Joining A Clan?

[Tommy Hunt]

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.

Does this include variant spellings of the clan name? Hunt, variant of Hunter for instance.

[ThistleDown]

Does this include variant spellings of the clan name? Hunt, variant of Hunter for instance.

Yes, it may, if "Hunt" was/is a diminutive of "Hunter". The issue for you is not your name, but your place of origin. The name is occupational and there is no reason to believe that all of the name Hunter today have a common ancestor of that name. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that all of the name Smith are descended from one smith, or of the name Fletcher are from one arrow-maker. Or, to use patronimics, all of the name Robert-son, or John-son, or David-son are descended from specific Roberts, Johns or Davids.

If, however, you are able to trace your ancestry to a particular pre-industrialisation place in Scotland, you will be able to then attach yourself to the clan that dominated that place. The first important thing to realise is that in so doing you may end up belonging to a "clan" other than that recognised today as "Hunter".

The second important thing to know is that there is a family in Orkney with a name similar but not the same as Hunter, with no possible blood links to the dominant name. Today they consider themselves "Hunters" within the "clan" whose chief is (I think) Hunterston. So. If your Hunt ancestor originated in Scotland and you do not know his place of origin, then go with "Hunter". For now it's as good you will get.

[ThistleDown]

For those of you who are legally-minded or immensely interested, please read Gilmore's last post very carefully. He is dead-on with his interpretation of the "rules" as set out by the Standing Council and Lord Lyon.

Before, however, anyone thinks that he can gather together a bunch of clansmen, get them to register arms, set themselves up as a derbhfine, "elect" one of themselves to be the Commander, make application to Lord Lyon, wait the ten years, and then (the same or a new derbhfine) reapply for the same Commander to be declared the chief, beware!

If the clan was not formerly recognised as a clan, then the new Commander must be able to prove his descendancy from the last head of the family now asking to be recognised as a clan. It is not up to the derbhfine to make judgement of what constitutes a clan. The Lyon Court will do that.

If the clan was formerly recognised as a clan and the chiefly line has simply died out in direct descendancy, then the new Commander must be able to prove his descent from the main line.

I am only making this distinction so that those who think they might be able to form a "clan" from the MacSporrans who were formerly a part of the Clan Donald, will not go off on a raid to do so. The wrinkle in the law is there to catch you. Descendancy still rules.

An example, using a clan that was formerly recognised. I've used the Macgillivrays elsewhere, so I might as well use them again. They are without a chief. The late George Macgillivray, a friend, was descended from the Dunmaglas Macgillivrays but was unable to prove that he was the senior descendant. The derbhfine supported him and he was awarded a ten-year Commandership, during which time the derbhfine was obligated to continue its search. George died a few years ago -- with issue -- and Lord Lyon declared the Commandership to be ended and the search to be ongoing. The process begins again.