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.