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

Re: [Ayreton] Re: Questions about principality

Expand Messages
  • spdesroches@att.net
    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
    Message 1 of 4 , Jul 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      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

    • rdpierce@pobox.com
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 4 , 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
      • kateslists@comcast.net
        Hmm, IMO it s harder to get consensus from a big group of people than a little group..... Bojei ... From: rdpierce@pobox.com Other than the perception
        Message 3 of 4 , Jul 3, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Hmm, IMO it's harder to get consensus from a big group of people than a little group..... <g>
          Bojei
           
          -------------- 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.

        • Earik MacSkellie
          Bojei, You are forgetting the hive mind. WE ARE MIDLANDS. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED, YOUR GROUP S DISTINCTIVENESS WILL BE ADDED TO OUR OWN. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.
          Message 4 of 4 , Jul 4, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Bojei,
             
            You are forgetting the hive mind. WE ARE MIDLANDS. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED, YOUR GROUP'S DISTINCTIVENESS WILL BE ADDED TO OUR OWN. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. (HORDE TOO).

             
            On 7/3/07, kateslists@... <kateslists@...> wrote:

            Hmm, IMO it's harder to get consensus from a big group of people than a little group..... <g>
            Bojei
             
            -------------- 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.




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