Translating Dreams

Scottish Clans- Mac Gregor Family sample

traveltwinpicks99 ♦ April 24, 2010 ♦ 1 Comment

The term clan, now applied almost exclusively to the tribes into which the Scottish Highlanders were formerly, and still to some extent are divided, was also applied to those large and powerful septs into which the Irish people were at one time divided, as well as to the communities of freebooters that inhabited the Scottish borders, each of which, like the Highland clans, had a common surname. The system of clanship in the Highlands continued to flourish in almost full vigour down to the middle of the 18th century.

A good deal has been written on the subject in its various aspects, and among other authorities we must own our indebtedness for much of our information to Skene’s Highlanders of Scotland, Gregory’s Highlands and Isles, Robertson’s Scotland under her Early Kings, Stewart’s Sketches of the Highlanders, Logan’s Scottish Gael and Clans, and The Iona Club Transactions, besides the publications of the various other Scottish Clubs.

The principle of kin that land was allotted to the members of the various tribes. The property of the land appears to have been vested in the Cean-cinnetli, or head of the lineage for the good of his clan; it was “burdened with the support of his kindred and Amasack” (military followers), these being allotted parcels of land in proportion to the nearness of their relation to the chief of the clan. The word clan itself, from its etymology, points to the principle of kin, as the bond which united the members of the tribes among themselves, and bound them to their chiefs. The word clan, as we have said, signifies family, and a clan was a certain number of families of the same name, sprung, as was believed, from the same root, and governed by the lineal descendant of the parent family. This patriarchal form of society was probably common in the infancy of mankind, and seems to have prevailed in the days of Abraham; indeed, it was on a similar principle that Palestine was divided among the twelve tribes of Israel, the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob.

Among the Highlanders themselves various traditions have existed as to the origin of the clans. The first of these is the Scottish or Irish system, by which the clans trace their origin or foundation to early Irish or Scoto-Irish kings.Many of the Highland clans are deduced from the great heroes in the fabulous histories of Scotland and Ireland, by identifying one of these fabulous heroes with an ancestor of the clan of the same name. During the 17th century, the fabulous history of Scotland first began to be doubted, it was considered to be a principal merit in an antiquarian to display his scepticism as to all the old traditions of the country.The idea, however, never obtained any great credit in the Highlands. The Highland clans are not of different or foreign origin, but that they were a part of the original nation, who have inhabited the mountains of Scotland as far back as the memory of man, or the records of history can reach; that they were divided into several great tribes possessing their hereditary chiefs; and that it was only when the line of these chiefs became extinct, and Saxon nobles came into their place, that the Highland clans appeared in the peculiar situation and character in which they were afterwards found.”

As far back as history goes the Highlanders were divided into tribes on the principle of kin, that the germ of the fully developed clan-system can be found among the earliest Celtic inhabitants of Scotland; that clanship, in short, is only a modern example, systematised, developed, and modified by time of the ancient principle on which the Celtic people formed their tribes and divided their lands. The clans were the fragments of the old Celtic tribes, whose mormaors had been destroyed, each tribe dividing into a number of clans. When, according to a recent writer, the old Celtic tribe was deprived of its chief, the bolder spirits among the minor chieftains would gather round them each a body of partisans, who would assume his name and obey his orders. It might even happen that, from certain favourable circumstances, a Saxon or a Norman stranger would thus be able to gain a circle of adherents out of a broken or chieftainless Celtic tribe, and so become the founder of a clan.

As might be expected, this primitive, patriarchal state of society would be liable to be abolished as the royal authority became extended and established, and the feudal system substituted in its stead. This we find was the case, for under David and his successors, during the 12th and 13th centuries, the old and almost independent mormaordoms were gradually abolished, and in their stead were substituted earldoms feudally dependent upon the Crown. In many instances these mormaordoms passed into the hands of lowland barons, favourites of the king; and thus the dependent tribes, losing their hereditary heads, separated, as we have said, into a number of small and independent clans, although even the new foreign barons themselves for a long time exercised an almost independent sway, and used the power which they had acquired by royal favour against the king himself.

