Clan adoption

[CDNSushi]

Reference the Standing Council of Chiefs: "Who Is A Member Of A Clan?
Every person who has the same surname as the chief is deemed to be a member of the clan. Equally a person who offers allegiance to the chief is recognised as a member of the clan unless the chief decides that he will not accept that person’s allegiance."

Hmm... So, bizarre example here, but for the sake of argument, if I were to change my legal last name to "MacDonald" in a court of law (in my corner of the world), does that make me a member of the clan?

Followup question: Has anyone even heard of someone offering allegiance to a clan chief in the past half-century? Like the concept of manrent, this seems like a concept of eras and centuries gone by.

I'm rather enjoying this thread -- I'm learning a lot! :-)

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Hmm... So, bizarre example here, but for the sake of argument, if I were to change my legal last name to "MacDonald" in a court of law (in my corner of the world), does that make me a member of the clan?

I am of the opinion than proving descent from some ancient ancestor is really far too restrictive-- if it has ever actually existed as an historical requirement of clan membership. I believe that legally changing your name to "M'Donald" would fullfill part of the requirement; the rest would come down to acknowledging the chief, wearing his badge, and following Scottish heraldic custom.

Followup question: Has anyone even heard of someone offering allegiance to a clan chief in the past half-century? Like the concept of manrent, this seems like a concept of eras and centuries gone by.

Oh Yes. It isn't an uncommon occurrence at all. I have been present when clansmen, in Scotland, have sworn fealty at the inauguration of their chief. Although this is beyond the ken of some, many Scots still take "clanship" very seriously. They may not flaunt it publicly, but like their religious faith, it is something deeply held.

[Chas]

Hmm... So, bizarre example here, but for the sake of argument, if I were to change my legal last name to "MacDonald" in a court of law (in my corner of the world), does that make me a member of the clan?

Conversely, what about the 'MacDonald' child who is orphaned and is then raised by the Oberhumpelstinkendorf family - does he stop being a 'MacDonald'?

There is one member of X Marks whose parents are both middle European. They were each orphaned and adopted in the US by families whose surnames were MacSomething. He knows all this but is a firm believer in his Celtic/Scottish/Highland roots and heritage. He is a member of both the Clan Societies (Scottish and US). Is he a member of a clan? He believes so - by his membership of the societies and by virtue of him 'being' a MacSomething. I for one agree with him.

Roots/heritage/tradition have to start somewhere.

Regards

Chas

[CDNSushi]

heritage/tradition have to start somewhere.

Well put, sir.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Conversely, what about the 'MacDonald' child who is orphaned and is then raised by the Oberhumpelstinkendorf family - does he stop being a 'MacDonald'?

There is one member of X Marks whose parents are both middle European. They were each orphaned and adopted in the US by families whose surnames were MacSomething. He knows all this but is a firm believer in his Celtic/Scottish/Highland roots and heritage. He is a member of both the Clan Societies (Scottish and US). Is he a member of a clan? He believes so - by his membership of the societies and by virtue of him 'being' a MacSomething. I for one agree with him.

Roots/heritage/tradition have to start somewhere.

Regards

Chas

It would be my opinion that if the gentleman referred to "follows" a chief, he's a member of the chief's clan.

While it is nice to be able to recite one's genealogy back to the year dot, and while membership in a clan is widely held to be the result of being able to claim a "blood tie" to the ancient chiefly line, the reality is that many of the clansmen of old were considered clansmen based as much on allegiance, and more often than not defined themselves as clansmen in those terms, as much as anything else.

[piperdbh]

This is a quote from my clan's (Lockhart) webiste.

In December 1996, the Chief called a meeting at Biggar in Lanarkshire to explore the interest in establishing a Lockhart Family Society.

It was decided unanimously by those present that a society should be formed which would be open to anyone regardless of name, who consider themselves to be a member of the famly, or who has a strong interest in the family, its origins and its history.

According to my chief and the original organizers of the family society, blood ties were not required for membership, and a "strong interest in the family" is a good enough reason to a part of the family society. There's no mention of allegiance to the chief.

This is from the American branch's side:

Annual Membership - is limited to those at least eighteen (18) years of age, who are direct lineal descendants of a Scot bearing the surname LOCKHART; or who can trace their English ancestry to Clan Lockhart or one of its Spellings. Spouses of such persons shall be recognized as the same type membership with all benefits. Annual members pay dues, can vote, and may hold office.

My last name is not Lockhart, but my grandmother's maiden name was. And, just as on the clan webpage, there's no requirement of allegiance.



Is this pretty much standard practice for other clans/socities, or just for ours, which was trying to attract members?

[Macman]

This is a quote from my clan's (Lockhart) webiste.



According to my chief and the original organizers of the family society, blood ties were not required for membership, and a "strong interest in the family" is a good enough reason to a part of the family society. There's no mention of allegiance to the chief.

This is from the American branch's side:

My last name is not Lockhart, but my grandmother's maiden name was. And, just as on the clan webpage, there's no requirement of allegiance.



Is this pretty much standard practice for other clans/socities, or just for ours, which was trying to attract members?

My take on it is that you don't need to be member of the Lockhart clan to be a member of the society, so allegiance doesn't enter into it. I believe that my clan's society in North America has even looser membership requirements. Still, you can be a member of the society but not a member of the clan.

[piperdbh]

My take on it is that you don't need to be member of the Lockhart clan to be a member of the society, so allegiance doesn't enter into it. I believe that my clan's society in North America has even looser membership requirements. Still, you can be a member of the society but not a member of the clan.

True enough. However, if I remember correctly, membership in the American clan society gets you automatic membership in the clan. Whatever that amounts to.