A Modern Scottish View of Clans (and Gathering)

[Phil]

61 posts in 37 hours, and many of them bitter about how unfair it is to not be a member of the lucky sperm club, and how this is somehow tied into accidents of birth, etc. This almost sounds like the basis of the next Dan Brown conspiracy book-- Angles and Crofters, maybe? Or would it be The Karl Marx Code?

It has been my observation that people with talent, who apply themselves, inevitably do well. Those who sit on the sidelines of life and piss and moan about how unfair things are usually accomplish little, regardless of their self-styled "social status" or third level (and often second rate) academic attainments .

Let me use the example of Malcolm, an 18th century crofter on Arran who had two sons, Daniel and Alexander. In the 1830s Malcolm's sons left Arran, went to Edinburgh and set up as book sellers. There Malcolm's sons worked hard, expanded their business and, moving to England, founded a publishing company in 1845. Daniel had a son, Maurice, who followed in his father's footsteps in the family business. Maurice had a son, also named Maurice, who, in turn, also became chairman of the family publishing business. But only after he had spent a lifetime in public service, eventually becoming the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Now if the great-grandson of an 18th century crofter from Arran could become Prime Minister there is obviously a lot more emphasis placed on meritocracy in the United kingdom than some are willing to admit.

So, it seems to me that if one isn't the Prime Minister, or isn't rich, or isn't... whatever, it's not the fault of the hereditary landed classes. It's probably one's own fault for not having made the best of every opportunity that came their way.

Excellent reply, MOR, and I am sure there is not a better example of the point I was trying to get across. You refer, of course, to the former Conservative British Prime Minister known as Harold MacMillan (he dropped the Maurice). Although he, himself was not exactly a “lad o pairts”, that distinction really belonging to his forebears in the 19th century who started the family publishing dynasty. Perhaps another example would be our present Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, a kirk minister’s son, educated at a State school rather than an exclusive and costly establishment such as Eton where MacMillan was educated, and who has achieved high office regardless of this.
But there could be no better example than Harold MacMillan who, despite his great talents, privileged education, connection to noble families (the Devonshires) through marriage still could never become chief of his clan.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

But there could be no better example than Harold MacMillan who, despite his great talents, privileged education, connection to noble families (the Devonshires) through marriage still could never become chief of his clan.

You are absolutely correct, but not for the reasons you've stated. The courts decided in 1953 that the chiefly line was vested in General Sir Gordon MacMillan. So the matter is settled in law. And this is the case with virtually all of the Scottish chiefs: they are chiefs because of a decision made by a court of law. People who who are unhappy with that decision have the right to appeal, and some have. In fact cases of chiefship have gone all the way to the House of Lords. But at the end of the day the Law has determined who is entitled to be called a chief, not some clerk at the central registry of births.

(By the way, in the archives at the MacMillan Clan Center there is a letter from Harold MacMillan acknowledging the chief, wishing him well, and stating how proud he is to be a member of the clan.)

I think it presumptuous to assume that the average clansman (or even Super Mac) would want to be a clan chief. I know I wouldn't. I see chiefship as a tiring, largely thankless task that quite often gets in the way of the chief having a life of his own. True, a chief gets to be friends with people from all walks of life and every corner of the globe-- and here one may have missed the central core of chiefship-- that clan folk come from every possible section of society, and all are regarded as "family and friends" by their chief, and generally treated as such.

There is no "below the salt" at a clan gathering.