Anderson clans
Sheila McGregor
the use of Clan as in "Clan Anderson" is totally meaningless.
It is even misleading. There was no clan ever called
Anderson. There was not even one family called Anderson.
There were Andersons all over Scotland, and we still don't
seem to know where they came from. The Gaelic original
name must have been Mac-Gillie-Andrew (or Andries) but this
is not restricted to any one area or clan.
Could we please stop using "clan" to mean nothing much more
than "surname"? It makes a nonsense of an important facet of
Scottish history. A clan was a historical entity which shared
its lands, its chief and its history. The modern-day Andersons
come from a great variety of backgrounds and have no shared
history. According to various sources, McAndrews were attached
to Clan Donald, Clan Gregor and Clan Chattan (that covers
most of the Highlands for starters), and distinct Anderson families
are found in at least three separate places. There are hundreds
of unattached Andersons in S Perthshire - who are they?
There might be, and ought to be, an Anderson Family History
Society dealing with genealogical research into anyone
bearing this name. More than that is fiction. There is
indeed an Anderson tartan, which may be misleading to some
people. Someone called Anderson no doubt designed it at
some point, and used it, but it is not and cannot be a clan
tartan since there is no clan. Donald Stewart says of it,
in Setts of the Scottish Tartans:
'Recently become popular for feminine wear, this
elaborate pattern gives the impression of being made up of
elements from older designs not very successfully blended.
The ground is variously rendered in grey, turquoise or pale
blue."
Robert Bain, in Clans and Tartans of Scotland, shows this
tartan, and shows the crest of the Andersons of Airdbreck,
one of several Anderson families of note. Others are the
Andersons of Dowhill and the Andersons of Candacraig in Strathdon.
Are these MacAndrews under another name? Can the Clan Anderson
Society tell me? Bain confuses the issue further by saying that
the MacAndrews are regarded as a sept of Clan Chattan - but
these are not any of the Andersons he describes. He also says
some McAndrews are associated with the MacDonnels of Glengarry.
But he doesn't mention that there were also MacAndrews in Glenlyon
(and in S Perthshire and possibly also in Strathspey) who were
McGregors of the House of Roro, and to whom John MacAndrew,
the Watch at Dalnahatnich in Strathspey, Grant country, probably
belonged, given the links between the Roro McGregors and the
Grants, and the employment of McGregors elsewhere as the
Watch. He doesn't explain the change from McAndrew to
Anderson, or even if they are the same name. Why is Anderson
a common name in Shetland, as far from Gaeldom as one can get?
He says, which is also strictly not true, that Anderson and
MacAndrew mean 'son of Andrew'. Strictly speaking no Highlander
was ever called 'son of Andrew' since Andrew is the name of a
Christian saint. The original name is 'Son of the Servant of
Andrew' which indicates dedication at birth to St Andrew - a
considerable difference.
I hope this underlines the lack of meaning in 'Clan Anderson.'
It isn't a clan, it's a widespread Scottish surname. You
might as well talk about Clan Smith or Clan Brown (but please
don't). Even an "Anderson Family Society" would be preferrable.
Can we please stop this use of "clan" when there is only a surname
in common?
Sheila McGregor
Maury Mccrillis
Why be so pedantic about the use of the word "clan"? It is not the case
that if we fail to think of a surname as only deriving from (or bearing
some affiliation to) a now defunct clan that was organized in the 18th C.
that all hell will break loose and the term will become nonsensical. I
mean, afterall Sheila, the Gregors are a branch of Clan Alpin and as such,
using your rationale, should technically have no claim to anything other
than a designation as a "family". Now stop it before other clansmen here
proscribe you sons a' Griogar all over again and give back control of your
lands to the Campbells. Since my grandmother was a Campbell, that might
entitle me to move into your house.
Maury McCrillis
Lesley Robertson
>At the risk of being flamed myself, can I point out that
>the use of Clan as in "Clan Anderson" is totally meaningless.
>It is even misleading.
{snip}
>
>Could we please stop using "clan" to mean nothing much more
>than "surname"? It makes a nonsense of an important facet of
>Scottish history. A clan was a historical entity which shared
>its lands, its chief and its history.
{mega snip}
Beautifully put Sheila! There is a common, but wrong, belief that
"scottish surname" = "clan". That this is NOT so is true not only of the
Andersons, but also of many others. As Sheila says, many names appear
over Scotland, with no obvious links to each other. Depending on the area
a particular family came from, folk with the same surname MIGHT have had
associations with very different clans. In other cases, there is a
well-defined family group of lowland origin. If people really want to put
out a "general broadcast" for a particular name (rather then trying
to track their actual family group), they' be more accurate in asking for
the XXXXX surname.
Lesley Robertson
Sheila McGregor
mcc...@mail.auburn.edu "Maury Mccrillis" writes:
> Why be so pedantic about the use of the word "clan"?
