Armigerous Clans

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

My point was that for a family or name to be considered a "clan" it must have had a patriarch or founder who bore the original undifferenced arms of the name in question; thus establishing it's recognition by the Crown and hence its status as a noble incorporation.

There is one other aspect that needs to be explored, and that is the "following" of a chief. There are a great many old and landed families in Scotland, Highlands and Lowlands alike,-- the McKerrells, for example-- that never became "clans" (in the usual, or popular, sense of the word) because the founder, and successive heads, of the family never established a following. The mere granting of arms, even to the most senior member of the family, did not make him a chief if he didn't have a following. And what was a following? In the simplest of terms it was men with swords.

If a man could raise 100 "swords" simply by calling for them he was a chief. If he couldn't, he wasn't. Now this is an over simplification, and there was no "statutory" number of men-at-arms required to form a clan or to be a chief of a clan, but I think you get my meaning.

Merely the possession of a coat of arms, the outward sign of personal nobility, did not- and does not- create a man a chief.

[Twa_Corbies]

There is one other aspect that needs to be explored, and that is the "following" of a chief. There are a great many old and landed families in Scotland, Highlands and Lowlands alike,-- the McKerrells, for example-- that never became "clans" (in the usual, or popular, sense of the word) because the founder, and successive heads, of the family never established a following. The mere granting of arms, even to the most senior member of the family, did not make him a chief if he didn't have a following. And what was a following? In the simplest of terms it was men with swords.

If a man could raise 100 "swords" simply by calling for them he was a chief. If he couldn't, he wasn't. Now this is an over simplification, and there was no "statutory" number of men-at-arms required to form a clan or to be a chief of a clan, but I think you get my meaning.

Merely the possession of a coat of arms, the outward sign of personal nobility, did not- and does not- create a man a chief.

While that is true in the practical sense, I believe that Lyon Court tends to not consider followers so much as the right to bear undifferenced hereditary arms of the progenitor of the surname. Clan means "children" or "offspring" and the chief of the clan represents the head of the offspring as the hereditary successor of the founder of the name. While a few chiefs these days might be able to raise a small force if pressed to do so, the number of those who could would be few and far between; whereas for the vast majority, the concept of the clan and its chief is primarily a ceremonial tradition continued into modern times out of respect and appreciation for heritage.