> > I don't think Ernalda necessarily 'defines' clan membership in the
> > same way that a Lawspeaker would, if clan membership per se were
> > even the precise issue. This is a function of the appropriate
> > initiation, rather than anything, more predicated upon where
> > her hearth is, than who she happens to be married to.
> Worshipping Ernalda is not a problem. Worshipping Ura, the protective
> valley spirit, could have been. Worshipping Varmand's mother, best
> midwife ever seen in Dragon Pass, would have been.
If Varmand's mother is a ancestral/bloodline type of thing, then I can see this requiring an adoption component of, or in addition to, the (minimum requirements of) the marriage form itself.
> > > An underhusband would be a member of his birth clan, and his wife's
> > > clan.
> >
> > Being a member of two clans simultaneously is a legal nonsense,
> > IMO. Equally for men as for women. For any given purpose, you're
> > one or the other, though changing this may be relatively easy,
>
> Exactly. And the easiest way to define which clan you are at any time
> is by determining where you made your home.
But not the most correct, IMO. I grant though you that being the mistress of a hearth will certainly have important and powerful consequences, though, for example.
> In effect, this means you
> are a member of the clan you marry into in a physical sense (thus
> marrying into in a legal sense as well).
Not unless you're adopted thereby, which is definitely not a requirement of marriage. Perhaps it might be 'common practice', in some locales... Or it may be more to do with what 'in effect' means. If you mean, whose primary responsibility is to ransom her, look to her well-being, benefits from her labour, etc, then obviously it's her clan of residence, though in reality those are more of a function of the particular stead, in any event, which is an unambiguous(ish) question. But if you asked her 'To what clan do you belong?', or if you asked the local Lawspeaker than, equally, you'd get the answer of the clan of birth, not her clan of marriage.
What specifically is a 'clan-level' function, that would be determined by that identification? One that does spring to mind is a weapon-taking, which indeed would be a residence-clan function, under any normal set of circumstances. I think a lot of magical stuff hangs crucially on self-identification, though.
> I can think of one sense in which you are in your original clan while
> residing with your new one, and that's if you're mistreated by your
> marriage clan. Though they probably have to come up with legal
> fictions like declaring that you weren't properly married if your
> spouse was letting his kin mistreat you.
No such fictions required, IMO. You're mistreating our kinswoman, and hence will be raided in forced/sued/abused roundly/whatever else springs to mind, as is our right, nay, duty.
> > if marriage in and of itself constitutes joining the
> > - -local partner's clan (I assume that'd be the approximate
> > formula?), does divorce constitute automatic removal, or 'outlawry'
> > from same?
> But of course! Though definitely with the quotes (or even British
> apostophes), as there is absolutely no obligation to kill you.
Outlawry never creates the obligation to kill someone -- just the opportunity...
I disagree. If someone has been in some sense adopted by the clan, it would a good deal more than her ex-husband's say-so to make this legally and magically null and void. Consider your own example of Ernaldan rites to see the obvious difficulty here...
Powered by hypermail