xStephanx
I have a question!
In Raymond Buckland's book 'The Tree: Anlgo-Saxon Witchcraft' (I have an original copy before the reprint, go me), he claims to have changed dieties from the Lord and Lady as such to Anglo-Saxon deities (namely Woden and Freo, or Freya in the Norse).
Obviously by the FAQ's definition this makes the tradition founded in this book (Seax-Wica) invalid as Wicca. However, here's a hypothetical question - if Gerald Gardener had declared this tradition to be Wicca, would that then make it Wicca, or is Gardener's say-so not enough? (I believe Buckland did meet Gardener, and was initiated into his tradition, however I can only cite circumstancial evidence of times Buckland made this claim).
The concept of the Lord and Lady being the very same named deities across the BTW traditions as a marker of their authenticity was predominantly seeded by Buckland to begin with. Hence why the issue of the named Gods of the Wicca concept is more pronounced in the USA than it is in europe. He brought Wicca to the US and one of the first things that stood out when he proclaimed his new tradition was that of the names he gave to the God and Godess. It is also worth noting that Buckland learned from Gardner via correspondance and they met only once which was when he was initiated (by Monique Wilson) and was one of Gardners last initiates and as such the knowledge that was passed to him was much more developed in the tried and tested sort of way than many of the earlier downlines.
Some covens do keep to exactly ver-batum the names given in their BOS however this is less and less the case depending on the individual lineage of the coven and is less likley in late line Alexandrians than in Gardnarians. It is more likley you will find the lady of the moon and the horned one as archetypal concepts. Most groups will work with other Deities on an individual, group, temple or seasonal basis.
Therefore, this is not
THE reason why Seax is not considered to be wiccan.
It is stated by Buckland himself and many of his followers that the Seax-Wica tradition is something of a mish-mash of reconstructed practices of saxon origin or decent. Therefore the core practices of Wicca are not present. For starters it is not an oathbound tradition, there is no requirement to pass the tradition on to new members, covens are run by democratically elected HP and HPS, it is not an initiatory system of 3 degrees etc etc. These are more the reason that Seax is not considered a Wiccan tradition. Those who are staunch 'traditionalists' will say that if the BOS is ammended then the line is invalid. This is not a blanket belief, particuluarly within alexandrian lines (mostly because Sanders initiated so many people and that he continued to develop and evolve his magical and ritual practices untill the day he passed to the sumerlands) However it is considered that there be a core that is central to all practices and that combined with valid initiatory lineage is what makes Wiccan Wiccan and not wican.
I hope this clears things up for you xStephanx
