Family Name and Clan

[glenlivet]

I also personally will only wear a tartan I have a blood connection to. However,(just to play "devil's advocate") how about where a clan ends up septs of various other clans? For example: my Muir blood is

etc. etc.

Ok, someone's brought up the topic of 'blood'. So to really play devil's advocate, even if you were to take the trouble to do a bit of genealogical research on scotlandspeople.gov.uk,
1) you'll probably only be able to go back to the mid 18th century before you run out of clues to help you figure out who your 4x or 5x great grandparents were. Sometimes you can only go back to an OPR marriage record, which might not give you the groom's or bride's parents names. (I get this from experience because I ran into an "Archibald Wilson, not of this Parish". Well, that could be the next shire over, could be England, could be Ireland...
2) you're assuming that biological paternity is always recorded accurately...

Probably in most cases it is, but what if you run across an illegitimacy?

Your ability to 'prove' a blood connection is more tenuous that you might wish to recognize.

I had about come to terms with the idea that in my case, the popular but frequently groundless association of the name Wilson with clan Gunn, was about as valid as wearing the Wilson tartan, which was designed by Wilson's of Bannockburn for a family member's wedding. I haven't been able to prove any connection to them, either.

Actually a lot of clan tartans aren't any older than Wilson's 1819 catalog.

[gilmore]

...2) you're assuming that biological paternity is always recorded accurately...

Probably in most cases it is, but what if you run across an illegitimacy?

Your ability to 'prove' a blood connection is more tenuous that you might wish to recognize.

....

I don't think this matters for genealogical (as opposed to genetic or medical)purposes. The coming of genetic genealogy has altered the way we think of paternity and families. Historically, approximately 3.7-4% of births in the US and most of Europe are cases of misattributed paternity, or about one in 25. In genetic genealogy these are called non-paternal events, or NPE's. While one in 25 isn't much, the numbers accumulate over the generations. In fact there is a formula for determining the likelihood of an NPE in any given number of generations. If someone is interested, I can dig it up. The probability goes from less that 50% to over 50% at 19 or 20 generations. In other words, using the span of 25 to 31 years per generation, in any lineage over 475 to 620 years old, or older than, say, 1388 to 1533 C.E. or so, it is more likely than not that an NPE has occurred.

In other words, those of us who used to so proudly brag of our descents from Charlemagne or the Magna Carta Sureties may not be so sure. (Of course, almost all of us of European ancestry are probably descended from Charlemagne, though perhaps not in the way(s) that we thought. But that is another story.)

So this calls into question what is paternity? What is family? If a man raises a son as his own, thinking it is, does that make him any less a son? If a person thinks of the man who raised him as his biological father, does that make him any less his father? I think not, for purposes of genealogy. Or for purposes of the affectional ties that bound them to each other.

Or for purposes of membership in a clan. According to Moncriefe of That Ilk and other authorities, illegitimacy is no bar to inheriting the chiefship of a clan. Why should the requirements for mere membership be more strenuous?

[glenlivet]

My allegiance to a given clan could be based on nothing more than my respect for a clan chief's color aesthetic. ;-)

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

According to Moncriefe of That Ilk and other authorities, illegitimacy is no bar to inheriting the chiefship of a clan. Why should the requirements for mere membership be more strenuous?

Well stated and absolutely right on.

In modern Europe, where illegitimacy no longer exists in the legal sense, Heralds now have to re-think the descent of arms. Having taken legal advice on this matter, it would seem that the children of a lawful marriage have precedence over natural children, irrespective of birth dates. The logic behind this is the argument that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, and that the woman has certain expectations in that contract and that these expectations extend to her children of that marriage. Because natural children are not the product of a lawful union, no contract can be assumed to exist, therefor in any settlement of their father's heraldic estate they would come after his children lawfully begot. All of this assumes, of course, that the kids all have the same surname as their father and can prove to a certainty their parentage.

As arms are heritable property there would be nothing to prevent the father leaving his undifferenced arms to whichever of his children he wished. It is only if he dies heraldically "intestate" that the above interpretation of the "laws of arms" might apply.

[Tommy Hunt]

I haven't gotten my first kilt yet but part of the enjoyment for me will be wearing the tartan of a clan that I'm connected to. I have three clans and I don't think I'd wear any other tartan design.

[pdcorlis]

First things first - good to know you are on the mend and boy oh boy it sounds like you've really been through the ringer!

Second - Your reasoning sounds flawless and I can't imagine anyone arguing with your personal beliefs. One of the great things about XMarks is the wide variety beliefs that bring us to the kilted life and our collective ability to embrace the similarities and the differences!

Good to have you back.

[Dr Mac]

Whatever label some may tag me for this, I still cannot imagine wearing a clan tartan to which I do not belong simply because I like the colors, or some such aesthetic reasoning. Doesn't mean I wouldn't consider wearing the Clergy tartan, for instance, since I'm an ordained minister... or a national tartan, perhaps. But, for me, the clan aspect is on a different level.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Whatever label some may tag me for this, I still cannot imagine wearing a clan tartan to which I do not belong simply because I like the colors, or some such aesthetic reasoning. Doesn't mean I wouldn't consider wearing the Clergy tartan, for instance, since I'm an ordained minister... or a national tartan, perhaps. But, for me, the clan aspect is on a different level.

As a traditionalist fuddy-duddy I agree 100%-- for me it's all about The Clan, and that almost mystical bit of tartan that brings us all together. As our late Chief might said, "I was a Macmillan long before I was an Argyll..."

[An t-Ileach]

To chip in a couple of historical notes: K Henry VII (the great-grandfather of Queen Jane Grey) was a Tudor not a Stuart. It was through his daughter Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scotland, that the Stuart king James VI and I (Queen Margaret's great-grandson) inherited the throne of England.

At some point, I expect in the 19th Century, the Royal Stewart tartan became a universal tartan, as did the Government Sett (known universally as the Black Watch tartan).

As someone pointed out, in naming one is the son/daughter of one's father. However, it wasn't and isn't that simple in the Highlands and Islands. You can also be known as the son/daughter of your mother, or even your grandmother. It was all a simple and handy way of identifying someone in smallish communities by picking on something that was well-known in that community. I'm still known in certain circles as "David Isla Jean's son" (and a second cousin is "David Muriel Jean's son").

One can belong to a clan by descent, area affiliation, or election - you can decide (elect) to affiliate, for whatever reason. Traditionally one would have to approach the clan Chief. Nowadays, it's becoming more common to find people who just decide that they're going to be part of that clan and carry on as if they were. Of course, if one wants to join the clan society/association, then one would probably have to go through the clan Chief.

[sharpdressedscot]

Wasn't the Royal Stewart really meant for the Royals, but people misread their words and began wearing that tartan??