A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)

[duchessofnc]

Remember that while you may, possibly, become the President of your country through effort, persistence, possibly ability and no doubt shed-loads of cash, you cannot ever, in any circumstances, no matter how much you wish or try, become a clan chief because that depends solely upon an accident of birth. Something that none of us can overcome no matter how much we may wish or try for it. But what, precisely, does such an accident of birth confer upon an individual that makes him (I say him deliberately because primogeniture is another essential part of the deal here) such a suitable candidate for the job? Answers please on the back of a postage stamp - if you can actually think of any that is. I suppose that places you in a similar situation as me in that I cannot ever become the Head of State in my country for exactly the same reason. There are many obstacles placed in our path as we make our way through life but ones such as these that deny even the possibility are indefensible, unsupportable and should be swept away as your forefathers so sensibly decided all those years ago.

Phil, I am not even going to try to argue with you on your stance though I do believe you are correct on many points. With the exception of primogeniture. The Clan MacKinnon chief is a woman. Her name is Madam Anne Gunhild Mackinnon of Mackinnon, 38th Chief of the Name and Arms of Mackinnon.

Now unfortunately, she's in line for her clan merely because her father had no male heirs, however, it is better than it has been. The fact that she could inherit and it not skip over her to the next living male heir. So in that, the monarchy tradition is now being adopted. Unfortunately, things have not changed to the point that whomever is born first gets titles first whether they be male or female has not been completely eradicated. Though one European country has passed a law (this year I believe) that in fact does that for their monarchy. Denmark I think, but, I could be wrong. I get confused between the countries in the pocket of Denmark.

[Phil]

Phil, I am not even going to try to argue with you on your stance though I do believe you are correct on many points. With the exception of primogeniture. The Clan MacKinnon chief is a woman. Her name is Madam Anne Gunhild Mackinnon of Mackinnon, 38th Chief of the Name and Arms of Mackinnon.

I didn't mean to imply that women cannot inherit as the example you quote illustrates that indeed they can, just as our Queen did on the death of her father. Had she had a younger brother, however, we would then have had a King XXXX rather than a queen just as would have been the case with the chief you describe. The point of my argument was, in fact, that neither you, nor I, nor any other person could ever aspire to be chief. Not because we are in any way unfit or undeserving but simply because our father was not the chief before us.

[gilmore]

.... I get confused between the countries in the pocket of Denmark.

Denmark has pockets?

[Freelancer]

That's pretty much it.

Americans of Scots and other British descent are by and large so far removed from that. We also are used to self-autonomy and creating ourselves, creating our own identities, often by appropriating artifacts and identities from other cultures and times as we (mis)understand them and making them our own. We may bend a knee or two, but do so in something of the spirit of a tourist in another country (or a time traveler from another time) who always has the ability, if we wish, to stop pretending and go home to the real world where we really live.

If I were you, I wouldn't complain about it. I would do what others seem to be doing, and try to figure out a way to make money off of us. But that's just me.

Love that last sentence gilmore...spot on!

[gilmore]

...Even although people were able to buy land and build a house on it, they remained as feudal vassals to the feudal superior and had to pay an annual charge. Bettyhill in Sutherlansd was named after Elizabeth, Duchess of Sutherland and was one of the places displaced clansmen were relocated to from the glens to make way for sheep. As I said this mediaeval system persisted until the 1970's ... Scotland has since progressed by abolishing this relic of feudalism (even though we had to pay off the superior) ...

My understanding is that it lasted until The Abolition of Feudal Tenure, etc., (Scotland) Act of 2000 went into effect on November 28, 2004, and did away with several sorts of colorful ancient yet basically oppressive ways of owning land in Scotland.

[gilmore]

I'm still rather fascinated with the state of land ownership in Scotland (is it the same in England?). I worked several stints on a sheep croft in Sutherland, and when the owner told me that she owned her house but not the land it sat on... I couldn't get my head around it! Apparently all the land that her village sat on belonged to some Lady Such-and-such (given to her as a birthday present). I imagine it's like having an absentee landlord, but if the landlord is also a slum lord you're really f'd. And it's even worse cause you OWN your house and caint just up and leave... I can certainly understand Phil's frustration and cynicism after having to deal with that in a day to day real life scenario. I've certainly had my share of slum landlords.

That way of owning property isn't all that unusual. It happens in the US, even in your own state of Georgia, where Georgia Power Company owns the land around Lake Rabun in north Georgia, but allows some people to build and own houses on it.

