Selecting crown from current B&Bs

[melissawijffels (Melissa Wijffels)]

A suggestion I ran across while the Crescent Isles were discussing alternate selection formats was for the Crown to be chosen from the B&Bs of the kingdom. This could be by an election amongst current B&Bs, or they could be appointed by the crown. Given Lochac has 12 baronies, each one could have their B&B serve as Crown every 6 years -- not dissimilar to the tenure of a number of B&Bs, meaning the Crown could pass to someone entirely new each Reign.

The benefit of this selection method is that it would select Crowns with leadership experience, and knowledge of the workings of the Society. It also has the benefit (?) of being a closer-to-period method of selecting royalty. Unlike many of the other selection methods mentioned so far, this one is more likely to pick up service-track members of the populace.

A disadvantage of this method is that one has to become B&B prior to attaining Crown, putting it a long way in the distance for new members. There is the possibility for exacerbation of local politics if the B&B becomes a contested position by people aspiring to the Crown. However, it is less likely to exacerbate local politics than a standard popular election.

[Uberto (Uberto Renaldi)]

I think the disadvantage you mention - that it restricts the pool of potential royalty to current landed B&Bs - pretty much rules this option out.

BUT we could still have our landed B&Bs as electors.

That is, once we get a shortlist of potential heirs (by whatever method) it is the landed barons & baronesses (not the general populace) who vote to elect the next Crown. We'd have to implement a system that minimises any favouritism (such as requiring the B&Bs to vote for more than one of the shortlisted pairs).
This is definitely closer to period practice than our current system; whether that's a good thing depends on how important we think historical accuracy is when determining our royalty (and I'm willing to bet that for most people it's "not very much").

[Kolfinna (Kolfinna Burlufotr)]

I think the energy needed for being a B and B is very different to that of crown. My impression of crown is of a sprint where you are putting in a lot of energy for a short time, maximum enthusiasm, maximum theatre, maximum travel for 6 months then relieved of duty and able to have a rest when you step down. For me a Baronial Tenure is more of a slow burn where you need to have endurance and energy consistently but over
a long period of time.

I think having the B's take turns at stepping up as crown would result in a lot of B's immediately resigning once they had finished their crown stint,  which would be very challenging for their Baronies; especially since I assume they would not be able to be as attentive to their own lands while they are being crown.

If this rotation of 12 was done systematically, you may also have people stepping up into B+B not because they are interested in the baronial service role but just to do the Crown aspect and then quickly stepping down again once they had achieved that royal reign. This kind of instability could be very damaging for a group.

Another challenge would be for people who may not live close to the barony their group is attached to. They are unlikely to be selected for B+B due to not being able to regularly participate in weekly activities but this should not preclude them from the role of Crown which is much more events based. 

[Kinggiyadai Orlok (Kinggiyadai Orlok)]

(Edit: As someone who has performed in both of these roles...)
I agree that the required skill set is reasonably similar between Territorial Baronages and the Crown, but it would be a shame to deprive baronies of their baronages.

You could reap the same benefits of this system by selecting from the population of ex-Territorial Baronages.
There's a list of them at https://lochac.sca.org/baronage/history/ and there have been 85 tenures, which is about 40 years worth of candidates.
Due to standard turnover, Lochac generates approximately three new sets of ex-baronages per year (assuming 4-year tenures, and 12 baronies) which is sufficient for two reigns per year.

Whether they'd be willing is an unknown, however.

[Arabella de Darlington (Arabella de Darlington)]

Some interesting points here..... Generally I feel that electing from within the *currently* serving B&Bs may negatively impact their baronies.

My three main concerns would be as followed.

Tenure for B&B will vary from group to group and whilst most serve for at least 2-3 years, there are others who extend beyond this depending on the culture and needs of their barony.

If a current B&B became crown, their barony would require a vicar for the 6 months. Vicars are unable to present baronial awards and as such there would be no baronial recognition during this reign. (This is why you rarely see landed b&bs enter the list together)

As landed your first priority is to your barony, heightening the expectations by undertaking another position could lead to burn out and leave the barony dry without leadership.

[Sekai (Sekai)]

This could just lead to a system with high roll over of the B&Bs or an oligarchy as the Crown appoints the B&Bs and the Crown is elected from the B&Bs. This could turn into a very closed system very quickly. Or just lead to people putting themselves forward to be B&B just because they want a shot at Crown, when they really don't have to desire to be B&B. In my experience because of the length of a B&B run compared to Crown they attract different sorts of folks and require very different energy.

[Safflington (Safiya bint Abd al-Shahid)]

I think the energy needed for being a B and B is very different to that of crown. My impression of crown is of a sprint where you are putting in a lot of energy for a short time, maximum enthusiasm, maximum theatre, maximum travel for 6 months then relieved of duty and able to have a rest when you step down. For me a Baronial Tenure is more of a slow burn where you need to have endurance and energy consistently but over
a long period of time. 

Yep, both are fulltime jobs of different flavours. I can't imagine having to step up a Crown after serving as B&B or vice versa. I think it's an unreasonable commitment to ask from our B&Bs, and I feel like this would be a change were the populace ultimately lose out.

The requirement for travel is very different too - I would think that B&B is a much more accessible role for someone who isn't able to take annual leave but is available on weeknights, or for someone who isn't able to afford interstate/international flights. And what about the people from remote groups who can't commit to the consistent participation required of a B&B, but who could commit to 6 months as Crown?

[Gwen verch David (Gwen verch David)]

Crown and B&B are very different jobs, and I don't think it's a good idea to limit our candidacy pools for either to those who can do both.