Clan Names

[EagleJCS]

.....

[gilmore]

Doh! I knew that. I posted while under the influence of a medium grade fever and wasn't thinking clearly.

Actually, until recently (the last 5 years or so?) His Grace's family name is Montagu Douglas Scott (unhyphenated). Has been since 1810. The late Duke decided to return to using just Scott as his patronymic and encouraged his children to do the same. However, the current Duke uses the modern convention of using his title (Buccleuch) as his last name when signing correspondence. I believe his children are using 'Scott', though.

...

Not quite.

The convention---the rule set out by Lord Lyon---is that the chief of a clan must bear the clan's name as his surname, unhyphenated, unadorned.

When a peer, or even a Scots baron aka a laird, signs his name, he inscribes the territorial or other designation of his title, rather than his surname. Here, the surname is "Scott," but the legal and customary signature is "Buccleuch."

[EagleJCS]

I didn't want to start a discussion on the semantics of titles and addresses and signatures, etc., etc. I was just trying to provide examples based on what I've seen in print via the clan society newsletter and on the Buccleuch websites.

I'll shut up now...

Apologies for the improper use of the word semantics above (see gilmore's reply below). It should have more properly been 'the etiquette' or 'the niceties'.

[gilmore]

I didn't want to start a discussion on the semantics of titles and addresses and signatures, etc., etc. ...

To some, these are matters of much more than semantics, as we see.

"Semantics are a lawyer's stock in trade." Or something.

Or to put it another way:

Once a man made an appointment with an doctor. After being physically examined and found healthy, he was asked by the MD what the problem was.

"Doctor," he said, "I want to be castrated. My wife and I have discussed it at length and decided we would both be happier if this was done."

The doctor refused. The patient implored, and offered an exhorbitant amount of money. The doctor relented, and the surgery was performed.

The following day the doctor visited the patient in the hospital to check on his recovery, and was pleased to see that the incision was healing well.

"I have never before performed a castration," he mentioned to the patient, "but I have done many circumcisions."

"Oh, right," said the patient, "that's the word I was looking for."

[JSFMACLJR]

When a peer, or even a Scots baron aka a laird, signs his name, he inscribes the territorial or other designation of his title, rather than his surname. Here, the surname is "Scott," but the legal and customary signature is "Buccleuch."

Not quite. A peer may sign his name using only his designation ( eg Sir Torquhil Campbell, Duke of Argyll, signs his name "Argyll" ). A feudal baron, and someone with a territorial desgnation by law must sign his name "MacL of X" so that nobody will mistake them for a peer. Only peers and bishops can sign only their title.

[gilmore]

Not quite. A peer may sign his name using only his designation ( eg Sir Torquhil Campbell, Duke of Argyll, signs his name "Argyll" ). A feudal baron, and someone with a territorial desgnation by law must sign his name "MacL of X" so that nobody will mistake them for a peer. Only peers and bishops can sign only their title.

Thanks for the correction.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I was trying to show that even though the clan name is Scott, the chief is not known as the Duke of Scott, but as the Duke of Buccleuch, whereas, for example, the Chief of Haig is The Rt Hon The Earl of Haig, whose patronymic is also Haig.

Most titled nobles use their territorial designation as their title. Since the Scott's of Beccleuch have resided (or at least owned) Beccleuch since the 13th century it is only reasonable that they would take their territorial designation as their title.

Haig, who was created Earl of Haig, Viscount Dawick, and Baron Haig of Bemersyde, all in 1919, chose to keep his name rather than use the ancient territorial designation of Bemersyde, which (at least) he did append to his baronial title.

This is the thing when one is given a title by the sovereign-- they are pretty much free to take whatever territorial designation they want. Most choose the name of their estate, or the townlands where they were born, or some such similar place name. Others, with seemingly less imagination, just use their family name.

[Sketraw]

It is interesting to note, that for years people have disagreed with Lord Lyon, Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, interpretation that a Territorial Designation is a 'title' as stated in his book Clan Septs and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands. Many have stated it is a simple name change and indeed anyone can change there name in Scotland to 'of whatever', however this does not make it a Territorial Designation recognised by the Crown.

In the recent ruling in the Court of Session 15th July 09 over such a matter as Territorial Designation's, it states;

"Official recognition of change of name" by Lyon is in fact a substitute for recognition by "Royal License" which, while it does not confer the new name does constitute a "permission" to use it. As importantly, perhaps, in the 2nd edition of Scots Heraldry at p.198, the learned author says this:-

"The name in which a person is granted arms is, however, a 'name of dignity' (i.e. of the 'dignity' of Gentleman) and in the nature of a 'title' if it comprehends a feudal designation."

Click here to see the Full Ruling of the Court of Session

I would also like to point out regarding the post above that although historically most Feudal Barons were Lairds, Not all Lairds were Feudal Barons.