As far as the tenure of lands and the heritable jurisdictions were concerned, the feudal system was easily introduced into the Highlands; but although the principal chiefs readily agreed, or were induced by circumstances to hold their lands of the Crown or of low country barons, yet the system of clanship remained in full force amongst the native Highlanders until a very recent period, and its spirit still to a certain extent survives in the affections, the prejudices, the opinions, and the habits of the people.

The nature of the Highlands of Scotland was peculiarly favourable to the clan system, and no doubt helped to a considerable extent to perpetuate it. The division of the country into so many straths, and valleys, and islands, separated from one another by mountains or arms of the sea, necessarily gave rise to various distinct societies. Their secluded situation necessarily rendered general intercourse difficult, whilst the impenetrable ramparts with which they were surrounded made defence easy. The whole race was thus broken into many individual masses, possessing a community of customs and character, but placed under different jurisdictions; every district became a sort of petty independent state; and the government of each community or clan assumed the patriarchal form, being a species of hereditary monarchy, founded on custom, and allowed by general consent, rather than regulated by positive laws.

The system of clanship in the Highlands although possessing an apparent resemblance to feudalism, was in principle very different indeed from that system as it existed in other parts of the country. In the former case, the people followed their chief as the head of their race, and the representative of the common ancestor of the clan; in the latter, they obeyed their leader as feudal proprietor of the lands to which they were attached, and to whom they owed military service for their respective portions of these lands. The Highland chief was the hereditary lord of all who belonged to his clan, wherever they dwelt or whatever lands they occupied; the feudal baron was entitled to the military service of all who held lands under him, to whatever race they might individually belong. The one dignity was personal, the other was territorial; the rights of the chief were inherent, those of the baron were accessory; the one might lose or forfeit his possessions, but could not thereby be divested of his hereditary character and privileges; the other, when divested of his fee, ceased to have any title or claim to the service of those who occupied the lands. Yet these two systems, so different in principle, were in effect nearly identical. Both exhibited the spectacle of a subject possessed of unlimited power within his own territories, and exacting unqualified obedience from a numerous train of followers, to whom he stood in the several relations of landlord, military leader, and judge, with all the powers and prerogatives belonging to each of those characters. Both were equally calculated to aggrandise turbulent chiefs and nobles, at the expense of the royal authority, which they frequently defied, generally resisted, and but seldom obeyed; although for the most part, the chief was less disloyal than the baron, probably because he was farther removed from the seat of government, and less sensible of its interference with his own jurisdiction. The one system was adapted to a people in a pastoral state of society, and inhabiting a country, like the Highlands of Scotland, which from its peculiar nature and conformation, not only prevented the adoption of any other mode of life, but at the same time prescribed the division of the people into separate families or clans. The other system, being of a defensive character, was necessary to a population occupying a fertile but open country, possessing only a rude notion of agriculture, and exposed on all sides to aggressions on the part of neighbours or enemies. But the common tendency of both was to obstruct the administration of justice, nurse habits of lawless violence, exclude the cultivation of the arts of peace, and generally to impede the progress of improvement; and hence neither was compatible with the prosperity of a civilised nation, where the liberty of the subject required protection, and the security of property demanded an equal administration of justice.

“The chief exercises an arbitrary authority over his vassals, determines all differences and disputes that happen among them, and levies taxes upon extraordinary occasions, such as the marriage of a daughter, building a house, or some pretence for his support or the honour of his name; and if any one should refuse to contribute to the best of his ability, he is sure of severe treatment, and, if he persists in his obstinacy, he would be cast out of his tribe by general consent. This power of the chief is not supported by interest, as they are landlords, but by consanguinity, as lineally descended from the old patriarchs or fathers of the families, for they hold the same authority when they have lost their estates, as may appear from several instances, and particularly that of one (Lord Lovat) who commands his clan, though at the same time they maintain him, having nothing left of his own. On the other hand, the chief, even against the laws, is bound to protect his followers, as they are sometimes called, be they never so criminal. He is their leader in clan quarrels, must free the necessitous from their arrears of rent, and maintain such who by accidents are fallen to total decay. Some of the chiefs have not only personal dislikes and enmity to each other, but there are also hereditary feuds between clan and clan, which have been handed down from one generation to another for several ages. These quarrels descend to the meanest vassals, and thus sometimes an innocent person suffers for crimes committed by his tribe at a vast distance of time before his being began.”

