[Bugbear]

Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown

To the chief, and through him, to the clan in general.

This is one of the reasons I find membership in multiple clan societies difficult to comprehend, as it really seems to indicate conflicting loyalties-- or at the very least, loyalties of mere convenience.

Yes, I see what you mean.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by CDNSushi

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]

Originally Posted by Chas

heritage/tradition have to start somewhere.

Well put, sir.

[Brandane]

Please see the quote below for those of you who perhaps find it hard to understand the meaning of being Scots and a Clansman.

For that is the mark of the Scots of all classes:
that he stands in an attitude towards the past
unthinkable to Englishmen, and remembers and
cherishes the memory of his forebears, good or
bad; and there burns alive in him a sense of identity
with the dead even to the twentieth generation.
Robert Louis Stevenson

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Originally Posted by Chas

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?

[cessna152towser]

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?

There is no requirement of allegiance to the High Commissioner in my clan society (We do not call him a chieftain as he would not be recognised as such in Scotland). Membership is open to all bearing the family name however spelt or descended by birth, marriage, or adoption.

I find membership in multiple clan societies difficult to comprehend, as it really seems to indicate conflicting loyalties

My thoughts exactly, and precisely why I want nothing to do with a breakaway clan society which purports to represent the family, when there is already a long established clan society.

[Bugbear]

I'm not so sure that we Americans, over here, have an easy time of understanding the nature of the loilty being talked about in relation to a chief... Or even how a Scottish clan member perceives, perhaps feels, the relationship between chief and clan. Same goes for relationship between Queen and people of Britain...

[JSFMACLJR]

Originally Posted by Ted Crocker

I'm not so sure that we Americans, over here, have an easy time of understanding the nature of the loilty being talked about in relation to a chief... Same goes for relationship between Queen and people of Britain...

And the people of Canada.

[Macman]

Originally Posted by piperdbh

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.