Joining A Clan?

[ThistleDown]

It is the chief of a clan who determines who is a member of it by not accepting allegiance from those he decides are not, or should not, be in his clan. It is not an individual who accepts a chief, but a chief who accepts the individual.

What you said originally was "If you aren't a member of that family, there is no way to join that clan." That is not correct. In earlier days clans were made up of the main family, certainly, but all others who resided within the clan territory were "of" the clan whether of the main family, or not. So we all know about the Macdonalds of Glencoe; members of that territorial clan included folk with names like Rankin and Henderson as well as Macdonald.

Today all of the main name are members of the clan -- whether the chief likes it or not! Others, not of the name but descended from those who resided in the territory in former years, are also members of the clan. That is fact today.

The "approval by the chief" aspect only comes to play today when someone without any blood connection to the territory seeks clan membership. Not clan association membership, clan membership. Sounds strange in these times, but I do know of one occasion when that happened, so I suppose there are others, as well. In this one, shortly after the Second War, a farmer tenant on a Highland estate asked the laird/chief for permission to change his name to that of the chief, thereby becoming a clan member by both name and residency. This is an example of the chief acknowledging clan membership outwith the family.

My point was that not all of a "name" may actually be of the clan bearing that name today. I used as an example the Macgillivrays of Mull who were of the Macleans. Today, if you know you are descended from the Mull lot, then you are a member of clan Maclean. If you don't know then you gravitate to the Macgillivrays of Strathdearn because they are the Macgillivrays of all the popular clan books. In this way you are acknowledging the Macgillivray chief (whomever he may be) as your chief, even though you are not descended from his family or from any other family in his territory.

[Deil the Yin]

Somebody could be a chief either through descent or by election. Clan associations or societies have elections, of course. What if one person is descended from the last know hereditary chief and a different person is head of the clan association? Sounds like a potential train wreck.

In the case of Ireland, the Irish Records Office at one time kept track of the heirs of the last known elected chiefs of certain Irish clans. Think carefully just how messed up that is (an heir of someone who was elected??). What if you start having elections again when you form a society and call that person the chief? AFAIK the heirs of those recorded by the IRO definitely seem to have the title of nobility, e.g. The O'Callaghan (who lives in Spain), albeit the Irish constitution says that Ireland doesn't recognise titles. BTW, never put 'The' in front of my user name, for obvious reasons. At one time there was also an eponymous clan society based in Ireland, although it seems to have collapsed, but what would you call their elected leader? Chief? Can't have two for the same clan, or can you?

In contrast, most of the Scottish clan societies do seem to elect someone as chief. Is that person the chief of the clan? Maybe sometimes they are, and perhaps other times they are just chief of the society/association. Does anyone have a better understanding of how that works? I am struggling to understand it.

I think it is safe to say that you are assuming too much with regard to the Clan Societies. Just because a Society calls their elected head officer "Chief" does not mean he/she has any authority outside the bounds of that clan society unless that person is also the hereditary chief. I believe the only time that there would be an election for the hereditary clan chief is if the last chief died without heirs and more than one person had a claim via their family line to that chiefship. It is a rare occasion if I'm not mistaken, though there are some traditional clans who do not have a living hereditary chief...

I know that the American Clan Gregor Society refers to their top officer as "Chief," but the Clan Gregor Society that is based out of Scotland (and a separate society) has a President. The hereditary chief Sir Malcolm MacGregor is our Society Patron, and we look to him for guidance on many things that we do and he in turn maintains very close ties with us. But the head of a clan society could never usurp the hereditary clan chief simply based on his/her election as head officer of that society. Indeed there has been some tension between Sir Malcolm's family and the fact that the ACGS refers to their head as "chief." And within the CGS Scotland no chapter is allowed to refer to any officer as "chief."

So there is no train wreck, just a lot of confusion. My guess is that any clan society who refers to their head officer as Chief are NOT located in Scotland and probably have virtually no contact with any hereditary members of the Clan of which they are a Society. So I hope that didn't muddy the waters too much more...

[gilmore]

Somebody could be a chief either through descent or by election. Clan associations or societies have elections, of course. What if one person is descended from the last know hereditary chief and a different person is head of the clan association? Sounds like a potential train wreck.

In the case of Ireland, the Irish Records Office at one time kept track of the heirs of the last known elected chiefs of certain Irish clans. ....

No train wreck at all. As has been pointed out numerous times on here and elsewhere, a clan and a clan association are two very different things. In fact for almsot every clan there is also a clan association.

Clans go back hundreds of years. The chiefship is hereditary.

A clan association, on the other hand, is a group of people, usually with the same surname, who got together to form a group. They elect officers. I think none are older than the early 19th century. I have never heard of a clan association president and a clan chief being the same person.

As to the Irish, you are probably thinking of the recognition of clan chiefs that was formerly done by the Chief Herald of Ireland, a scandalous situation of which the less said the better. If you are really interested in digging up the dirt, I suggest a websearch.

[gilmore]

What you said originally was "If you aren't a member of that family, there is no way to join that clan." That is not correct. ....

I never said that, other than in quoting some one else. Please go back and read the last several pages of this thread.

[ThistleDown]

Somebody could be a chief either through descent or by election. Clan associations or societies have elections, of course. What if one person is descended from the last know hereditary chief and a different person is head of the clan association? Sounds like a potential train wreck.

...most of the Scottish clan societies do seem to elect someone as chief. Is that person the chief of the clan? Maybe sometimes they are, and perhaps other times they are just chief of the society/association. Does anyone have a better understanding of how that works? I am struggling to understand it.