This clear and concise description will serve to convey an idea of clanship as it existed in the Highlands, about the beginning of the eighteenth century, when the system was in full force and vigour. It presented a singular mixture of patriarchal and feudal government and everything connected with the habits, manners, customs, and feelings of the people tended to maintain it unimpaired, amidst all the changes which were gradually taking place in other parts of the country, from the diffusion of knowledge, and the progress of improvement. There was, indeed, something almost oriental in the character of immutability which seemed to belong to this primitive institution, endeared as it was to the affections, and singularly adapted to the condition of the people amongst whom it prevailed. Under its influence all their habits had been formed; with it all their feelings and associations were indissolubly blended. When the kindred and the followers of a chief saw him surrounded by a body of adherents, numerous, faithful, and brave, devoted to his interests, and ready at all times to sacrifice their lives in his service, they could conceive no power superior to his; and, when they looked back into the past history of their tribe, they found that his progenitors had, from time immemorial, been at their head. Their tales, their traditions, their songs, constantly referred to the exploits or the transactions of the same tribe or fraternity living under the same line of chiefs; and the transmission of command and obedience, of protection and attachment, from one generation to another, became in consequence as natural, in the eye of a Highlander, as the transmission of blood or the regular laws of descent. This order of things appeared to him as fixed and as inviolable as the constitution of nature or the revolutions of the seasons. Hence nothing could shake his fidelity to his chief, or induce him to compromise what he believed to be for the honour and interest of his clan. He was not without his feelings of independence, and he would not have brooked oppression where he looked for kindness and protection. But the long unbroken line of chiefs is of itself a strong presumptive proof of the general mildness of their sway. The individuals might change, but the ties which bound one generation were drawn more closely, although by insensible degrees, around the succeeding one; and thus each family, in all its various successions, retained something like the same sort of relation to the parent stem, which the renewed leaves of a tree in spring preserve, in point of form and position, to those which had dropped off in the preceding autumn.

Many important consequences, affecting the character of the Highlanders, resulted from this division of the people into small tribes, each governed in the patriarchal manner already described.

If it were profitable, it might be curious to trace the negotiations, treaties, and bonds of amity, or rnanrent as they were called, by which opposing clans strengthened themselves against the attacks and encroachments of their enemies or rivals, or to preserve what may be called the balance of power. Amongst the rudest communities of mankind may be discovered the elements of that science which has been applied to the government and diplomacy of the most civilised nations. By such bonds they came under an obligation to assist one another; and, in their treaties of mutual support and protection, smaller clans, unable to defend themselves, and those families or septs which had lost their chieftains, were also included. When such confederacies were formed, the smaller clans followed the fortunes, engaged in the quarrels, and fought under the chiefs, of the greater. Thus the MacRaes followed the Earl of Seaforth, the MacCoils the Stewarts of Appin, and the MacGillivrays and MacBeans the Laird of Mackintosh; but, nevertheless, their ranks were separately marshalled, and were led by their own subordinate chieftains and lairds, who owned submission only when necessary for the success of combined operations. The union had for its object aggression or revenge, and extended no further than the occasion for which it had been formed; yet it served to prevent the smaller clans from being swallowed up by the greater, and at the same time nursed the turbulent and warlike spirit which formed the common distinction of all. From these and other causes, the Highlands were for ages as constant a theatre of petty conflicts as Europe has been of great and important struggles; in the former were enacted, in miniature, scenes bearing a striking and amusing analogy to those which took place upon a grand scale in the latter. The spirit of opposition and rivalry between the clans perpetuated a system of hostility; it encouraged the cultivation of the military at the expense of the social virtues, and it perverted their ideas both of law and morality. Revenge was accounted a duty, the destruction of a neighbour a meritorious exploit, and rapine an honourable employment. Wherever danger was to be encountered, or bravery displayed, there they conceived that distinction was to be obtained; the perverted sentiment of honour rendered their feuds more implacable, their inroads more savage and destructive; and superstition added its influence in exasperating animosities, by teaching that to revenge the death of a kinsman or friend was an act agreeable to his manes; thus engaging on the side of the most implacable hatred and the darkest vengeance, the most amiable and domestic of all human feelings, namely, reverence for the memory of the dead, and affection for the virtues of the living.

