joining the clan

[macwilkin]

Now there you go. The very article you point to confirms that the Lord Lyon acknowledges the EXISTANCE of a clan with no chief.
"On May 16, 1989 Malcolm R. Innes of Edingight, CVO, WS Lord Lyon King of Arms Scotland, confirmed the right for Clan Young to have a Crest Badge for all members of Clan Young...."

Of course, the $64,000 question is the status of the Buchanan chiefship with the Lyon Court -- at present, the chiefship of Clan Buchanan is dormant, and to my knowledge, no commander has been appointed by the Lyon Court.

That being said, the Buchanan Society does have a fairly long history, being one of the first clan societies established in 1725, as I mentioned before.

I'm sure Rathdown or Sketraw could add to this discussion.

Regards,

Todd

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Ah, the inevitable "Buchanan Question".

[macwilkin]

Ah, the inevitable "Buchanan Question".

T.

[Jack Daw]

Of course, the $64,000 question is the status of the Buchanan chiefship with the Lyon Court -- at present, the chiefship of Clan Buchanan is dormant, and to my knowledge, no commander has been appointed by the Lyon Court.

That being said, the Buchanan Society does have a fairly long history, being one of the first clan societies established in 1725, as I mentioned before.

I'm sure Rathdown or Sketraw could add to this discussion.

Regards,

Todd

Maybe under certain circumstances, anarchy is not such a bad thing.

Steve
A Buchanan of Sorts

P.S. - I have a buddy whose last name is Buchanan. He said the worst mispronunciation of the name he ever had to endure was, "Bush-Na-Na." He still has to endure it, but from me, now.

[Bugbear]

... P.S. - I have a buddy whose last name is Buchanan. He said the worst mispronunciation of the name he ever had to endure was, "Bush-Na-Na." He still has to endure it, but from me, now.

Hey! I think I just bought a pair of shoes made buy that Bush Na-Na guy!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

In "The History of the Ancient Surname of Buchanan", published in 1723 by William Buchanan of Auchmar, a genealogy was put forward that would have had the Buchanans arriving in Scotland sometime around 1016. From this (flawed) genealogy Auchmar deduced (wrongly) that the MacMillans were a sept of Buchanan. However, when this genealogy is subjected to historical scrutiny, several things become clear.

1) The first recorded instance of the name "MacMillan" dates from 1123, and it appears in the "Book of Deer".

2) The first recorded instance of the name "Buchanan" dates from 1225 when a Buchanan received a charter of land from the Earl of Lennox for a small island in Loch Lomond called Clareinch (the battle cry of the Buchanans's is "Clar-innis" and probably dates from this time).

William Anderson, author of "The Scottish Nation", points out numerous errors in the Buchanan genealogy (far to detailed to go into here) chief of which is Auchmar's having been mistaken (accidentally or otherwise) about the arrival in Argyll from Ulster of a common MacMillan/Buchanan ancestor, Anselan O'Cainn.

Buchanan of Auchmar's error occurs when he states that Anselan married a lady named Dennistoun, heiress of the lands of Buchanan. About this, Anderson states the following--

"The improbable character of this genealogy is manifested by its further stating that the aforesaid Anselan married the heiress of the lands of Buchanan, a lady named Dennistoun; for the Dennistouns deriving their name from lands given to a family of the name of Danziel who came into Scotland with Allan, the founder of the abbey of Paisley (built 1163) and the first dapifer, seneschal, or steward of Scotland, no heiress of that name [Dennistoun] could have been in Scotland until long after the period here referred to." [see the surname Dennistoun in "The Scottish Nation" (vol 1)]

Why is this important? (Beats me, but since you asked--) It seems Anselan O'Cainn had several sons, the second of which was Methlen. Auchmar asserts that the Buchanans descend from the eldest son, while the MacMillans trace back to the second son, Methlen. But as pointed out in Anderson's work ("The Scottish Nation") Auchmar is wrong. On May 8th 1263 Myles MacMillan, Chief of the MacMillan's in Lawers, is witness to an inquisition regarding the land of Stephen de Blanthyre (see Calendar of Documents, Vol. I, pps 461-462). This is interesting for two reasons: first, the land in question is pretty much cheek by jowl with the Buchanan lands; second, if (as asserted by Auchmar) Methlen is the true progenitor of the MacMillans, why is it that a juror, contemporary with Methlen, should be called MacMillan? One would expect him to be called MacMethlen, the son of Methlen, but never MacMillan!

No, the earliest surviving Gaelic genealogies of the MacMillans show their descent from O'Cainn, and these ancient genealogies pre-date Auchmars work by several centuries.