Clans are hereditary. Period. The clan chief is descended in a blood line from former clan chiefs. Clan associations are bodies of folk gathered together for a myriad reasons usually connected to clan membership. They elect a president who, most often, is not a clan chief. Calling him a "chief" instead of "president" doesn't make him a clan chief. The clan and associations function separately.

Some clans have had their chiefly line die out on them over the years. The position lies dormant; the clan cannot "elect" a chief. The right to name a chief is that of the Lord Lyon exclusively, and his naming is based on exhaustive proof of descendancy.

I'll give you one that has the potential to be really confusing and is not. The Clan Chattan is a confederation of independant clans dating back to the 12C (and perhaps before). There are other confederations in the Highlands, but that Clan Chattan is unique in that the 17 constituent clans did not assume a common name. There are no members of the Clan Chattan with the name Chattan. The Clan Chattan chief is Mackintosh of Torcastle. He is descended from a marriage of the old Clanchattan heiress with the 6th chief of Mackintosh in the late 13C

The Clan Chattan Association (I refer to the one in Scotland, although there are others around the world), has a President (Mackintosh of Mackintosh), seven Vice Presidents: Farquharson of Invercauld, Macpherson of Cluny, Shaw of Tordarroch, McBain of McBain, Davidson of Davidston, MacThomas of Finegand and Maclean of Dochgarroch. All of these positions are hereditary because all are hereditary chiefs of their own clans.

Note that Mackintosh of Torcastle is chief of Clan Chattan and Mackintosh of Mackintosh is chief of Mackintosh.

CCA has elected officers, as well, headed by an elected Chairman, Maclean of Dochgarroch.

[ThistleDown]

I never said that, other than in quoting some one else. Please go back and read the last several pages of this thread.

Post 83 in this thread. You said:

"I don't know that there is necessarily an inconsistency between that and " 'Clan' means family. If you are a part of that family, then you are already a member of that clan. If you aren't a member of that family, there is no way to join that clan."

[Alexaye]

Well said Thistledown.

[Scotus]

The right to name a chief is that of the Lord Lyon exclusively, and his naming is based on exhaustive proof of descendancy.

Very well said, ThistleDown. Clear and to the point.

[gilmore]

Post 83 in this thread. You said:

"I don't know that there is necessarily an inconsistency between that and " 'Clan' means family. If you are a part of that family, then you are already a member of that clan. If you aren't a member of that family, there is no way to join that clan."

Right. There are quotation marks around it. That means it's a quote that some one else said originally.

Two views were stated by two different posters. The point I made was that the two views are not necessarily inconsistent. I did not espouse either view myself.

[gilmore]

Clans are hereditary. Period. The clan chief is descended in a blood line from former clan chiefs. Clan associations are bodies of folk gathered together for a myriad reasons usually connected to clan membership. They elect a president who, most often, is not a clan chief. Calling him a "chief" instead of "president" doesn't make him a clan chief. The clan and associations function separately.

Some clans have had their chiefly line die out on them over the years. The position lies dormant; the clan cannot "elect" a chief. The right to name a chief is that of the Lord Lyon exclusively, and his naming is based on exhaustive proof of descendancy.

...

On ocassion a derbhfine of clan members who are armigers will convene and select some one to be their chief whom they propose to Lord Lyon, in a series of procedures set out in the last four paragraphs below from the website of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs:

"A large number of clans who had had chiefs in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries went into decline after 1745. In many cases it has been possible for genealogical research to establish the identity of the last chiefs descendants and thus to find the person with the closest blood link back to the last chief. In other cases this research is either still being conducted or is now being embarked upon.

Once genealogical evidence has been found to identify the person most directly descended from the last chief, application may be made to the Lord Lyon for confirmation that the chiefly Coat of Arms, enjoyed by the last chief, should be confirmed to such a person.

The Lord Lyon reviews the genealogical evidence and must be satisfied that the applicant's descent is correctly proved. If the Lord Lyon is satisfied he recognises the applicant as chief of the clan and confirms him in the chiefly Arms.

All those who were chiefs prior to 1745 had Arms, although they have not all been recorded in the Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland which was only started in 1672. The Scottish clan and heraldic systems have always been closely interlinked. Thus a clan which existed in the past will find its chief in the person entitled, under heraldic law, to bear the historic Arms enjoyed by the last known chief.

But the increasing interest in Scottish ancestry has led many families, who had not in the past been regarded as clans in their own right, to look for a leader who could rally the family as a group. While content historically to owe their allegiance as a sept or cadet to a particular clan, such families may now wish to have a distinct identity of their own.

Where such a family is able to prove that it has existed historically as an independent family group, then the Lord Lyon may be prepared to recognise them as a distinct clan or name.

If a person is able to prove descent from an individual who was historically accepted as the head of the main family within this group, then such a descendant might be confirmed in the Arms and recognised by the Lord Lyon as Representer of the name concerned.

The situation may, however, be that a family group has no clear historical evidence of its existence as a group in the distant past. In such a case it may be possible for a group to move towards being treated as a clan or name by various stages.

Since the clan and heraldic systems are so closely linked, the first stage would be for there to be a number of individuals using the same surname to record their own Arms. Once there was a significant number of armigers within the group it would be possible for a derbhfine of the group to convene and make a proposal to the Lord Lyon for the appointment of one of the group as Commander. Regulations have been laid down as to the procedure to be followed in the conduct of such a derbhfine.

If the Lord Lyon is so minded a Commander will be appointed. Once that has happened a 10 year period must then elapse before any question of a chief can be considered.

After the 10 year period a further derbhfine could, if the group desire, be held. This derbhfine could then make a proposal to the Lord Lyon for the appointment of a chief. Again regulations exist for the way in which such a derbhfine should proceed."


http://www.clanchiefs.org/clans_search.html