Armigerous Clans

[wyldathart]

Thanks Macmillan

[gilmore]

As is often said, information on Wikipedia is worth every penny you pay for it.

[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.

[Bugbear]

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

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

[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.

[Twa_Corbies]

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

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

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. Traditionally a chief could appoint a taniste to become his successor according to the old Celtic custom, but the Anglo-Norman conventions of primogeniture have somewhat replaced the Celtic system of tanistry. Under tanistry, the successor need not be the closest heir, but under the system of primogeniture, the heritable line passes to the next closest living heir.

[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.

[Bugbear]

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. Traditionally a chief could appoint a taniste to become his successor according to the old Celtic custom, but the Anglo-Norman conventions of primogeniture have somewhat replaced the Celtic system of tanistry. Under tanistry, the successor need not be the closest heir, but under the system of primogeniture, the heritable line passes to the next closest living heir.

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?

[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.