[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

RE: baronies/shires/etc

Poster: E L Wimett <SILVERDRAGON@Charleston.Net>

>> I'd be interested in finding out what the rationale was for not allowing shires 
>> to have their own awards.  Ancient people out there have an answer? (As opposed 
>> to the Old-timers; I'm an OTimer and I don't know, so the Ancients must...;>)

It goes back 15-18 years ago when the Board was a wholly owned subsidiary of the West Coast (almost all Board members were from the Bay area).

When this limitation was made policy, it was explicitly done because the Western Rite (as opposed to Eastern Rite) strongly encouraged groups to have a ruling noble.  The Board wanted to encourage groups to go for baronial status (i.e., have a ruling noble).  This did not bother a lot of the large Western groups like Rieslingshire who had their own --- distinctly non-baronial --- persona.  The intention was fairly explicitly to prod those groups to go barony and to encourage traditional provinces (i.e., groups of baronial size without a ruling noble) to go barony.

I remember this vividly because the East Kingdom had to fight to get the awards for the Crown Province of Ostgarthr "grandfathered".  

Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane
Quondam Brigantia Principal Herald and Precedence Clerk of the East
İİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİRst Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org