Family Name and Clan

[Ryan Nielson]

Wow this thread was hitting on what I was thinking and the specific question I had as well. My last name is Nielson. Nielson name technically appears as a sept in clans MacKay, Gunn and one of the accepted spelling variation of MacNeil clan. Yet I know from a bit of research that my great great grandfather Joseph Nielson came on a boat to america from Denmark around 1883 and settled in minnesota. In my case Nielson name has no scottish association as far as I've seen. In my heart I don't feel enough of a connection to wear any of those particular clan tartans just because I have the associated names. Even though I probably could technically do it with that last name if I wanted to as far as I understand the rules. Or am I wrong? I started to compete in highland games just this year and need to wear a kilt. Not just that I have to but I've come to like wearing the kilt. I enjoy the bagpipes and the scottish highland games culture just as many of you do. I have a fashion kilt that is my first kilt I have ever owned. I felt kind of limited in my choices at first but I've just gotten used to it. I think for me It's very important for me to be totally honest about who I am no matter if I feel somewhat out of place sometimes on this forum or at the games.

[gilmore]

...I felt kind of limited in my choices at first but I've just gotten used to it. I think for me It's very important for me to be totally honest about who I am no matter if I feel somewhat out of place sometimes on this forum or at the games.

I can respect that it's important for you to be honest about who you are. It's refreshing.

You may find it's better to be limited in choices than to have so many that you wind up spending every penny of spare cash you can get your hands on on tartan that you may have some tenuous connection with.

There are many universal and fashion tartans that I am sure you could wear and feel fine about.

[Ryan Nielson]

You may find it's better to be limited in choices than to have so many that you wind up spending every penny of spare cash you can get your hands on on tartan that you may have some tenuous connection with.

Funny. That is so true too. I need to just get a nice blackwatch kilt and be done with it.

[macwilkin]

Funny. That is so true too. I need to just get a nice blackwatch kilt and be done with it.

Just make sure to spell it "Black Watch" (two words). :mrgreen:*

*Sorry to be nit-picky.

T.

[Raptor]

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 directly from a sept of Gordon. No problem there for me, (especially as two other families in my bloodline are also Gordon), but the Clan Muir fragmented & became septs of Gordon, Campbell, Stuart, & Donald. Does that increase a Muir's options or confuse the issue further?

[macneighill]

I know I'm a little late on this one but . .

Sorry for being out of the net for so long. My motorcycle and I were run down by another vehicle on January 31. It's taken me a while to recooperate.

First of all, glad to hear you are OK.

I for one, believe it is important (at least for myself) that I have some justifiable basis for wearing a particular tartan.

If I'm correct and if my ancestry possesses the family name that matches a sept or a clan, I submit I'm empowered to wear the tartan of that clan. I understand this to be true from the Clan Chief's web site and believe I can safetly say that several if not many others on this site agree.

Is there some flaw in my assumption?

Personally, I feel the same as yourself and many others. There are tartans out there that, I really like. And, I know there are no "real rules" limiting who can or who cannot wear tartans (with a few exceptions). But "ME" personally, I feel if I have no connections to that particular Clan and tartan, then I have no reason to really wear it. If others feel that they want to buy a specific tartan because they like the color . . more power to them. But, not me.

And at the same time, if your name is that of a Sept, then "historically", you have the option of wearing that particular tartan. If you want a more definitive answer as to linking yourself to a clan . . do some research and trace your line back to that Clan or, any others that your family may be associated with.

Some surnames are easier than others to research. Take mine for example: "Nelson" is the 39th most common surname in the USA (out of 88,000 surnames) and, the 387th most common in the UK (out of 270,000 surnames). Our surname was changed during the mid 1700's, from "Neilson" to "Nelson". So, whom ever were recording the names of immigrants as they stepped off of the boat, spelled the name however it sounded to them. For 20 some odd years, my family had hit a wall and were unable to find any info past my GGG Grandfather. Well, he carried the "Nelson" name. Come to find out, his father, carried the name "Neilson". Now, we are told that our family line goes back to Ancient Ireland (we're trying to find some kind of a link). In Scotland, they lived in and around Argyll and Bute.

However, "historically" (as Ryan stated), the "Nelson/Neilson/Nielson" name is associated with 3 clans . . MacNeil, MacKay and Gunn (a few more through the Proscription Act, marriages, etc.). My particular line, is with MacNeil. For so many years, we were unsure . . now we know .

Since then through research, I've discovered that the Gaelic form of Gray is MacGashan. MacGashan is a Sept of the Clan Stewart - Stewarts of Atholl. These Stewarts are a branch of the Royal Stewarts.

Well, my family lived in and around Argyll and Bute, from early times. During King James V's reign, they (my family) were the hereditary Lords of Bute. At some point (we are still unsure); they married into the Stuart/Stewart house (Stuart of Bute). So, does that mean, my family, or myself cannot wear the Stewart tartan, since I do not carry the Stuart/Stewart name??

[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.