Can I wear my wife's family too?

[davidlpope]

This is going a LONG way around the bend to say, I'll wear what I wear, sir...with my own reasons and most likely not give a fig what another might see as "proper".

My observation is that this type of sentiment is what most strongly identifies us as Americans. Any Scottish/Irish/Italian/German/etc. ancestry that we might tout is a far distant second when it comes to what actually informs our sensibilities.

I think, though, that there is a trend to "Americanize" the motivations and actions of Scots long-dead (Bruce, Wallace, Charles Edward Stuart) in order to assert that in some way "Scottish-Americans" hold the "true legacy" of those they descend from. "Wrong but Wromantic," as Messrs. Sellar and Yeatman would say...

I also think that most Americans tend to hold views very strongly, regardless of the level of analysis, or lack thereof, that went into forming them. I can only shake my head when recent transplants to the South (one from Hawaii, no less) start affixing confederate flag license plates to their automobiles. I think that indignation stemming from clan feuds falls into the same category. It's almost as if folks try to "legitimize themselves" by adopting the supposed "moral outrage" of the group they desperately want to be part of. Paradoxically, though, this is the very sort of sentiment that marks one as "out-group".

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

If a man formally becomes a member of his wife's clan, does he take the clan name? Or keep his own?

In Highland Scotland, well into the 19th century, surnames were not used as identifiers in they same way they are today. Rather, "nick names" were by far more common and with good reason. Suppose you lived on an island with several hundred other McDonalds, and you wish to refer to a specific John McDonald in conversation-- John being the most common man's name-- how do you do it without causing confusion (or offense!)? Simply by referring to a physical characteristic or his trade-- a blacksmith might be called "John the smith" and his son, George, would be known as the son of the smith-- George mac an Gow, or simply George McGow... since sons tended to follow in their father's trade, it would only take a few generations for a blacksmith's family's last name to evolve from McDonald to Smith (or Gow/McGow/Magowan/etc.).

In Scotland women retain their last name upon marriage; hence Mary McGow upon marriage becomes Mary McGow, Mrs. Ludovic Campbell. This is, in my opinion, an excellent state of affairs because it defines the legal status of Mary in relation to her husband Ludovic, without her loosing her sense of self identity, or surrendering any of her legal rights as a person. Should her husband die, she has the option of reverting to her maiden name, or using the social style "Mrs. Mary Campbell" indicating to one and all that she is a widow, and free to remarry.

So what then, is the status of the last name of a man when he marries into a clan? Well, he has two options-- he can retain his name and thus possibly establish a new sept within his wife's clan, or he can adopt the name of the clan (ie: take his wife's maiden name as his own). Within certain social limits, the choice is entirely up to him.

So, if Lars Larson, a boat builder from Oban, marries Agnes McGow (sister of Mary, mentioned above) he either gets busy producing children enough to establish Larson as a sept of McDonald, or takes the name McGow, or goes by the patronymic of "Boatwright" and settles in with that name.

And what about the children? If they wear their mother's clan tartan, do they also take that surname? Otherwise, they'd be wearing a tartan that's not associated with their surname (i.e. the clan-less surname of their father).

Suppose that Lars decides to keep his name. No problem. Biologically and legally the children of his marriage inherit equally from both parents. Lars, both as a courtesy and as a right of dower wears his wife's family tartan. Lars' children on the other hand wear their Mother's tartan by birthright, regardless of their last name.

As far as the last name of the children is concerned, while it is the custom to take the last name of the father, it is in no way a requirement in law to do so. The parents may choose to give their children either family name, or to combine the family name (McGow-Larson) or to create an entirely new identity for the children (Largow). In the instance of the Earl of Erroll he was given his Mother's last name at birth (Hay) and his younger brother took their father's last name, Moncrieff. Thus, following the death of his Mother, Merlin Hay became Earl of Erroll and High Constable of Scotland, and on the demise of his father his younger brother became Perigrine Moncrieff of that Ilk, Chief of Clan Moncrieff.

Socially, the basic assumption is that if someone is seen wearing a tartan kilt they have a familial connection to that tartan, be it by birth, marriage, or descent. Here's a real world example.

David Pope wears a MacMillan tartan kilt. David claims his connection to Clan MacMillan by marriage (and by having been formally received into the clan by our chief). Now as far as I, or any other member of the clan is concerned, David has as much entitlement to the clan tartan and to being regarded a member of our clan, as anyone born with the Macmillan surname or one of its sept variants. There is certainly no question that wearing the MacMillan tartan will be a birthright of his children, regardless of their last name.

I hope that answers your questions...

[xman]

In Scotland women retain their last name upon marriage; hence Mary McGow upon marriage becomes Mary McGow, Mrs. Ludovic Campbell...

This is the same in South America. Offspring also then carry both surnames. If the father's surname is González and the mother's is Salas then the child would be referred to as José González, but his full name might be José Patricio Gozalez Salas and both of the last names are considered surnames.

[/ ]

[Detroitpete]

[QUOTE=davidlpope;986527]My observation is that this type of sentiment is what most strongly identifies us as Americans. Any Scottish/Irish/Italian/German/etc. ancestry that we might tout is a far distant second when it comes to what actually informs our sensibilities.

