[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
Re: Response to Proposed IAC Banishment Change
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Daniel Weil)
>Subject: Re: Response to Proposed IAC Banishment Change
>>Please forward this to the Master James of Rutland.
>>I have taken pen (keyboard) in hand to let it be known that I agree with
you in regards to your opinion that kings should not be given more power.
Nor in my opinion should I kings be given a free ride. Also, I agree that
review of banishment should not be taken away from the BOD.
>>However, I do not agree that the crown should not be won by right of arms.
There is nothing wrong with this mthod. It is a far cry better than prima
******, and if I am not mistaken democracy is out of period.
>>>Actually, my Lord, what I had in mind was not the changing of winning the
crown--that's tradition-- but rather limiting the operating power of the
kings in favor of a more powerful mundane bureaucracy (sp?) with a wider
base of representation. I am content that Crown tourneys are a beautiful
show and produce a good taste of Period. My underlying objection is that
the more power without checks in any one person's hands, the more likelihood
that misuse can happen. Power corrupts, etc.
>As for democracy as you have used it above, certainly modern democracy
isn't period. However, there were several period versions; Venice was a
semi-democracy with a VERY elaborate system of choosing the Doge involving
both representation and blind chance; Florence was for a time a republic, I
believe; the Holy Roman Emperor was chosen by the Electors; the Northmen
had their Allthings to be heard at, and the Kings of Western Europe had
their Parliaments. I THINK that the British House of Commons was added in
the reign of Richard II... It was a far cry from our "one person, one vote",
but there were checks on the power of the monarch. (I wish I could remember
when the Swiss went republic; I have it in the back of my mind it was within
Period, but would hate to state it as fact.) Some Parliaments were
powerful, some were not. The Sun King model of absolute monarchy tends to
be very late in Period- earlier Kings had to tread a careful path between
>But again, we are in the US of A in 1996. Corporate bylaws and operation,
like seams in your garb that won't show on the outside, might as well be
done in a modern manner.
>Thanks for the response. I was afraid I was a voice crying all alone in
the wilderness. James
Daniel D. Weil