Armigerous Clans

[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.