Septs and Clans

[Nathan]

As a self-described American mongrel I have been doing some work on my genealogy and it seems that my ancestors came to America from England, Ireland, Wales, and apparently from Scotland. The Scottish roots are from the Sanders who according to the websites I've seen are a Sept of Clan MacDonnell (of Glengarry) and emigrated to South Carolina in the 1700s. Is there any permission needed to wear the MacDonnell tartan? Also, the Sanders connection is 4 generations back, is that too far back to claim any affiliation? I know there are no such thing as "kilt cops", but I want to honor the traditions of my forefathers, and not behave in a manner that shows a lack of respect for them or for current members of the Clan MacDonnell.

I'm the Commissioner of Clan Donald Southern Ontario. MacDonnell is one of our branches and the leadership of Clan Donald Canada are mostly Glengarry and are based in Glengarry, Ontario. I happen to be from the closely related branch of Clan Ranald.

Strictly speaking, for Clan affiliation, it goes by your actual family name. So if you are carrying the name Sanders, there would be no question that you would be a full member of the Clan. Clan membership is a paternal line birthright. There were times in history when someone could move into clan territory and officially join the Clan for its protection etc... but most people are a member of the clan associated with their surname.

The reason people can only have one clan is because, frequently, people had connections to multiple warring clans in their ancestry.

Imagine if one's father was Donald (MacDonald, MacDonell, MacConnell etc...) one's mother was a MacIntosh, one's paternal grandmother was a MacLean, one's maternal grandmother was a Campbell and so on... It was the prerogative of the Chief to form alliances with other clans, not the regular clansmen.

The clan system was kinship but it was also based on territory and military service to the chief. Divided loyalties were dangerous and therefore forbidden. Things aren't quite as life or death as they used to be.

That having been said, wearing a tartan and belonging to a clan aren't exactly the same thing. As a traditionalist, I prefer for Clan Donald tartans to be worn exclusively by Clan Donald members. Even though my name is MacDonald, I wouldn't even wear Glengarry, Ardnamurchan, Sleat etc...because I'm Clanranald. That's just how it was viewed in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, where I grew up.

That said, there is no mechanism to enforce that worldview, no real evidence that clan tartans and the clan system existed at the same time and so lots of people disagree with me.

Glengarry is an unrestricted tartan and any mill will happily sell it to anyone with the money to buy it. Any kilt maker will sew you up a kilt in it if you pay their fee. So what I'm talking about is convention and tradition but does not come close to approaching the strictness around heraldry.

In the end, I don't see the point of writing a letter to Glengarry for permission to wear his tartan unless you included the request to wear his crest surrounded by belt and motto on your bonnet and officially join the clan. It would be respectful, but certainly not an essential step. In all honesty, if you bought a kilt in Glengarry tartan and, when asked, said you have a Sanders connection, most people would probably just leave it at that. This is even more true if that's your only Highland connection.

It's a lovely tartan.

Slainte,

Nathan

[Chaps]

Nathan,
Thanks for the great information. Maybe down the road I may consider buying a kilt with the Glengarry tartan, but not in the next several years. My next planned purchases are kilts with the U.S. Navy (Edsell) tartan and the ancient clergy tartan. My connections with both of those tartans is much more certain than any clan affiliation.

[ctbuchanan]

I wouldn't worry so much about going back the 4 generations which would most likely put you right around the year 1900 give or take 20 years or so. I saw a recent thread where someone was going back 13 generations to connect with a clan which would have put them in the 1500's most likely.

I think your connection and reasoning are just fine. Where it with pride.

[sentinel206]

I'm new here but not to Scottish history, archaeology, genealogy, heraldry etc. In contrast to many other Americans whose Scottish ancestry is several generations back, mine's easy. My last name is Cummings, from my father. My mother's maiden name was Frazier (Fraser.) So all my life it's been right there; I didn't have to search! Even finding my (Fraser) immigrant ancestor's lineage wasn't TOO difficult because he was a younger son of one of the Lords Lovat / Clan Chiefs who took part in "The 15" with the Aberdeenshire Frasers and got transported to the Carolinas. Some lines are easy and others are dead ends.

[macwilkin]

Don't forget that Cummings/Cumming can also be a Scottish surname! :-)

http://www.clancumming.us

Yours aye,

T.

[sentinel206]

Don't forget that Cummings/Cumming can also be a Scottish surname! :-)

http://www.clancumming.us

Yours aye,

T.

Yes, I know it is. My Comyn folks left Scotland and went to Ireland during Robert Bruce's infamous "Rape of Buchan." They ended up in Waterford, where there's still a lot of Cummins.

[Tarheel]

I don't find it odd that a lot of Scots, Welch, English and Irish eventually ended up in the Carolinas. As a native of the fine "Old North State" the climate and terrains are as close to the Homeland Isles as one could dream of (even for the socially awkward that faux pas the Crown's rules of yore.)

[sentinel206]

I'm new to the forum but not things Scottish (history, culture, archaeology, heraldry, etc.) Actually, I've got doctoral degrees (real ones- not internet) in history and archaeology. All the talk about finding a link several generations back, etc seems strange to me, because my last name is Cummings and my mother's maiden name was Fraser. Major families, made even easier because the immigrant ancestors were younger sons of prominent people who were transported. Cummins (Cummings, Comyn) after Cromwell's Irish Campaign and Fraser in 1716, after the surrender at Preston. What many will discover (or have) is that IF a direct ancestor is found who was in one of the major branches of a very powerful family in the 17th or 18th Centuries, following the ancestry (usually) is pretty easy. The other is that back then, marriage among these families was business and politics.Thus the major families all married into one another; if you're directly descended thru a main line of a "power" family, chances are you are from nearly ALL the others -- including royal descent. Just a little input.

[tripleblessed]

I've had the same experience. Grew up thinking we were the result of a thousand generations of farmers and schoolteachers; honest, hardworking Welsh, Scots, Irish, and a touch of English to keep us humble . Getting pretty deeply into the genealogy revealed unexpected (and, frankly, undesired) connections into prominent, very prominent, and royal lineages. Connecting into those revealed connections all across Europe, some lines somewhat known back over a thousand years. Coming to terms with what some of them did was a little disconcerting, but I finally realized judgment is above my pay grade, and at any rate, they must be assessed
based on the times in which they lived, not by today's values and customs.

Also realized all descent is direct: that is, you either are or aren't descended. Primogeniture is an artificial
structure not universally practiced or even accepted. My Normans would applaud the concept, my Celts would
laugh, saying you only know who you're mother is, you mostly take her word about your father. The arrival of
DNA testing only reinforces that understanding. The talk shows doing "who's your daddy?" testing have shed
more light on what the the testers refer to as "non - paternal events". Runs about 1 in 10, at a minimum, so
primogeniture quickly becomes untenable. Thus the term "a duke's mixture".

[Elf]

Also realized all descent is direct: that is, you either are or aren't descended. Primogeniture is an artificial
structure not universally practiced or even accepted. My Normans would applaud the concept, my Celts would
laugh, saying you only know who you're mother is, you mostly take her word about your father. The arrival of
DNA testing only reinforces that understanding. The talk shows doing "who's your daddy?" testing have shed
more light on what the the testers refer to as "non - paternal events". Runs about 1 in 10, at a minimum, so
primogeniture quickly becomes untenable. Thus the term "a duke's mixture".

Very interesting thread, thank you for the perspective. However, I want to add one more complication. Primogeniture aside, somewhere five generations back, I am apparently connected to landed gentry. Problem is that she was dis-inherited for marrying a sea captain. I doubt claims to be part of that family would be valid.