A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)

[dfmacliam]

Phil, I learned from your comments, it is much appreciated.

My thoughts on the Gathering is it's all about money.. True it's going to put a boost in the economy... People are going to greatly benefit from the need of others showing their pride in their heritage.. Mind you, with good intentions or not..some guests will be wronged, just as sure as some hosts.
I pray that overall, people walk away with good feelings... I regret, that some hard feelings will be present, due to ignorence, a lack of understanding, and possibly a misguided version of history.
Do not take my opinion as being so negative, because I do wish the event to be a success. Things will happens, it's all part of life... But, let's pray the good far exceeds the bad.

[DWFII]

MOR,

I hope you'll take this in the spirit it is offered and not as ingenuous in any way...I like the way you think. You always have something to say and a way of saying it that makes me think and helps me to clarify my own POV. Of course it helps that I tend to agree with most of what you say and so far at least you don't seem to be disagreeing with me.

But I sincerely want to thank you for your contributions.

Besides which I accidentally "unsubscribed" to this thread and hoped that posting again would renew my subscription. And I'm closing in on that ever elusive 750 mark.

[Bugbear]

Post deleted because I'm an idiot...

[###KILTEDKIWI###]

This is a small group of Americans who will be spending just one week in Scotland and running their own tent at the gathering in purported representation of the family name

Alex,

Having read your post, and further to our conversations on skype, which I continue to thoroughly enjoy; I can't but help agree with your feelings of seperation caused by this society / association / "clan society".

It also causes me a grand sense of embarrassment that the family name will have such controversary attached to it for all to see.

Its seems that pride, greed and a blurred sense of loyality has gotten the better of our American "kinsmen".

I trust / know that you will still wear the family tartan with pride, and that when approached by these individuals, you will make the feelings of not only yourself, but those of the antipodean dispora known to them also.

Regards

Phil C

[Jack Daw]

The old system is almost dead. While in Taynuilt and surroundings last July, our MacIntyre Gathering event coordinators arranged for Andrew, a local fellow, to serve as driver for some of our outings. He was quite nice and dined with us at the Brander Lodge. It was later at our banquet that I discovered he was Andrew Godfrey Diarmid Stuart Campbell-Gray, 23rd Lord Gray. There's nothing like a property tax bill to make us all equal.

[cajuncelt]

Questions for the Scottish nationals:
Is the hereditary issues you have w/ the clan chiefs not identical to the monarchy?
Is the monarchy in their current position because of their protestant Stewart/Stuart bloodline?
Is that position not because they were the protestant decendents/head/chiefs of the Stewart/Stuarts?
Admittedly in ignorance, it seems akin to an American griping about their national/traditional government to include congressmen, governors, senators, but leaving the President out of it.
The clan system alive or dead, positive or negative, arose from specific needs. Because your neighbors were after your land, women, cattle etc., there was an accepted central head...the chief. And it worked. Sure it became bastardized. Everything negative mentioned is unquestionably true, BUT if you're going to look at the clearences, 1745, etc.; should you not look at the 12th, 13th, 14th centuries for example as well? It's very well documented how clansmen LOVED their chief back then for the most part. Bare minimum, he was accepted as a very necessary element. Sure that changed, but wasn't always so either.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Questions for the Scottish nationals:
Is the hereditary issues you have w/ the clan chiefs not identical to the monarchy?
Is the monarchy in their current position because of their protestant Stewart/Stuart bloodline?
Is that position not because they were the protestant decendents/head/chiefs of the Stewart/Stuarts?
Admittedly in ignorance, it seems akin to an American griping about their national/traditional government to include congressmen, governors, senators, but leaving the President out of it.
The clan system alive or dead, positive or negative, arose from specific needs. Because your neighbors were after your land, women, cattle etc., there was an accepted central head...the chief. And it worked. Sure it became bastardized. Everything negative mentioned is unquestionably true, BUT if you're going to look at the clearences, 1745, etc.; should you not look at the 12th, 13th, 14th centuries for example as well? It's very well documented how clansmen LOVED their chief back then for the most part. Bare minimum, he was accepted as a very necessary element. Sure that changed, but wasn't always so either.

You have raised a number of really good points (albeit politically supercharged), and undoubtedly both Monarchists and Republicans will weigh in with conflicting points of view-- BUT, let me suggest that one can develop a finer appreciation for chiefs and clanship by reading the first six chapters of The Clans, Septs & Regiments of the Scottish Highlands by Frank Adams (as revised by Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, a former Lord Lyon). Basically this covers everything from "Ancient Alba and the Rise of the Highland Clan System" (spanning the period from roughly 400 B.C. to A.D. 1286) to the modern-day concept of membership in a clan.

Adams (and Sir Thomas) base their observations on the broad scope of history as well as on Scottish law. They also compare chiefs and the clan system to their Irish and European counterparts, which leads to a deeper understanding of how the system evolved, why it survived, and why it is relevant today.

[Phil]

Questions for the Scottish nationals:
Is the hereditary issues you have w/ the clan chiefs not identical to the monarchy?
Is the monarchy in their current position because of their protestant Stewart/Stuart bloodline?
Is that position not because they were the protestant decendents/head/chiefs of the Stewart/Stuarts?
Admittedly in ignorance, it seems akin to an American griping about their national/traditional government to include congressmen, governors, senators, but leaving the President out of it.
The clan system alive or dead, positive or negative, arose from specific needs. Because your neighbors were after your land, women, cattle etc., there was an accepted central head...the chief. And it worked. Sure it became bastardized. Everything negative mentioned is unquestionably true, BUT if you're going to look at the clearences, 1745, etc.; should you not look at the 12th, 13th, 14th centuries for example as well? It's very well documented how clansmen LOVED their chief back then for the most part. Bare minimum, he was accepted as a very necessary element. Sure that changed, but wasn't always so either.

I said I would bow out of this but as nobody else is likely to answer you then I will do so.
The hereditary system is similar to the monarchy in that it works to perpetuate a single dynasty through, preferably, the male line.
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.
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.
Originally clan chiefs were selected by a system known as tanistry, where the former chief would nominate a successor and clan members would then make their choice. Following the Norman invasion of 1066 and their later spread into Scotland, hereditary primogeniture became the rule along with heraldry, serfdom and all that that entailed. Effectively, from then on, nobles, who actually saw themselves as a race apart from common people, owned the peasants who worked on their lands and held them in bondage. The laws of the land reinforced this and any serf trying to escape would be ruthlessly hunted down. A situation not too different from slavery in more recent times. There were three classes in society, Nobles who exercised their claim to superiority through heraldry, the clergy who lived in great wealth on their monastic estates, and the vast majority of common people who lived in abject servitude to these others. Laws were even passed as to the type of clothing each class could wear and whether or not they could wear jewellery etc. to further cement these class distinctions.
As I said in an earlier post, certain people in Scotland were still regarded as bondsmen right up until the 19th century so this should not be considered an entirely medieval practice.
How clan chiefs were regarded is a matter of conjecture but the way they operated was more in the nature of a mafia-style protection racket than some benevolent society. The chief jealously guarded his lands and used his clansmen as a way of extorting wealth from other, weaker, neighbouring clans. They also operated in a not dissimilar way from Japanese Samurai in that they perpetuated a warrior class (the Gallowglasses) who did no useful work but were hired out as mercenaries by the chief. The vast majority of clansmen toiled to grow crops and raise cattle all for the benefit of this parasitic hierarchy and are unlikely to have regarded them other than with fear and loathing as a result. Why did they stay you ask? Because the lot in the next glen were probably even worse!

[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.