> > Or are you using household identically with (the people of a) stead?
>
> Yes, since that is an economic unit.
Ah. Confusing terminology abounds... You and the Tales crowd seem to have equal and opposite usages. In that case yes, I agree, obviously that's a real level of organisation, whatever its legal status. But unlike a bloodline, a stead will generally have a fairly readily identifiable head, so it's much less problematic to assign property, rights, etc, to same, since at least tacitly, the two are the same.
> So if a legal decision is made against a bloodline, other members of
> that bloodline's stead aren't legally liable.
But it's the idea of a bloodline as a 'corporate person' that I'm disputing. Nor do I see why a bloodline will have a 'head', since it's merely, IMO, a descent group. Off the top of my head you seem to have a model in mind more like a derbhfine, but I'm far from clear just how like.
Let's concretise this somewhat. I have a legal judgement made against me. (Let's finesse for now the issue of whether formally it's against me personally, my bloodline, or my clan -- I'm getting the blame for it, practically speaking.) If I'm destitute, stubborn, deceased, or otherwise unwilling or unable to stump up myself, who precisely has to pay on my behalf? If your answer is something along the lines of 'my bloodline', please attach a description of how bloodline membership is determined, how property is held within a bloodline, sufficient to see where the stuff _actually_ comes from.
Cheers,
Alex.
End of The Glorantha Digest V7 #756
Powered by hypermail