From: cynthia@ncd.com (Cynthia Virtue)
Message-Id: <9401181522.ZM1272@bryant.ncd.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 15:22:04 -0800
To: carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Reflections of principality issues

David and I aren't sure if his reply to my orignial posting actually went to
the Carolingian mailing list.  Thus, I am reposting it for him, as his meal
reader is being obstreporous.

C d P A
--- Forwarded mail from DAVID MATTHEW DEANE <DEANE@BINAH.CC.BRANDEIS.EDU>

Cynthia du Pre Argent writes:

>Carolingia status mentis est, they say, and I think it is true: although I
>have been gone from Carolingia for nearly two years, and am just now
>reactivating in the SCA out here in the Mists, I still think of myself
>somewhat as a Carolingian in exile.  Thus my following comments on the
>principality brouhaha:

I seem to be in the opposite situation from you, so perhaps I should put my
oar in at this point. I've been in Carolingia for a year and a half, but
have not been very active; before that I was in the West and quite active
(off and on) for about six years. So I know the West's situation a lot
better then the East's. In fact, until this thread got started, I was not
aware of all of the reasons for and against the Northern Principality;
thinking as a Westerner, I said to myself, "self, this here Eastern Kingdom
is far too big; it needs another principality or two, at the very least."
So I voted for the  idea of a Northern Principality - with or without
Carolingia - because I think these subdivisions are needed, whether or not
the principality intends to become a kingdom or not. Now that I have heard
some of the arguments, I support the idea of a seperate Central
Principality (esp. since the Central and Northern administrative regions
are already in place), because there is no good geographical reason to
include chunks of the Central region in a Northern Principality, and doing
so would detract (I would assume) from any potential Central Principality.
So, knowing what I know now, I would vote against Carolingia being part of
any Northern Principality. Really, it would be nice if some of these things
were explained - I thought I was making an informed vote, but I obviously
had not asked the right questions. In any case, the pole was inflexible and
thus of dubious use: there was no way to tell _why_ a person was voting for
or against the proposal. To continue:

>One of the good reasons for a principality, and [ultimately] a new kingdom
>is the greater ability for the new lesser royalty to recognize talent and
>dedication of the populace.  I think this is an issue that is very
>important.  However, one of the flip sides of a new vector of royalty, is
>that you get more royals.  And ex-royals.

This is a bad thing?

>This past weekend I attended West Kingdom Twelfth Night.  It was nifty.
> However, I noticed that there were a disproportionate number of people
>with pointy metal hats. No doubt this is because the West has the
>Principality of the Mists, the Principality of Cynagua, the Principality
of
>Lochac, and the Principality of Oertha all under its mantle.

Actually, very few Oerthans and even fewer Lochacans manage to visit events
held in the Northern California region of the West. I'd wager 12th night
usually has more visiting royals from other Kingdoms - in the past, I seem
to  recall some Atens and possibly some Caidans and An Tiran royal
visitors.

>  That makes
>FIVE crown or coronet seats to fill, plus consorts, multiplied by the
three
>times a year that they hold such tourneys out here.

No, it's just the Crown tourney that is held three times a year (ah, that
lovely California camping climate, how I miss yah...). The Mists and
Cynaguan coronet tourneys are held twice a year, and I would assume that
the same holds true for Oertha and Lochac.

>  I'm sure you can do
>the multiplication: that means thirty new pointy hats per year.

By my calculation, that's only twenty-two new pointy hats. In any case,
most of  the people who win crown or coronet tourneys are not _new_ pointy
hats. Most of the time, a pointy hat wins tourney. Thus, the number of
pointy hats out there is far fewer then you think; I would not be suprised
if a few of the pointy hats one sees at 12th night are semi-retired or
semi-inactive types who often only show up at big annual events like 12th
night. I seem to get the impression that some Easterners think of pointy
hats as a rare, dangerous species of mammal that will muck up the Society
unless their numbers are  limited. Perhaps this is true of Eastern pointy
hats - I cannot say. Western  pointy hats do not seem to cause any problem,
in spite of their relative  fecundity.

