Armigerous Clans

[wyldathart]

I'm going to fire off a email to my clan chief about the subject and see what he says. I'm sure the office of the Lord Lyon would be more than happy to weigh in. Interesting subject. My curiosity is piqued now

[Chas]

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

The Wikipedia article made no sense to me the first time I read it and make even less now. It would make sense if the article were to be called Non-Armigerous Clans, but why not just call them Chiefless or Headless Clans. All the references deal with Chiefs, Clans and Families, but there is no reference to "Armigerous".

Regards

Chas

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

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

Well, the above quote from wikipedia is just garbage.

Folks, when it comes to Scottish heraldry, do yourself a favour. Don't rely on Wikipedia; get one of the following books:

Scotland's Heraldic Heritage by Charles J. Burnett and Mark D. Dennis
Scots Heraldry by Sir Thomas Innes of Learney
Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopedia by Geo. Way of Plean and Romilly Squire;
Scottish Heraldry Made Easy by G. Harvey Johnston
Simple Heraldry by Sir Iain Moncrieff of that Ilk and Don Pottenger

[gilmore]

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

[wyldathart]

Thanks Macmillan

[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]

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.

[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 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.