A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)

[cajuncelt]

The hereditary system is similar to the monarchy in that it works to perpetuate a single dynasty through, preferably, the male line.
...Exactly, thats my point.

The present monarchy only claim descent through the daughter of James II who married William of Orange (William III). This was to ensure that any Roman Catholic was excluded from the throne and on William's death the Elector of Hanover was created George I to continue the exclusion of Catholics. This continues to this day due to the Act of Settlement, barring any Catholic having any claim to the succession.
...Hence my wording, Protestant line of the Stewart/Stuarts

It is not akin to an American griping about any of his/her political leaders as none of them are selected on an hereditary basis.
...you miss the point. Why include congressmen but omit the President? Why include clan chiefs, but omit the monarchy? Is the monarchy elected? No. Thats the point.

I don't disagree with you in anyway. My point was that the monarchy is retained and beloved for the most part. I was stationed with British Army and they will defend the monarchy violently! Yet, are the clan chiefs history and legacy not almost identical?
However negative and archaic, the chiefs were there initially at least for a reason. There are many examples of the clan rising up against their chief, yet this was fairly rare. I realized this relationship changed. There were laws eventually. The cattle raiding and warfare stopped. The chief was no longer necessary or as necessary. My point was also that it was not always the case. So, which time period do we debate? Which chief of what clan? We can't unless we take the entire history or it's akin to "well, you suck, but your grandfather saved my family's lives".

[Phil]

My point was that the monarchy is retained and beloved for the most part. I was stationed with British Army and they will defend the monarchy violently! Yet, are the clan chiefs history and legacy not almost identical?

I deliberately didn't make any mention of the monarchy precisely because the discussion was about modern-day Scottish attitudes towards clans and chiefs and that would have involved a whole new can of worms. You are right about the British Army who, of course, swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch (not, I might add, to the government of the day). I have just heard the news about Jock Scott's accident which explains why he did not take part in this discussion. I know we all wish him all the best for a speedy recovery. For my part, before I am accused of more farewells than Frank Sinatra, I really will now draw a line under this particular topic. Thanks everyone for contributing.

[SteveB]

Phil,
Thank you for your contributions. Indeed, you have articulated better than I could, of the truth of the matter regarding the clan system as was taught to me in second level school in Scotland all too many years ago. I am sure you have represented well the information that your fellow countryman would have posted here. Thank you again and again.
Slainte

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

The hereditary system is similar to the monarchy in that it works to perpetuate a single dynasty through, preferably, the male line.
...Exactly, thats my point.

Actually the principals of hereditary inheritance (as opposed to inheritance by gift) evolved to allow for the orderly transfer of land from one generation to the next. This was at a time when the tribal-familial system in Scotland was in a state of transition, and evolving into the clan system. There was a sound basis for favoring the male over the female-- men lived longer, and were in a better position to improve the property due to superior, overall, physical strength, as well as being better able to physically defend the right to hold the property for exactly the same reason. It was a practical, rather than cultural or legal, consideration. In fact women did, and still do, have equal rights of inheritance under the Scottish system.

The present monarchy only claim descent through the daughter of James II who married William of Orange (William III). This was to ensure that any Roman Catholic was excluded from the throne and on William's death the Elector of Hanover was created George I to continue the exclusion of Catholics. This continues to this day due to the Act of Settlement, barring any Catholic having any claim to the succession.
...Hence my wording, Protestant line of the Stewart/Stuarts

Before his death in 1702 William III told Parliament that in his opinion he should be succeeded by either James II or his son, James Edward (who, upon he death of his father in 1701, became legally the King and was recognized as such in much of Europe as James III).

Parliament (controlled by the Whigs) was aghast at the idea, and not merely because James was a Catholic-- a far greater concern was the economic collapse of Scotland in 1699-1700 occasioned by the failure of the Darien Venture, an attempt by The Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies, to break free of the English Navigation Act. This Act granted virtual monopolies to the English East India and Africa Companies, and effectively prevented Scotland from developing any significant overseas trade.