The reason that Buchanan of Auchmar confused names and dates, jumbled them together, and published an inaccurate genealogy are unclear. In all likelyhood he had access to only limited sources, and he may not have had any proficiency in reading old Gaelic manuscripts. But that does not alter the fact that while both the MacMillans and Buchanans have a common ancestor in O'Cainn, the Buchanans are junior in descent.

So, are they a "sept" of MacMillan? Well despite the fact that their tartan may suggest this (basically MacMillan with a white over stripe), it is not that cut and dried.

The Chiefly line of Buchanan of that Ilk became extinct in 1762 with the death of John, 22nd and last laird of Buchanan. His daughter had married MacMillan of Dunmore (they were cousins), who was himself recognized as Chief of the MacMillan's in 1742. Interestingly, when matriculating his arms in the office of the Lord Lyon, a new, composed coat (reflecting, no doubt the pretense to Buchanan) was granted, altering the field from it's ancient silver colour to gold (as in the Buchanan arms) while at the same time changing the lion passant to a lion rampant, again a nod to the Buchanan heiress who was "Leddy MacMillan" at Dunmore Castle in Argyll-shire.

There can be no doubt that, had MacMillan of Dunmore pressed his claim to his wife's inheritance, he would have assumed the chiefship of Bucahanan, and that family would have become a sept of MacMillan. But, in the way these things worked in the Scotland of old, Dunmore didn't press his claim, and the chiefly line passed to Dunmore's other cousin, Buchanan of Spittal, the younger brother of John Buchanan, the last laird of Buchanan. In 1878 Mr. Francis Hamilton Buchanan of Spittal established his claim as chief; his grandson Mr. J.H. Buchanan of Spittal died without issue in 1919, and since that time the chiefship has been dormant.

When a title (like that of chief) is declared to be dormant, it usually means that there is a potential or known heir who, for reasons unstated, has not come forward to claim the title.

In strictly genealogical terms the closest known heir-male to the chiefship of the Buchanans is, in all likelihood, George Macmillan of Macmillan and Knapp, Chief of Clan MacMillan. Despite his possible status as "chief presumptive of the Clan Buchanan", if such a designation may be used for the moment, until and unless he puts forward a claim to the chiefship (which, it must be said, it seems unlikely he would do) and that claim is recognized as such by the Lord Lyon, the Buchanan's remain that most unhappy of families, a clan without a chief.

[bigdad1]

There certainly is a lot of blather posted will supposing to answer your question and solve your problem. It is a basic question and an even more basic problem. In fact not even a problem at all.
This is the modern day United States of America not olden days Scotland. You can wear what you want and you don't have to explain yourself to anyone. As long as you don't tell people you are from a specific clan when you aren't you can wear any damn tartan you damn well please. If you like the looks then wear it. If you want to find a friendly clan to join and you like their tartan then go for it but most important is "to thine own self be true" and wear what the hell you want to and the devil with others opinions.

[Phogfan86]

There certainly is a lot of blather posted will supposing to answer your question and solve your problem. It is a basic question and an even more basic problem. In fact not even a problem at all.
This is the modern day United States of America not olden days Scotland. You can wear what you want and you don't have to explain yourself to anyone. As long as you don't tell people you are from a specific clan when you aren't you can wear any damn tartan you damn well please. If you like the looks then wear it. If you want to find a friendly clan to join and you like their tartan then go for it but most important is "to thine own self be true" and wear what the hell you want to and the devil with others opinions.

One more rational, well thought-out post like this and you will be summarily banned from this board. /endsarcasm/

[macwilkin]

One more rational, well thought-out post like this and you will be summarily banned from this board. /endsarcasm/

There certainly is a lot of blather posted will supposing to answer your question and solve your problem. It is a basic question and an even more basic problem. In fact not even a problem at all.
This is the modern day United States of America not olden days Scotland. You can wear what you want and you don't have to explain yourself to anyone. As long as you don't tell people you are from a specific clan when you aren't you can wear any damn tartan you damn well please. If you like the looks then wear it. If you want to find a friendly clan to join and you like their tartan then go for it but most important is "to thine own self be true" and wear what the hell you want to and the devil with others opinions.

Actually, given the original post, I personally feel that most of the replies were germane to the topic. The original question did ask about a "chiefless clan", and there were some very interesting comments made from both sides of the isle about this particular subject.

Whilst there are no "rules" concerning the wearing of tartan -- a statement that we hear almost ad nauseum around here at times -- the simple fact of the matter is that some people want a connection to the tartan they choose to wear. I know I certainly do, but let me just say here and now that this "rule" applies to myself only and I hold no one else to that standard. All I ask is for the respect I give to others to be returned.

Regards,

Todd

[Downix]

One more rational, well thought-out post like this and you will be summarily banned from this board. /endsarcasm/

I like Pie!