Plant Badge: Heraldry for common Scots

**macwilkin** · 21st August 06, 08:27 PM

If there is a Chief, it's a clan! Some have Commanders appointed in the absence, and that I think is the exception.

Hmm...I don't know about that. The Lord Lyon appoints a Commander, like Iain Gunn of Banniskirk, to lead the clan until a Chief with a direct bloodline to the last heriditary chief can be found. But I don't think the Gunns have been "demoted". As a Commander, he is not a member of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, though.

I know the UK liason for the Clan Gunn Society -- he follows the search for a Gunn Chief -- I'll see what his take on this is.

Regards,

Todd

**sirdaniel1975** · 21st August 06, 08:35 PM

No, the Gunn's have not. It's a long and complicated tale, one of the best sources is Lyn Robinson... The UK Liason officer you mentioned. He's very well versed on the matter!! And I've read it posts on the clan forum. Very consice.

I was just babbeling before how there are those who for some reason don't consider some clans actually clans..

It's getting late and difficult to type. I can't think straight either, right now...

**macwilkin** · 21st August 06, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by sirdaniel1975

No, the Gunn's have not. It's a long and complicated tale, one of the best sources is Lyn Robinson... The UK Liason officer you mentioned. He's very well versed on the matter!! And I've read it posts on the clan forum. Very consice.

I was just babbeling before how there are those who for some reason don't consider some clans actually clans..

It's getting late and difficult to type. I can't think straight either, right now...

Ah-hah, very good then. Lyn is, as you say, very knowledgeable and very much the gentleman.

I see your point.

btw, I have quite the few Williamsons in my family tree, including a John Williamson from the "Kingdom of Fife".

Cheers,

Todd

**Southern Breeze** · 21st August 06, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by Andrew Green

Where can I find Rock Ivy? I have seen similar things in paintings... so if those can be believed, it's farily traditional. Then again, this is only from one book... and I have yet to determine whether it's an accurate portrayal, or if it is artistic liscense.

Since the subject is Scottish Heraldry the odds are that Rock Ivy is Atlantic Ivy. Atlantic Ivy (Hedera hibernica) is native to the Atlantic coastal areas of Europe from Scotland & Ireland to Portugal.
If you can't find a pic of it let me know and I'll post one for you.

**Rob Wright** · 21st August 06, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by sirdaniel1975

If there is a Chief, it's a clan! Some have Commanders appointed in the absence, and that I think is the exception. Anyway, I'm rambling.......

Or in the case of the Douglas' they would have to renounce their Hamilton titles and name to be chief of Clan Douglas.

Rob

**glengall1** · 22nd August 06, 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by sirdaniel1975

Yeah, I noticed that a few clans are missing. Sometimes these sources stick to the Highland clans that were featured by Robert McIan and such.. Many more familys and such are more recognized as clans today and have active Chiefs.. Some were clans and were not feartured by writers like McIan.. according to some..

Personally, I think many sources should start to update their lists as to whom are actually clans... The funny thing is, there are those who do not consider some clans "Clans!" I get a big kick out of this... If there is a Chief, it's a clan! Some have Commanders appointed in the absence, and that I think is the exception. Anyway, I'm rambling.......

Fasinating thoughts. I would like to add a little in a Devil's Advocate mode and not as my opinion.

Is the fact that the clans are missing or is it a fact that they weren't clans in the first place?

The clan structure is based on historical fact (alledgedly

). There is a contention that "new" clans are not clans at all so therefore your contention of an update doesn't hold water as you can't rewrite history. The other contention would be that the clan structure is ever evolving so therefore the "new" clans have as much right to be included.

So I suppose it depends on whether you are a traditionalist or a modernist.

Originally Posted by Tattoobradley

It's odd how many so called lists of clans often do not include "Henderson." Anyway, Henderson is cotton grass or "bog cotton." I think it'd look quite nice on a bonnet. I do need some more traditional headgear.... hmm... Great thread BTW. I'll post up some piccies if I ever get to that...

