Every child needs to be a ward of a governor and governess and a subject of their governor, and every woman needs to be a subject of a king. A child's initial status is as ward of their parents and subject of their father. The following events change that status.
* If a child's governess dies, the governor should appoint a new one.
Optimally the governess should be a subject of the governor. If this is not possible (for instance, to take the most obvious case, if the governor has no womenfolk) he may appoint some other woman, by agreement with her king, though this should generally involve her transfer to the governor's family.
* A child's governor may transfer them to another (consenting) man for adoption.
A condition may be the governor's decease, whether the will is stated or assumed, and whether or not the successor inherits anything else.
A condition may be an asset-transfer. That is, a man may sell a ward or pay to "get them off his hands". There is nothing demeaning in this; if the decision whether to give or take for adoption is finely balanced, an accompanying transfer of assets may tip that balance, and this kind of change is no less suitable for economic adjustment than any other.
The successor and his wife (if any) become edifiers, and the ward should follow them and integrate into their family. The predecessor should take into account that he cancels the governess's role as well as his own; such a drastic step is only wise in exceptional cases.
If she is not his wife then the child's edifiers will not be a married pair, which is suboptinal. It is better than beaking the bond with the governess, which would be the alternative, but her king should seek her remarriage so that her new husband can take over as governor and optimise the child's status.
* A child who becomes an adult ceases being a ward.
(Some, mentally disabled, never become adults. This is about those who do.)
A boy becomes independent, ceases being a subject, for he needs no king. (His former governor's rule had no androcratic element.)
A girl remains a subject of her king, her former governor, for she needs a male king. (Her former governor's rule was androcratic as well as edificatory.)
A healthy human personality always has secondary characteristics of the opposite gender, and a governess is in some respects masculine in relation to children. This disappears when they reach maturity, and in relation to a son is counterbalanced and overtaken by his growing primary masculinity before than.
* A man may transfer a woman subject to another (consenting) man.
NOTE. My contention that marriage is properly the bride's king's choice, not her own, will appal most readers, including some who believe in male headship. But allowing a woman to choose her own king destroys androcracy. And female subjection is so closely bound up with marriage that to separate the two would be unsustainable.
The transfer may be for marriage, in which case the subject is called a bride and her new king a groom. There are two forms of this.
(1) If marriage is a condition of the transfer, there is a transfer into marriage. The pair should form a marriage, he in fidelity to his promise and she in obedience to her old king, and if no marriage arises in the specified period, no transfer has occurred.
(2) If marriage is only a stipulation, the transfer occurs immediately and stands, but the pair should then form a marriage, he in fidelity to his promise and she in obedience to her new king.
If the transfer is not marriage-linked, the woman's new king may at any time make her his bride, and she should obediently form a marriage with him, which involves no further change of status.
Conversely, a transfer could exclude subsequent marriage, though I see no circumstances in which this would be wise, for it seems to imply a lack of confidence in the new king's judgment that is hardly compatible with transferring the woman to him in the first place.
A transfer may be a linked to an asset-transfer. (See on transfer for adoption above. Similar comments apply here.) If the transfer is for marriage, this is called a brideprice (paid by the groom) or dowry (paid to the groom).
A transfer may be conditional on the old king's decease, whether the will is stated or assumed, and whether or not the new king inherits anything else. A woman-transfer based on an assumed will is generally not marriage-linked.
A man should not transfer his own wife in his lifetime, for it would be improper for her to be subject to another man. (This, with the above exclusion of divorce, implies that she should be his subject "as long as they both shall live".)
Incest. It is probably never wise for a pair to be married if they were in the same family when one of them was a child. The prime function of incest prohibitions is to ensure the healthy development of social interactions. As explained by Talcott Parsons in Family, Socialization and Interaction Process (1956) (2.8), eroticality is so closely connected with the surviving structures of infantile dependency that venery with "any of the figures of the original drama" (including all former childhood kings) would push the whole personality towards reversion. The risk of inbreeding is only a secondary factor; that it is not in itself a sufficient ground for the prohibition is clear from the fact that it is mild compared with the risk inherent in plenty of permitted cases.
* If a woman's or child's king is untraceable, or if is established that he has abdicated, she is a stray, and the first man to claim her becomes her king.
In this case the position is as if she had been transferred to him. He may (but need not) take her as bride, immediately or later.
What counts as adequate efforts to trace, or to establish abdication, is an important detail. But I see no need to pursue such questions any further here.
(In the modern Western world most women are abdication-strays.)
* If an adult lapses into childhood, they become subject again to their most recent guardian.
Such a lapse is probably always a result of some kind of acquired disability (not to be confused with "mental illness").
If the most recent guardian is deceased or unknown, the lapsee is a stray.
Back to Every man is king of his family.