Septs and Associated Families

[James MacMillan]

Wow - Matt - That was fantastic!! And even more so, because it probably came right off the top of your head, into your fingers and out to the keyboard for all of us to see.

Thank you!!

[Fedgunner]

This is a great thread!

Matt, as a favor? tackle "armigers" please?

[macwilkin]

This is a great thread!

Matt, as a favor? tackle "armigers" please?

I'm not Matt, but I can provide you an answer: an armiger is someone who has been granted arms:

http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/242.html

Remember, there is no such thing as a "family crest" -- arms belong to individuals, known as armigers.

Regards,

Todd

[sirdaniel1975]

I want to pitch in a note on "septs." Matt has said it VERY WELL.
There are some "septs" that are PERFECTLY legit. The name itself is rare and comes from a family that held a hereditary office in particular clan, so was distinct from the normal clansman WHILE tied to THAT particular clan, but NOT the "chief-line" either.
On the other side, some "septs" stretch in imagination. Matt mentioned a number of these. It seems that, during the popularization of "clan tartans," some enterprising person went through the Scottish surname list and simply scattered all the unassociated names with A clan.
So, one should be cautious in over-claiming through a "sept" (such as getting a HUGE tattoo that covers your back) without any real research.

So, what is the PRACTICAL implication?
One of my "family names" is Todd. Todd is pretty closely associated with Gordon and is usually just said "Todd IS Gordon." "Todd," itself, comes from "Fox" (I've been told). Now WHY Todd is associated with Gordon is something I have not been able to establish. So, I WILL be making a kilt in Gordon. I would have hesitation in getting a Gordon tattoo, though. I happen to REALLY like that tartan, so that's cool.
Another name is Wilson, which is generally associated with the Gunns. Wilson is probably one of the MOST common names in ALL SCOTLAND. There is, however, a REAL reason for the Wilson association with Gunn (and several versions of precisely WHY). So, many Gunns are Wilsons, though most Wilsons probably are NOT Gunns.

Yes, Yes, Yes! So many names are "son of" names using prefixes Mac, Mc, M', or suffixes son & s. I'll use the name "Gregor" for examples:
MacGregor
McGregor
M'Gregor
Gregorson
Gregors

All mean son of Gregor.

Now in names that mean son of William, which is a popular Germanic name, it is impossible for all Wilson's or Williamson's (my name) to be " --- " of Gunn. I include Williamson because it is actually the same name as Wilson. Another popular Wilson probability is Clan Innes. Let's not forget all those Wilson's that are from the Lowlands either. If I'm correct Wilson, is normally in the top 5 for most common surnames of Scotland. Brown & Smith are usually top 5 as well.

http://www.clanscottsociety.org/link....html#Scotland

http://genealogy.about.com/library/w...h_surnames.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2775365.stm

http://surnames.behindthename.com/to...100scs2001.php

http://www.caithness.org/fpb/februar...monsurname.htm

I'm sure you (MacWage) are aware of all this. You seem like a smart guy. Some of the others who are new at this, could use the help. (not saying the others aren't smart)

Now, the best book for Scottish Surnames has already been mentioned in this thread (by Matt) "The Surnames of Scotland" by George F. Black. Follow the link! To my understanding it has been out of print, but is now for sale at "Scots Press: Unicorn Limited." I suppose they have resurrected yet another great book of reference.

[Cawdorian]

Yes, Yes, Yes! So many names are "son of" names using prefixes Mac, Mc, M', or suffixes son & s. I'll use the name "Gregor" for examples:
MacGregor
McGregor
M'Gregor
Gregorson
Gregors

(clearing throat) You left out Gregory.

[sirdaniel1975]

(clearing throat) You left out Gregory.

Yup, thanks! Although I was exploring the popularity of the more common "son of" prefixes and suffixes. Ex. Mac..... son....

[Jerry]

Bryan,

I'll answer you here, rather than in PM, so all can read. The first thing to realize is that there are many different levels to this question. And no, it has nothing at all to do with heraldry.

So, to get the basics out of the way, what is a "sept." Sept is just another word for "family." Period. They are more or less synonymous. So if the word "sept" is confusing you, just substitute the word "family" and you'll be fine.

In fact, more and more you are seeintg people use the term "associated family" rather than sept. I know I frequently use this phrase when I'm talking with people at the museum. I favor it because I find that a lot of people today are not familiar with the term "sept" and tend to get confused by, or hung up on, that term when I use it.

I find a common misconception is that a "sept" was a "sub-clan" or smaller clan that was "absorbed by" the larger clan for protection, or a variety of other reasons. This is hardly ever the case, but for whatever reason people tend to see this term "sept" (wrongly) as a term of subjugation. I'll hear people boast "my family is a clan, yours is just a sept." It's silly, really.

I find by using the phrase "associated family" or just "family of the clan," I avoid some of that misconception, and it gives me the opportunity to explain that a clan was made up of a vairety of families, not all of which bore the same surname. It is really the surname of the cheif of the clan which gives us the clan name. Other families within the clan may not necessarily bear the same name, yet all are just as much a part of the clan.

