Armigerous Clans

[wyldathart]

In another thread it was talked about that an armigerous clan was one that had no chief. Of course having no chief, the clan was therefore broken. Someone had mentioned that all clans are armigerous. I don't don't know if that was in jest or not but I do know for fact that Clan Cochrane can trace the line of chiefs unbroken to present day. Ending with the currently alive and well Hereditary Clan chief, The right Honorable Iain Alexander Douglas Blair Cochrane,
The 15th Earl of Dundonald. I'm not meaning to be argumentative but I don't think all clans are Armigerous.

[Twa_Corbies]

In another thread it was talked about that an armigerous clan was one that had no chief. Of course having no chief, the clan was therefore broken. Someone had mentioned that all clans are armigerous. I don't don't know if that was in jest or not but I do know for fact that Clan Cochrane can trace the line of chiefs unbroken to present day. Ending with the currently alive and well Hereditary Clan chief, The right Honorable Iain Alexander Douglas Blair Cochrane,
The 15th Earl of Dundonald. I'm not meaning to be argumentative but I don't think all clans are Armigerous.

Armigerous means "having arms" that is to say a coat of arms. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the Chiefship of a Clan is dormant or vacant. The word "Clan" is from the Gaelic term Clann, meaning "offspring". I believe that the general rule of thumb is that clans are family groups having been "received" by the monarchy, that is that they are "noble" (meaning "known" to the Crown) by virtue of the fact that the herditary arms are recorded by the Lord Lyon as a representative of the Crown. So, to be a Clan, a family is required to be armigerous, and thus having been received and acknowledged by the monarchy.

[wyldathart]

Oooooh Ok thanks for educating me I guess I missread what was being said. My apologies

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Armigerous means "having arms" that is to say a coat of arms. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the Chiefship of a Clan is dormant or vacant. The word "Clan" is from the Gaelic term Clann, meaning "offspring". I believe that the general rule of thumb is that clans are family groups having been "received" by the monarchy, that is that they are "noble" (meaning "known" to the Crown) by virtue of the fact that the herditary arms are recorded by the Lord Lyon as a representative of the Crown. So, to be a Clan, a family is required to be armigerous, and thus having been received and acknowledged by the monarchy.

I am sorry to have to correct you, but "clans" can not be armigerous due to the simple fact that generally arms are only be awarded to an individual. A clan or family society may apply for arms in the same way a corporation, a town, or a school may apply for arms. These are corporate arms, and different from the undifferenced arms of a clan chief which descend to each successive clan chief, the crest of which is worn within a strap and buckle as the mark of a clansman.

When the chiefly line dies out, and the lawful successor can not be found, the office of chief is held to be in abeyance, and clansmen continue to wear the crest of the last known chief as a badge within the buckle and strap.

The clan can not appropriate the chiefly arms to itself, as these are the property of someone else, ie: the rightful claimant to the chiefship of the clan. In this instance a clan society, if such exists, may petition for a grant of arms. Should arms be granted they are the property of the society, and may not be used by any single individual who is a member of that society, except perhaps, as "arms of office".

A chief must be armigerous. Individual clansmen may be armigerous. But the "clan" can never be armigerous.

[Twa_Corbies]

I am sorry to have to correct you, but "clans" can not be armigerous due to the simple fact that generally arms are only be awarded to an individual. A clan or family society may apply for arms in the same way a corporation, a town, or a school may apply for arms. These are corporate arms, and different from the undifferenced arms of a clan chief which descend to each successive clan chief, the crest of which is worn within a strap and buckle as the mark of a clansman.

When the chiefly line dies out, and the lawful successor can not be found, the office of chief is held to be in abeyance, and clansmen continue to wear the crest of the last known chief as a badge within the buckle and strap.

The clan can not appropriate the chiefly arms to itself, as these are the property of someone else, ie: the rightful claimant to the chiefship of the clan. In this instance a clan society, if such exists, may petition for a grant of arms. Should arms be granted they are the property of the society, and may not be used by any single individual who is a member of that society, except perhaps, as "arms of office".

A chief must be armigerous. Individual clansmen may be armigerous. But the "clan" can never be armigerous.

Yes, I should have stated that more precisely. You are correct, of course, that a clan does not hold arms, but these are borne by the chief - the undifferenced hereditary arms first held by the clan's patriarch. The clansmen themselves may and often do bear their own personal arms - a differenced version from those borne by the chief; but the arms themselves are personal heritable property and are not publically held by the clan as a whole. Those clasmen not having their own personal arms wear the crest of the clan chief in the form of a crest badge (with strap and motto encircling the crest) to show their affiliation to the clan and their allegiance to the chief, but the crest itself remains the personal property of the chief as a part of his heritary arms.

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.

[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.

[Bugbear]

I saw that... discussion too, and thought it was bizarre.

[Bugbear]

Ah! The whole discussion makes sense now. I'll have to go find that thread and see who was correct.

The rest of the information is very interesting in regard to groups etc having arms, though of a differen type.

* Nope! I looked up that thread, and this is why the discussion was bizarre, both sides of that discussion were wrong going by MacMillan of Rathdown's information. *

[cessna152towser]

Article on armigerous clans on wiki here:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armigerous_clan

An armigerous clan refers to a Scottish clan, family or name which is registered with the Court of the Lord Lyon and once had a chief who bore undifferenced arms, but does not have a chief currently recognised as such by Lyon Court. Before 1745 all chiefs had arms, however not all of these are recorded in the Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland, which was only established in 1672. In Scottish heraldry undifferenced arms are only held by chiefs or heads of clans, families or names. A clan is considered a "noble incorporation" because a clan chief is a title of honour in Scotland and the chief confers his or her noble status onto the clan. Because armigerous clans do not have such chiefs, they are not recognised as noble communities and have no legal standing under Scots law.