Armigerous Clans and use of Clansman's badge

[cessna152towser]

As a native Scot living in Scotland it is my understanding of the position that although a clan or family may have no chief, the Lord Lyon can grant the right to bear Arms to individual members of that family, hence the clan or family is commonly referred to as armigerous, although it is the individual members rather than any clan chief who bear Arms.
When I had previously referred in another thread to a link to wikipedia as supporting the view that clans such as Crawford and Cunningham were armigerous, MoR was quick to contradict this and call the wiki article garbage, yet the Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopaedia by George Way of Plean and Romilly Squire which I regard as the authoritative work on such matters, lists these clans under the section headed "The Armigerous Clans and Families of Scotland"

[macwilkin]

Calling Sketraw...Calling Sketraw...

Sketraw is the Chairman of the Clan Duncan Society:

http://www.clan-duncan.co.uk/

Yours aye,

Todd

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

As a native Scot living in Scotland it is my understanding of the position that although a clan or family may have no chief, the Lord Lyon can grant the right to bear Arms to individual members of that family, hence the clan or family is commonly referred to as armigerous, although it is the individual members rather than any clan chief who bear Arms.

This is 100% correct, with the operative word being "commonly". Without a recognized chief, no matter how many armigers of the same name there may be, the clan itself is "dormant". Now if a group of armigers (usually nine) who are part of a "dormant" clan wish to approach Lyon in an attempt to "revive" the clan by proposing the recognition of a new chiefly line, they may do so and there is a process which Lyon may choose to follow in acceding to their request.

When I had previously referred in another thread to a link to wikipedia as supporting the view that clans such as Crawford and Cunningham were armigerous, MoR was quick to contradict this and call the wiki article garbage (which, by and large, is still my opinion of the article-- MoR), yet the Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopaedia by George Way of Plean and Romilly Squire which I regard as the authoritative work on such matters (which it is-- MoR), lists these clans under the section headed "The Armigerous Clans and Families of Scotland"

So what? They could have as easily said "Chiefless Clans and Families" or "Other Clans and Families" -- we can argue over the semantics forever, but it won't alter the legal fact that unlike clan societies, "clans", by their very nature, aren't (and can't be) armigerous. Except, perhaps, in common misperception.

[Chas]

So there you have it Alex, the acknowledged authorities on the subject, George Way of Plean and Romilly Squire, are both commonly mis-perceiving it.

Regards

Chas

[Phil]

So there you have it Alex, the acknowledged authorities on the subject, George Way of Plean and Romilly Squire, are both commonly mis-perceiving it.

Regards

Chas

Just goes to show you can trust nobody nowadays. It's good we have MOR on board to keep us right.

[The Monk]

OK, I think I pretty well understand about clan societies.

About clans.

Those clans with chiefs: Is a person having the clan name automatically a member? Does anyone, of any name, wishing to be a clan member apply directly to the clan chief?

Thos clans without chiefs: Are there any clan members, regardless of name? If there are, who would one of a different name apply to if they wished to be a member of the clan?

Fascinating, all of this.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

OK, I think I pretty well understand about clan societies.

About clans.

Those clans with chiefs: Is a person having the clan name automatically a member?

Technically, no. The clan, as a heritable jurisdiction, belongs to the chief and he decides who is, and who is not, a member. In the practical sense anyone with the clan surname (or having the surname of one of the recognized septs) can wear the clan badge in their bonnet and no one is going to loose any sleep over it. Still, if that badge is to have any meaning beyond a mere bauble use to decorate a hat, one should follow form and join their clan society.

Does anyone, of any name, wishing to be a clan member apply directly to the clan chief?

Yes, or one may apply directly to the clan society for membership. Either way one is expressing one's loyalty to the chief and his clan.

Thos clans without chiefs: Are there any clan members, regardless of name? If there are, who would one of a different name apply to if they wished to be a member of the clan?

In the instance of a "dormant" clan (one that has no recognized chief) one either assumes the wearing of the badge of the last known chief, or one joins the clan society-- in this instance expressing loyalty to the clan as it awaits the "discovery" of its proper chief.

Each clan/clan society sets its own requirements for membership, so it is difficult to say, with certainty, if someone with a different name would-- or would not-- be accepted into a clan.

Some "dormant clan" societies, such as Buchanan, have a very narrow definition of who qualifies for membership; others are far more open in their outreach to the broader community. Your best bet, in this instance, is to go on line and check out the clan society you wish to join and see what their requirements are for membership.

Fascinating, all of this.

[cessna152towser]

Each clan/clan society sets its own requirements for membership, so it is difficult to say, with certainty, if someone with a different name would-- or would not-- be accepted into a clan.

Very true, and with some clans there is more than one society, each with their own rules, which would need to be reconciled if/when the different societies merge.

[dowofbuchanan]

this is close to my heart as a dow of buchanan, but i cant join the society because im not one of their chosen names. i think they are being prats but maybe that is just me.

[Chas]

this is close to my heart as a dow of buchanan, but i cant join the society because im not one of their chosen names. i think they are being prats but maybe that is just me.

They do seem to be a very peculiar lot don't they?

I think the easy answer is to start your own society and allow and include all those that they exclude. They have no more title to the use of the Arms and Clan Crest Badge and Tartans than you do.

Spread the word here (and in other places); get a small working committee; plan to attend as many highland events in 2010 as is humanly possible (if you can't make it there yourself, get someone to stick a sign on a wall/on the ground/anywhere with phone or better email).

Within 5 years (probably only 3), your society will be bigger and better than theirs.

Regards

Chas