I think you are placing undue weight on legal texts here. While the Gaels had a legal definition of family (the derbhfine), that includes some pretty distant relatives and I do not think that this equates to the immediate family. IMO the derbhfine is closer to the extended family but not necessarily synonymous with what ordinary people regarded as the extended family. Certainly rural Irish culture still has the attitude of immediate family first, then extended family with anything else after that. And a person may become part of the *immediate* family by marriage if they are accepted. If not there can be some very nasty strains in family relationships.
>> 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.
Alternatively they legally remain members of separate clans which would make clan loyalties very weak where inter-clan marriages were common, or one partner transfers to the other clan on marriage which implies a cutting off of relations with the family as well. It is possible that Heortling culture emphasises clan relationships above family but that is more reminicent of 19th Century european nationalism than any pre-renaissance culture.
>> 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...
Yes, if the clans are part of the same tribe it would escalate to the tribal chief/ring. If not there is a very good chance of it developing into an inter-clan feud.
>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?
One of the trickiest issues is how a bloodline can be defined in a society that is neither matriarchial or patriarchal. All the real world examples we have are either one or the other, mostly patriarchal, so a person is only of one bloodline. If the bloodline is just taken back to grandparents that's four, assuming marriage within bloodlines is not allowed.
Powered by hypermail