A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)

[slohairt]

That wouldn't have been the Oka Crisis would it?

T.

No, it was Ipperwash!

[BEEDEE]

"A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)" was the original title of this post. Sadly no other actual Scottish people seem able or willing to contribute...

Phil, thank you for an attempt to bring this back on topic.

This has moved well away from the original topic and is beginning to move to an "I Said, You said" disagreement that is not really in the best interests of the forum.

A gentle reminder to all: Stay on topic, and be courteous to all members.

Thanks,

Brian

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

deleted by author

[Dianne B]

I have a friend not far from Glasgow and, when I was thinking about getting a kilted skirt, I asked her about the attitudes in Scotland regarding the wearing of tartans.

Her response was to wear whatever I liked, that there isn't any strong feeling about it in Scotland except in jokes etc. - just choose one you like and go for it. Nobody there would bat an eyelid. "They might ask you what it was if they liked it or if it was unusual but it would be perfectly ok to say you wear it because you like it."

Since she is involved in "cultural stuff" over there, I figure that is as close to 'the horse's mouth' as I am likely to get,

[Jack Daw]

The old system is almost dead. While in Taynuilt and surroundings last July, our MacIntyre Gathering event coordinators arranged for Andrew, a local fellow, to serve as driver for some of our outings. He was quite nice and dined with us at the Brander Lodge. It was later at our banquet that I discovered he was Andrew Godfrey Diarmid Stuart Campbell-Gray, 23rd Lord Gray. There's nothing like a property tax bill to make us all equal.

[Kerr the Walker]

As I said this mediaeval system persisted until the 1970's and if you wanted to make any changes to your house you had to go, cap in hand, to your "superior" for permission.

Sounds a lot like an Home Owners Association to me to me!

[cajuncelt]

Questions for the Scottish nationals:
Is the hereditary issues you have w/ the clan chiefs not identical to the monarchy?
Is the monarchy in their current position because of their protestant Stewart/Stuart bloodline?
Is that position not because they were the protestant decendents/head/chiefs of the Stewart/Stuarts?
Admittedly in ignorance, it seems akin to an American griping about their national/traditional government to include congressmen, governors, senators, but leaving the President out of it.
The clan system alive or dead, positive or negative, arose from specific needs. Because your neighbors were after your land, women, cattle etc., there was an accepted central head...the chief. And it worked. Sure it became bastardized. Everything negative mentioned is unquestionably true, BUT if you're going to look at the clearences, 1745, etc.; should you not look at the 12th, 13th, 14th centuries for example as well? It's very well documented how clansmen LOVED their chief back then for the most part. Bare minimum, he was accepted as a very necessary element. Sure that changed, but wasn't always so either.

[Jack Daw]

Oh, I pipe and "work" at the tent, talking to people looking to find out more about the clan. I'm great friends with the guys that work the tent in Wisconsin, and it's true that they've invested a lot of money, but it is not the Society's money. They did it on their own out of the love of their clan, just like I do.

And I guess you're right about the scholarship and the museum (which I hope to visit someday), but for me it's just not something that appeals to me that much. With or without a society, I will always be a Gordon and so will the others that I know. We'll always gather at the games and sing "A Gordon For Me"!

The Gordon Highlanders Museum was one of my favorites to visit. We were provided a tour; and, the tea shop had a good lunch.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Questions for the Scottish nationals:
Is the hereditary issues you have w/ the clan chiefs not identical to the monarchy?
Is the monarchy in their current position because of their protestant Stewart/Stuart bloodline?
Is that position not because they were the protestant decendents/head/chiefs of the Stewart/Stuarts?
Admittedly in ignorance, it seems akin to an American griping about their national/traditional government to include congressmen, governors, senators, but leaving the President out of it.
The clan system alive or dead, positive or negative, arose from specific needs. Because your neighbors were after your land, women, cattle etc., there was an accepted central head...the chief. And it worked. Sure it became bastardized. Everything negative mentioned is unquestionably true, BUT if you're going to look at the clearences, 1745, etc.; should you not look at the 12th, 13th, 14th centuries for example as well? It's very well documented how clansmen LOVED their chief back then for the most part. Bare minimum, he was accepted as a very necessary element. Sure that changed, but wasn't always so either.