> When
>royals are a dime a dozen, how does that change the dynamics of our game?

No, unless by change you mean "different"; you seem to imply that more
royals means "worse". What happens when you get more royals? Why, you get
the West - which is, of course, best! (please, no rotten tomatos) In any
case, royals are _not_ a dime a dozen in the West. As I said, the same
group of people seem to win crown/coronet tourneys most of the time, so the
number of new royals created is really not all that much. Last time I was
in the West, in fact, the royal sucession seemed to go something like:
Jade-somebody-Jade-somebody-Jade-somebody, and so on.

Judging by the number of pointy hats I saw at Pennsic, I would not be
suprised  if other kingdoms make up the difference by issuing more court
baronies then the West does; but that's just a hunch of mine. I don't
recall how many court  baron/esses are created in the West; my memory is
that there were not  too many, but perhaps I was not paying much attention
to such things at the time. I cannot say.

One other advantage of having Coronet tourneys is that it allows new up and
coming fighters to be noticed. When squire so-and-so defeats a Duke and
several knights and only loses in the last round of a coronet tourney (this
has happened on a few occasions), the members of the Chivalry present start
thinking about making squire so-and-so a knight. In a large, spread-out
kingdom without such principalities, people could easily fall through the
cracks unless they are well located or have money to travel - not just
potential knights, but potential Laurels and Pelicans as well
(principalities do more than hold coronet tourneys and coronations, after
all).

Last but not least, more principalities means more opportunities for wars!
Ah, Mists-Cynagua War, how I miss yah - and no, don't ask me who Miss
Cynagua is!

>In my opinion, the West is caught halfway through the principality
process.

I never got that impression when I was there. Granted, natives might be
oblivious to what outsiders find strange...

> It has a bunch of principalities, but none of the current group have gone
>kingdom.

Lochac (Australia) is planning to go kingdom; it will probably do so in the
near forseeable future, as soon as membership growth permits. It is so far
away from the rest of the West, that this outcome is inevitable and
desireable. As far as I know, Oertha (Alaska) has no plans to go kingdom,
and in any case  it is not growing in membership so would be unlikely to
qualify for kingdom  status for a long time. As for the Mists (Bay Area)
and Cynagua (Sacramento area), these are so geographically small and close
to each other, and the  West, excluding the overseas portions, is so small
to start with, that there is simply no reason for either to "go kingdom".

> Thus, it is like a large family with a passel of grown children,
>none of whom have left to start their own homes.

Not a good analogy - unless principalities were intended _solely_ as a step
toward becoming kingdoms. Is this so? I have not read corpora so I must
plead ignorance. But, what is wrong with a principality remaining as a
viable subdivision of a kingdom?

>It may well be that the West views the situation differently,

Indeed, it does.

> but I would
>not want to see this happen to the East Kingdom.  If the current people of
>the East decide they want another principality, I strongly advise that
they
>not think of it as just a principality question, but think of it as one
>step on the way to a new kingdom.

Perhaps Easterners should take a closer look at the way principalities
function elsewhere before deciding that a principality _must_ become a
kingdom. The West, and I think also Atenveldt, are subdivided into
principalities (West: Mists/Cynagua, Aten: Sun/Artemisia[?]) which do not
make sense as seperate kingdoms, at least, not anytime soon. In the West,
for instance, the problem would be deciding which group would break off -
are the Mists "more" Western then Cynagua? Geographically, yes, but in
practice the two principalities share too much in common to make an
arbitrary split, and plenty of people go to events in both principalities.
It would be rather bizarre to split Northern California north/south, right
down the middle...

Just a few opinions from a transplanted Westerner/Mistie.

-David the Fretful


-- 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Cynthia Virtue					cynthia@ncd.com
Network Computing Devices			Tel: 415-694-0690
Mountain View, California, USA			Fax: 415-961-6958
CAUTION: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent 
  of 85 million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~