Armigerous Clans

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Hmmm, that's interesting. Two questions, though, to bring it back to modern times.

How is it a clan is formed today under Scottish laws or rules?

Hi Ted,
this is a pretty lengthy process, and it has been dealt with recently by Sketraw on another thread. If I come across it I'll give you the reference.

Under Scottish laws or rules, is an adopted child of a chief not able to become the chief?

If the chief of clan "X" adopted a child, that child would not be able to inherit the chiefship; it would pass to a cousin, brother, or nephew of the chief. In other words it would go to a "blood relative" of the chief, not a "stranger in blood". The adopted child could inherit everything else (except the undifferenced arms of his adopted father), but not the chiefship of the clan.

On the last question, I'm not understanding how a chief would let the clan become chiefless upon his death.

Well, sometimes the vicissitudes of life result in one dying without an immediate heir. Perhaps the brother of a distant ancestor went to Tasmania in 1850 and the families have lost all track of each other. That person's descendant may be the ex-chief's nearest living relative and as such the chief presumptive. But if he doesn't know he's the heir of the chief...

[Bugbear]

... If the chief of clan "X" adopted a child, that child would not be able to inherit the chiefship; it would pass to a cousin, brother, or nephew of the chief. In other words it would go to a "blood relative" of the chief, not a "stranger in blood". The adopted child could inherit everything else (except the undifferenced arms of his adopted father), but not the chiefship of the clan. ...

Ah! That clears it all up for me; it is only through the genetic or "blood relative." Thank you.

[Scotus]

Twa Generally today if a clan is chiefless and wishes to have a new chief recognized, the clan may convene in a derb finne council to determine who is the next closest living heir to the last chief.

As has been pointed out, this is not how a chief is determined. Only the Lord Lyon determines who the rightful chief is. If were up to the clans to decide, or if we allowed for self-appointed chiefs to emerge, claiming to be the rightful chief, this would be a recipe for chaos and strife within clans. Thankfully, the Lord Lyon is in charge of such things.

Folks, when it comes to Scottish heraldry, do yourself a favour. Don't rely on Wikipedia

I might amend this to say, "when it comes to anything... don't rely on Wikipedia.

[macwilkin]

As has been pointed out, this is not how a chief is determined. Only the Lord Lyon determines who the rightful chief is. If were up to the clans to decide, or if we allowed for self-appointed chiefs to emerge, claiming to be the rightful chief, this would be a recipe for chaos and strife within clans. Thankfully, the Lord Lyon is in charge of such things.

To add to Scotus' post, the following article on our own Sketraw's web site is worth perusing here:

http://www.clan-duncan.co.uk/clan-re...derbhfine.html

Regards,

Todd

[Twa_Corbies]

As has been pointed out, this is not how a chief is determined. Only the Lord Lyon determines who the rightful chief is. If were up to the clans to decide, or if we allowed for self-appointed chiefs to emerge, claiming to be the rightful chief, this would be a recipe for chaos and strife within clans. Thankfully, the Lord Lyon is in charge of such things.

Perish the notion that clans should behave like anything other than proper English gentlemen and be all lawless and given to strife!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I'm sorry, but your postings must not have been clear-- it appeared that you were writing about the original institution of clans, not the modern practice of the recognition of a clan chief which today is based almost solely on the ability to prove an absolute right to the undifferenced arms of the last known chief.

[Twa_Corbies]

I'm sorry, but your postings must not have been clear-- it appeared that you were writing about the original institution of clans, not the modern practice of the recognition of a clan chief which today is based almost solely on the ability to prove an absolute right to the undifferenced arms of the last known chief.

There is a vast difference between the two. No doubt, in the distant past a clan chief would have balked at the notion that his position of leadership depended upon the decision of a paid official of the Crown; but times and customs have changed a great deal and the concept of the clan today bears little resemblence to what constituted a clan in former days.

[cessna152towser]

MacMillan of Rathdown wrote:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by cessna152towser
Article on armigerous clans on wiki here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armigerous_clan

Well, the above quote from wikipedia is just garbage

Well if you think you know better why don't you try re-writing it?
The reality of the matter is that much of the truth of Scottish heritage has been lost in myth. Yes some of the Mac..... clans still have an active structure here in Scotland but most clans either had no formal organisations or had clan structures which lapsed and were later revived by well intentioned people of Scottish descent, with differing views as to the true history and this is why there is so much conflicting information out there, not only in wikipedia but in various so-called authoritative textbooks. The one I have in front of me is a beautiful book, entitled Scotland and her Tartans by Alexander Fulton. It is subtitled The Romantic Heritage of the Scottish Clans and Families. Romantic, exactly sums it up, many of the statements in it which are presented as facts can be no more than speculation.
We could argue for weeks over this, we native Scots, and our ex-patriate cousins hold differing interpretations of our clan history, all based on what we have read and have been told, but much of the truth is lost in history and been replaced by supposition.
Having been born and brought up in Scotland it never fails to amaze me that the people who claim to know most about the Scottish clan structure were invariably born overseas and are only partially of Scottish descent, and I hasten to add this is not a personal or specific criticism of anyone here, I have also experienced it within my own clan society. I only know what I was taught at school and what I have read since then and I know much of it is romance and myth. I did not go looking for a wikipedia article about armigerous clans just for the fun of adding something to this thread, rather I recalled this article had previously been cited to me by an American as his authority for insisting that my clan was an armigerous one.
What is fact, as has been said already, is that only the Lord Lyon can now recognise a Scottish clan chief. There are plenty of clans out there who are really clan societies set up with the approval of the Lord Lyon, some of whom might call their leader chief, but that does not make him a recognised clan chief here in Scotland. Approval means just that, and has no legal weight, nor does it grant exclusive right to use the family name, there is nothing to stop another group coming along and setting up another similar society, with or without first asking for the Lord Lyon's approval.
Can't we just enjoy the romance and myth of our shared clan heritage without trying to tell others that we think our version of history is the most authentic?

[Phil]

Having been born and brought up in Scotland it never fails to amaze me that the people who claim to know most about the Scottish clan structure were invariably born overseas and are only partially of Scottish descent, and I hasten to add this is not a personal or specific criticism of anyone here, I have also experienced it within my own clan society. I only know what I was taught at school and what I have read since then and I know much of it is romance and myth.

You've noticed it too, Alex. Somewhere along the line our heritage that we grew up with and live with every day has been hijacked to feed some vicarious need for a romantic story about noble kilted warriors bestriding the purple heather in the glens of an imagined homeland. I have to admit to an almost total ignorance of clans, mainly because they have been a complete and utter irrelevance during my lifetime apart from having been in the Lennox House at school and knowing that the local council buildings had once been the Buchanan Retreat. It is intriguing, therefore, to find people so obsessed with clans and talking about them as if they actually still existed when in reality they are in the main foreign organisations that purport to perpetuate this romantic myth nowadays.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

MacMillan of Rathdown wrote:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by cessna152towser
Article on armigerous clans on wiki here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armigerous_clan

Well, the above quote from wikipedia is just garbage

Well if you think you know better why don't you try re-writing it?

I don't have to. George Way of Plean and Romilly Squire have done an excellent job in their book The Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopedia. Mark Dennis, Charles Burnett, Sir Malcolm Innes, and a host of others have also written authoritatively on the subject. For those who rely on wikipedia as their source of information, I'd refer them to the title of this posting.