Is clan affiliation primarily along paternal lines?

[unixken]

I was taking stock of the kilts and tartans I currently own, along with one that is presently on order, and those that I plan to purchase as funds permit. I began wondering how history and tradition prioritize or define an "order of precedence" (if any) when affiliations with multiple tartans exist.

On my father's side of the family, I have the following affiliations:

Grandfather
`--- Great Grandfather = Buchanan
`--- Great Grandmother = Aberdeen District

Grandmother
`--- Great Grandfather = Ellis (of Wales)
`--- Great Grandmother = Lyons

I understand that any "Ellis of Wales" tartans are fashion industry creations with no historical significance. But among the other tartans, I am curious. Do history and tradition dictate that any one affiliation will normally displace any others? Is there some kind of "affiliation falls along paternal lines" rule? Or is it simply a matter of choice as to where tradition allows allegiances and ties to be prioritized?

I understand the contemporary and prevailing "wear whatever you want" opinions on here. But from a historical context, I'd be interested to hear what say The Rabble. Another opportunity for me to learn something about my heritage.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Ken,

This is a good question, and one that seems to perplex a fair number of people who have been raised outside of Scotland.

Basically a clan tartan is tied to having a clan or clan-sept surname. That being the case, if one's father's surname is not associated with a clan, then one adopts the tartan of the clan to which they are most closely related (i.e. that of their Mother or some other relative from whom they are descended) which, based on the information you've supplied, would seem to be Buchanan.

Generally it is assumed that the wife "enters" her husbands clan upon marriage. However if the husband has no clan, then he is accepted as a member of the wife's clan, as are any children of that marriage. Here's an example:

Mr Zoot marries Miss McTavish. He is, by marriage a McTavish, as are all of the children of the Zoot-McTavish union, and their grand children, etc. Now suppose their grand daughter, Miss Fiona Zoot, marries Mr. Pepe Gomez. Their son, Angus Gomez, would still be a McTavish through his Mother, as would Angus's grand daughter, Keesha Wu (daughter of Fleur Gomez and her husband, Orlando Wu). But if Keesha Wu married Iain Campbell, their children would be Campbells, with no traditional claim to the McTavish tartan.

I hope that explains how the "order of precedence" works...

Regards,
Scott
MoR

[Meggers]

Mr Zoot marries Miss McTavish. He is, by marriage a McTavish, as are all of the children of the Zoot-McTavish union, and their grand children, etc. Now suppose their grand daughter, Miss Fiona Zoot, marries Mr. Pepe Gomez. Their son, Angus Gomez, would still be a McTavish through his Mother, as would Angus's grand daughter, Keesha Wu (daughter of Fleur Gomez and her husband, Orlando Wu). But if Keesha Wu married Iain Campbell, their children would be Campbells, with no traditional claim to the McTavish tartan.

lol. That took a lot of thinking.

I actually didnt realize that clans were affiliated by surname. Is is possible to be born into a family with a Scottish surname but not belong to the broader clan? Or is it automatic?

[unixken]

Scott,

Thanks for the reply.

So if I understand correctly, using my own affiliations as diagrammed in my opening post as an example, the principle affiliation falls primarily along paternal lines where possible. Thus, if my great grandfather (the Buchanan) were not such, his marriage to an Aberdeen allegiance would bring him and his descendents under that fold, regardless (at this point) of what was present in the Ellis & Lyons side of the family (my father's maternal predecessors).

If neither the Buchanan nor Aberdeen allegiances were present (in my fathers paternal ancestry), in the absence of a legitimate tartan allegiance in the Ellis branch, the Lyons affiliation would be claimed/passed down.

Is that correct?

[EagleJCS]

Meggers, it is certainly possible to have a Scottish surname without automatically being a member of the clan (I'm proof). I have not yet been able to trace my paternal line (Scott) back far enough to determine where the family came from prior to appearing in the tax records of early Kentucky (1792/93). I have been told by members of the Clan Scott Society (Clan Scott is a Borders clan or family) that there are three distinct lineages of Scott's from the British Isles, only one of which is Scottish (the other two being English and Irish).

That said, I and my sister have still been welcomed into the Clan Scott Society (though I guess anyone willing to pay dues would also be equally welcome ). I have also been told that being Scott's by birth, we would also likely be welcomed by the Chief into the 'Clan proper' if we should choose to ask him (though there's really not a formal 'clan' outside the Society anymore) even though we don't have the lineage proving we're actually Scottish Scott's.

[unixken]

lol. That took a lot of thinking.

I actually didnt realize that clans were affiliated by surname. Is is possible to be born into a family with a Scottish surname but not belong to the broader clan? Or is it automatic?

