From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Kingdom Timing
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:58:45 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <geZ4uHm00WB68VyiFL@andrew.cmu.edu> David Schroeder <ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>As I understand it, Drachenwald has well over 500 paid members,
>most of whom are from the rapidly growing Barony of Nordmark
>in Sweden.  Talking to various folks from Nordmark I gather
>that the average "SCA-age" or length of time people have been
>part of the organization in their barony is under two years
>(please correct me if I'm not on target).  

That should rise at least a bit in the next 12 months . . .  :-)

>I'd love to have it explained why my concern is ill-founded,
>if it is, since I deeply believe that the "right" size for
>an SCA kingdom is closer to 500 than 1000 people (the more
>kingdoms the merrier).  But I'd hate to see a new kingdom
>in Europe go through massive hassles caused, in part, by
>separating too soon.

I believe that current Corpora specifies minimum kingdom size to be
400.  That aside, I have been told that the Board really won't
consider establishing one below about 600.

The absolute lower limit was originally 200 (once the West, East and
Middle sprang into being), based on the US Postal regulations for bulk
mailings (200 piece minimum).  The pratical lower limit--as it
currnetly stands--is based on coming closer to losing a kingdom that
was created . . .  well . . .  perhaps a bit earlier than it should
have been.

The critical issues really are:

	Is there enough administrative talent to run a kingdom?

	Is there enough adminsitrative talent to *keep* running
	a kingdom?

	Are there enough members of the various Peerage Orders
	to meaningfully maintain the status and requirements
	of those orders?

The admin talent issues come down to:  Can the current Officers of
State do the job independently (remembering that there is great--and
in my opinion, good reason for--being reluctant to take problems to
the Board or the Steward (and, thus, outside the Medieval aspect of
the SCA)?  The second issue becomes--are there folks to pick up the
reins when the current officers step down from their posts?  Remember
that a kingdom is as near *permanent* as we can make it.  Talanque not
withstanding, there are *no* permanent positions in the SCA (which is
both our strength and our bane).

If the Peerage numbers are sufficient, there will be enough fighters
to run a Crown Lists.  Indeed--if there are enough Peers for a
Principality, then there are *probably* enough for a
kingdom--especially a Principality with an ocean between it and it's
parent kingdom.  

That there are large numbers of relatively new folk in the proposed
kingdom is largely irrelevant--unless you think they're likely to
leave suddenly--so long as there is a large enough core to hold things
together.  Also, given that the 'generation time' of the SCA is about
3 years (ever hear someone who has been in the Society for all of 2 or
3 months give a stray passerby 'Standard Lecture #1--What is this all
about?' ?), those 'in the SCA less than two years' will be part of the
backbone of the kingdom in no more than another two (which is close to
the standard tour of duty of an officer).

Have been through the 'parent kingdom' side of this before?  What
would ever give you that idea . . .

	--Hal

        Hal Ravn, Province of the Mists, West Kingdom
        Wilson H. Heydt, Jr.,  Albany, CA 94706,  510/524-8321 (home)
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare