[Regia-NA] # members for land grant

[list-regia-na@lig.net]

6 sounds like a reasonable number.  Because of our distances, you can't go
much more than 10, I'd think.

The # of paid members required for an SCA Canton is 5.  My husband and I
have been threatening for years to seceed from our local Barony and apply
for Canton status on the basis that our family could be a canton.  We cover
some of the requirements such as holding regular activities like sewing
evenings where everyone gets new garb, have leather-working sessions, have
fight practice, etc.  The local Baron keeps patiently trying to explain that
this is not the *intention* of the SCA rules...

As I'm sure that Regia NA's rule are not intended in the same way.  :)

--charlotte mayhew


----- Original Message -----
Wrom: LEJGDGVCJVTLBXFGGMEPYOQKE
To: <list-regia-na@lig.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: RE: [Regia-NA] RE: Was sprang BILOXI


> Hi Bill
> At our N.A. AGM held at the Pensic Wars last year it was proposed and
agreed between the assembled folc that the former minimum number of 3
members required to apply for a grant of land was too small.
> As an example, a N.A. group folded because 2 of the 3 members were
apparently husband and wife and when they left this particular group only
had one solitary sole.
> It was also felt that in view of the greater distances between N.A members
(even within any grant of land) and in order to better facilitate the
continuity of any group, that the mininum number of members should be
increased to six paid up members.
> I imagine that if a good case were made then five members might be
acceptable but I hasten to add that this is my slant on things and is not
the 'official' rule.
> There is no restriction on distance between members within a grant of
land.
> This was one of the reasons for the subsequent decision to up the minimum
member numbers to six.
> Martin
>
> >
> > Wrom: DOTWFAOBUZXUWLSZLKBRNVWWCUFPEGAUTFJ
<william.tate@mildenhall.af.mil>
> > Date: 2003/06/26 Thu AM 02:52:00 EST
> > To: list-regia-na@lig.net
> > Subject: RE: [Regia-NA] RE: Was sprang BILOXI
> >
> > If I remember correctly, by the Code of Law, we need 3 paid members to
form
> > a group, but I don't think there is a distance restriction.  Is Mr.
> > Lawspeaker on this group to confirm this?
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Wrom: MVRESKPNKMBIPBARHDMNNSKVFVWRKJVZCMHVI
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:39 PM
> > To: list-regia-na@lig.net
> > Subject: RE: [Regia-NA] RE: Was sprang BILOXI
> >
> >
> >    I'm about 6 hrs away, but from reading this list I would
> > say that there are at least 3 folks closer than I am.  Is 5
> > enough for that nucleus?  I'm willing to make the drive.
> >    My octogenarian parents are, even as we speak, staying in
> > one of those casino hotels in Bay St. Louis, but not to
> > gamble. Dad is at Stennis Space Center on business (yes, at
> > 81 he still works! And has fun at it.) and Mom is kicking
> > back doing needlework, reading and people watching.  She is
> > vastly amused by the casino crowd, and they are both enjoying
> > the food. And they didn't drive a land barge down there, they
> > drove Mom's 4-wheel drive Jeep.
> > -- Tracie
> >
> > >Message: 16
> > >Wrom: BGDADRZFSQHYUCDDJBLVLMHAALPTCXLYRWT
> > <william.tate@mildenhall.af.mil>
> > >To: list-regia-na@lig.net
> > >Subject: RE: [Regia-NA] RE: Was sprang BILOXI
> >
> > >So home many persons are withing a couple of hours of
> > Biloxi?  Do we have a
> > >nucleus for a group?
> > >
> > >Bill
> > _______________________________________________
> > list-regia-na mailing list
> > list-regia-na@lig.net
> > http://www.lig.net/mailman/listinfo/list-regia-na
> > _______________________________________________
> > list-regia-na mailing list
> > list-regia-na@lig.net
> > http://www.lig.net/mailman/listinfo/list-regia-na
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> list-regia-na mailing list
> list-regia-na@lig.net
> http://www.lig.net/mailman/listinfo/list-regia-na
>