Armigerous Clans

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Sounds like a Tennessee Williams play: an aging confidence man, living out his declining years in exile in a colorful, yet unfashionable, locale.

and shunned by society...

[gilmore]

and shunned by society...

Exactly, like many of Tennessee Williams' characters.

I imagine the faux McCarthy Mor would make an interesting subject for an enterprising and talented investigative journalist---Truman Capote and Tom Wolfe come to mind--- writing a feature story for a magazine, if he could be gotten to open up candidly about his exploits, and how he went about accomplishing them. Perhaps even a book. But then, it would take a certain talent to be his Boswell, and likely to have to time to separate the facts from fiction.

Perhaps a BBC movie, a docudrama, shown in the US on Masterpiece Theater?

[macwilkin]

Exactly, like many of Tennessee Williams' characters.

I imagine the faux McCarthy Mor would make an interesting subject for an enterprising and talented investigative journalist---Truman Capote and Tom Wolfe come to mind--- writing a feature story for a magazine, if he could be gotten to open up candidly about his exploits, and how he went about accomplishing them. Perhaps even a book. But then, it would take a certain talent to be his Boswell, and likely to have to time to separate the facts from fiction.

Perhaps a BBC movie, a docudrama, shown in the US on Masterpiece Theater?

http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmur...ghtchiefs.html

http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmur.../maccarthy.htm

There is also Erin's Blood Royal by Peter Ellis, but I would be careful with that one.

Regards,

Todd

[Colonel MacNeal]

A member of an armigerous clan, or a non-armigerous clan, may also possess their own personal arms if granted/registered by a recognized heraldic authority.

[O'Callaghan]

Perish the thought indeed, although one would have thought that the phrase "proper Highland gentlemen" would have been more appropriate. The reason that strict controls are necessary is to prevent montebanks, charlatans, and outright scoundrels from laying claim to dormant or non-existent chiefships. Even with such controls in place the occasional fraud does slip through the cracks-- a good case in point is that of the self-styled "McCarthy Mor", a fraudster who managed, over a ten year period, to produce dozens of forged documents to shore up his claim. It should be pointed out that these forgeries were extremely well crafted. They were done, apparently, by his partner, a Mr. Davidson, who was a well-trained and highly skilled restorer of antique documents.

But not all charlatans are as sophisticated in their attempt to gain recognition. In fact, most of their clumsy, ill-conceived schemes unravel almost as fast as they can come up with the lies they hope others, with less intelligence than they have, will believe. These fraudsters leave in their wake a collection of badly engraved tea pots, ancestral portraits done in acrylics, and ancient family bibles with pedigrees written with ball point pens. They now rely on the magic of photo shop, without having either the art or artistry to create anything even remotely believable.

This is why Lord Lyon has raised the bar, and clearly set forth the requirements that need to be met if one is to be recognized as a chief. Hopefully the wide dissemination of these requirements will at last bury these two-bit con men somewhere in potters field with the word FRAUD carved on their tombstone.

However, the Lord Lyon has nothing to say about recognising the Macarthy Mor (Great Macarthy), because he would be the chief of an IRISH clan, not a Scottish one! BTW, there's no difference between Macarthy/MacCarthy/McCarthy. The IRO (Irish Records Office) records Irish arms, and used to also recognise chiefs of clans, but abrogated that last function precisely because of the particular scandal alluded to here.

According to the IRO when it used to involve itself with these matters, the chief of an Irish clan was defined as the hereditary descendant of the last elected chief. This definition sounds odd, and even contradictory, but it can only sensibly be taken to mean the heir by primogeniture of the last chief to have been elected by a derbh fine under tanistry. As that is still the person that would be entitled to the arms of the chief, and as they still record Irish arms, it is debatable whether they have removed themselves from recognising chiefs to the extent that they pretend to have done. It's more the case that they are no longer working on identifying any new surviving lines of the chiefs.

