X Marks the Scot - An on-line community of kilt wearers.

   X Marks Partners - (Go to the Partners Dedicated Forums )
USA Kilts website Celtic Croft website Celtic Corner website Houston Kiltmakers

User Tag List

Results 1 to 10 of 20

Threaded View

  1. #6
    Join Date
    21st May 08
    Location
    Inverness-shire, Scotland & British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    3,886
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, yes some of all of that before but the clan system was/is patriarchal, not feudal. If you lived in a strath or glen in the Highlands and that strath or glen was in the bigger domain of a powerful family and had a recognised patriarch (chief), then you were of his clan -- no matter the surname you assumed, if you assumed one. If you were descended of a Macpherson of some local importance or recognition you valued but lived in Rothiemurcas you were a Grant of Rothiemurcas; if you lived in Strathdearn and were descended of a Macqueen, you were still a Mackintosh -- although sometimes called a Clanchattan

    Sometimes you changed your surname to Grant or Mackintosh, but sometimes not and sometimes that change only depended on the ongoing importance to you of your ancestry -- in your generation.

    There were/are Mackays of no connection with the Mackays of the North, in the Central Highlands descended of Aoigh (prounounced 'Ay' and meaning Adam) called Shaw, descended of a Mackintosh chief, now a sept of Clan Shaw (with its own chief, Shaw of Tordarroch), a segment of Clan Chattan, whose chief is Mackintosh of Torcastle (but not of Mackintosh).

    Septs make sense only if you consider your place of residence and not of your ancestry. If you were a tenant or a sub-tenant (or a sub-sub-tenant), even though not a relative, then you were of the chief's named clan. By virtue of your tenancy and 'common' agreement he was obliged to provide you with a form of protection -- and you were obligated to provide him with 'rent' in kind, and to respond to his call for the 'common' good. All for your own good, in reality.

    The feudal part was an over-lying ownership of the land, above that of the clan. It came about with our early kings and their gifting of vast territories to those who supported them, despite the people who lived there, since those people were without formal ownership of the lands on which they lived. Not dissimilar to the First Nations people of North America, if you will.

    So there were Macdonalds (but not descended of a Macdonald ancestor) who were called Maciains in Glencoe in the 17C, who were actually Rankins and Hendersons by descent, but were also sub-tenants of the Duke of Argyll (through Maciain) to whom Glen Coe had been gifted four centuries before, and been gifted by him to others in the intervening years. And taken back on occasion, too.

    Are you now confused? If you are, that's understandable. Understanding the history of the Highlands is not for the feint of heart, the romantic, the pedantic or the believer that what is now was always so. As a people Scots have evolved and the 'clan' system of the Highlands has evolved, too. Today the clans still exist in Scotland, but in a quite different form than when they came to an inevitably and recognisable end in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. In Scotland, and elsewhere in the world, they have become 'societies', groups of folk perhaps of a common ancestry but more likely based on their common and wide-spread surname alone, or of their home-land locale in Scotland . They may or may not be blood related, but they feel a common bond and a common purpose to preserve and enhance Highland heritage as they see it. Often it's 'as they see it' that is the case in America; caution is offered that what you most often see is not the culture of Scotland now or in times past but a hybrid formed from myth and misunderstanding.

    Regardless, 'clans' still exist, based on the pure acceptance that one person is acknowledged as descendant of the lines of clan chiefs and chieftains before, and the territories over which they at various times held sway.

    No doubt there were folk with the name Mitchell living as tenants on Innes lands in Moray by the 19C, at a time when the concept of septs was first assigned to the Highlands, but Mitchell is simply an Anglicization of the Hebrew Michael through the French Michel and is traceable to the 15C, at the latest. In other words, not 'clan' specific, but by name-adoption and tenancy. There were early Mitchells as far-removed from each other Galloway and Nairn, Glasgow and Aberdeen. Pre1700 research is the only indicator you can follow with assurance of your ancestry, but application to a clan society will assuredly give you access to the present and much more knowledge of your past.

    Best wishes for your ongoing delving, with the hope that you will continue to share your journey with us here at XMarks.

    Rex
    Last edited by ThistleDown; 1st October 17 at 11:59 PM.

  2. The Following 7 Users say 'Aye' to ThistleDown For This Useful Post:


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.0