Interesting email from an Irish fellow about Irish kilts.

[O'Callaghan]

For more tartans that 5 for Ireland you can visit http://www.doyle.com.au/tartan_irish.htm

You are correct that there isn't that many, but there are definitely more. I'm sure there is even more than I've listed in this link, but oh well.

I had a look at that Doyle site, and it lists 48 Irish clan or family tartans. Nor is it even vaguely true that most of them have links to Scotland.

Only two or three of them correspond to Scottish clans, and even with those you have to remember that the highlanders came to Scotland from Ireland, not the other way around, so even where the tartan was originally adopted in Scotland the clan itself invariably existed in Ireland first and then spread to Scotland, not vicea versa. That is a common mistake when people think they recognise 'Scottish' names in Ireland, i.e. if they are highland clan names then they are in fact Irish names that occur in Scotland.

OTOH, lowland Scots and a even a few highlanders did settle in the North of Ireland many centuries later, so it can be hard to unscramble, but many people get it wrong because they have heard of that migration and not the earlier one in the other direction.

This brings up an interesting questions. If you find out from genealogical research that you are descended from a Scots clan name solely via Ireland and have no Scots blood can you still wear the tartan? I'd say yes, if it's the same clan, but not everyone would agree.

There are certainly other Irish name tartans that are not listed on the Doyle site. Callaghan is one of them. It isn't old, but it represents the Callaghans in the same way that, for example, the Leatherneck tartan represents the USMC, i.e. someone has registered it.

The Irish Record Office at one time kept a list of Irish clans, and I think there were only 16 or 19 or some number like that. Of course, in reality there were far more, but AFAIK there isn't the tendency to start new clans that seems to be found in lowland Scotland. Callaghan was recorded as a clan, but the tartan was registered as a family tartan without any approval of either the hereditary clan chief (believe it or not located in Barcelona, Spain, LOL!) or the clan society in Co. Cork.

In comparison, my cousins' lowland Scots clan, that shall remain nameless to spare their blushes, didn't even exist AFAIK when I was a child. Back then they were supposed to be a sept of another clan, but now they have a clan society and a chief, and of course a tartan that goes all the way back to the 1980s. Granted that's older than the Callaghan tartan (registered in 2007, LOL!), but the Callaghan clan itself is over a thousand years old.

I have seen Callaghan tartan on the net, but at 75 bucks a yard! At that price I think I could afford enough for a tie!

[slohairt]

Only two or three of them correspond to Scottish clans, and even with those you have to remember that the highlanders came to Scotland from Ireland, not the other way around, so even where the tartan was originally adopted in Scotland the clan itself invariably existed in Ireland first and then spread to Scotland, not vicea versa. That is a common mistake when people think they recognise 'Scottish' names in Ireland, i.e. if they are highland clan names then they are in fact Irish names that occur in Scotland.

OTOH, lowland Scots and a even a few highlanders did settle in the North of Ireland many centuries later, so it can be hard to unscramble, but many people get it wrong because they have heard of that migration and not the earlier one in the other direction.

This brings up an interesting questions. If you find out from genealogical research that you are descended from a Scots clan name solely via Ireland and have no Scots blood can you still wear the tartan? I'd say yes, if it's the same clan, but not everyone would agree.

Irish names occurring in Scotland actually come from two sources:

1) As the bulk of Gaelic surnames are patronymics, it is highly probable that two unrelated surnames would appear in both countries at the same time. Though based on the same male personal name they are, in fact, not connected. The Scotii stopped migrating to Scotland long before the 'surname period' in Ireland occurred. (Reputed to be in the reign of Brian Boru.)

2) Irish emigration to Scotland occurring during the middle of the 19th Century. By the 1850s, a large bulk of the working-class in Glasgow were Irish. Their descendants are still numerous today.

Scottish surnames occurring In Ireland:

Lowland Scots (and some English) did migrate en masse to Ulster commencing in the 17th Century. Indeed, many names of non-Irish origin can be found all over Ireland. However, a source of Scottish (Gaelic) surnames in the North is often overlooked: Gallowglass. Many Highlanders fought for the Uí Néill and the Uí Dónaill. These soldiers-of-fortune were often granted land as payment. These individuals/families were easily assimilated into the native Irish population.

