Re: group size, status, was Principalities

[bearslayer@juno.com (Christopher M Dawson)]

Poster: bearslayer@juno.com (Christopher M Dawson)


<<There is a fine line between CHARISMA and BULLSHIT>>


On Tue, 08 Apr 97 11:00:07 EST "David H Ritterskamp"
<dhritter@dpcmail.dukepower.com> writes:
>
>Poster: "David H Ritterskamp" <dhritter@dpcmail.dukepower.com>
>
>     
>     
>     On Tue, 8 Apr 97, "Terry L. Neill" <Neilltl@ptsc.slg.eds.com> 
>wrote:
>     staying a shire or canton, even if the group is big enough to 
>     >be a barony, is quite an acceptable alternative to me.  It 
>should be 
>     up 
>     >to the group.  If they want to be a barony, fine.  If not, fine. 
> 
>     Unless 
>     >I live there at the time, it's nothing to me.  Neither form of 
>group 
>     has 
>     >an advantage or disadvantage over the other.
>     >
>     >
>     >        - Anarra
>     >
>     >
>     On this point, I have to disagree; one of the biggest reasons why 
>
>     Crannog Mor (years ago)
>     looked at becoming a barony was because they felt that as a 
>shire, 
>     they didn't really have
>     A) much in the way of respect for their autonomy (go figure!) or 
>B) 
>     much recognition for anything they did.
>     
>     (A) They felt that as a shire, they could be ignored by nearby 
>groups 
>     (which happened at least
>     a couple of times, & they didn't like it) and as a barony, this 
>likely 
>     wouldn't happen as much.
>     One big nasty instance of this was a Giant's Dance that was held 
>     *within* their "jurisdiction" without
>     so much as a by-your-leave, invitation to co-host, or any of the 
>     profits.  They felt that had they had
>     a Baron/ess, this likely wouldn't have happened.
>     
>     (B) Since a shire's only representation to kingdom is their 
>seneschal 
>     & a barony has a baron/ess which 
>     answers directly to the throne, a shire couldn't really give the 
>     recognition & awards to its populace that
>     the local group thought they deserved.  They could write in for 
>     kingdom awards, but really, what's the
>     ratio of kingdom awards to baronial awards?  Nobody ever heard of 
>a 
>     shire award & yet shires are legally
>     only slightly smaller than baronies.  I think a shire had to have 
>20? 
>     10? something like that, whereas a barony
>     has to have 25.
>     
>     I'm not going to get into who done what, but the above is (IMO) a 
>
>     fairly good example for baronial vs. shire 
>     status.  A shire that expects to be around should go ahead and 
>move 
>     towards baronial status; there's no reason
>     not to (except for the politics that this move would engender) 
>and 
>     many reasons to do so.
>     
>     Ld. Jonathan Blackbow
>     House O'Shannon
>
>=======================================================================
>List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
>            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
>        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org
>
I believe you are incorrect about a shire's size, all that is needed is 4
people.  Seneschal, Herald, Exchequer, and either a Knight Marshal or a
Minister of A&S.  Am not quite sure as a Corporea booklet is unavailable
to me right now.

In Service to the Dream,
Nikolai Bearslayer 
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org