I also think that most Americans tend to hold views very strongly, regardless of the level of analysis, or lack thereof, that went into forming them. QUOTE]

Interesting generalizations here. What most strongly identifies me as an American is most likely the fact that I was born here and speak an Americanized form of the English language. Perhaps, what might furthermore identfy me or more accurately define me as an American is my military service for said country. The ancestry, and the family names I was touting is a simple fact, and in no way comes in distant second concerning my Scottish roots. My statement was made to explain how I would (Yes--for me only, as stated in my post) make my decision.

However, this has always been based on a comprehensive analysis of my genealogical background, which thanks to better technology and access, I've been able to dig into more deeply. My statement about not giving a fig--is based mostly on the fact that I am well satisfied with my research.

Perhaps we're not all knee-jerk, dim witted cowboys who hold to views strongly regardless of how informed or uninformed they are.

I think we have an interesting continuum of opinions here regarding, what for me is an interpretation of the concept of 'proper'.

[Burly Brute]

Ya know gentlemen, a simple "no" or "yes" would have sufficed! haha. Jk. I like reading the discussions you all have.

[creagdhubh]

Wonderful posts David and Scott!

It is always interesting to read what you two have to contribute to various topics, and I tend to agree in regards to what David was discussing and think he 'hit the nail on the head'. Scott brings up many good points in terms of Highland surnames, 'nick-names' and place names, as well as their connections to Highland clans or perhaps Lowland families, and I concur with all of what he mentioned. I believe I can readily utilize my own full name in addition to what has already been discussed by Scott, as an example of this.

Please bear with me here; if you take a look at my full name, you will see it is organised in such a fashion as Scott was talking about: My mother is the Smith. Her great, great grandfather, Anglicised his surname from MacGowan, to Smith once he had arrived in America from Perthshire, Scotland, during the nineteenth-century, for what reason, we still do not know.

When my mother married my father (the Macpherson), she did not take the surname of Macpherson, as that has been a tradition in her family for many years - I am unsure if this was precisely Highland in origin as Scott had mentioned, or simply just a family tradition for the MacGowan women on my mother's side of the family. We don't really know for sure.

My middle name of Andrew, is named after an early nineteenth-century ancestor (apparently an avid Shinty player, which is a major sport in the Badenoch area) on my father's side, Andrew Harvey Macpherson of Kingussie, Inverness-shire, Scotland.

As far as my first name is concerned, Kyle is the Anglicised version of the Scottish Gaelic, Caol, meaning 'narrow' or 'strait', which are indeed geographical references - and can mostly be seen throughout the Western Highlands and the west coast of Scotland. My first name was given to commemorate my mother's mom, my grandmother, who had the MacDonald surname (MacDonalds traditionally hailing from the west of Scotland, Lordship of the Isles, etc), however, she was rather the 'black sheep' of my mother's family since she did not change her surname to Smith upon marrying my grandfather!

Again, a very interesting topic indeed, and I realise it was a wee bit of a sidenote from the original thread post, however, this all relates one way or another.

Cheers,

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Hmmmm....Perhaps the issues regarding the MacLarens and MacGregors with respect to "Rob Roy's" grave have been settled then?

In a very real sense, yes, the matter is settled, although that will have little bearing on the emotions that fuel a minority interest in arguing the facts.

If one is of Scottish ancestry then how could they possibly be considered as attempting to be "more Scottish than the Scots"? Aren't they just as Scot as the 'Scots'?

As Jock pointed out, those living/born in Scotland define themselves as Scots, and that's how I chose to use the word, in the same way that when I was a wee lad someone born in the far-flung reaches of the Empire was "British", regardless of where his parents were born.

I have an 'equal' ancestral link to both MacLaren and Bruce. Should I flip a coin?

Lots of us have equal Scottish ancestral links-- my Mother is a McBain-- however, the common practice is to adopt the clan-- and tartan-- of the nearest ancestral connection, with preference generally being given to the male line of descent.

Now that being the case, at least amongst the Scots, I can appreciate the fact that those who are Scottish tend to often feel the need to be inclusive of all their ancestors, which is fine. There is probably not a Scot drawing breath who can not tell you to whom he is related, often going back centuries to find the appropriate ancestor to "shine up" if the occasion demands it. He is, however, none-the-less bemused by the fact that those of Scottish descent sometimes exhibit this same familial pride by wearing a plethora of different tartans. Something a Scot just wouldn't do.

Yep--I must just be foolish. (I actually think if they want to end all the bikkering over Rob, they should dig the lad up and do the DNA test)

It'll never happen. Scots enjoy arguing waaaay too much to ever resolve the argument!

[creagdhubh]

Ya know gentlemen, a simple "no" or "yes" would have sufficed! haha. Jk. I like reading the discussions you all have.

This drives my wife crazy, as I tend to be the same way - long-winded...perhaps that is why I am an educator!!!

[Detroitpete]

In a very real sense, yes, the matter is settled, although that will have little bearing on the emotions that fuel a minority interest in arguing the facts.

It'll never happen. Scots enjoy arguing waaaay too much to ever resolve the argument!

Thanks for the chuckle MoR.

[creagdhubh]

Thanks for the chuckle MoR.

Precisely!