I've often wondered myself why the clan chiefs are still "revered" or given some sort of status in British society, since there were really only a handful that were titled nobles (if I understand that correctly?). Were they ever given status as "Peers of the Realm" (I thought that had been discussed some years ago)? It has seemed to me that (especially after the '45) those of the Scottish upper echelon who could gain from joining British society did so, abandoning their Gaelic roots while reshaping their Highland traditions into a British model. That's of course putting a bit of a negative slant on it, but I would also recognise that this could be interpreted as a sense of "survival" in an era of considerable social change, too- adapt or "die" (or immigrate).

Of course from my clan's standpoint, MacGregors have been more or less landless since before the '45, so there's no notion that we (the common clansmen) were disenfranchised by our chiefs (but rather by our kings, ironically enough). Obviously the opposite is true in at least a few other cases. But I can't help thinking that by-and-large the Highland Clan System was not based on a feudal order, being Gaelic/Celtic, and that the Clan chiefs (who were not always thus by birth) were not so raised above their clan as a titular lord might be. Maybe yall would consider that the romantic version, but I've certainly read of historical accounts from 18th century observers who, being from south of the border, were taken aback that their host the clan chief was casually conversing with the labourers in the fields or what might otherwise be called common clansmen.

I'm not quite sure what I was driving at there, but I certainly find the topic interesting. I have to say that I appreciate Phil's candour- not the usual pomp and circumstance we're used to!

The clan system predated feudalism, and with the coming of the latter to Scotland was absorbed into it, with some chiefs being granted titles by the crown in the peerage of Scotland, and later in the peerages of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. And of England and Ireland as well.

Whatever prestige the chiefs now have is more a matter of custom, rather than political power arising out of the law, compared to ancient times, other than a few odds and ends left over in the Scottish legal system and mostly regulated by the Lyon Court.

[Bugbear]

Remember that while you may, possibly, become the President of your country through effort, persistence, possibly ability and no doubt shed-loads of cash, you cannot ever, in any circumstances, no matter how much you wish or try, become a clan chief because that depends solely upon an accident of birth. Something that none of us can overcome no matter how much we may wish or try for it. But what, precisely, does such an accident of birth confer upon an individual that makes him (I say him deliberately because primogeniture is another essential part of the deal here) such a suitable candidate for the job? Answers please on the back of a postage stamp - if you can actually think of any that is. I suppose that places you in a similar situation as me in that I cannot ever become the Head of State in my country for exactly the same reason. There are many obstacles placed in our path as we make our way through life but ones such as these that deny even the possibility are indefensible, unsupportable and should be swept away as your forefathers so sensibly decided all those years ago.

Phil, the founding fathers of America started
the ball rolling, and the rest came in very hard won steps. Many of the people who worked or fought the hardest to have their freedoms and rights recognized, didn't live to enjoy them. It's still going on, so hang in there.

[Wolfhawk]

That way of owning property isn't all that unusual. It happens in the US, even in your own state of Georgia, where Georgia Power Company owns the land around Lake Rabun in north Georgia, but allows some people to build and own houses on it.

The government is and has been, gathering land anywhere there is a possibility of flooding and then allow the the citizens to build there but not own the land. Then if the government decides that they are tired of someone living there, they can wait till the next disaster and 'claim' the land back. If a majority of the house or building has to be rebuild, this allows the government, who owns that land, to 'claim' it back. The City of Weatherford did that with lots of the land around Lake Weatherford.

[gilmore]

The government is and has been, gathering land anywhere there is a possibility of flooding and then allow the the citizens to build there but not own the land. Then if the government decides that they are tired of someone living there, they can wait till the next disaster and 'claim' the land back. If a majority of the house or building has to be rebuild, this allows the government, who owns that land, to 'claim' it back. The City of Weatherford did that with lots of the land around Lake Weatherford.

It's not that the government is and has been "gathering" land. The legal theory underpining land ownership in Anglo-Scottish-American real property law is that the government (or the Crown in the UK) already owns all the land within its boundaries, as well as everything underneath it and everything above it. What real property owners have is often described as a "bundle of rights" to the land granted by the government, no more and no less.

Real estate owners aren't sovereign entities with their own little countries. They are actually tenants of the government.

[Bugbear]

It's not that the government is and has been "gathering" land. The legal theory underpining land ownership in Anglo-Scottish-American real property law is that the government (or the Crown in the UK) already owns all the land within its boundaries, as well as everything underneath it and everything above it. What real property owners have is often described as a "bundle of rights" to the land granted by the government, no more and no less.

Real estate owners aren't sovereign entities with their own little countries. They are actually tenants of the government.

That bundle of rights, at least in America, is extremely important, along with the recognition of title and it's transfer through sale and inheritance, etc. But the government is supposed to defend and uphold those rights, so not that bad a deal lest you have to defend it yourself...

I don't know that all people have those same property rights in Scotland, and it appears that they did not in the past. I'm trying to be mild.