Armigerous Clans and use of Clansman's badge

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Clans themelves are not "armigerous". The chief of a clan is armigerous, a clan society may be armigerous, and, of course, individual members of the clan may be armigerous, but the clan itself, is not armigerous.

In the instance of MacRae, Buchanan, and other clans where the chiefship is in abeyance, the clanfolk wear the badge of the last known chief-- in the hopes that one day his lawful successor will come stumbling out of the Amazonian jungles to claim his rightful place as "Chief of the name and arms" of the clan.

In a very real sense the Clan Society acts as a sort of ad hoc trustee in protecting the heraldic rights of a person "unknown" and in regulating the use of that person's heraldic property. Practically speaking there is nothing that can be done to prevent someone usurping a non-existent right to wear any clan badge, and this happens all the time.

My personal view is that one should only wear a clan badge if they profess allegiance to the chief of that clan, even if the chief's exact location is, for the moment, unknown. For all we know the Chief of the Buchanans (or the MacRaes) could be hacking his way through the Amazonian jungles right now as he searches for the missing aircraft of the renown aviator, Peter Peel.

So, should you wear the badge of the missing MacRae chief? Sure, why not? If you feel strongly about the "rights and the wrongs" of wearing a clansman's badge, then join the Clan MacRae Society.