Another question about clans--adopted children

[piperdbh]

We don't know how old the cousin is, but if it's a child who knows he was adopted, then if/when he asks about his "birth tartan", the family might explain it by saying he can wear either (or both) tartans, emphasizing that the family chose him to become a part of them. Or, as Brook said, just don't make an issue of it, and when he's old enough to find out on his own, if he cares, then that will be his decision.

[ThistleDown]

You have good answers from paulhenry and Jock, Bren. I think you were asking an entitlement question: does your adopted cousin have a "right" to the tartan of the family into which he was adopted. The simple answer is "yes", but it is important to separate the three forms of adoption being discussed here and recognise the difference between their use historically and their use today. Legal adoption doesn't change a biological past but sets the legal tone for the future; fostering was a form of gendering friendship or at least understanding between potentially adversarial families; changing one's surname to that of a landlord could be another means of engratiating, but was also a means by which the landlord could encourage what we call community today. In the first and the third there was acceptance into a clan; in the second the fostered child remained of his parental clan.

[CameronCat]

Asked:

"I have a cousin who is adopted.... Would it be considered inappropriate for him to wear our tartan?"

Answered:

"He is as much a part of our family as any of the rest of us."

[Pleater]

Previous generations were not as open about adoption as we are in modern times - many adoptions were kept secret, even from very close family members and the adopted children were sometimes never told.

It was quite common for the children of a family to be separated too. It was considered to be 'in the child's best interests' - another example of clap-trap.

Anne the Pleater :ootd:

[TheOfficialBren]

Clap-trap, indeed!