Meghan - I agree. My brain cells started smoldering with Angus Gomez, while Keesha Wu caused actual combustion. LOL ;)

Clans are generally tied to surnames, but not every surname independently has it's own clan or tartan. For example, my surname is Cormack, which is one of nearly a hundred "septs" of the Buchanan clan. A sept is a family that in the past had sworn allegiance to a particular clan. Other surnames (for example, my great grandmother's surname of Sangster), are independent of any clans, but have a geographic affiliation (Aberdeen District).

And as Eagle has pointed out, it is entirely possible that a given surname may be part of more than one clan (depending upon where the family branch came from), or no clan at all. To the former, for example, the Morrisons from Perthsire are a sept of the Clan Buchanan. All other Morrisons are of the Clan Morrison.

[ThistleDown]

Ken,

This is a good question, and one that seems to perplex a fair number of people who have been raised outside of Scotland.

Basically a clan tartan is tied to having a clan or clan-sept surname. That being the case, if one's father's surname is not associated with a clan, then one adopts the tartan of the clan to which they are most closely related (i.e. that of their Mother or some other relative from whom they are descended) which, based on the information you've supplied, would seem to be Buchanan.

Generally it is assumed that the wife "enters" her husbands clan upon marriage. However if the husband has no clan, then he is accepted as a member of the wife's clan, as are any children of that marriage. Here's an example:

Mr Zoot marries Miss McTavish. He is, by marriage a McTavish, as are all of the children of the Zoot-McTavish union, and their grand children, etc. Now suppose their grand daughter, Miss Fiona Zoot, marries Mr. Pepe Gomez. Their son, Angus Gomez, would still be a McTavish through his Mother, as would Angus's grand daughter, Keesha Wu (daughter of Fleur Gomez and her husband, Orlando Wu). But if Keesha Wu married Iain Campbell, their children would be Campbells, with no traditional claim to the McTavish tartan.

I hope that explains how the "order of precedence" works...

Regards,
Scott
MoR

Yes, that's the way it is. Some may want it to be otherwise -- but it isn't.

[Grizzly]

Scott and Rex have laid out and concurred my understanding of the clan and sept affiliation.

In my case I do not have any connection to any Scottish surname on my paternal line. However my mothers maiden surname was Taylor which is relatively common over here in the UK and whilst she did come from the north of England I have no proof that at any time did this descend from Scottish Taylors. Notwithstanding this, Taylors around the world are recognised as a sept of the Cameron Clan and for my part that is more than good enough for me.

Perhaps in time and when funds permit I may design and have woven my own personal tartan and add another surname to the Tartan register.

Thank you for an interesting thread.

[David Thorpe]

...Mr Zoot marries Miss McTavish. He is, by marriage a McTavish, as are all of the children of the Zoot-McTavish union, and their grand children, etc...

And we would be happy to welcome them all!

Ken, I think a distinction needs to be made between clan affiliation and district identification. A district is definitely not a clan. I know of no district associations nor am I aware of a Standing Council of District Chiefs. It would therefore seem to me that there is much less restriction, taste and respect wise, about wearing a district tartan than there is associated with a clan tartan.

Another point... It is my understanding that the assignment of surnames as sept names of the clans were at times fairly arbitrary and not always based on actual oaths of fealty or the like. Further, the classic clan was historically a highland phenomenon, while lowland "clans" are a much more recent development.

Also, as someone else pointed out, a surname can have more than one origin, even within Scotland and even within the highlands. MacTavishes are primarily from Dunardry in West Argyle, but there were and are MacTavishes who affiliate(d) with Clan Fraser in Inverness-shire. To further complicate matters, Thom(p)son is the direct English translation of the Gaelic MacTavish. Many modern Thom(p)sons identify with Clan MacTavish, but there is another entirely different group who identify with Thom(p)sons from the border region. They are currently involved in the process of having their group recognized by the Lyon Court as a separate clan, but wear the MacTavish/Thom(p)son tartans of Dunardry origin.

Genealogical research to determine the origin of one's specific family can be very helpful in determining clan origins, but does not always provide definite answers.

BTW, I wear MacTavish (direct male line), Dunlop (paternal grandmother), Lindsay (maternal grandmother) and MacNaughten (wife's clan). My brother wears MacTavish and Watkins of Wales (maternal grandfather). I also cast an occasional lustful eye at County Monaghan (maternal grandfather's mother was a McQuaid from there), but have not yet pulled that trigger.

[davedove]

It most certainly is possible. It would be very easy to be born a McDonald and yet have no connection to the McDonald clan. McDonald really just means "son of Donald", so the first McDonald in the family, let's call him Angus McDonald, was really Angus son of Donald. Then surnames become common and all of Angus's kids now carry the surname of McDonald. Here's the kicker though, Donald could have been from any clan, not necessarily the McDonalds. So, you could have Angus McDonald of the Campbell clan, for example.