As the IRO only ever recognised about twenty chiefs, then only the heirs of those chiefs can really say that they are chiefs today, at least with any certainty. The heirs of the recognised Irish chiefs do incude The O'Callaghan (note the definite article defining the title), although he is Spanish (and for that matter is also a Spanish Don, so a noble of two countries).

Far more Irish clans existed at one time, and there are old maps showing the locations of Irish clan lands, marked with legends in the form 'Pobul i Callaghan' (people of Callaghan, I think?) and so on, but most were disposessed of their lands, and often the heir isn't known. This contrasts with Scotland, where it was the ordinary members of the clan that were thrown off the land, rather than the chiefs as in Ireland.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

However, the Lord Lyon has nothing to say about recognising the Macarthy Mor (Great Macarthy), because he would be the chief of an IRISH clan, not a Scottish one!

I never said that the Lord Lyon had anything to do with Mr. McCarthy's claims. In point of fact the entire matter was dealt with by the Office of Arms in Dublin. The original question had to do with Scottish clans. The reference to McCarthy was intended to illustrate how dishonest people attempt to steal the rights of others, and should be seen as an example of why the Lord Lyon has established his current guidelines.

BTW, there's no difference between Macarthy/MacCarthy/McCarthy. The IRO (Irish Records Office) records Irish arms, and used to also recognise chiefs of clans, but abrogated that last function precisely because of the particular scandal alluded to here.

First, I should point out that it is the Office of Arms, not the "Irish Records Office" that grants and records arms in Ireland. Regarding the aftermath of the McCarthy affair, your statement may reflect the popular perception, however the decision to suspend, for the time being, the recognition of chiefs was largely due to the fact that there were no claimants seeking recognition at that time.

According to the IRO when it used to involve itself with these matters, the chief of an Irish clan was defined as the hereditary descendant of the last elected chief.

First, as already stated, the matter of chiefly recognition rested solely with the Chief Herald of Ireland, or his predecessor, Ulster King of Arms.The decision to recognize (or not) was based on the ability to prove descent from the last recognized chief.

This definition sounds odd, and even contradictory, but it can only sensibly be taken to mean the heir by primogeniture of the last chief to have been elected by a derbh fine under tanistry.

You are confusing two different processes. Tanistry is the act of appointing a successor; the derbhfine, composed exclusively of the clan "nobles", acted as a sort of "clan parliament", and could -- theoretically-- elect a chief if the chief had failed to appoint a tanist as his successor. By 1600 this archaic and often chaotic system of succession had been replaced by the more orderly advancement of primogeniture.

As already stated, recognition is based on descent from the last known chief-- from at least 1600 onward the government in Ireland regularly recorded the names of chiefs in all manner of documents, and it is from these documents that a petitioner would establish the existence of an historical clan chief, and then prove his descent from the last legally recognized chief. Tanistry and election has had nothing to do with it for over 400 years.

As that is still the person that would be entitled to the arms of the chief, and as they still record Irish arms, it is debatable whether they have removed themselves from recognising chiefs to the extent that they pretend to have done. It's more the case that they are no longer working on identifying any new surviving lines of the chiefs.

It needs to be made perfectly clear that the Office of Arms only reacts to a claim of chiefship when that claim is placed before the Chief Herald. The Office of Arms does not spend it's time, or the tax payers money, trying to figure out the genealogy of someone who may have died three or four hundred years ago, in the hopes of tracking down an heir to the arms and chiefly designation. Finding lost chiefs is not the job of the Chief Herald of Ireland.

The process for recognition is quite simple, whether one is claiming to be a chief or merely establishing a claim to ancestral arms. One has to prove that they are the senior living heir of the last known person to use the arms claimed. If they can prove descent, but can not prove that they are the representor of the senior line, then arms, appropriately differenced, would be granted.

