If Foltest is a widower and Lady/Duchess LaValette is a widow, why couldn't they have been married and avoided the whole mess?

... or was that the outrageous demand that he couldn't fulfill?

But if so, then again I wonder why not? Canon says Adda is dead, so he has no other children. This would be his second marriage. Can't he do what he wants after making the other nations and the church happy by the first marriage? (well, as happy as they were going to get given his previous blunders)

Does this all come down to how many baronies there are and who controls/influences what?

And while I'm at it, what exactly happened to Boussy?

Lol, you're putting too much thought into it. They try to make the story come off as intricate and whatnot but there are quite a few plot holes. There will be a lot of things that aren't explained enough or not explained at all (I'm assuming you haven't finished it).

Oh, yeah, well... I thought the story was ok. A little too political for my taste, but I wondered a few of the same things throughout my playthrough. But after a while I just gave up because it's just a game. If you want to really get into the story you should probably read the books.

I have, the ones in English, anyway. Still waiting for more. :)

Heh. I think the forum ate my post.

Was just mentioning that Adda is Foltest's sister.

Edit:
It seems I'm also confused, as Adda was named after her mother ...

I'm attaching a picture of the dialogue with Foltest (sans Geralt's responses) while you're climbing the siege tower in the prologue. I think that's really what explains why they didn't just get married.

Nicely done!
Yes, I remember this conversation.
So, the barons wanted some sort of regency powers or compensation for letting him marry her and legitimize the children, which would have weakened his rule?

They definitely wanted something that he wasn't willing to give without compromising his rule, though how they intended to use the children to obtain those things is never really explained in-depth in the dialogue.

Personally, I drew the assumption that they convinced Mary Louisa La Valette during her argument with Foltest that he would take her children away from her and not allow her to see them anymore, leading her to trust them. Once they had a firm enough sway of her, I figured they had planned to ransom that trust, offering to repair their relationship in exchange for those privileges he was unwilling to give. Pretty sure they didn't expect a full-scale attack. That's just how I interpreted it, though :)

Just because you do not understand why something has happen it does not make it a plot hole :)
Sounds exactly what I imagined was taking place... +1
Considering that the Baroness was probably not willing to agree to some of Foltest's requests and vice versa.
And once the figthing starts it certainly aren't high ladies and lords that do the dying. So for them it often is rather easy to star yet another conflict.

This, I think. To my knowledge, situations like this weren't uncommon in the IRL middle ages. Monarchs had to keep their options open because marriage had political implications.

But I think part of the issue is that the politics is sort of in the background in this game - it's happening, but it's not necessarily relevant to Geralt & the hunt for the kingslayer. Temeria's important to Roche, but it's not necessarily very important to Geralt or to the main story.

Well, true. Does anyone have an unmarried daughter/princess? (The problem with monarchs all getting the sons they want is there are no daughters to wed to carry on the lines, and sons die from attrition, especially in the 13th century)

I've been saying this under my breath for over 3 years, now... good grief, what a mess!