[O'Callaghan]

Irish names occurring in Scotland actually come from two sources: 1) As the bulk of Gaelic surnames are patronymics, it is highly probable that two unrelated surnames would appear in both countries at the same time. Though based on the same male personal name they are, in fact, not connected. The Scotii stopped migrating to Scotland long before the 'surname period' in Ireland occurred. (Reputed to be in the reign of Brian Boru.) 2) Irish emigration to Scotland occurring during the middle of the 19th Century. By the 1850s, a large bulk of the working-class in Glasgow were Irish. Their descendants are still numerous today. Scottish surnames occurring In Ireland: Lowland Scots (and some English) did migrate en masse to Ulster commencing in the 17th Century. Indeed, many names of non-Irish origin can be found all over Ireland. However, a source of Scottish (Gaelic) surnames in the North is often overlooked: Gallowglass. Many Highlanders fought for the Uí Néill and the Uí Dónaill. These soldiers-of-fortune were often granted land as payment. These individuals/families were easily assimilated into the native Irish population.

Whilst I agree that the Scotii emigrated to Scotland before surnames as such, I don't know that it was before clan names. That is, someone may have been known by only one name, with no separate first and last names, but he was a member of a particular clan. Of course, the members of the clan were not all genetically related though. IOW, even if it's the same clan in both Ireland and Scotland, and I think in some cases you can show that it is, it needn't imply actual descent, or at least not for the whole clan, although probably for the chiefs. When surnames came into use in Ireland, most would have taken the name of their clan, whatever genetic relationship existed to the founder of the clan, including none atall, and most wouldn't have actually known their family tree. Mainly just the chiefs would have been able to trace their lineage back. Of course, this means that the likelihood is that I'm not descended from the original Callaghan atall, but neither do I know that I'm not. It is interesting that in Scotland you have so many surnames that are septs of clans. I think this shows, to the extent that it is genuine and not invented, that clans continued to be important in Scotland long after the adoption of surnames, which is apparently not the case in Ireland. In both places you had many unrelated clan members, but in Ireland they tended to wind up with the clan surname. Point taken, though.

[beloitpiper]

Whilst I agree that the Scotii emigrated to Scotland before surnames as such, I don't know that it was before clan names. That is, someone may have been known by only one name, with no separate first and last names, but he was a member of a particular clan. Of course, the members of the clan were not all genetically related though. IOW, even if it's the same clan in both Ireland and Scotland, and I think in some cases you can show that it is, it needn't imply actual descent, or at least not for the whole clan, although probably for the chiefs. When surnames came into use in Ireland, most would have taken the name of their clan, whatever genetic relationship existed to the founder of the clan, including none atall, and most wouldn't have actually known their family tree. Mainly just the chiefs would have been able to trace their lineage back. Of course, this means that the likelihood is that I'm not descended from the original Callaghan atall, but neither do I know that I'm not. It is interesting that in Scotland you have so many surnames that are septs of clans. I think this shows, to the extent that it is genuine and not invented, that clans continued to be important in Scotland long after the adoption of surnames, which is apparently not the case in Ireland. In both places you had many unrelated clan members, but in Ireland they tended to wind up with the clan surname. Point taken, though.

Wow, that's a dense paragraph...anyway, the Irish didn't have clans like the Scottish did. And when surnames came into effect, they weren't taken from the "clan", it was simply their ancestors. Hence "Mac" meaning "Son of" and "O" meaning "Ancestor/grandson of", etc. I can only think of a few true names that are historically Scottish and Irish, Kennedy being the most prominent.

[O'Callaghan]

Wow, that's a dense paragraph...anyway, the Irish didn't have clans like the Scottish did. And when surnames came into effect, they weren't taken from the "clan", it was simply their ancestors. Hence "Mac" meaning "Son of" and "O" meaning "Ancestor/grandson of", etc. I can only think of a few true names that are historically Scottish and Irish, Kennedy being the most prominent.