As the IRO only ever recognised about twenty chiefs, then only the heirs of those chiefs can really say that they are chiefs today, at least with any certainty. The heirs of the recognised Irish chiefs do incude The O'Callaghan (note the definite article defining the title), although he is Spanish (and for that matter is also a Spanish Don, so a noble of two countries).

Please note that the "IRO" has never recognized Irish chiefs. This function was always the responsibility of the Office of Arms.

Far more Irish clans existed at one time, and there are old maps showing the locations of Irish clan lands, marked with legends in the form 'Pobul i Callaghan' (people of Callaghan, I think?) and so on, but most were disposessed of their lands, and often the heir isn't known.

Certainly more clans existed than the twenty or so recorded in "THE BOOK OF THE CHIEFS" begun by Dr. McLysaght in 1943-44. However, as clans evolved differently in Ireland as compared to Scotland,-- there is no real similarity between to the two other than a common language-- one has to be careful not to draw comparisons. For example, in Wicklow there were two powerful clans; the O'Byrnes and the O'Tooles. These names predominate, even today, in North County Wicklow. However, within the O'Toole and O'Byrne territories there were literally dozens of other surnames with nothing more than an anciently established geographic connection to these two "clans". At some point in time between roughly 1200 (the beginning of the Norman period of Irish history) and 1600 (the end of the Tudor period of Irish history) for a variety of reasons these families became settled and "chiefless".

Several of the "missing chiefs" are known, but have no interest in advancing their claim to chiefly status. That is their right and prerogative.

This contrasts with Scotland, where it was the ordinary members of the clan that were thrown off the land, rather than the chiefs as in Ireland.

This may come as something of a shock, but most of the Irish Chiefs remained on their land. Of the twenty or so listed in "The Book of Chiefs" cited elsewhere, I believe only two or three resided outside of Ireland at the time of their recognition. From that one might extrapolate that about 80% of the chiefs-- recognized, known, or lost, stayed in Ireland and by and large remain there to this very day.

[Sketraw]

A member of an armigerous clan, or a non-armigerous clan, may also possess their own personal arms if granted/registered by a recognized heraldic authority.

True to a degree..normally an armiger who had a Scottish Grant of Arms and gave allegiance to a Chief would be allowed to display his own arms as head of his own particular family branch within the Clan.

If a Clan is Chiefless the Armiger(s) associated with the Clan would be the custodians of the Clan until a new Chief (Commander in some particular cases) could be found genealogical which would meet with the Lord Lyons approval.

If a Chief Could not be found genealogically and there was enough Armigers 8 (this at one time used to include non armigerous Land Owners) they could form a derbfine and propose a candidate to Lord Lyon as Clan Commander and after a period of time he would become Chief.

This would not include Armigers with Foreign Grants or Registrations.

This was Lord Lyon Blairs written view amended from before, however we have no idea what the New Lord Lyon David Sellar's view will be. Hopefully it would be along the same lines or all the work many of us have done over the years following the present criteria will go up in smoke!!

[YoungMan]

I know this is an improbable scenario but humor me. Are any of the Chiefs non-Scots? Could some kind of wacky King Ralph story play out? Would hilarity ensue or would the Lord Lyon take one look at the passport and say "Oh hell no!" Genealogically speaking, it seems that any movement from Scotland would add a lot of water to the ancestral claim.

[Bugbear]

I know this is an improbable scenario but humor me. Are any of the Chiefs non-Scots? Could some kind of wacky King Ralph story play out? Would hilarity ensue or would the Lord Lyon take one look at the passport and say "Oh hell no!" Genealogically speaking, it seems that any movement from Scotland would add a lot of water to the ancestral claim.

Yes, for example, the current chief of the Lamont clan is Australian, and lives there, from what I understand.

[cessna152towser]

I think you will find that many of those who will be wearing feathers in their caps at the clan parade and pageant in Edinburgh in July will be visiting Scotland from USA, Canada or Australia. Some will have genuine entitlement to claim chieftaincy while others will represent modern clan societies which have been formed in these countries.