Clansman

[Ranald]

In light of recent threads and their contents, I would like to know simply what is it that enables someone to call themselves a clansman.
This is posted as a serious question and may sound strange to those that know the answers, but I would rather look a fool for a while than to never know at all.

[macwilkin]

In light of recent threads and their contents, I would like to know simply what is it that enables someone to call themselves a clansman.
This is posted as a serious question and may sound strange to those that know the answers, but I would rather look a fool for a while than to never know at all.

The Lord Lyon's web site has one of the best definitions I have seen:

Who is a member of a clan?

Every person who has the same surname as the chief is deemed to be a member of the clan. Equally a person who offers allegiance to the chief is recognised as a member of the clan unless the chief decides that he will not accept that person's allegiance.

There is no official list of recognised septs. This is a matter for each chief to determine. But where a particular sept has traditionally been associated with a particular clan it would not be appropriate for that name to be treated by another clan chief as one of its septs.

http://www.lyon-court.com

Cheers,

Todd

[Ranald]

Many thanks Todd.
I'll have a extra special look at the site.

[Archangel]

This is not a challenge to Cajunscot.

Have a good read of the site, it will answer many question on this subject. I want to point out that the above quote would be the strict legal definition for claimant stuff. If you go to the crests section, particularly the belted one, that will open up the definition more generally.

You'll find that most issues here are trying to reconcile these two positions.

Fair enough, Todd?

[macwilkin]

This is not a challenge to Cajunscot.

Have a good read of the site, it will answer many question on this subject. I want to point out that the above quote would be the strict legal definition for claimant stuff. If you go to the crests section, particularly the belted one, that will open up the definition more generally.

You'll find that most issues here are trying to reconcile these two positions.

Fair enough, Todd?

Fair enough. I should have included a link to the article about the Clansman's Badge, because it talks a little about what defines a clansman (or woman) as well. ;)

Cheers,

Todd

[An t-Ileach]

I have problems with the posted definition, all respect to cajunscot and others.

It has often struck me as on a par with all the business about correct dress and etiquette and what must (and mustn't) be worn with what. The trouble with this, for me, is analogous to the discussions we've been having about the kilt and how to wear it and what to wear with it. The wearing of the kilt we want to make a living thing by not being too pedantic, but acknowlegding that there are occasions for dressing up formally nevertheless. I want similarly to keep the Clan system as a living thing, developing as necessity takes, to keep up with our modern social environment and not a quaint survival of some ancient past.

In both cases I feel that going back to the true past form (rather than the Victorian construct) for inspiration for our modern development is helpful.

I've always found Lyon and the people at the Lyon Court very nice and helpful, so I won't digress into my beefs with Stuart institutions (and the Mods are watching).

The keeping of a surname, English style, is an unusual practice in Celtic lands where people were traditionally known as the son or daughter of their father and of their grandfather: "Sine nic Eacheairn Òg mhic Eacheairn Mòr", or "Owain ap Hywel ab Iorwerth". And this practice is still very much alive.

Add in the traditional membership of a derbfine as five generations of descent from a common ancestor (some old authorities even suggest nine generations) and you have a multiplicity of patronymics. But all will be, for example, Domhnallaich ("MacDonalds") or Caimbeulaich ("Campbells"), by traditional allegiance, and area affiliation. I think this area and allegiance element is very important, more so than the "same surname" thing. I mean, if we stick with the "same surname"/"name bearer" qualification, then in each generation we are shedding approximately 60-70 % of the Clan.

It's interesting in this respect, that strictly speaking in Gaelic you don't ask "where do you come from?" but "who do you come from?" (Cò as a tha sibh?).

There is a further complication in that in the Highlands it was not/is not unusual for a person to be known as the son of his mother - "Daibhidh mac Shine nic Eacheairn" (further simplified to "Daibhidh Shine", Jean's David). It was also usual for a woman not to change her name on marriage, as how do you change your father's name (and you don't become the daughter of your father-in-law)? And so Clan identity passed down through one's mother as well.

So, to take this forward into our present day, where the status and authority of the Clan Chiefs is slowly eroding in Scotland but the feeling of belonging to a Clan is actually strengthening, I think that we need to emphasise personal identification with a Clan that we have (by the old system) a connection to - of blood (through mother or father) or area (no matter how far we've travelled since our relatives moved away).

What do you all think?