                  From Corpora http://www.sca. org/docs/ govdocs.pdf

                  Pg 18 of the .pdf Pg. 7 of the document III C 4.

                  100 members

                  Canditates for great officers are acceptable

                  Name and device registered with College of Heralds.

                  Concensus favoring advancement

                  Record of well attended events.

                  Sufficient members of Orders confering patents to foster development
                  in the appropriate areas

                  Sufficient fighters as to provide competition for Coronet

                  A body of principality law.

                  IN short we have the raw number of members for supporting a
                  Principality. We have many Peers (orders confering patents) but I
                  don't know the exact numbers or if they would be sufficient.

                  Ian the Green
                  Ayreton Towne Cryer




                  Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.
                • Folo Watkins
                  ... You can talk about the North Woods and the first of Treegirtsea. They re the founders of the Midrealm, on that we all agree. But when you cross that Wabash
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
                    >There was some discussion of the Midlands becoming principality, but
                    >it went nowhere because many felt that as the original core of the
                    >Middle Kingdom, why should it become a principality? Of course there
                    >are many in Michigan who dispute that Illinois and TGS are the
                    >original core and founding group of the Midrealm. (It's a friendly
                    >dispute.) Some hold the view that if either Illinois or Michigan go
                    >Principality, they would concede away their claim as the core of the
                    >kingdom. I realize it's goofy, but it's out there.

                    You can talk about the North Woods and the first of Treegirtsea.
                    They're the founders of the Midrealm, on that we all agree.
                    But when you cross that Wabash River, hoss, that just don't mean a thing.
                    Cuz once you're talkin' Riven, Ole Moonwulf's still the king!

                    Cheers, Folo
                  • twlyon24
                    Great... now I m having post-revel flashbacks. L. ... but ... there ... the ... thing.
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
                      Great... now I'm having post-revel flashbacks.

                      L.
                      --- In Ayreton@yahoogroups.com, Folo Watkins <folo@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > >There was some discussion of the Midlands becoming principality,
                      but
                      > >it went nowhere because many felt that as the original core of the
                      > >Middle Kingdom, why should it become a principality? Of course
                      there
                      > >are many in Michigan who dispute that Illinois and TGS are the
                      > >original core and founding group of the Midrealm. (It's a friendly
                      > >dispute.) Some hold the view that if either Illinois or Michigan go
                      > >Principality, they would concede away their claim as the core of
                      the
                      > >kingdom. I realize it's goofy, but it's out there.
                      >
                      > You can talk about the North Woods and the first of Treegirtsea.
                      > They're the founders of the Midrealm, on that we all agree.
                      > But when you cross that Wabash River, hoss, that just don't mean a
                      thing.
                      > Cuz once you're talkin' Riven, Ole Moonwulf's still the king!
                      >
                      > Cheers, Folo
                      >
                    • Scribesquire@comcast.net
                      Exactly. I just reiterated it here for those who did not make the meeting. Henry ... From: Tedesco da Venezia That is what is supposed
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jun 29, 2007
                        Exactly.  I just reiterated it here for those who did not make the meeting.
                         
                        Henry
                         
                        -------------- Original message --------------
                        From: "Tedesco da Venezia" <tedesco@...>


                        That is what is supposed to happen as per the town meeting that was held at Border Skirmish...

                        ~Tedesco~


                        On 6/29/07, Scribesquire@ comcast.net <Scribesquire@ comcast.net> wrote:

                        One of the appealing ideas of a shell barony is that the overall barony would in theory have the input of all the groups (in the way of baronial officers and what not). 

                        Anything with a particular group becoming a barony/crown province/grand poo bah would have the issue of the other area groups than being beneath that group.   

                        Again, it is up to each group to decide if thay want to go the baronial route or not.  My suggestion is that at the July meetings for all the 6 area groups, the topic be brought up and dicussed.  Then at the August meetings, each individual group can vote on it.  The seneschals of each group can then either appoint someone to be the laison from thier group to the mayor for this or the seneschal can do it themselves.

                        Henry


                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.