In my some of my references Henderson was not a clan. It was a sept of Clan Gunn so that is why you may not see it mentioned as a clan. In other publictions it is mentioned as a clan in its's own right. Very confusing. From reading my references there were Hendersons all over Scotland with the main Highland ones living in Glencoe who claimed decent from a semi-legendery pictish prince, Eanruig Mor Mac Righ Neachtain (big Henry son of king Neachtain). I did find that the Henderson line did terminate through marraige of their heiress into the MacDonald clan. Could this be the reason that they are not considered a clan anymore as their line closed?

**Cawdorian** · 22nd August 06, 06:26 AM

Some of the lines are very difficult to trace. The many marriages, mistresses and illegitimate children of some of the historial figures make the job tough. Some sources only recognize legimate heirs. If you can trace your family history back to 1500 or so you have done a great job.

Prior to 1500 some families did not have surnames, in others the surnames and spellings change from generation to generation. In some famous cases families (Stewart) have chosen to carry the mother's surname.

**sirdaniel1975** · 22nd August 06, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by glengall1

The clan structure is based on historical fact (alledgedly

). There is a contention that "new" clans are not clans at all so therefore your contention of an update doesn't hold water as you can't rewrite history. The other contention would be that the clan structure is ever evolving so therefore the "new" clans have as much right to be included.

So I suppose it depends on whether you are a traditionalist or a modernist.

I know exactly what you mean. 8 years ago I worked at the Scottish Tartans Museum and this was almost a daily topic with costumers in the gift shop. Over time I've taken up a more quasi stance tradition/modern.. There are those families who are tweeking their genealogies, going before the lord lyon, etc... You know how that goes, and that's a bit much. However, I suspect that there were clans that were so small, just went un-noticed. The geological lay of the Scottish Highlands would contribute to this. That's one of the contributing factors for the exsistence of clans anyway. Stop to think how the Hebridean/Western clans and families had to pay homage to Lord MacDonald. Go examine Clan Donalds sept list, and that will be a wee bit of evidence of that. How many of the names on that list are considered clans or assocciate with other clans. Sure many surnames are very common and easy to derive. The whole "son of" issue.. Non the less, times do change. After life began, there was not and behold instant clan systems. They all formed gradually over time.

Not attacking, just bringing up another point of view. But I definately agree with what you are saying, I will not name any of the supposed clan/families in question. That would be a bit rude. Anyway, once again, I'm rambling...

**sirdaniel1975** · 22nd August 06, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Cawdorian

Some of the lines are very difficult to trace. The many marriages, mistresses and illegitimate children of some of the historial figures make the job tough. Some sources only recognize legimate heirs. If you can trace your family history back to 1500 or so you have done a great job.

Prior to 1500 some families did not have surnames, in others the surnames and spellings change from generation to generation.

Yeah, I know that. Used to help people locate their clan names and tartans and such on a daily basis.

Another common occurance is where ancestors change their name for legal protection. Say they were criminals... or something... Or, they resort to the maiden name after the husband dies or divorce, because the husband was a big baddie..

Most people really do not realize how difficult and overwhelming genealogy truly is.

**Andrew Green** · 22nd August 06, 10:33 AM

That whole thing about modern clans not being recognized is interesting. Going by my own experiences (my internal debate over Muir or Gordon), it seems quite possible that a smaller clan, or perhaps even not so small a clan fragments because of the lack of a male heir to the chief, and thus gets incorporated into larger, more powerful, or more stable families in the area. Then later on, there is some interested/resurgence, and the clan tries to become its own entity again. For me this has ended up with identifying as both, a Muir, and a Gordon, and most people, including those more knowledgable about the Gordon's than I am believe it is perfectly OK to identify with both (or perhaps more, if your family ties connect to a few different families). But through all my research, the Muir resurgence is fairly new, and while they have elected a chief, almost every source I have seen/talked to/or read on my own (ie: non-internet) still lists the family as a sept of Gordon. So while this is slightly confsing at times, it is most definitely interesting, and has not been dull in the least.

Still looking for Rock Ivy, perhaps I should check out some botany sites.