Using a very specific and quite important word to mean what it
means is not pedantic. It is the purpose of this newsgroup to
cover Scottish clans, not assorted Scottish surnames, which
belong in a genealogy group. A clan had a structure. The
Andersons and Wilsons did not. Apart from not being correct,
it is unhelpful to define them as a 'clan' because people are
then led to make assumptions about their history which are
totally unjustified.
Could I point to the Family of Bruce Society, and to the Wilson
Society, which are both absolutely correct? The first refers
to a single-name family; the other should cover anyone called Wilson.
> It is not the case
> that if we fail to think of a surname as only deriving from (or bearing
> some affiliation to) a now defunct clan that was organized in the 18th C.
> that all hell will break loose and the term will become nonsensical.
Sorry I can't understand this.
> I mean, afterall Sheila, the Gregors are a branch of Clan Alpin and as such,
> using your rationale, should technically have no claim to anything other
> than a designation as a "family".
This is, in fact, a valid point. It was already raised by Donald Gregory
back c.1830. Clan Gregor is made up of a number of branches or families
and in the historic period seldom acted as a single unit, though from
time to time they did. They were a pretty old grouping. Even older was
Clan Alpin, better called Siol Alpin, which indicates common ancestry but
not common history.
And Proscription was not a joke, not really.
--
Sheila McGregor
Maury Mccrillis
: Wow! I don't think Sheila's being pretentious or condecending to anyone -
: just making an honest attempt to explain something that large numbers of
: people seem to misunderstand.
You needn't come to Sheila's rescue with each post, Lesley. She is making
an attempt to explain something that she and many others here take very
seriously. That's not the point. The point is whether or not people
really do misunderstand what is meant by the term clan and, if so, how it
is that it is being misunderstood. You say that "many folks seem to think
that if you've a Scottish name, you MUST be a member of a clan, and that
isn't so." It is possible that you are right about this, but you offer no
reason for it. To assume that it's just self-evident is to beg the question.
: ...it is surely fair to
: let them know the truth, rather than a synthetic, romantic version?
The obvious problem with this question, Lesley, is that it assumes
without sufficient evidence that Sheila's use of the term clan is true,
while all other uses are synthetic and romantic. You may be right in your
assumption, but you offer no reason for me to think that you are right.
M.P. McCrillis
Lesley Robertson
>Sheila McGregor (she...@emplus.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: Using a very specific and quite important word to mean what it
>: means is not pedantic.
>
>
>It seems to me that most people here are concerned both with Scottish
>surnames and their possible affiliation with ancient clans and
>contemporary clan societies. In any event, it is pretentious of you to
>condescend to me and to others here as to the purpose of this discussion
>group.
>
>M.P. McCrillis
Wow! I don't think Sheila's being pretentious or condecending to anyone -
just making an honest attempt to explain something that large numbers of
people seem to misunderstand. Many folk seem to think that if you've a
scottish name, you MUST be a member of a clan, and that isn't so. I have
the impression that people in this group really want to understand and
appreciate their scottish heritage - in which case it is surely fair to
let them know the truth, rather than a synthetic, romantic version?
Lesley Robertson
Lesley Robertson
>Lesley Robertson (l.a.ro...@stm.tudelft.nl) wrote:
>
>: Wow! I don't think Sheila's being pretentious or condecending to anyone -
>: people seem to misunderstand.
>
I wasn't aware that I was - simply offering my own opinion! It's an open
group.
>She is making
>an attempt to explain something that she and many others here take very
>seriously. That's not the point. The point is whether or not people
>really do misunderstand what is meant by the term clan and, if so, how it
>is that it is being misunderstood. You say that "many folks seem to think
>that if you've a Scottish name, you MUST be a member of a clan, and that
>isn't so." It is possible that you are right about this, but you offer no
>reason for it. To assume that it's just self-evident is to beg the question.
I didn't offer more explanation because I thought it had all been
discussed fully before. The clans were very much a highland thing -
really associated with the gaelic-speaking areas. In the lowlands, there
were clansfolk (people moved around), but also many others. Part of
Scotland's troubles resulted from the fact that in many ways it
functioned as two separate countries - the gaelic-speaking highlands, and
the scots-speaking lowlands.
Take the name "Smith" as an example. This was frequently given to someone
simply because he worked as a smith, and not because of family linkages.
It's common all over the UK, having arisen from various different
sources. I'm currently reading the 17th century records of a Baron Court
from Kincardineshire. In them, everyone working at any of the smithies is
referred to as xxxxx Smyth (and, thus far, all of the men running the
mills have been referred to as xxxx Milne). I've checked back in my email
archive, and I see that I've sent information to 2 different people
looking for Clan Smith this year, already.
>
>: ...it is surely fair to
>: let them know the truth, rather than a synthetic, romantic version?
>
>The obvious problem with this question, Lesley, is that it assumes
>without sufficient evidence that Sheila's use of the term clan is true,
>while all other uses are synthetic and romantic. You may be right in your
>assumption, but you offer no reason for me to think that you are right.