Another custom, which once prevailed, contributed to perpetuate this spirit of lawless revenge. “Every heir or young chieftain of a tribe,” says Martin, who had studied the character and manners of the Highlanders, and understood them well, “was obliged to give a specimen of his valour before he was owned and declared governor or leader of his people, who obeyed and followed him on all occasions. This chieftain was usually attended with a retinue of young men, who had not before given any proof of their valour, and were ambitious of such an opportunity to signalise themselves. It was usual for the chief to make a desperate incursion upon some neighbour or other that they were in feud with, and they were obliged to bring, by open force, the cattle they found in the land they attacked, or to die in the attempt. After the performance of this achievement, the young chieftain was ever after reputed valiant, and worthy of government, and such as were of his retinue acquired the like reputation. This custom being reciprocally used among them, was not reputed robbery; for the damage which one tribe sustained by the inauguration of the chieftain of another, was repaired when their chieftain came in his turn to make his specimen.” But the practice seems to have died out about half a century before the time at which Martin’s work appeared, and its disuse removed one fertile source of feuds and disorders. Of the nature of the depredations in which the Highlanders commonly engaged, the sentiments with which they were regarded, the manner in which they were conducted, and the effects which they produced on the character, habits, and manners of the people, an ample and interesting account will be found in the first volume of General Stewart’s valuable work on the Highlands.

It has been commonly alleged, that ideas of succession were so loose in the Highlands, that brothers were often preferred to grandsons and even to sons. But this assertion proceeds on a most erroneous assumption, inasmuch as election was never in any degree admitted, and a system of hereditary succession prevailed, which, though different from that which has been instituted by the feudal law, allowed of no such deviations or anomalies as some have imagined. The Highland law of succession. to be considers the chiefship and the superiority of the lands belonging to the clan, in respect to the property or the land itself. The succession to the chiefship and its usual prerogatives was termed the law of taniatry; that to the property or the land itself, gavd. But when the feudal system was introduced, the law of tanistry became the law of succession to the property as well as the chiefship; whilst that of gavel was too directly opposed to feudal principles to be suffered to exist at all, even in a modified form. It appears, indeed, that the Highlanders adhered strictly to succession in the male line, and that the great peculiarity which distinguished their law of succession from that established by the feudal system, consisted in the circumstance that, according to it, brothers invariably succeeded before sons. In the feudal system property was alone considered, and the nearest relation to the last proprietor was naturally accounted the heir. But, in the Highland system, the governing principle of succession was not property, but the right of chiefship, derived from being the lineal descendant of the founder or patriarch of the tribe; it was the relation to the common ancestor, to whom the brother was considered as one degree nearer than the son, and through whom the right was derived, and not to the last chief, which regulated the succession. Thus, the brothers of the chief invariably succeeded before the sons, not by election, but as a matter of right, and according to a fixed rule which formed the law or principle of succession, instead of being, as some have supposed, a departure from it, occasioned by views of temporary expediency, by usurpation, or otherwise. In a word, the law of tanistry, however much opposed to the feudal notions of later times, flowed naturally from the patriarchal constitution of society in the Highlands, and was peculiarly adapted to the circumstances of a people such as we have described, whose warlike habits and love of military enterprise, or armed predatory expeditions, made it necessary to have at all times a chief competent to act as their leader or commander.

