Allowed tartans

[slohairt]

You're making unfair generalizations. Not every chief betrayed their clansmen, although I'm not denying some did. And as a historian, one of the first rules I learned was not to judge either people in the past by modern standards, or modern-day persons because of the actions of their ancestors.

And as far as Irish Chiefs go, well, that's a bit of a "sticky wicket" after the MacCarthy Mor Hoax back in the late '90s:

http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/

Todd

I agree, some didn't betray their folk. That's why I said more or less. But I'm not judging them by modern standards either. Those in the past who betrayed their clan turned their back on a centuries-old system. I suspect in their day they were judged quite harshly by their clansmen. Later, once their responsibilities were gone, they festooned themselves in Highland finery, concocted some romantic fantasies, and almost mocked the system they themselves had in hand in destroying.

As for the modern chiefs, it's the hereditary office I dislike, not the individuals themselves. They certainly can't be judged by the actions of their ancestors anymore than the rest of us could. I just think elected chiefs would be closer to the original system of Tanistry.

As for Irish chiefs, well, I think you'll find there is little regard for them among many in Ireland.

[Don Patrick]

I agree, some didn't betray their folk. That's why I said more or less. But I'm not judging them by modern standards either. Those in the past who betrayed their clan turned their back on a centuries-old system. I suspect in their day they were judged quite harshly by their clansmen. Later, once their responsibilities were gone, they festooned themselves in Highland finery, concocted some romantic fantasies, and almost mocked the system they themselves had in hand in destroying.

As for the modern chiefs, it's the hereditary office I dislike, not the individuals themselves. They certainly can't be judged by the actions of their ancestors anymore than the rest of us could. I just think elected chiefs would be closer to the original system of Tanistry.

As for Irish chiefs, well, I think you'll find there is little regard for them among many in Ireland.

Pretty harsh words. I don't understand your feelings in the matter.

[slohairt]

I guess they were harsh. I was simply trying to put myself in the position of someone in that time period. I can't even begin to imagine how betrayed they felt. Though I am Irish by birth and blood, I do have a Scottish-born grandmother who is a Graham, so I am a Graham clansman and am proud of the achievements of that family. However when I think of Montrose I can only think of John Hurt!

Concerning the Irish chiefs, I won't comment too much more on that except to say this: The flight of the Irish aristocracy in the 17th Century paved the way for certain events which still affect Irish politics to this very day. But that would be a political discussion, and I certainly don't want to get into that here!

[Don Patrick]

I guess they were harsh. I was simply trying to put myself in the position of someone in that time period. I can't even begin to imagine how betrayed they felt. Though I am Irish by birth and blood, I do have a Scottish-born grandmother who is a Graham, so I am a Graham clansman and am proud of the achievements of that family. However when I think of Montrose I can only think of John Hurt!

Concerning the Irish chiefs, I won't comment too much more on that except to say this: The flight of the Irish aristocracy in the 17th Century paved the way for certain events which still affect Irish politics to this very day. But that would be a political discussion, and I certainly don't want to get into that here!

Understand. I would remind you that the Scotti were (and are) Irish.

[slohairt]

Indeed they were! I learned that in my unfinished Celtic Studies degree!
However, notwithstanding unsubstantiated Greumach the Caledonian myths, much Anglo-Saxon and Norman blood in in the Graham clan.

[macwilkin]

I agree, some didn't betray their folk. That's why I said more or less. But I'm not judging them by modern standards either. Those in the past who betrayed their clan turned their back on a centuries-old system. I suspect in their day they were judged quite harshly by their clansmen. Later, once their responsibilities were gone, they festooned themselves in Highland finery, concocted some romantic fantasies, and almost mocked the system they themselves had in hand in destroying.

As for the modern chiefs, it's the hereditary office I dislike, not the individuals themselves. They certainly can't be judged by the actions of their ancestors anymore than the rest of us could. I just think elected chiefs would be closer to the original system of Tanistry.

As for Irish chiefs, well, I think you'll find there is little regard for them among many in Ireland.

Point well taken. I'm not so sure about the idea of elected chiefs; if I remember correctly, the issue of Tanistry is a well-debated one among scholars. But I do understand what you're getting at.

Regards,

Todd