NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/org/sca/17177

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 5.8 KB | 121 lines

Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!pacbell.com!pbhya!whheydt
From: [e-mail] (Wilson Heydt)
Subject: Re: Midrealm Crown Tourney customs
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:08:22 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 109

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Linda Levy) writes:
>Hmmm As far as I know, the West has done just fine at surviving without
>massive amounts of qualifications that people have to meet to be King.
>The biggy is "..be acceptable to the Crown"..  Anyone from the West know
> how often this has been used to keep someone out of the Crown Lists?
>(the most recent Oct Crown excepted)

I think the rarity of the use (I can't think of any examples other
than your own oblique reference) speaks to the lack of need. I have
heard of an instance or two in recent years where a King 'jawboned'
fighters into not fighting.  There is, of course, the 'implied threat'
that the Kings in question could invoke the '...sutiable to the
Crown.." clause, but outright using it is very rarely done.

The greatest recent irony is that of last October Crown.  Teh fighter
in question is clearly suitable to be King, but events external to the
Lists forced to King to make some sort of decision.  In light of
subsequent events totally unrelated to that decision it may be saving
a *lot* of grief--as his Lady is unable to attend 12th Night for
*exceedingly mundane reasons....  (For those baffled by this, just let
me say that the Lady in question should have arrived in Somalia by now
by reason of her mundane job.)

>I have had the Honor of serving as a Queen of the West. I made mistakes,
>but was abiliy guided by my King, the officers and the Royal Peers,
>who were there with advice, and opinions.  They were always willing
>to discuss matters, and were willing to respect our decisions, even
>if we disagreed.

So far as I could tell, you did a fine job.  Can we look forward to
your gracing the Throne again?  Please?

>However, if you want to start listing minimum qualities that Someone
>"Needs" to be King and Queen.......

As someone who has never sat a throne, but who knows entirely too many
people who have (I am, so to speak, the failure of my cohort--other
fighters that started when I did have done far better on the field),
and mindful that outside observation does not capture the true measure
of all events, I would note that the West has what appears to be an
excellent support structure for its Royalty.  There is help in any
area where it is needed.  The difficulty most often seen is that those
who will turn-to and pitch in need to be *asked* to help.  I *think*
this is because there is the intent to give the Royalty the room they
need to decide what help they want and what they feel able to do on
their own.  On some occasions, the "Old Peers Network" bestirs itself
to gently *offer* assistance--but that is normally the case where at
least on member of the Royal 'couple' looks to lack an existing
support network of any sort--and seems to be at sea about where to
start looking.

>4) in the West, they need a passport.

An excellent point.

>16) be willing to be photographed at any time, day or night,
>and smile when they put a "terrible" picture of you on public
>display. (any comments From Hal about better of worse reactions
>from past Royalty?)

At least I avoid flash whenever possible....

I don't recall any particular complaints.  When I mount pictures in
albums, I edit fairly heavily.  We won't discuss that I'm about 2 years
behind in doing that....  And about to take on a Kingdom Office....

It is my experience that you can get flattering pictures of *anyone*,
if you try hard enough.  This despite the number of people who calmly
and firmly insist that they've *never* had a good picture taken of
them.  The includes certain recent and past Great Officers.  It's a
wierd feeling when someone tells me that and then says the picture
I've just handed them is the only (or one of the only...) good ones of
them they've ever seen.  I have this strong suspicion that the problem
is cultural (i.e. US, 20th century) far more that it is idividual
looks.  I'm certainly no good at getting people to pose, and I suspect
that many other amatuers are even worse.  Most of these 'exceptional'
good shots are taken candidly--usually from far enough away that the
subject is completely unaware that i'm around with a camera.  Plus--as
you know--I have a few tricks and devices that make it even easier.
It's amazing the number of people that assume that the camera is
pointing the same way the photographer is looking--even when they're
looking straight into the lens from a few feet away....

>19) be ON TIME! the Kingdom is waiting. Always be able to leave
>several hours early, just in case there was a traffic accident
>that totally blocked the freeway. (or a Mountain Blows Up)

Hmmm....  Some of us do make jokes about 'the late King xxxx'.  Some
of us risk fate by doing it to his face--though I think the smile
takes the sting out of it....

>Any additions or comments would be welcome. I'm thinking of putting
>together a class for collegium called "so... you think you want to be
>King/Queen?"

Please!  Put the course together!  Unless it conflicts with something
I'm *teaching*, I'll be there--though my chance of ever sitting a
throne (at least since I built the old ones :-) are somewhere between
slim and none.

    --Hal

        Hal Ravn, Province of the Mists, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  510/524-8321 (home)
--
Hal Heydt                    |
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |            You!
510-823-5447                 |    Out of the Gene Pool!
[e-mail]    |