From: greg@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Hossein Ali Qomi (mka Gregory F. Rose))
Subject: Re: Term Limits for the Landed Baroncy
Followup-To: rec.org.sca
Organization: The Rialto
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:11:58 GMT

Unto the good gentles of the Rialto does Hossein Ali Qomi send greetings and
prayers for the blessings of Allah.

I've watched the debate over the landed baronage with some interest and
intend, as time permits, to post a more scholarly discussion of the historical
evidence for the relationship between monarchs and senior tenants-in-chief
in the English and French cases.  However, I have some decidedly strong
views on a recent posting by Ian of Gloucester.  I've counted to many
times a large exponent of ten before composing this.  This is something
which _has_ to be said.

Ian posted:

>  With all due respect to Sussman et al in the Monarchist/Old Castle faction I
>would like to point out that much of the heartburn in the Atlantia and 
>especially Storviki baronial replacement was caused by the monarchs.  

This is absurd on the face of it in at least two dimensions.  Suggesting
that House Oldcastle is "monarchist" in any meaningful sense is laughable,
as anyone familiar with the history of Atlantia would immediately concede.
I am not affiliated with House Oldcastle (although my lady wife is) and I
_am_ an ardent monarchist.  I've often spoken with Duke Gyrth and Duchess
Melisande about the proper role of royalty, and I have heard the views of
other senior members of the house.  They and the other Oldcastle monarchs
have been among the strongest opponents of monarchial power, a direct
artifact of their past opposition to House Bedford, whose leader, Michael of
Bedford, _is_ the most monarchist king Atlantia has ever had.  While Ian of 
Gloucester thinks to calumny Oldcastle by calling them "monarchists," as a 
monarchist familiar with them, I think he simply commits a foolish category 
error.  There are some members of House Oldcastle with monarchist tendencies, 
but they are not the dominant force in the house.

The absurdity of Ian's claim is compounded by the fact that the king involved
in the replacement of the Storviki baronial coronets was not affiliated
with Oldcastle at all -- it was Count Anton.

>The problem solution should be started by limiting the number of times one 
>can be King or Queen.  How about two?  You get to be Duke and then stop 
>messing with the laws.  In general people are quite capable of asking for a 
>Baron and Baroness to be replaced but there is no really good way of 
>preventing utter dweebs from becoming King or Queen other than their personal 
>relationships with the previous monarch.

Since Ian has chosen to contextualize his remarks in terms of the Storvik
baronial replacement, I can only infer that he is speaking of the then-king,
Anton, in these comments.  I defy him to show a single instance of Anton
"messing with the laws" -- the implication is doing the kingdom an injustice
by writing kingdom law, and there is simply no evidence of this from Anton's
Curia Regis.  Furthermore, to call Anton a "dweeb" is a lie, a calumny, and
the sorest kind of insight into the venomous trash Ian is slinging.  I have
the greatest respect for Count Anton and believe that the vast majority of
Atlantians share that respect.  

>The root of this problem is the self perpetuating nature of the SCA.  The BOD
>is incestuous and self perpetuating.  The Chivalry and Kings are self 
>perpetuating.  The Baron as set up in some areas is about the only home-grown 
>SCA leadership post.  It is not a wonder to me that Barons get more respect 
>than Knights or Kings and that Dukes are willing to fight about who gets to 
>be Baron.  It is quite possibly the most important position in the SCA.

The childish, whining antipathy toward the BoD, the monarchy, and the chivalry
evidenced in these remarks is interesting.  If he had added the Laurels
and the Pelicans (who are chosen by procedures exactly the same as the
chivalry), I would think that the argument about barons merely disguises
a severe case of peerness-envy.
 
>Seriously the recent baronial incident in Storvik should have made
>everyone aware that when a King waltzes in and tries to help you should run
>not walk to the nearest fallout shelter.  Kings are not chosen for tact or 
>brains and we are generally very lucky that Kings do not exercise the powers 
>given to them.  I would suggest either term limits for everyone or allowing the
>barons to be chosen strictly by their followers without interference of the
>King.  

Again, Ian engages in abject calumny.  Anton made the simple request that
the advisory polling of the barony regarding baronial candidates be conducted
directly to him and the Queen, rather than counted and announced at the
baronial meeting.  The king was entirely within his rights under Atlantian
law.  The incumbent baron instead counted and released the results of the
polling at the meeting on the grounds that "the king couldn't be trusted."
Anton hadn't done one damned thing to deserve that and it is a credit to
his extraordinary moderation and good grace that he didn't do what a _real_
monarchist would have done: suspend the baronial coronets, banish them, and
convene a court of chivalry for public slander of the crown.  Instead,
Anton chose to appoint the candidates recommended by a majority of the
populace of Storvik.  Some tyrant, eh what?

While I think Ian's term limits on crowns are absurd, I do think some limits
are in order: limits on exactly how much we're prepared to take the
slanderous ravings of mundane democracy dweebs.

>If the monarchists feel they have substantial data that shows that this
>was never done, let them bring it out.  Otherwise, we might get some pockets
>of civility in the SCA where the King is colorful character who shows up
>occassionally and the Baron is the guiding light of the local SCA.  It won't
>always work, but the neither due the monarchs.

Ian is very ready to demand proof from others, but offers none whatsoever
himself.  The reason is very simple: he has no such proof.

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on Ian's shoulders -- he wants
popular elections of barons.  I challenge him to cite even one single
incident in feudal Europe where the general population of a region ever 
elected anyone "baron."  He can't, because it never happened.  Indeed,
since the term baron _means_ "tenant-in-chief" it is absurd to believe that
one became a tenant-in-chief by any democratic process.  By bloodshed,
intimidation and force of arms, yes -- that was one route to power.  Royal
appointment was another.  Inheritance was the most common.  I shudder to
think what one of Henry II's, or even John's, barons would have made of
Ian's popular democratic blatherings -- "seditious troublemaker" would
likely have been such a baron's characterization of one with Ian's views,
followed by a quick and fatal journey to the hangman's rope for the
troublemaker.  It makes one miss the good old days...

Whatever English and French barons might have been, advocates of popular
democracy they were not (indeed, it was Henry II, Richard and John attempting
to limit the depredations of their barons on the common people that produced
Runnymede and Magna Carta -- read the document some time, democratic it 
isn't).
 
There is something about Ian's posting which _is_ very period: back-stabbing
politics and public calumny were medieval practices.  But even those
backward, nondemocratic medievals didn't have the gall to call the practice
"civility."

In Service,

Hossein/Greg