Clan societies in UK

[kilted2000]

I know that the vast majority of people in Scotland aren't descended from a clan and wouldn't care if they were. That the vast majority don't really wear kilts besides a hired one for a wedding or the tartan army. But there are orgs like the Clan Mackenzie Society of Scotland & the UK. So someone there must be interested. I am just wondering about the few who are interested. In what ways are a clan society in the UK different from one in the US, Canada, or Australia? Less regular kilt wearing I'm guessing. Only wearing clan tartan if any probably. I always want to know how things are, not the romanticized version.

[figheadair]

I know that the vast majority of people in Scotland aren't descended from a clan and wouldn't care if they were. That the vast majority don't really wear kilts besides a hired one for a wedding or the tartan army. But there are orgs like the Clan Mackenzie Society of Scotland & the UK. So someone there must be interested. I am just wondering about the few who are interested. In what ways are a clan society in the UK different from one in the US, Canada, or Australia? Less regular kilt wearing I'm guessing. Only wearing clan tartan if any probably. I always want to know how things are, not the romanticized version.

Just like the majority of the world, genealogical descent in Scotland is not a narrow, linear progression. What makes you think that most people are not descended from a clan, i. e. have some Highland blood in their liniage?

Clan Societies are an irrelevance for most people here as they live here and don't feel the need to demonstrate a link in the way the Scots diaspora do. Those that do belong to a Clan Society are usually more interested in their history but, it's not quite that simple. Ask most Scots and they would say clans were a thing of the past, most would not know that Clan Societies exist and certainly would not belong to one as their are not seen as relevant or necessary.

Similarly, people do not need to wear a kilt to identify as Scottish, they do so when the situation/occasion is appropriate.

I am heavily involved with the historical side of tartan and Highland Dress, am a member of the Royal Celtic Society, a Trustee of The Scottish Tartans Authority and similar organisations but not a clan society. I wear a kilt more than most but am equally comfortable in shorts most of the year when working in the garden or climbing the hills and don't feel any less Scottish.

[Troglodyte]

Your question is puzzling.

It (and others like it asked recently) make me wonder what the North American view of Scotland is.

The majority of clan societies were formed in the UK (if not necessarily Scotland) generations before the passion took off across the Atlantic, with the likes of the Buchanan Society having its foundation as early as 1725. Others are not so ancient, but have been around for much more than 100 years.

My own clan association dates only from the 1930s, but the reason for the late formation is often attributed to the fact that the chief and gentry never went down the 'clearances' route, and so the old clan structure and practices fell away naturally with the advancement of modern ways. Many clansmen still live locally, and acknowledge the chief and other gentry of the area for their past importance and legacy, but feel little compulsion to enter into what you might call the pageant of belonging to a clan.

The association formed itself as an 'association' as the clan already existed, of course, and so that interested members could actively preserve the clan's culture, history and traditions, along with the Gaelic language, promote the use of the clan's tartans and encourage the wearing of Highland dress. Membership is open to those of the clan name and septs, and, crucially, those who have a genuine interest in furthering these aims.

Interestingly, the American organisation, which dates only from the 1970s and operates independently of the home association of my clan, regards itself as the clan in many ways, and excludes kin from other countries (including Scotland) from its activities. Australian, New Zealander, Canadian, South Aftrican, etc, members have formed branches of the main association, and work as one.

There seems to be something of the inverse square law at play in these matters, and the further away from the point of origin, the stronger the passion is felt. So, those clansmen who return to Scotland from overseas display far greater excitement and enthusiasm for a Gathering than those who live locally. It's not that locals feel less strongly per se, but they have the relaxed familiarity everyone feels when at home.

As for getting kilted-up and entering into the revival spirit of of Highland culture, you only have to look at the number of Highland Games which occur around Scotland each year - it is impossible for an individual to visit them all in the same year, as several will be held on the same day. Both visitor and competitor is spoilt for choice.

Other than pipe-bands, competitors and officials, the number of kilted visitors is proportionately low - but by no means ever nil. In fact, the Games serve as ocasions when many kilties feel free to indulge in a bit of show, and ancient inherited garments and accessories are seen in abundance. Certain Games seem to have formed a tradition of this, which acts as encouragement for visitors to make the effort.

It's not that Scots at home don't care about their heritage and culture, but there is an oft-expressed dislike of the tartan-and-shortbread element that foreigners (including other British) have come to expect. Consequently, the number of kilties seen is often disappointingly low.

Dressing for the occasion has long been a very British thing to do, and most people seem to know what the code is. So, a game-fair or county show will be thronging with tweed-clad visitors, and a Highland Games will see the same folks turn up in Highland dress. But no-one is thought any less of if jeans and t-shirt is their preference at the same event.

There is obvious ambivalence or indifference in much of the Scottish population to Highland culture and heritage, but seldom is there actual dislike or resentment. Highland culture is Scottish, but Scottish culture in hugely more than its Highland heritage, which may account for why it is easy to misinterpret the modern attitude.

