It can be as messy as it likes, but the problem with the thread is a basic lack of (and disagreement about) the definition of some fairly fundamental concepts. If it were a matter of "a bloodline [say] is the thing I point to when I say 'bloodline'" that'd be fair enough, but firstly, I don't think that's true, and secondly, even if it were, we'd still want to know what a _typical_ Heortling bloodline was like, the sort of range of variation that routinely occurs, etc. There will be local, and not-so-local customs and practices which determine what a bloodline looks like, what it acts like (if it acts at all per se), which isn't to say that said customs won't themselves often have exceptions and anomalies.
> Both Gaelic and Norse culture and by analogy Orlanthi are family
> based with bloodlines, clans and tribes being built from that
> base. Thus the first loyalty is to the immediate family - parents,
> spouse, brothers, sisters and children.
You're implying that a bloodline is both a extension and a formalisation of some more basic notion of a 'family', here. I'd question this assumption. To take the Gaels, for them the derbhfine in essence _is_ the family. It's not some abstract or higher-order construct. (Whether this is best translated as 'bloodline' is another matter. I don't myself think it's especially like the Heortling variety. If you asked a H. who his 'family' were, you'd likely get a list of the people who lived in the same hearth as he did.)
> So given that the family is the primary bond, it follows that if
> a couple come from different clans they technically become members
> of both clans on marriage.
Since this is a quite different conclusion than John H and I arrive at from reading KoS, I'd disagree what this 'follows' at all.
> However the clan they live with will
> tend to be the stronger link and more importantly the children
> will be of that clan and that bloodline.
The children will be of the clan that the form of marriage provides for. This, at least is clear and explicit. (And yes, it does generally correspond to the clan where the couple live.)
> Of course this leaves a lot of untidy ends which cause all sorts
> of problems over who is entitled to what when people fall out and
> who is responsible for who. Basically the clan chief gets the job
> of deciding and will generally fall back on precedent unless it
> would clearly cause injustice. The precedent may not even be the
> same in different clans but until someone makes a legal case, it
> doesn't matter.
It's not that simple, since another clan is involved (in the cases we're especially concerned with at present). Though I suppose the local chief or ring gets to make this sort of decision in the first instance, and then wait and see if the other party's clan kicks up a stink about it...
To put it (I hope) concisely: we know that the Orlanthi organise themselves into hearths, and steads, We know that they have bloodlines, and clans. How do these relate to each other? Are there certain invariable patterns? What the the common ones?
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail