Approved arms for the Tennessee Valley Scottish Society.

[BCAC]

As far as the Macphersons are concerned, the clan is the association and vice versa. The Clan Macpherson Association isn't some sort of separate entity from the clan as a whole. Sure, there are indeed individual Macphersons who are elected into positions of leadership (some born, such as the Chief and Chieftains) within the organisation and structure of the Association, yet they are still Macpherson clansmen and clanswomen of the worldwide, extended family that is the Clan Macpherson. However, I do understand where you are coming from and I think from the Lyon Court perspective, the Lord Lyon can grant Arms to a specific society, company or association. Is this all a matter of semantics? I don't know. I'm a bit confused about the issue myself!

This is really confusing.

Scott (a specialist if ever there was one!) says "You are right insofar as Arms may only be granted to an individual" and then goes on to say "Arms may also be granted to "companies", that is assemblies of persons brought together for a single, common purpose." The second phrase seeming (in my mind) to contradict the first phrase. My head is spinning.

Also, you say "As far as the Macphersons are concerned, the clan is the association and vice versa", which to my mind (once again) seems a funny way of looking at things because that would exclude someone with the name (and bloodline) of Macpherson from the clan if he hasn't joined the clan association, creating "first class (associative)" clan members and others who just happen to have the same name and blood line but because they haven't joined a club are considered less clansmen than those who have. What about people who have the same name and blood line (which, in my mind makes them clansmen by right, from birth, with no need to ask or to join any club) who lives in an isolated area where there are no associations or other sort of clubs to be found?

Maybe I'll just have to stay confused on these heraldry matters, but I hope that it never comes to pass when a clansmen has to ask (and to pay) to become a member of his clan (which is, to my mind, a birthright).

Edited to add: I must apologise to Harold for derailing his thread. If I have understood correctly you may now proceed to have your society's arms registered by the Lord Lyon. Again, well done.

[Mike_Oettle]

To my mind, MacMillan of Rathdown gave a pretty concise explanation.
But just to make things very clear, coat-armour originally belonged solely to a single person. Other members of his family would bear similar arms, if they needed to, but not identical.
Only after the concept of coat-armour had been generally accepted (but still as far back as the Middle Ages), did the practice emerge of granting arms to corporates, such as guilds and municipal corporations.
This did not happen suddenly, since there was a fair bit of opposition to it. A remark often made at the time was: “You cannot hang common seal.” That is to say, one could hang a man who was a traitor, but the common seal of a guild or a city could not be treated in the same way.
But in time the concept was accepted.
The way it applies to the MacPherson Clan Association is that the association has been granted arms which any member may display, but only to indicate membership of the association.
Display in a manner that suggests that the person displaying the arms is its owner is strictly forbidden under Scots law. While the Lord Lyon has no power in the United States to enforce this, common courtesy requires that the rule be observed nonetheless.
Similarly, once the arms of the Tennessee Valley Scottish Society are official (that is, granted by Lyon Court or registered with some other registry), its members may also display it to indicate their membership, but not implying that they own the arms.

Fine work, Harold. If the society does apply to Lyon, it should be aware that some changes may be required (although this might not be the case).
The lion crest is probably sufficiently different to be allowed as it is, since the Scottish royal crest has a red lion, and the cotton beneath the lion is quite distinctive.
I should mention that the stars (which will be blazoned as mullets) ought not to have any line around them (there is a grey one in Harold’s drawing). This is because the mullets are argent (white/silver), which contrasts nicely with the blue field of the chief (the upper part of the shield).
In Joe Macmillan’s arms the mullets argent have a blue fimbriation to make them stand out from the gold field of his shield.
Regards,
Mike

[Derek Conley]

Really impressed with this. I'm a member of the White Lion Society and so have an avid, active interest in heraldry!

This is quite well-done, and tasteful. Great job!

[Joseph McMillan]

Nice work, Harold. You say approved arms? Approved by who? Only yourselves? If this is so, do you have sufficient funds available to be able to get them officially approved?

In the United States, as in most countries, there is no more "official" way of obtaining arms than to adopt them unilaterally, whether by an individual or a corporate body. Many people are under the misapprehension that having them granted/registered/matriculated/certified by a foreign heraldic authority somehow makes them more authoritative, but this is not the case. When a heraldic authority grants arms, he is conferring a property right in those arms; Lyon King of Arms (for example) has no more power to confer such a right within the United States than the Land Registers of Scotland do to issue a certificate of title to land in the United States.

(Lord Lyon can and does, of course, grant arms to Americans, but the legal or official effect of the grant exists only within Scotland. In other words, arms granted by Lord Lyon are official within Scotland, but in the USA are just as official--or unofficial--as arms assumed unilaterally.)

... that arms are not delivered to families or clans but soley to individuals.

This is oft-repeated but not true. In the first place, the rules vary from country to country, but even in the places where this is the closest to being true, it is still not completely true. In England, personal arms are typically granted to a single individual "to be used by the said [name] and his descendants ... according to the law of arms." The English law of arms provides for the same arms to be inherited by all legitimate descendants in the male line. It was once customary to use the minor marks of cadency to distinguish among the various sons inheriting the arms, but recent and present English kings of arms have acknowledged that this was never compulsory. The immediate predecessor of the present Garter King of Arms went so far as to discourage their use under most circumstances. So if we define a family as consisting of the descendants of a common ancestor, English arms are family arms. In fact, there are many official English heraldic documents referring to the "arms of the family of XXXX." This does not mean that they belong to everyone with the same surname, which is what people usually mean when they say there's no such thing as family arms, but that's really a sloppy way of putting it.

In Scotland, Lord Lyon enforces differencing on the part of younger sons, but even so I think it makes sense to speak of "family arms." In fact, the whole Scottish system of heraldic design is built on the notion that each member of an armigerous family--and even of each surname!--shares the same basic coat of arms, to which more or less minor differences are applied for the arms of junior members of the extended family. That's why the person entitled to use the arms in their most basic form is called the "chief of the name and arms of MacX."

How come a family or a clan cannot get arms, but a Scottish society can?

In addition to "natural persons," arms are also granted to or assumed by what are known in civil law as "juridical persons" or "artificial persons," such as corporations, associations, cooperatives, etc. The basic point is that the bearer of the arms must have a legal personality. A family as such has no collective legal personality, nor does a clan (really--the Scottish courts are very clear on this point). But an incorporated or formally organized clan association does have a legal personality. It can therefore assume arms (in the US) or receive a grant of arms if it meets whatever criteria the granting authority establishes for corporate grants.

Hope that's helpful and not too redundant with what others have posted.

[Joseph McMillan]

In Joe Macmillan’s arms the mullets argent have a blue fimbriation to make them stand out from the gold field of his shield.

It may seem like a quibble, but the stars (traditional Scottish term) in my arms are actually "Azure voided Argent" rather than "Argent fimbriated Azure." The voiding is to difference them from the azure stars in the chiefly arms.

[McMurdo]

Harold
Wonderful work thank you for sharing it with us.

[David Thorpe]

This is really confusing.

Also, you say "As far as the Macphersons are concerned, the clan is the association and vice versa", which to my mind (once again) seems a funny way of looking at things because that would exclude someone with the name (and bloodline) of Macpherson from the clan if he hasn't joined the clan association, creating "first class (associative)" clan members and others who just happen to have the same name and blood line but because they haven't joined a club are considered less clansmen than those who have. What about people who have the same name and blood line (which, in my mind makes them clansmen by right, from birth, with no need to ask or to join any club) who lives in an isolated area where there are no associations or other sort of clubs to be found?

You are correct. A clan and a clan association are normally two different entities, although in most cases there is a relationship between the two. The MacPhersons may be an exception. However, a member of a clan by blood, marriage or adoption need not be a member of the clan association, and a clan association may choose to accept members who are not of the clan by blood, marriage or adoption.
Also, some clans have more than one clan association and others none at all. There are also clan associations where no clan is recognized by either the Lyon Court or the Standing Council of Chiefs.

[Joseph McMillan]

In England, personal arms are typically granted to a single individual "to be used by the said [name] and his descendants ... according to the law of arms."

I neglected to point out the similar formula used by Lord Lyon: "We have Devised, and Do by These Presents Assign, Ratify and Confirm unto the Petitioner the said (name) and his descendants with such due and congruent differences as may hereafter be severally matriculated for them, the following Ensigns Armorial..." The grant is thus not merely to a single person but to a group of people defined by common descent from a particular person.