No-one chooses their parents or ancestry, and there is no obligation to acknowledge or participate in Highland culture in any way. A study carried out by Edinburgh University revealed that only 30 per cent of the Scottish population identifies with a Highland clan, so the remaining 70 per cent - the vast majority as you put it - can be expected not to. Why would they do otherwise?

No-one does more for Highland culture and heritage than the Scots, and none can argue successfully that the way they do it is wrong. So what is seen in Scotland is the genuine thing, the authentic way, and anything else is not.

[Jock Scot]

I think that Peter and "Troglodyte's" posts cover all points and I cannot usefully add to their comments, other than to say that I agree with them.

[User]

...
There seems to be something of the inverse square law at play in these matters, and the further away from the point of origin, the stronger the passion is felt. So, those clansmen who return to Scotland from overseas display far greater exitement and enthusiasm for a Gathering than those who live locally. It's not that locals feel less strongly per se, but they have the relaxed familiarity everyone feels when at home.
...

As one would expect, that effect applies to all humankind. My wife comes from a culture that never experienced a diaspora. But as she is far from her homeland, she now has an interest in aspects of her culture that she was indifferent toward when she was surrounded by it.

I can only guess as to the reasons why. But I suspect she yearns to maintain a connection. When you're living in a culture, no maintenance is required. As you mentioned, when you live in a culture, whatever you do IS a part of that culture. Being removed from it creates a perspective shift.

[Father Bill]

As one would expect, that effect applies to all humankind. My wife comes from a culture that never experienced a diaspora. But as she is far from her homeland, she now has an interest in aspects of her culture that she was indifferent toward when she was surrounded by it.

I can only guess as to the reasons why. But I suspect she yearns to maintain a connection. When you're living in a culture, no maintenance is required. As you mentioned, when you live in a culture, whatever you do IS a part of that culture. Being removed from it creates a perspective shift.

Something that is sometimes sneered at by some of those in the country of the culture's origin, annoyed and thinking, in this case, that we want to be more Scottish than the Scots.

No, but we are anxious that we do not lose that which is diluted by all those other cultures and customs around us and thus endangered to us through slow wasting away unless we nourish it vigorously and often.

[EagleJCS]

One thing that puzzles me is the idea that clans only existed in the Highlands. I have read in many different sources that the Border Reivers were also called clans and were recognized as such as early as the 12th century.

[Liam]

I find it interesting that on this forum North Americans are often lumped together as an homogeneous lot.
“It (and others like it asked recently) make me wonder what the North American view of Scotland is.” for example.
We are far from homogeneous in our views and have very different opinions on many subjects including our Scottish ancestry, clan societies etc.
just saying….

[Troglodyte]

One thing that puzzles me is the idea that clans only existed in the Highlands. I have read in many different sources that the Border Reivers were also called clans and were recognized as such as early as the 12th century.

The Border 'clans' were not clans in the recognised way, and were excluded from the legislation that formally etablished the location and extent of the Highland clans in the 1500s.

The Borders became a perpetual battleground for 300 years - effectively from when Robert the Bruce became king of Scotland to until James VI became king of England. It was policy on both sides of the border for successive monarchs to encourage the destabilisation of the region, and raiding of each other's territory.

Unlike the Gaelic Highland clans, the Border families were essentially Anglo-Saxon, and the same race and origin, culture and language as the English from the Lothians southwards. Part of the trouble was that a huge swathe of Northumbria and Cumbria (what ought to be England) had been seized be force by the Scots nation, around the time of the Norman conquest, and the English wanted it back.

The character of the Borderer grew out of a need to be warlike and independent, and generally showed two fingers to the authorities in Edinburgh and London, and families became cohesive for defense and protection. Armstrong, Eliot, Johnstone, Douglas, Young, Scott, etc, are now given the same recognition as Highland clans, with tartans, clan crests, and societies that play on the Highland clan style when they ought to be doing somethig quite different.

The Border 'clan' structure, with its complex and extensive rivalries and alliances, extended well into England, but only the Scottish names have taken up the fashionable 'clan' thing - all clans are Scots, so all Scots are clans, so to speak.

The fascinating thing about both the Highland clans and the Border families, is that they held allegiance to those of their own choosing and not necessarily their own nation or government. Consequently, Highland clans were quite happy to enter into deals with the English, and fight for them in the Irish wars, or create trouble at home for the Scottish king.

When England and Scotland went to war (as they frequently did) many of the Scottish Borderers were sympathetic to the English, and would arrange to meet on the battlefield opposite their English allies. When the fighting started, there would be a noisy charge, but the end of the fighting revealed no casualties.

Author, historian and journalist George Macdonald Fraser (who, despite his Highland name, described himself as an English Borderer, and he of 'Flashman' fame) wrote extensively of the Border conflicts, and says when he saw Richard Nixon on the hustings flanked by Lyndon Johnstone and Billy Graham, three men of Border ancestry, he recognised the names and physical type immediately.

At one time the Graham name had been proscribed, and those with it had been banished from the realm. Johnstones and Nixons have what the police call 'form', so GMF said that when three likely lads of this breed get together, trouble is sure to follow. Was he wrong..?