But if the law of tanistry was opposed to the principles of the feudal system, that of gavel or the succession to property amongst the Highlanders was still more adverse. By the feudal law the eldest son, when the succession opened, not only acquired the superiority over the rest of the family, but he also succeeded to the whole of the property, whilst the younger branches were obliged to push their fortune by following other pursuits. But in the Highlands the case was altogether different. By the law of gavel, the property of the clan was divided in certain proportions amongst all the male branches of the family, to the exclusion of females, who, by this extraordinary Salic anomaly, could no more succeed to the property than to the chiefship itself. The law of gavel in the Highlands, therefore, differed from the English custom of gavel-kind in being exclusively confined to the male branches of a family. In what proportions the property was divided, or whether these proportions varied according to circumstances, or the will of the chief, it is impossible to ascertain. But it would appear that the principal seat of the family, with the lands immediately surrounding it, always remained the property of the chief; and besides this, the latter retained a sort of superiority over the whole possessions of the clan, in virtue of which he received from each dependent branch a portion of the produce of the land as an acknowledgement of his chiefship, and also to enable him to support the dignity of his station by the exercise of a commensurate hospitality. Such was the law of gavel, which, though adverse to feudal principles, was adapted to the state of society amongst the Highlands, out of which indeed it originally sprang; because, where there were no other pursuits open to the younger branches of families except rearing flocks and herds during peace, and following the chief in war; and where it was the interest as well as the ambition of the latter to multiply the connexions of his family, and take every means to strengthen the power as well as to secure the obedience of his clan, the division of property, or the law of gavel, resulted as naturally from such an order of things, as that of hereditary succession to the patriarchal government and chiefship of the clan. Hence, the chief stood to the cadets of his family in a relation somewhat analogous to that in which the feudal sovereign stood to the barons who held their fiefs of the crown, and although there was no formal investiture, yet the tenure was in effect pretty nearly the same. In both cases the principle of the system was essentially military, though it apparently led to opposite results; and, in the Highlands, the law under consideration was so peculiarly adapted to the constitution of society, that it was only abandoned after a long struggle, and even at a comparatively recent period traces of its existence and operation may be observed amongst the people of that country.

Similar misconceptions have prevailed regarding Highland marriage-customs. This was, perhaps, to be expected. In a country where a bastard son was often found in undisturbed possession of the chiefship or property of a clan, and where such bastard generally received the support of the clansmen against the claims of the feudal heir, it was natural to suppose that very loose notions of succession were entertained by the people; that legitimacy conferred no exclusive rights; and that the title founded on birth alone might be set aside in favour of one having no other claim than that of election. But this, although a plausible, would nevertheless be an erroneous supposition. The person here considered as a bastard, and described as such, was by no means viewed in the same light by the Highlanders, because, according to their law of marriage, which was originally very different from the feudal system in this matter, his claim to legitimacy was as undoubted as that of the feudal heir afterwards became. It is well known that the notions of the Highlanders were peculiarly strict in regard to matters of hereditary succession, and that no people on earth was less likely to sanction any flagrant deviation from what they believed to be the right and true line of descent. All their peculiar habits, feelings, and prejudices were in direct opposition to a practice, which, had it been really acted upon, must have introduced endless disorder and confusion;, that a person who was feudally a bastard might in their view be considered as legitimate, and therefore entitled to be supported in accordance with their strict ideas of hereditary right, and their habitual tenacity of whatever belonged to their ancient usages. Nor is this mere conjecture or hypothesis. A singular custom regarding marriage, retained till a late period amongst the Highlanders, and clearly indicating that their law of marriage originally differed in some essential points from that established under the feudal system, seems to afford a simple and natural explanation of the difficulty by which genealogists have been so much puzzled.

“This custom was termed hand-fasting, and consisted in a species of contract between two chiefs, by which it was agreed that the heir of one should live with the daughter of the other as her husband for twelve months and a day. If in that time the lady became a mother, or proved to be with child, the marriage became good in law, even although no priest had performed the marriage ceremony in due form; but should there not have occurred any appearance of issue, the contract was considered at an end, and each party was at liberty to marry or hand-fast with any other. It is manifest that the practice of so peculiar a species of marriage must have been in terms of the original law among the Highlanders, otherwise it would be difficult to conceive how such a custom could have originated; and it is in fact one which seems naturally to have arisen from the form of their society, which rendered it a matter of such vital importance to secure the lineal succession of their chiefs. It is perhaps not improbable that it was this peculiar custom which gave rise to the report handed down by the Roman and other historians, that the ancient inhabitants of Great Britain had their wives in common, or that it was the foundation of that law of Scotland by which natural children became legitimized by subsequent marriage; and as this custom remained in the Highlands until a very late period, the sanction of the ancient custom was sufficient to induce them to persist in regarding the offspring of such marriages as legitimate.”

