Exotic Governmental/Legal Systems

[Kax]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

The specific distinction, which is still technically present in maritime law, is that jetsam (which may but need not be floating) is still the property of its original owner, while flotsam (which must be floating) may be claimed by the finder. (There's obviously a third category, material lost overboard that is not floating. "Lagan" refers to this when there's a buoy attached to it, which serves as a claim. Otherwise it counts as derelict, and without hope of recovery, because the law predates diving.)

(I suspect that somewhere in the back of this is an incentive to let captains cut cargo loose when a ship is in danger of foundering.)

IIRC it's to deal with smugglers throwing their illicit cargo overboard and claiming that they 'don't own it now'.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

The practice of marrying off noble daughters to other kingdoms or noble houses was a limited form of this.

I don't remember any active version of this. Even being bondbroker for prisoners of war would be useful.

[cptbutton]

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

The Portland Protective Association in SM Stirling's Emberverse has similar practice. Only the lord sworn to the Crown can commit treason. That lord's retainers and vassals, who are sworn to THE LORD, aren't as long as they are dutifully obeying their lord.

I think this is one reason that in the Third Imperium of Traveller nobility is created by, and sword directly to, the Emperor himself. Despite intervening levels of nobility between a baron and the Emperor the baron is ultimately sworn to the Emperor and not the count and duke in between.

At various places Barrayans who are not armsmen or getting married swear "as a vassal secundus to Ezra/Gregor Vobarra" which I assumes means that this oath is subject to the Emperor's override, unlike the others.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

I don't remember any active version of this. Even being bondbroker for prisoners of war would be useful.

I don't think you're going to see any more active form than this, and I suspect it was intended to be a lot more active than past statements have implied.



The problem is that you want most of your population to be married, and if your ambassador is married to someone loyal to you, the "Women are immune" benefit goes away. So you have to marry them to someone on the other side, and if you do that, it may as well be as high up the chain as you can get. Foreign marriages were absolutely about diplomacy.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I don't think you're going to see any more active form than this, and I suspect it was intended to be a lot more active than past statements have implied.



The problem is that you want most of your population to be married, and if your ambassador is married to someone loyal to you, the "Women are immune" benefit goes away. So you have to marry them to someone on the other side, and if you do that, it may as well be as high up the chain as you can get. Foreign marriages were absolutely about diplomacy.

Yes but they were usually about tying the two geneologies together in the hopes that they would regard each other as cousins. And about obtaining property claims. The woman who married exogamously was not herself expected to be a pathway of negotiation between the blood family and the in-law family. Or at least it is not talked ablout much in history.

"Immunity of women" is a real political consideration, for in tribal conflict that gives them the ability to cross no mans land. The benefit of the immunity of women in exogamous matches is not that she won't be attacked: all diplomats are immune in that sense. It is that she will also not be expected to fight for her family. That is in an exogamous match, if there is a feud a matrilocal male really does have a conflict of interest. A patrilocal female is on the contrary potentially serving mutual interest. It is making a bug into a feature essentially.

The point I was making was that endogamy was a way to keep down the risk of conflicting loyalty. Exogamy could be used to harness it but seems mysteriously to have been neglected. Whareas the more abstract usages, of gaining theoretical blood ties and property claims were eagerly sought but may have been less useful then they seemed.

[jason taylor]

Here is one. The King is REQUIRED to marry polygamously. Of these one third must be noble, one third influential commoners. The rest are some mixture of diplomatic marriages abroad and his own private preference.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Here is one. The King is REQUIRED to marry polygamously. Of these one third must be noble, one third influential commoners. The rest are some mixture of diplomatic marriages abroad and his own private preference.

That won't cause drama at ALL.



Is he required to marry in sets of three? Or is it just kind of an order "Your next wife must either be a aristocrat or rich commoner".



Who gets to inherit?


I'd personally drop the "and his own private preference". Those are called mistresses, and they're not wives. Don't short out one of the categories. The king, or course, can try to fit them into a category and marry them. The most notable affairs fit into those categories anyways.



Who inherits?

[tanksoldier]

. Exogamy could be used to harness it but seems mysteriously to have been neglected.

I suspect it has been neglected by history, not in practice.

Done correctly it puts a potentially very influential voice in a king’s ear.

...and among lesser houses it still gives them a back channel of communication even if the houses are feuding openly.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by ericthered

That won't cause drama at ALL.






I'd personally drop the "and his own private preference". Those are called mistresses, and they're not wives. Don't short out one of the categories. The king, or course, can try to fit them into a category and marry them. The most notable affairs fit into those categories anyways.

That's in Europe. European nobility were not officially polygamous. They were just hypocritical.

If there are several wives there is no reason to make a legal distinction between the personal and political. It was done anyway which is why we have concubinage. Be that as it may, this system allows the King to marry for preference and make no distinction with the others. As soon as he has reasonably accounted for the other duties.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by ericthered

That won't cause drama at ALL.



Is he required to marry in sets of three? Or is it just kind of an order "Your next wife must either be a aristocrat or rich commoner".



Who gets to inherit?

Actually that is an interesting idea. And of course the Matchmaker of the Palace will have a lot of power.

Inheritance is an interesting problem. On the other hand it can be a feature. Perhaps Parliament can elect out of all those potential heirs making it more likely to get a competent ruler then primogeniture. The main problem is giving the spares enough of a stake to avoid rebellion. Historically expansionism was one way to find stakes for ambitious nobles and princes but that assumes military superiority. On the other hand if it is not forbidden to be in trade, a prince can be an industrialist or whatever.