A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)

[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.

[tulloch]

Whatever the clan system may have been looking at it from here in our 21st century it was a basic structure for survival. What endlessly fascinates me is the primitive nature of it juxtaposed with the great innovations and inventions that came of this people. The Scotts in all other lands brought a work ethic and the ability to adapt that, I think, makes them stand out. I respect them and am proud to be associated. At the same time I am proud of my grandfathers and their grandfathers and I am stirred by the tartans associated with them. I think it is a diaspora view.

[KFCarter]

Phil, and other posters on this thread,

I appreciate very much hearing, and participating in, this exchange of views. Threads like this may bring out a sharp elbow or two from time to time, but for me, the valuable insights gained are worth it.

Thanks all.

[10buckstew]

If you don't mind, I'll stir the ashes on this simmering debate, mostly to see if we can re-visit the original topic, but also to bow in respect to a few people, and a few things.
-- Phil, and Macmillan--, if i may be so informal, I am moved by the depth of your knowledge of history, as well as your writing ability. I must however, give a tip of the hat to Cajunscot for having the sand to say the 'umentionables'.

The clan society in Scotland is going to be seen different by different strata of society, in the past as well as the present. The 'romance' angle is not however, the sole perogative of the ignorant, the expatriot, nor the gentry. It belongs to everyone, and it does NOT mean that people were not hurt by the system; it's a matter of heartfelt loyalty.
Clan chiefs usually swore allegiance to the King, but it was always touchy, because of the 'first among equals' idea that was, and is held. The original Stewart, a knight from Dol, was successful in driving out the 'vikings' and so was granted his title, that was later made hereditary. He earned it, in other words.
By marriage, they later became Royal.
It's a complex issue- bound to evoke the monarchy- because the Scots have lost theirs.
-Sorry, but that's the way I, and almost every Scot I have spoken with, feel, although it has never been said quite that way.
It was not just due to religion, but remember; religion is what the unwashed masses will die for, and even to today, financial coups are dressed in religious robes.
There certainly were monetary angles to the hanoverian succession being adopted; Please do not forget that Englands switch to 'fractional reserve banking' was in the offing (which makes the Darien affair pale by financial comparison when you take the long view). The effects of that system being adopted by the 'Monarchy' are still with us today.
But to return to our thread; Scots I am friends with, or have known briefly in Scotland on travels, have (in my opinion AND experience), had a burning nationalism that is bound to evoke pure Jacobite oaths. Tanistry, if the the issue ever did arise, could even be used to support a new Stewart lineage, and don't think of that as a joke. I think the crown under glass in Edinburgh could easily have hundreds of thousands--if not millions of Scots out in the streets to swear allegiance to it, or at least vote for it. (homerule might win someday, if it's packaged with a separate monarchy).
Loyalty (not just romance), and nationalism, runs deep in Scotland from what I've seen.
In the so-called 'rebellions' of the '15', and the '45', (more like wars for independance)many, many past disputes were forgotten. Many,many Scots risked (and lost) everything-Titles, lands, even their lives, to support this so-called 'romantic notion'.
Would you cast aspersion on those peoples most cherished beliefs? Rabbie Burns held them. His father held them(lost everything in the '45'). His grandfather did too(was in the '15'). What IS the ideal Scot, if not fiercely loyal?
My ancestors were descended from a branch of the Stewart family that turned Protestant, and was sent to Ireland (what they call the Plantations). When the Risings began they suddenly turned to Stewart loyalty above religious considerations, and lost everything, coming to America to start fresh (I say this to show why I bothered to write all this about such a complex subject).
I cannot leave this without pointing out that the injustice and brutalities of the system were part and parcel of life in historic times--nothing unusual. (America 'the free' didn't have Civil Rights passed until 1968!)
So, while the system may have been ugly in it's workings, history shows that when a call to a "higher purpose" went out (as in the Risings), even clan chiefs were willing to lay down their lives to show they believed in it.
I find that so-called 'commoners' still feel this, even when many generations from Scotland. That the clan system is now often reduced to booths in 'fairs' and highland games is not so much ignoble; It is simply a way for Everyone to show that they feel something deep is going on there, and they would like to be a part of it.
I believe even something as simple as the wearing of the kilt, honors that deep emotion.

Thank you for your time, even if you do not agree, perhaps- especially if you do not agree.

I apoligize to any I have offended, feel free to ri[p] and {tear} this apart; it's an open forum.

[thescot]

. . .(America 'the free' didn't have Civil Rights passed until 1968!)
. . .

Well, if you refer to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 as the beginning of civil rights in the US, then you should point out that the law is only applicable in the southern states. Which would, I guess, imply that the other 39 or so states (depending on whether you use Obama's count) have no civil rights.

A statement which I believe begs a reference to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution (Commony refered to as the Bill of Rights) which guaranatee civil rights. They may not have been universally applied, but they were not invented in 1968.

Gosh I love a good discussion on this site.

[wvpiper]

Well, if you refer to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 as the beginning of civil rights in the US, then you should point out that the law is only applicable in the southern states. Which would, I guess, imply that the other 39 or so states (depending on whether you use Obama's count) have no civil rights.

do you mean the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Either way, they both apply to all 50 states. They may have been passed to address specific problems predominate in the South, but they're applicable to all.

[gilmore]

do you mean the Voting Rights Act of 1965, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Either way, they both apply to all 50 states. They may have been passed to address specific problems predominate in the South, but they're applicable to all.

You got the dates right, but the latter part of the info isn't quite accurate.

The Voting Rights Act does apply to all 50 states, but only to those with a history of governmental discrimination in voting. Want to guess where those states are? I believe, though, it has been used a few times in a very few counties and cities outside the South that had a history of racial and other discrimination in voting, and that didn't involve African Americans. But my memory may be faulty. It has been decades since I worked on voting rights litigation.