Armigerous Clans

[Twa_Corbies]

I understand you to be saying that only a genetic heir , for lack of a better term, may be the successor to a clan chief. That, as it is now, an adopted child may not be the successor to a chief.
Is this what you mean?

I don't know if the question of adoption per se has ever entered the determination of a clan chiefship, but in Scotland a husband may assume his wife's name and their children would carry the maternal surname; which is done in some cases where the estate of the wife is of greater consequence than that of the husband. I do know that clan chiefs may not bear hyphenated names, such as "MacGregor-Gordon" for example - they must bear the clan name alone as their surname, and there are instances where the chiefship has been passed over an individual who was a closer heir, but was disqualified for having a double-barrelled surname; the chiefship in such cases then being passed on to the next closest heir who bore the clan name alone. Chiefship also does not pass on only to the heir male, but may be confirmed upon a female provided that she keeps the clan name and is the closest heir.

[Bugbear]

I don't know if the question of adoption per se has ever entered the determination of a clan chiefship, but in Scotland a husband may assume his wife's name and their children would carry the maternal surname; which is done in some cases where the estate of the wife is of greater consequence than that of the husband. I do know that clan chiefs may not bear hyphenated names, such as "MacGregor-Gordon" for example - they must bear the clan name alone as their surname, and there are instances where the chiefship has been passed over an individual who was a closer heir, but was disqualified for having a double-barrelled surname; the chiefship in such cases then being passed on to the next closest heir who bore the clan name alone. Chiefship also does not pass on only to the heir male, but may be confirmed upon a female provided that she keeps the clan name and is the closest heir.

Hmmm, well I guess it really doesn't matter, now that I think about it, because the whole system seems to be generally geared toward the offspring, and these are somewhat silly acceptions to the general flow of things. Still, the thought did come to me, why would an aging chief with no offspring and known heirs not adopt a child to be the next chief and avoid all this chiefless clan business.

I can understand why a genetic heir would be favored over an adopted child.

I won't worry about it.

[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

[Scotus]

Todd:

Thanks for the link. Good article, easy to understand, etc. I'm certainly no expert on this topic. My interest in heraldry is mainly ecclesiastical.

Just from memory, I recall there is a clan that "elected" a chief. They didn't go through any of the proper channels, but basically thumbed their nose at the Lord Lyon. The man who claims to be their chief is simply that; that is, a man with claims to be their chief only on the basis of being elected.*

Clan MacAlpine is going throught the long process of finding a chief. On their Web site, it states, "Given our Clan’s ancient and unrecorded history, it is not expected that any individual can prove to Lord Lyon's stringent requirements direct descent from our former Chiefs. Thus, we must follow Lyon Court's guidelines and procedures to form an Ad Hoc Derbhfine for the purpose of finding a new Clan Leader, a Commander, who might ultimately become our new Clan Chief."

I also recall that the late chief of our clan (Sir Willliam Cumming) had to drop the hyphen in the name Gordon-Cumming in order to be recognized as the official chief of the clan. Our present chief, Sir Alistair, had to do the same.

Anyway, it's good to have order and accountability.

*Diarmid MacAulay.

[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!

[gilmore]

For an authoritative answer, why not go to the source?

"The search for clan chiefs

The revival of interest in Scottish ancestry over the last 50 years has encouraged many clans and families, who had not previously done so, to look for a leader. For many clans this has involved searching for the person most directly descended from the last known chief of the clan.

A large number of clans who had had chiefs in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries went into decline after 1745. In many cases it has been possible for genealogical research to establish the identity of the last chiefs descendants and thus to find the person with the closest blood link back to the last chief. In other cases this research is either still being conducted or is now being embarked upon.

Once genealogical evidence has been found to identify the person most directly descended from the last chief, application may be made to the Lord Lyon for confirmation that the chiefly Coat of Arms, enjoyed by the last chief, should be confirmed to such a person.

The Lord Lyon reviews the genealogical evidence and must be satisfied that the applicant's descent is correctly proved. If the Lord Lyon is satisfied he recognises the applicant as chief of the clan and confirms him in the chiefly Arms.

All those who were chiefs prior to 1745 had Arms, although they have not all been recorded in the Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland which was only started in 1672. The Scottish clan and heraldic systems have always been closely interlinked. Thus a clan which existed in the past will find its chief in the person entitled, under heraldic law, to bear the historic Arms enjoyed by the last known chief.

But the increasing interest in Scottish ancestry has led many families, who had not in the past been regarded as clans in their own right, to look for a leader who could rally the family as a group. While content historically to owe their allegiance as a sept or cadet to a particular clan, such families may now wish to have a distinct identity of their own.

Where such a family is able to prove that it has existed historically as an independent family group, then the Lord Lyon may be prepared to recognise them as a distinct clan or name.

If a person is able to prove descent from an individual who was historically accepted as the head of the main family within this group, then such a descendant might be confirmed in the Arms and recognised by the Lord Lyon as Representer of the name concerned.

The situation may, however, be that a family group has no clear historical evidence of its existence as a group in the distant past. In such a case it may be possible for a group to move towards being treated as a clan or name by various stages.

Since the clan and heraldic systems are so closely linked, the first stage would be for there to be a number of individuals using the same surname to record their own Arms. Once there was a significant number of armigers within the group it would be possible for a derbhfine of the group to convene and make a proposal to the Lord Lyon for the appointment of one of the group as Commander. Regulations have been laid down as to the procedure to be followed in the conduct of such a derbhfine.

If the Lord Lyon is so minded a Commander will be appointed. Once that has happened a 10 year period must then elapse before any question of a chief can be considered.

After the 10 year period a further derbhfine could, if the group desire, be held. This derbhfine could then make a proposal to the Lord Lyon for the appointment of a chief. Again regulations exist for the way in which such a derbhfine should proceed."

http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/241.html

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

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

Perish the thought indeed, although one would have thought that the phrase "proper Highland gentlemen" would have been more appropriate. The reason that strict controls are necessary is to prevent montebanks, charlatans, and outright scoundrels from laying claim to dormant or non-existent chiefships. Even with such controls in place the occasional fraud does slip through the cracks-- a good case in point is that of the self-styled "McCarthy Mor", a fraudster who managed, over a ten year period, to produce dozens of forged documents to shore up his claim. It should be pointed out that these forgeries were extremely well crafted. They were done, apparently, by his partner, a Mr. Davidson, who was a well-trained and highly skilled restorer of antique documents.

But not all charlatans are as sophisticated in their attempt to gain recognition. In fact, most of their clumsy, ill-conceived schemes unravel almost as fast as they can come up with the lies they hope others, with less intelligence than they have, will believe. These fraudsters leave in their wake a collection of badly engraved tea pots, ancestral portraits done in acrylics, and ancient family bibles with pedigrees written with ball point pens. They now rely on the magic of photo shop, without having either the art or artistry to create anything even remotely believable.

This is why Lord Lyon has raised the bar, and clearly set forth the requirements that need to be met if one is to be recognized as a chief. Hopefully the wide dissemination of these requirements will at last bury these two-bit con men somewhere in potters field with the word FRAUD carved on their tombstone.