Anyone can check their surname in Black's "Surnames of Scotland" - where
a clan association is involved, he says so. As far as I can work out,
many libraries have a copy, as do the LDS family history centres. Most of
the Clan Societies will also say the same thing - some surnames may have
a local association with a clan (e.g. the Thomsons of Glen {whatever} may
be associated with Clan {whoever}), but that doesn't mean that everyone
by that surname does. There are cases where the same surname is
associated with different clans in different areas of the country. T.C.
Smout gives an excellent account of Scottish History in his "History of
the Scottish People" and "Century of the Scottish People".
Rather than simply accept what I say (I don't expect anyone to blindly
believe me) - why not read up on the evidence for yourself?
Lesley Robertson
DEF...@delphi.com
Quoting LesleyRobertson<l.a.robertson from a message in alt.scottish.clans
>nonsensical. I >mean, afterall Sheila, the Gregors are a branch of
>Clan Alpin and as such, >using your rationale, should technically have
>no claim to anything other >than a designation as a "family". Now stop
>it before other clansmen here >proscribe you sons a' Griogar all over
>again and give back control of your >lands to the Campbells. Since my
>grandmother was a Campbell, that might >entitle me to move into your
>house. >
> >Maury McCrillis
How d'ya like that! I was wondering how to synthesize a query involving
both the McGregor and Campbell clans, and lo and behold, got one!
Way, way back when, one of my "Clan Gregor" forebears, Alexander Magruder
(b. 1569), married a "Lady Margaret Campbell," (b. 1580) who happened to be
the great-granddaughter of Archibald, the 2nd Earl of Argyll.
They married around 1600, I think. My questions are:
1) was it sorta UNUSUAL for one of the "outlaw MacGregors" to marry someone
who was...I guess...of a "noble" Campbell family? Would this have caused
severe repercussions??
2) Concerning the earls of Argyll....to what degree did they identify with
the "Clan Campbell" concept??
Rainbow V 1.16.4 for Delphi - Test Drive
Lesley Robertson
>
>Quoting LesleyRobertson<l.a.robertson from a message in alt.scottish.clans
>
> >nonsensical. I >mean, afterall Sheila, the Gregors are a branch of
> >Clan Alpin and as such, >using your rationale, should technically have
> >no claim to anything other >than a designation as a "family". Now stop
> >it before other clansmen here >proscribe you sons a' Griogar all over
> >again and give back control of your >lands to the Campbells. Since my
> >grandmother was a Campbell, that might >entitle me to move into your
> >house. >
> > >Maury McCrillis
>
>How d'ya like that! I was wondering how to synthesize a query involving
>both the McGregor and Campbell clans, and lo and behold, got one!
>
I've no answer to your questions, but please note that I didn't write the
above. It has been trimmed to remove the original writer (Maury
McCrillis). My email address is attached because I answered the original
message. Please be careful in editing messages on the board - I don't
want to have copyright problems!
Lesley Robertson
Sheila McGregor
Sorry if this response is behind the rest of readers; I just
got about two week's news.
In article <4j4ci3$5...@news2.delphi.com> DEF...@delphi.com writes:
> Way, way back when, one of my "Clan Gregor" forebears, Alexander Magruder
> (b. 1569), married a "Lady Margaret Campbell," (b. 1580) who happened to be
> the great-granddaughter of Archibald, the 2nd Earl of Argyll.
>
> They married around 1600, I think. My questions are:
>
> 1) was it sorta UNUSUAL for one of the "outlaw MacGregors" to marry someone
> who was...I guess...of a "noble" Campbell family? Would this have caused
> severe repercussions??
>
> 2) Concerning the earls of Argyll....to what degree did they identify with
> the "Clan Campbell" concept??
1) The Magruders were a sept of Clan Gregor living in Glenartney, at
Meigor, which was later lost to a Campbell, but as local landowners
they were on equal terms with all but the most noble Campbells. I
guess the Margaret Campbell who married was not the oldest daughter
of an oldest son, so married off to some possibly useful local lad
with a possibly useful piece of land. This is a minor dynastic
marriage of an absolutely familiar kind. MacGregors were just as
well connected as anyone. Rob Roy's grandmother was the
daughter of one of the MacDonald chiefs of Keppoch (probably
Donald Glas, though opinions vary a lot), and his mother was a
Campbell (I keep forgetting which). The gentlemen of the various
Highland clans were all very much inter-related.
2) Depends entirely what you mean by "Clan Campbell" concept. If
you mean, did the Campbell Earls get organised with their relatives
and tenants to do things as a body, yes, they did, as often as any
other clan. Many men swore allegiance to these men, and in so doing
joined their "clan", and many more changed their name to Campbell.
The link was a local one, rather than a blood link, which is true of
most feudal clans such as Menzies and the various Stewarts. They
have less claim to being a "clan" than the earlier native clans they
often replaced and certainly dominated (eg McGregor, McLaren, Robertson)
who were related by long-standing tribal ties, but there was still a
sense of common history and common purpose, as when the men of
Breadalbane went to raid Caithness on behalf of John Campbell, who
was having problems collecting his rents, and they all had a
glorious time.
--
Sheila McGregor