But after the introduction of the feudal law, which, in this respect, was directly opposed to the ancient Highland law, the lineal and legitimate heir, according to Highland principles, came to be regarded as a bastard by the government, which accordingly considered him as thereby incapacitated for succeeding to the honours and property of his race; and hence originated many of those disputes concerning succession and chiefship, which embroiled families with one another as well as with the government, and were productive of incredible disorder, mischief, and bloodshed. No allowance was made for the ancient usages of the people, which were probably but ill understood; and the rights of rival claimants were decided according to the principles of a foreign system of law, which was long resisted, and never admitted except from necessity. It is to be observed, however, that the Highlanders themselves drew a broad distinction between bastard sons and the issue of the hand-fast anions above described. The former were rigorously excluded from every sort of succession, hut the latter were considered as legitimate as the offspring of the most regularly solemnized marriage.

Having said thus much respecting the laws of succession and marriage, we proceed next to consider the gradation of ranks which appears to have existed amongst the Highlanders, whether in relation to the lands of which they were proprietors, or the clans of which they were members. And here it maybe observed, that the classification of society in the Highlands seems to have borne a close resemblance to that which prevailed in Wales and in Ireland amongst cognate branches of the same general race. In the former country there were three different tenures of land, and nine degrees of rank. Of these tenures, the first was termed Maerdir, signifying a person who has jurisdiction, and included three ranks; the second was called Uchiordir, or property, and likewise consisted of three ranks; and the third, denominated Priodordir, or native, included that portion of the population whom we would now call tenants, divided into the degrees of yeomen, labourers, and serfs. the natural chief of their clan, and followed him in war. When a Highland chief, however, acquired by the operation of the feudal succession, an additional property which had not been previously in the possession of his clan, he found it possessed by the nativi of another race. If these nativi belonged to another clan which still existed in independence, and if they chose to remain on the property, they did so at the risk of being placed in a perilous situation, should a feud arise between the two clans.

The old monarchs of North Britain and Ireland were too weak either to control the pride and insolence of the great, or to restrain the licentiousness of the populace. Many of those princes, if we credit history, were dethroned, and some of them even put to death by their subjects, which is a demonstration that their power was not unlimited.

In the old genealogies each tribe is invariably traced to a common ancestor, from whom all the different branches or clans are supposed to have descended. Thus we have—l. Descendants of Conn of the Hundred Battles, including the Lords of the Isles, or Macdonalds, the Macdougals, the Macneills, the Maclachlans, the Macewens, the Maclaisrichs, and the Maceacherns; 2. Descendants of Fearchar Fada Mac Feradaig, comprehending the old mormaors of Moray, the Mackintoshes, the Macphersons, and the Macnauchtans; 3. Descendants of Cormac Mac Oirbertaig, namely, the old Earls of Ross, the Mackenzies, the Mathiesons, the Macgregors, the Mackinnons, the Macquarries, the Macnabs, and the Macduffies; 4. Descendants of Fergus Leith Dearg, the Macleods and the Campbells; and 5. Descendants of Krycul, the Macnicols.

.

You may wish to go to Founding of the Clans and the Kings of the Isles to continue the story…

CLAN MAP OF SCOTTISH DESCENDANTS

Although this is only a map of a limited number of Scottish Clans one can clearly see the Clans around the regions of Edinburgh, Glasgow stretching to Perth and as far as the Sea. This blog on Clans is but a sample of family ancestory which relates very distantly to my belated Great Uncle of the Gregory Family living in far away USA until this day.  Although I originate from Australia I am not connected to the Convicts whom left Great Britain bounded for Australia but growing up in a country where so many descendants originate from the UK, Scotland or Ireland.

My curiosity and acknowledgement of the great histories of the Europeans and societies elsewhere have enabled me to learn about various clans and patriachial societies around the world.

This is in honour of my belated Great Uncle Frances Oakley Gregory whom served in China on behalf of the American Navy and retired to Australia where his final resting place is in Sydney. May we never forget those whom fought and served our countries of origin during WWI and WWII and continue to allow us to live in democracies and have the freedom to carry our family heritage with pride irrespective of the continent we originate from.

SCOTLAND- Ancestory and Clans

traveltwinpicks99 ♦ April 24, 2010 ♦ Leave a Comment