I don't think that's exactly true. Callaghan has both a hereditary clan chief recognised by the Irish Record Office (although that body no longer does this, because a chief of another Irish clan turned out to be a fraud) and also a clan society in Co. Cork (that may or may not still be active), albeit there's a major disconnect between the two. Traditionally, all Callahans, Callaghans and O'Callaghans are supposed to be descended from Callaghan (or in gaelic Ceallachan) of Cashel, who was king of Munster in the 10th century, which I understand is before surnames. He can be found in a chart called the lineage of the Eoganacht (which was a tribe). Google it, it's online.

Ancient lineages like this have to be taken with a pinch of salt, but it shows him below the first McCarthy and the first Kennedy and above the first McGrath (Maccraith) and the first Sullivan (Sulliban), for example. None of these men had surnames, and if they had done they would all have had the same one, because they were all directly descended from eachother if we believe the lineage. However, traditionally each of these surnames originated with those particular individuals, first as a clan and only later passed on in the way a surname would be today.

The barons Lismore trace themselves back to the first Callaghan, and even if that lineage is perhaps questionable they certainly bore the surname before elevation to the peerage.

The Irish clans each had their own traditional lands, although in the case of the Callaghans they were forcibly relocated twice by the English.

All the above can be found if you Google it. That doesn't mean that the traditions are always accurate, or that the lineages are always accurate, or that everyone of the name is of the blood. It just means that the traditions are what they are, and I'm not making this stuff up, LOL!

[SteveB]

It is indeed nice to have an old thread brought to life. I am an American, with a diverse ancestry. I was born in Kildare, Kildare, Eire. Both of my parents were born in the U.S.A. Aside from a birth certificate from the Republic of Ireland that lists my parents as foreign, my connection to the Emerald Isle is weak at best. My mother's grandparents are of County Down, Northern Ireland (U.K.) She visited them as they were very aged, whilst I was in process. I came into the world a month early and on the other side of the pond. I knew nothing of all this until later in life when I had to get out my birth certificate to enlist in the U.S. Air Force. In 2000 I visited Ireland to find the place of my birth. I had no problem entering the country as I am also an Irish citizen by birth. I have no real Irish culture. I am plenty proud to be a dual citizen. It is useful when I have been called a plastic paddy, to whip out my plastic encased Irish I.D. I am of Clan MacNeil, the oldest and baddest Irish pirates that ever were.

[SteveB]

I would love to find this gentleman in a pub in Ohio, just to show him what this plastic paddy really looks like.

[slohairt]

Ah, if only the unnamed fool knew what a debate his email has sparked!

The Irish did indeed have clans, Greg. Not exactly like the Scottish Highlanders, but remarkably similar. They were simply destroyed at an earlier point in history. (The 17th Century.)

Some Irish surnames, especially those with the 'Mac' prefix, were taken directly from the father. The prefix 'Ó' (earlier Ua) does mean 'grandson' technically, but 'ancestor' is a better translation. These names were often taken from the clan's semi-historical progenitor.

Surnames in Ireland became fixed at a much earlier date than in Scotland. In fact, Scottish Gaelic surnames as we know them today were hardly used at all. For example, Alasdair Mac Raonuill Mac Mhaighstir Mac Ruairidh, a member of Clann Mhic Dhùghaill, would be known by this lengthy patronymic by his family and within Gaelic-speaking circles. When he travelled to the Lowlands or abroad to find work, he became known as Alexander McDougall. His descendants from then on would be McDougalls.

The Irish Kennedys and the Scottish Kennedys are completely unrelated. The Irish Kennedy clan (Ó Cinnéide) were members of the Dál gCais, and are reputed to be descended from Brian Boru's brother. The Scottish Kennedys (Ceannaideach or Mac Uaraig) originated in Ayrshire. There is territorial overlap due to migration, but this does not denote kinship.

[O'Callaghan]

How about the Irish Gunns and the Scots Gunns? That's a hard name to change accidentally or by the passage of time. Or the Irish McGraths and the Scottish MacRaes? Both of the latter claim Maccraith as progenitor - is it a different Maccraith?