So, the basic answer to your question about tartan is that it is perfectly acceptible for any associated family (sept) of the clan to wear the clan tartans.

Now, this is all the "recieved wisdom" of today. If you go back and examine the history of all of this, it gets a bit more complex. You ask about the reason some family names are associated with clans. Someone here said marrieage, and that is correct in some cases, but certainly not all. More often than not, it is a matter of location.

Historically, what clan you belonged to had nothing whatsoever to do with bloodline. It had to do with where you lived and who you were loyal to. If you lived in a particular clan's territory, it behooved you to pledge loyalty to the cheif of that clan. If the clan accepted your loyalty, you are a member of the clan, regardless of your bloodline. Most non-nobility didn't really know or care to keep up with their pedigree beyond living memory anyway. What did it matter?

So many of these "sept lists" were compiled just by looking at the regions in which certain surnames were found in Scotland, and making a connection between the clan and the region.

In some other cases a name is affiliated with a clan because of an alliance of some sort. For instance, if you look up the name 'Bryce" in The Surnames of Scotland by Goeorge Black, you will read that in the seventeenth century the Bryce family supported the MacFarlanes in their fued against the Buchanans (I beleive it was -- I don't have the reference in front of me). It is for that reason today that if you look up "Bryce" in a sept list, it says "MacFarlane."

So there is no pat answer as to why a family may be associated with a clan. If you want to know in your particular case, you need to do some research into the name. It looks like you have already done this in your case. The Butters held land in Atholl and were followers of Murray of Atholl. Therefore they were part of the clan, and it would be perfectly fine of you to wear the Murray of Atholl tartan.

Some of the historical links between family names and clans are somewhat dubious, to be sure. Prior to the nineteenth century, there were no "sept lists." And as time progressess, these sept lists seem to be getting longer and longer. Most clan chiefs at the time had no more knowledge of their clan's history than anyone else, so they tended to accept these things blindly. This means that some names may have been considered as part of the clan for 200 years even though the historical connection may not be that sound.

Of course, one could say that if the chief accepts you as a part of the clan, and you want to be part of the clan, then you are in fact a part of the clan! It matters not who your anscestors 400 years ago gave their allegiance to. (That allegiance may have been to someone else 500 years ago, or 300).

To others, the actual history is more important, and unfortunately in this regard there is no substitute for personal geneaological research, and you really cannot go by any "name list" out there. And the fact is that even the most extensive geneaological data is not going to reveal what "clan" a family belonged to.

To complicate matters even further, surnames are a relatively recent thing in Scotland, especially in the Gaelic world. Surnames in general were introduced to Scotland largely around the twelfth century, and then among English (Scots) speakers for the most part. The Gaels took much longer to adopt them, with many Gaelic families not adopting surnames until the early 20th century. (By surname here I mean an inherited last name, the same name passed on from one generation to the next).

Prior to this, your byname was individual and descriptive. If you were called John Smith, it was because you were a blacksmith. If you baked bread for a living, you were John Baker. Or perhaps there were two Johns in your villiage. You were John, son of Donald (MacDonald), and the other was John, son of Lawrence (MacLaren). You get the idea. But you can see how these names had nothing to do with what clan people belonged to.

If you look up certain occupational names in the sept lists it gets a little ridiculous. Taylors are Camerons. Smiths are MacPhersons. Weavers are MacFarlanes. Are we to beleive that all weavers were part of the Clan MacFarlane? I suppose this means you have to buy all your cloth from the MacFarlanes and take it to the Camerons to be tailored, no? :-)

The ones that adopted inherited surnames first were those who owned land and titles and could pass them on to the next generation -- the nobility. Here an inherited surname was more important because it showed the family connection that entitled you to the estates, titles, etc. But for the rest of us? Surnames were unimportant.

So you could therefore have a Donald from Argyll who was a loyal man of the Clan Campbell. His son Robert is called Robert MacDonald, because his father's name is Donald. He moves to Glasgow to find work, and there he is known as Robert MacDonald. When he has a son, William, his son takes his father's surname, because inherited surnames are in use in English speaking Glasgow. So now he is William MacDonald. William MacDonald migrates to Nova Scotia and begins a family there, all of which continue to use the MacDonald name.

Now his great-great grandson is a man named Ronald Donald MacDonald. He's into his Scottish heritage and attends all the Highland Games he can find. He wants to buy a kilt. If he walks into any tartan shop and says, "My name is Ronald Donald MacDonald, what tartan do I wear?" what do you think they are going to tell him?

So now he's a card-carrying member of the Clan Donald Society, has his MacDonald tartan kilt, all the accessories, is well read on this history of the Clan Donald, and considers himself a loyal son of the Clan. Even though in reality his anscestors were from Argyll and loyal members of the Clan Campbell.

