Clan adoption

[macwilkin]

Sorry if I came across as a bit cynical but I don't wish to denigrate anyone's harmless enjoyment in joining a clan society. I think there still are a few genuine clans although how active they are I'm afraid I can't tell as I have no interest in that direction but maybe others can tell you. My impression, though, is that many are fairly recent in origin and mostly based in North America and, while they do have members in other countries, tend to be mainly America-centric in their activities, get-togethers etc.

Well...not really. You will find clan societies across the globe. Besides the US, you will find them in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. To imply that they are all "America-centric" just isn't correct, especially since a number of Chiefs live in Commonwealth countries and in the US. A number of clan societies will have international gatherings in Scotland.

Again, Phil, instead of being so down on us Yanks, why don't you get to know us first?Sure, there are plenty in the Braveheart/Brigadoon crowd, but there are also quite a few of us that do make a honest & sincere effort to honor our heritage.

T.

[gilmore]

Thanks for the thoughts thus far gentlemen... To reiterate, though: JSFMACLJR: you seem to be referring to a historical situation (which is fine -- I like history) but it doesn't seem to me that it would happen nowadays. As for you Phil, you obviously speaking of the clan societies today. Without commenting on whether or not your position is tenable, let me ask this as a followup question: Is there such thing as a clan outside its clan society?

Yes, indeed there is. Clans are legal entities, and the laws regulating them are under the jursidiction of Lord Lyon. See http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/221.185.html

[gilmore]

One could come within the protection of a certain clan by a bond of manrent.
Such a bond was made by an inferior giving homage to a superior--in this case the chief--in exchange for protection. The inferior would be bound by the same obligations as other clansmen had to their chief.

Such bonds are still made within some clans, but they really have no
"teeth" and are just sort of a way to become affiliated with a clan.

Yes, manrent was prohibited by the parliament of Scotland a few centuries ago, and such agreements made void. But according to MacMillan of Rathsdown at least a couple have been entered into in recent years between now-living men and a clan chief. See the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manrent

[ThistleDown]

Reference the Standing Council of Chiefs: "Who Is A Member Of A Clan?
Every person who has the same surname as the chief is deemed to be a member of the clan. Equally a person who offers allegiance to the chief is recognised as a member of the clan unless the chief decides that he will not accept that person’s allegiance."

[JSFMACLJR]

Thanks for the thoughts thus far gentlemen... To reiterate, though: JSFMACLJR: you seem to be referring to a historical situation (which is fine -- I like history) but it doesn't seem to me that it would happen nowadays. As for you Phil, you obviously speaking of the clan societies today. Without commenting on whether or not your position is tenable, let me ask this as a followup question: Is there such thing as a clan outside its clan society?

Bonds of Manrent still exist, as do "Bonds of Mutual Assistance." Please see the Clan Grant website: http://www.clangrant.org/septs.php

[CDNSushi]

Reference the Standing Council of Chiefs: "Who Is A Member Of A Clan?
Every person who has the same surname as the chief is deemed to be a member of the clan. Equally a person who offers allegiance to the chief is recognised as a member of the clan unless the chief decides that he will not accept that person’s allegiance."

Hmm... So, bizarre example here, but for the sake of argument, if I were to change my legal last name to "MacDonald" in a court of law (in my corner of the world), does that make me a member of the clan?

Followup question: Has anyone even heard of someone offering allegiance to a clan chief in the past half-century? Like the concept of manrent, this seems like a concept of eras and centuries gone by.

I'm rather enjoying this thread -- I'm learning a lot! :-)

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Thanks for the thoughts thus far gentlemen... To reiterate, though: JSFMACLJR: you seem to be referring to a historical situation (which is fine -- I like history) but it doesn't seem to me that it would happen nowadays. As for you Phil, you obviously speaking of the clan societies today. Without commenting on whether or not your position is tenable, let me ask this as a followup question: Is there such thing as a clan outside its clan society?

Two rather quick points:

The first being that to my sure and certain knowledge "bonds of manrent" still exist, and are regularly exercised by Scots, in Scotland, who wish to prove an absolute right to clanship where none may exist in either an historical (sept-- an associated name) or biological (clan name) sense. I would refer you to page 28 of the COLLINS SCOTTISH CLAN AND FAMILY ENCYCLOPEDIA by George Way of Plean and Romilly Squire (now of Rubislaw) for a full explanation.

Of course one can be a member of a clan without belonging to the the clan society. One merely has to express loyalty to the chief of the clan, display the chief's badge, and respect the Laws of Heraldry as enforced by the Court of the Lord Lyon. This is, always has been, and continues to be, the most common way of showing that one is part of a clan. Membership in a clan society (highly to be encouraged) is merely a bonus for being a clansman and, as far I know, not a requirement of any clan.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Hmm... So, bizarre example here, but for the sake of argument, if I were to change my legal last name to "MacDonald" in a court of law (in my corner of the world), does that make me a member of the clan?

I am of the opinion than proving descent from some ancient ancestor is really far too restrictive-- if it has ever actually existed as an historical requirement of clan membership. I believe that legally changing your name to "M'Donald" would fullfill part of the requirement; the rest would come down to acknowledging the chief, wearing his badge, and following Scottish heraldic custom.

Followup question: Has anyone even heard of someone offering allegiance to a clan chief in the past half-century? Like the concept of manrent, this seems like a concept of eras and centuries gone by.

Oh Yes. It isn't an uncommon occurrence at all. I have been present when clansmen, in Scotland, have sworn fealty at the inauguration of their chief. Although this is beyond the ken of some, many Scots still take "clanship" very seriously. They may not flaunt it publicly, but like their religious faith, it is something deeply held.

[Bugbear]

Hmmm, does sworn allegiance to a chief extend also to the other clan members in some way? In other words, is this allegiance to the whole clan and it's members, or only to the chief.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Hmmm, does sworn allegiance to a chief extend also to the other clan members in some way? In other words, is this allegiance to the whole clan and it's members, or only to the chief.

To the chief, and through him, to the clan in general.

This is one of the reasons I find membership in multiple clan societies difficult to comprehend, as it really seems to indicate conflicting loyalties-- or at the very least, loyalties of mere convenience.