Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 18:55:50 -0500
From: cent@tower.lcs.mit.edu (Pandora Berman)
Message-Id: <199401252355.SAA07942@tower>
To: carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
Cc: kee@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: shutting the barn door after the horses have not only run off...

...but also died of old age.

This letter is about the northern region principality issue, and is fairly
long.  I wrote it Saturday night, after reviewing all the previous mail to
this list on this subject.  But since it was late, and I thought Lief had
made a good point about letting the subject rest for a few days, I decided
to sit on it at least until the next day.

You know what I heard the next day.

I make bold to send it anyway because I think it answers a few questions
which weren't answered before and addresses a few new points.  You may, as
you prefer, read it seriously, or for comic relief from the much greater
crisis that has engulfed us, or just delete it and curse me for filling
your mailbox further.

And Marian G., we might still want to hear your counsel on this issue --
someday.

Eowyn

----------
[Marian Greenleaf: There was a lot of flaming on this list last week about
the current effort to engender a northern-region principality in the East.
There are strong differences of opinion about whether any principality
should occur, if so what areas should be included, whether Carolingia
should be part of it, whether instead Carolingia should be part of some
hypothetical central-region-based principality, and whether any such
principality should be assumed to be on its way to becoming a separate
kingdom as opposed to being content with being a principality indefintely
-- as well as about how the proponents are conducting the effort.  Since
you were involved in the AEthelmearc effort, I take the liberty of hoping
you can give us some perspective on what was involved: how it worked, how
long it took, what the opposition was like, etc.  Please note that the
excerpts from others' messages below are by no means a complete or even a
representative sample of the discussion.  Thanks.]

      Cinaed of Tirowen said:
      For example, imagine a brony with lots of unregistered members, all
      of whom are very much anti-Principality.  None of these opinions are
      being collected in these polls, but I'm willing to bet that when the
      time for a vote comes up, maany of them will be willing to shell out
      the X dollars to obtain membership, just for the privelege of being
      able to mke that one vote.

    Tibor of Rock Valley replied:
    If they really care, they will pay their memberships. And if they don't
    they won't. Truly, I can't see that many people becoming members just
    to vote. If the will, they already would have.

It occurs to me that we had, here in Carolingia and not all that long ago,
a somewhat analogous situation.  After much discussion several years ago (5
or 6, I believe), Carolingia petitioned the Crown to create Barbara our
Baroness.  The petition circulated for several months, and during that
period, I gathered that quite a few people paid up to become official
members so their signatures on the petition would count.  I recall that
people who were not paid members were also allowed to sign, but it was made
clear at that time that only paid members would actually be counted by The
Powers That Be.
    I recognize that the situations have major differences: for instance,
the petition was circulated only after the Great Council of Carolingia had
come to a consensus -- we may even have taken one of our rare formal votes
on it -- while the recent principality polling occurred amid a miasma of
confusion and strong differences of opinion.  On the other hand, after
Council reached its consensus, the petition was generally popular; the
people who became paid members to sign it were welcome additions but not
vital to the enterprise; they simply felt strongly enough about the issue
to pay up in order to go on record.  Unlike Tibor, I think that people who
have sufficiently strong opinions about the principality issue -will- pay
up in order to have those opinions counted.

    David the Fretful, replying to Cynthia du Pre Argent, said:
    [Does having all of these principalities "change the game"?]
    Yes, but I would hold, based on my Western experiences, that it changes
    for the better. But, "west is west, and east is east, and never the
    twain shall meet" (unless, of course, the West annexed Atenveldt &
    Outlands, and the East annexed the Middle & Calontir!). 

What, you want us to take them back again?  But seriously, the East -does-
have experience with principalities: Atlantia split off about fifteen years
ago (having endured, I am told, one of the shortest latencies on record
between going principality and going kingdom -- I believe 3-4 years), and
Drachenwald split off last summer after, I believe, on the order of 10-12
years wait (its effort was, of course, significantly hindered by its modern
status as an American, mostly armed forces, import into Europe).
AEthelmearc became a principality 5 years ago, and from what I hear from my
friends there, is eager to spin off as soon as it is allowed to.  In sum,
the Eastern experience is that our principalities -do- separate.

    David also says:
						   Heck, Carolingia by
    itself has enough members to be a principality by itself, or so I am
    told.

David, maybe you haven't heard much of Carolingian history.  Suffice that
there used to be, and perhaps to some extent still are, prejudices against
Carolingia in other quarters of the East on the grounds that it and its
citizens were perceived to be acting like the classic 800lb. gorilla.  Many
of us who have been around for a while cringe at assertions like yours,
regardless of how innocently intended, because we remember the problems
that have come from Carolingia being accused of practicing cultural
imperialism.  Your statement falls into the category of "We Could Do It,
But It Would Be Wrong"; acceptable when clear in context as a joke, but
please make that context clear.

