A rule can be intended to prevent more than one thing, for example, a realm which has largely lost a war moving its remaining territories as much as possible into a third realm to prevent there enemy gaining there lands, realms merging into super powers certainly has its issues in the game however, setting precedent that upon defeat realms can dive for cover in a neutral realm allowing players to keep titles and such forth sets a terrible precedent which damages the game immensely. Claiming the "spirit" of a rule like this is bull!@#$ and limits the restrictions that a very good intelligent rule places on the game
You are correct on the technical aspects of this statement, but you are missing what I believe to be the intent of the rule. It is intended to prevent realms from peacefully agreeing to band together to form superpowers, as this stifles conflict. If two realms have been at war and one of them is eventually beaten down and surrenders, it is acceptable for that realm to agree to terms that involve its regions being transferred away, within the limits of game mechanics. It's the two realms at peace merging together that we're trying to prevent. You can point out that Tara and Coria are at peace, but the important element in this case is that Coria has been effectively destroyed; with no capital, the realm is doomed. Its nobles cannot recruit or cash bonds, and its regions are slowly going rogue with no capital support. Their decision as a defeated realm to join Tara is acceptable within the spirit of the realm merger rule, or at least that is my interpretation.
Seeing as I'm rather close to this case (being a noble of Silnaria) I will recuse myself from voting on the outcome.