You have raised a number of really good points (albeit politically supercharged), and undoubtedly both Monarchists and Republicans will weigh in with conflicting points of view-- BUT, let me suggest that one can develop a finer appreciation for chiefs and clanship by reading the first six chapters of The Clans, Septs & Regiments of the Scottish Highlands by Frank Adams (as revised by Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, a former Lord Lyon). Basically this covers everything from "Ancient Alba and the Rise of the Highland Clan System" (spanning the period from roughly 400 B.C. to A.D. 1286) to the modern-day concept of membership in a clan.

Adams (and Sir Thomas) base their observations on the broad scope of history as well as on Scottish law. They also compare chiefs and the clan system to their Irish and European counterparts, which leads to a deeper understanding of how the system evolved, why it survived, and why it is relevant today.

[Phil]

Questions for the Scottish nationals:
Is the hereditary issues you have w/ the clan chiefs not identical to the monarchy?
Is the monarchy in their current position because of their protestant Stewart/Stuart bloodline?
Is that position not because they were the protestant decendents/head/chiefs of the Stewart/Stuarts?
Admittedly in ignorance, it seems akin to an American griping about their national/traditional government to include congressmen, governors, senators, but leaving the President out of it.
The clan system alive or dead, positive or negative, arose from specific needs. Because your neighbors were after your land, women, cattle etc., there was an accepted central head...the chief. And it worked. Sure it became bastardized. Everything negative mentioned is unquestionably true, BUT if you're going to look at the clearences, 1745, etc.; should you not look at the 12th, 13th, 14th centuries for example as well? It's very well documented how clansmen LOVED their chief back then for the most part. Bare minimum, he was accepted as a very necessary element. Sure that changed, but wasn't always so either.

I said I would bow out of this but as nobody else is likely to answer you then I will do so.
The hereditary system is similar to the monarchy in that it works to perpetuate a single dynasty through, preferably, the male line.
The present monarchy only claim descent through the daughter of James II who married William of Orange (William III). This was to ensure that any Roman Catholic was excluded from the throne and on William's death the Elector of Hanover was created George I to continue the exclusion of Catholics. This continues to this day due to the Act of Settlement, barring any Catholic having any claim to the succession.
It is not akin to an American griping about any of his/her political leaders as none of them are selected on an hereditary basis.
Originally clan chiefs were selected by a system known as tanistry, where the former chief would nominate a successor and clan members would then make their choice. Following the Norman invasion of 1066 and their later spread into Scotland, hereditary primogeniture became the rule along with heraldry, serfdom and all that that entailed. Effectively, from then on, nobles, who actually saw themselves as a race apart from common people, owned the peasants who worked on their lands and held them in bondage. The laws of the land reinforced this and any serf trying to escape would be ruthlessly hunted down. A situation not too different from slavery in more recent times. There were three classes in society, Nobles who exercised their claim to superiority through heraldry, the clergy who lived in great wealth on their monastic estates, and the vast majority of common people who lived in abject servitude to these others. Laws were even passed as to the type of clothing each class could wear and whether or not they could wear jewellery etc. to further cement these class distinctions.
As I said in an earlier post, certain people in Scotland were still regarded as bondsmen right up until the 19th century so this should not be considered an entirely medieval practice.
How clan chiefs were regarded is a matter of conjecture but the way they operated was more in the nature of a mafia-style protection racket than some benevolent society. The chief jealously guarded his lands and used his clansmen as a way of extorting wealth from other, weaker, neighbouring clans. They also operated in a not dissimilar way from Japanese Samurai in that they perpetuated a warrior class (the Gallowglasses) who did no useful work but were hired out as mercenaries by the chief. The vast majority of clansmen toiled to grow crops and raise cattle all for the benefit of this parasitic hierarchy and are unlikely to have regarded them other than with fear and loathing as a result. Why did they stay you ask? Because the lot in the next glen were probably even worse!