    Siubhan nic Cruimein said:
    Danulf points out that we have a close relationship with BMDL.  Well,
    if that's true, I didn't know about it, and I've been a Carolingian for
    over 7 years.  True, I'm not in the political circles, but the first
    time I'd ever heard of BMDL (Barony Marche of the Debatable Lands or
    some such thing) was when I started working on the Pikestaff at the
    beginning of January - and then I only heard of it because that's where
    the Pikestaff was last done.  Some of these "ties" we have may be
    fairly old and exist only for the fabled "old guard".

I think Danulf's impression arises from a couple of factors.  One is that
like Carolingia, BMDL is one of the oldest groups in the East -- and thus
carries some degree of affinity simply by being one of the few other
branches that has been around "forever".  Another is that about a dozen
years ago, over a period of a year or so Carolingia had a noticeably large
influx of Debatable Landers; they were all from Cawdor (BMDL's
all-inclusive canton for its universities), and came here for jobs (it may
not be as strong an opinion these days as it was, but back then MIT, CMU,
and Stanford -- in some order depending on your personal prejudices -- were
generally considered the top CS schools -- but the Pittsburgh area didn't
have jobs, while Boston did).  Earl Sebastian, Meister Frydherik, and Lord
Harald (among others) are all of that vintage.  But I think that, as a
general function, this link has attenuated over the years; certain
individuals still have close ties to folk in BMDL, but they are individual
ties.

    Leiftameon Carlsefnisson said:
    Subject: principality - Bhakalingia?
    Too much bandwidth being spent on the principality & Birka issue.
    Everyone take a breath and call a one week cease fire. Any hope of
    this?  The subject line is an inside joke for old timers. Anyone think
    it's the current answer?

Yes, I remember Bhakalingia.  Unfortunately, even then I think The Official
Rules would have prevented its formation (a minor matter of an
approximately 400 mile sea route as the only direct physical link being a
tad -too- tenuous....)

    Tibor also said:
    My most fundamental argument against a Principality is simple: it
    should be like a peerage. I believe we should recognize when a
    Principality exists, not create one, just as we recognize peers, and
    not just hand out the honor.

I find this a very appealing notion.  I don't get out as much as some
people, so it's quite possible that my knowledge is woefully incomplete,
but I haven't seen as much evidence as I would like that there is
sufficient cohesion among any subset of the groups at this end of the
kingdom for said subset to be ready to be a principality.  Not just among
some distinct subset of the members of those groups (fencers, for instance,
have been cited), but generally.
    People have mentioned the five pollings in the AEthelmearc effort.  We
must also consider that the then-Western Region had also, over several
years, developed a strong regional identity.  They had a functional and
useful newsletter, all ready to step up to being the Principality
newsletter.  They had a number of events which were generally recognized as
Regional gatherings, including some explicitly called Regional events.  And
they had a smallish, self-appointed committee of people enthusiastic about
making a principality who spent quite a bit of time promoting the idea in a
grass-roots fashion -- convincing other people, one at a time or in small
groups, why a principality would be such a good idea -- until, as I
understand it, by the time of the final vote, they had created a
sufficiently strong groundswell of positive opinion.
    The last principality movement in this area was the one several years
ago led by Baroness Arastorm among others; as some have commented, that
attempt fell victim to its focus on final details rather than grass-roots
lobbying.  The only material remnant of that attempt is a northern/central
regional newsletter started by one of the other proponents, passed since
then among a few other hands, and now being run by a lady from Glenn Linn.
During the period that Duchess Katherine ran it, it contained several
articles a month and was generally interesting; under all the other
editors, I have, unfortunately, found it to be more of a pro-principality
screed than anything else.  The editors have either jumped up and down or
pleaded about how important forming a principality is and that therefore
everyone should work hard on it; they have demanded explicitly that people
recognize the virtues of a principality more than they have demonstrated
them implicitly.
    When the latest movement started up a year or so ago, I hadn't noticed
any great increase in inter-group cohesion and cooperation.  I therefore
worry whether Randall and Katherine are falling victim to the same sort of
impulses as the newsletter editors: believing strongly that a principality
would be good and that therefore if they, and the people who currently
agree, simply keep saying so loud and long enough, they will eventually
convince everyone -- rather than explaining their reasons to people one by
one and promoting a general cohesion among the groups involved so that
eventually, everyone in those groups (or a sufficient fraction thereof)
will be convinced, by reasons they themselves find, that that set of groups
does have a distinct regional identity and should have it recognized by
being created a principality.  Of course, it's possible that Randall and
Katherine and their adherents have been doing this ground-roots work in at
least some part of the area they propose to include in this principality,
and I simply haven't seen the evidence; as I said, I don't get around as
much as some people.

Eowyn