So, this is just a cautionary tale to take all of this with a grain of salt. Do your research, trying to be as particular as you can to your family. Pick out a tartan that you feel some connection with, some justification in wearing. Don't put all your enthusiasm behind the idea that your anscestors 400 or 500 years ago were in fact loyal members of this particular clan. The reality is that in most cases you just don't know. But rejoice in that you are partaking in a modern tradition and are continuing to be involved in your heritage.

My name. McNeill is listed as a sept of Macneil of Barra. In other places I have seen it said that McNeill is just a spelling variation of Macneil, and is actually the same as Macneil. I do know that my family came from the county Tyrone area of Northern Ireland and have been told that we are Scots, living in Northern Ireland. I'm still a bit confused as to whether we are actually Macneil's or a sept of the clan. As I understand the spelling thing, there was no standard way to one's their name back then and one person might spell his own name several different ways.

[Phil]

My name. McNeill is listed as a sept of Macneil of Barra. In other places I have seen it said that McNeill is just a spelling variation of Macneil, and is actually the same as Macneil. I do know that my family came from the county Tyrone area of Northern Ireland and have been told that we are Scots, living in Northern Ireland. I'm still a bit confused as to whether we are actually Macneil's or a sept of the clan. As I understand the spelling thing, there was no standard way to one's their name back then and one person might spell his own name several different ways.

It wasn't so much the individual spelling the name different ways as the officials they came into contact with. Church officers, immigration officials those sort of people would just write down a name the way it sounded and the majority of ordinary people in the 19th century and before couldn't read & write so wouldn't be able to correct it. A forebear of mine called Dunlop had his name changed when he arrived in America to Dunlap. It must have sounded that way with an American accent and that's how his name stayed. I remember my granny making fun of it.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

My name. McNeill is listed as a sept of Macneil of Barra. In other places I have seen it said that McNeill is just a spelling variation of Macneil, and is actually the same as Macneil. I do know that my family came from the county Tyrone area of Northern Ireland and have been told that we are Scots, living in Northern Ireland. I'm still a bit confused as to whether we are actually Macneil's or a sept of the clan. As I understand the spelling thing, there was no standard way to one's their name back then and one person might spell his own name several different ways.

If you are a sept of the MacNeil clan, then you are actually part of the clan. It's the same thing. Remember, "sept" is just another word for "family." It doesn't matter if the surname you bear is actually the name of the clan, or one of the other affiliated names -- you are just as much part of the clan as anyone else.

In this case it is a case of a simple spelling variation of the name. Remember that until fairly modern times, there was no such thing as "standardized spelling." If you were able to look back through all your family records, I'd bet you'd find relatives spelling the name McNeil, MacNeil, Macneill, Mcneal, McNeill, MacNiall, McNial, M'Neal, Macneel, and probably others! All would be Anglicized forms of the same Gaelic MacNeill (acent over the "e", I just don't know how to do that in HTML!)

Aye,
Matt

[creativeaccents]

The whole realm of family name and history has led me to a new understanding, even as I study the history of England, Scotland and Ireland. For example, soon after my "Walker" predecessors arrived in Massachusetts in the late 1600's there were over 500 walker families in the "old Plymouth colony". But, in reassessing the situation I began at my own generation in which I have two parents, they had two parents of different names, and each of their grand parents had two different family nmaes, so truth be told, the whole concept of the patrilineal "family" is in no way truly reflective of who we are. A geometric progression quickly enters in so that even if I only go back to the 1600s the number of family names, every one of which had an equal input into my heritage, is staggering. In fact, carried much beyond the 1600's the hundreds of names become thousands to the point that the obvious conclusion is that at some point the geometric progression of individual and distinct families must surely break down as there simply were not that many distinct families. Try it.

Relating this to history shows how many different sources of hertitage from around the world actually contributed to making the English, Scots, or Irish who they were, including strains from all over Europe and the Mediterranean and that is just within the brief span of recorded history. Rather small considering that people have been there since around 5500 BC. How many think in terms of the Celtic bloodlines originating from Italy or the influence of so very many other regions and yet THAT is who we are far more than the simple patrilineal family name.

My brother had this borne out in a simple DNA test that showed the strong predominance of the Celtic/"English" stock, but where did the many traces of Nordic, Spanish, Indian and other threads enter in. Well, now we know that early peoples got around a LOT more than any history teachers ever told us, such as the Basque here in the U.S. LONG before the Vikings and the even more interesting recent finding in prehistoric bones in the midwest that showed European as well as American Indian DNA. So goes the myth of the American Indian as purely of the Asian stock that crossed the land bridge.

The point of all of this? Simply that neither Heraldry nor tartans were always what we understand or think. Heraldry was for an individual. Tartans were worn by any who were loosely associated by other ties than just one family. Ultimately, we are probably all distantly related and nobody is either of one family or even one ethnic stock as even in historical terms there is no group that has ever been of one stock or one ethnic line. All the more reason why I thoroughly enjoyed the recent exercise of designing my own tartan that is symbolic of all that is uniquely me as represented by the colors of the Blue Ridge and nature.