Why was this important to the question of royal succession? Because the "Darien Venture" was to have been capitalized to the tune of L600,000, of which half was to be subscribed in Scotland and the rest in England and elsewhere (presumably in Holland by King William's Dutch friends). But at the last moment the English and foreign investors backed out, forcing the Scots to raise more capital. Ultimately nearly L400,000 was subscribed for the venture in Scotland. This amount represented between one third and one half of the nation's cash resources.

Darien failed, and failed largely because King William refused to allow the Jamaica colony to offer any supplies or assistance to the Scottish colony at Darien on the isthmus of Panama. Overnight, Scotland was financially ruined.

Parliament's concern then wasn't as much about religion, as it was about a "Scottish" king bailing out the failed Scottish economy; an economy that they and their "Dutch" King had gone out of their way to destroy. Their great fear was that like his ancestor Charles I, who had sold Nova Scotia to the French in 1632 to raise much needed capital, James II/III would do the same, and Parliament didn't want to risk the loss of any further colonies to buck up the Scottish economy. Catholicism, like King William's blatant homosexuality, could have been easily overlooked. But the raising of L400,000 was another matter. And one of far greater importance in the eyes of greedy English parlimentarians.

It is not akin to an American griping about any of his/her political leaders as none of them are selected on an hereditary basis.
...you miss the point. Why include congressmen but omit the President? Why include clan chiefs, but omit the monarchy? Is the monarchy elected? No. Thats the point.

This might be a valid point if the monarchy had any real political power but, unlike the American president, it doesn't. True the monarch has to give her ascent to every bill enacted by parliament, but in actual fact can anyone state when this last happened? I thought not. The role of the Sovereign is ceremonial, and provides a non-political focus for the nation in times of crisis. No elected official could function in the same way and still be above politics.

[gilmore]

This might be a valid point if the monarchy had any real political power but, unlike the American president, it doesn't. True the monarch has to give her ascent [sic] to every bill enacted by parliament, but in actual fact can anyone state when this last happened? I thought not. ...

March 11, 1708.

The last Stuart monarch, Queen Anne, on the advice of her ministers withheld her assent from a bill "for the settling of Militia in Scotland" on that date, but no monarch since has withheld the Royal Assent on a bill passed by the British Parliament.

As far as I know, the tricentenniary of that date was not publically observed. I could be wrong.

There is also something similar, the Queen's Consent, last used in 1999, that could be described as more of an action within parliament.

"There is a situation, however, in which a more direct monarchical assent is required for a bill. This is not Royal Assent, but is termed Queen's Consent. In order for a bill affecting, directly or by implication, the prerogative, hereditary revenues —including ultimus haeres, treasure trove, and bona vacantia— or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament, the monarch must first consent to its hearing. On rare occasions, such as for the House of Lords Act 1999, the consent of the Prince of Wales, as Prince and Steward of Scotland, or as Duke of Cornwall, must also be obtained where a Bill affects his interests. This is known as Prince's Consent.

In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II, acting on the advice of the government, refused to signify her consent to the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which sought to transfer from the monarch to Parliament the power to authorize military strikes against Iraq. Due to the Crown's refusal to consent to the bill's hearing, it was automatically dropped. However, because the Bill had been introduced under the Ten Minute Rule, it never stood any chance of being fully debated by Parliament, and it does not represent a test of what may happen if a future government introduced other legislation affecting the reserve powers of the Crown."

[O'Callaghan]

True the monarch has to give her ascent to every bill enacted by parliament, but in actual fact can anyone state when this last happened? I thought not. The role of the Sovereign is ceremonial, and provides a non-political focus for the nation in times of crisis. No elected official could function in the same way and still be above politics.

I was taught in school that the last time royal assent was refused was in the reign of Queen Anne. Whenever that was.