[MR] FW: Permanent Crown locations....

[Sigrid Briansdotter]

And here I was, about to mention that the biggest problem is the short notice caused by waiting for the new heirs to select a preferred location. (Especially since some sites require booking more than 6 months out or have specific scheduled times that they open booking.) However, Bruce has already made my point much more eloquently than I was going to be able. The permanent site idea takes site selection out of the hands of the royals which automatically allows for greater lead time. At least in our area that would lead to better chances to get an appropriate site. (Things book up fast up here.)

Regards,
Sigrid

> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:45:28 -0400
> From: bglassford at gmail.com

snip

> Would not the majority of the problem also be solved by planning the
> event 12-18 months in advance, with the current crown agreeing to the
> one two or three reigns out ? It was mentioned early on that one of
> the perks of being crown was to select the location, and that that
> would be lost by a permanent site - and many of the statements about
> the problems focus on items that would be easily cured by merely
> setting the plans far enough out.  In several other uses of my time,
> there are large conclaves that meet annually - and rotate around the
> kingdoms relevant to that conclave (some massive entity called the
> United States... ).   In those organizations, the bids are sent in
> three years in advance to host the conclaves (occasionally even
> further in advance), and the site selections are made two years in
> advance (at least).    That provides time to get facilities suitable
> for hosting, and allows the advance time to plan the logistics.  I
> know right now where the conclaves for two of these will be held for
> the next three years, and the crews running them have known and have
> been planning for each. (And attendees can plan on whether to attend
> or not).

snip 

> ... Bruce