The Triumph of the Sloinneadh
The Chief
inaugurated as 32th Chief of the Clan MacDonald of Keppoch, and
presented with his "Letters Patent and Ensigns Armorial."
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article1578728.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/5341444.stm
Regards,
The Chief
Sean J Murphy
I didn't start the fire, but here goes. Ranald MacDonald's installation
as Chief of the Keppoch branch is a triumph more for legal persistence,
as well as for shoddy genealogy and lax heraldry. Again, the view that
the Gaels of Scotland, and of Ireland, have somehow perfected a system
of transmitting pedigrees orally without reliance on documentation, is a
piece of mystical nonsense. Of course the MacDonald of Keppoch case has
been taken up in Ireland, particularly as I have pointed out by the
questionable claimant to the Mac Sweeney Doe title:
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/macsweeneydoe.html
Some of the language used by the victors and quoted in the 'Independent'
article seems guaranteed to further inflame the controversy, eg,
'clownish antagonistic propaganda', 'sour grapes by bad losers'. I will
continue to resist the application to Ireland of the Scottish acceptance
of the 'sloinneadh', as it is guaranteed to produce more bogus and
questionable chiefs like Mac Carthy Mór, Maguire of Fermanagh, and Mac
Sweeney Doe. I even think I feel a 'Report on the MacDonald of Keppoch
Chiefship' coming on . . .
Sean Murphy
Irish Chiefs http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/
mj...@btinternet.com
Please do. You are not alone in considering this decision a worrying
development. A succinct summary and explanation of the case would be
very useful.
MA-R
Sean J Murphy
And here again is the dense legal document with which we have to
grapple, the 2004 decision by the Court of Session in favour of Ranald
Alasdair MacDonald of Keppoch and against Lord Lyon's finding:
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/XA22.html I have drawn attention
before to the key point at which Lyon's case began to sink:
'Lord Lyon Blair appears to have based his view of the need for evidence
to support the keeping of the sloinneadh in correct form on his reading
of the correspondence and papers in the Morrison of Ruchdi case, and in
certain other cases. Unfortunately, we do not know for certain where, in
the correspondence or case papers in the Morrison of Ruchdi case, the
Lord Lyon found the material on which he relied, nor has it proved
possible for him, in response to a request from this court, to identify
the other cases to which he referred.'
It would be utterly outrageous to employ terms such as 'dropped the
ball' or 'threw in the towel' in relation to a case in such a
prestigious court, and I should certainly expect to be arrested on sight
on my next visit to Edinburgh (beautiful city) if ever I dared to imply
such a thing. That said, when working on cases relating to Gaelic chiefs
Scottish or Irish, one simply cannot afford to mislay or lose sight of
documents and citations (memo to self: keep those files in order). In
the past I have received some interesting copy documents in the mail in
relation to a few of my more high profile cases, so anyone posting or
lurking here who has relevant documents concerning MacDonald of Keppoch
which they wish to share can send same on, in confidence if they wish.
At all stages of course MacDonald himself is free to argue his case with
me or point out any errors. Though I will not be shy about publishing or
lecturing on the results of my research, I should make it clear that
this is again a pro bono case, although as with Mac Carthy Mór, there
may be attempts to claim that I am a hired gun.
Sean Murphy
Carraig, Cliff Road, Windgates, Bray, Co Wicklow, Ireland
The Chief
Dear Sean,
You really need to watch your diet - such regular over
indulgence in sour grapes can lead to well known problems with the
spleen.
Regards,
The Chief
tignarius
Sean J Murphy wrote:
> I didn't start the fire, but here goes. Ranald MacDonald's installation
> as Chief of the Keppoch branch is a triumph more for legal persistence,
> as well as for shoddy genealogy and lax heraldry.
I personally have no idea if the said Ranald MacDonald should or should
not be Keppoch. Also I know no more than the great majority of folk
have read about his case against the Lord Lyon. However, I have strong
objections to the virulent Sean Murphy suggesting that there is a case
of 'lax heraldry' to answer. On what grounds does he base his
accusation? The arms of Ranald MacDonald are newly granted in reply to
his petition which was supported by his win in the Court of Session.
The arms are a completely new concoction of West Highland arms with
supporters befitting MacDonald's newly adjudged rank as a chief.
Where is the 'lax' heraldry?
Either withdraw the comment Mr Murphy or support your claim with facts.
Graham Milne
his arguments before the Court of Session, that he did this but that the
Court of Session did not find his arguments persuasive; in fact they found
the arguments of the petitioner persuasive.
Graham Senior-Milne
"tignarius" <tign...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158250786.7...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Sean J Murphy
Tremendously witty, Chief ole' buddy, but I am unmoved. Recall if you
will the situation when the Chief Herald of Ireland and his acting
deputy both signed a certificate in 1992 confirming that Terence
MacCarthy was a chief. Oh yes, those who questioned this were no doubt
exhibiting 'sour grapes', 'clownish antagonistic propaganda', etc. When
are you going to come out from the long grass, tell us who you are and,
exhibiting your triumphant 'sloinneadh', inform us what you think you
are chief of?
Sean Murphy
Sean J Murphy
Alas, Mr Maxwell, once again you display your eccentric view that
heraldry relates only to armory, and that questions of pedigree and
succession to titles are no business of the herald. I stand over my view
that it would be a shoddy genealogist and lax herald who would fail to
be concerned over the recognition of claimants to chiefship such as Mac
Carthy Mór (fraudulent) or MacDonald of Keppoch (highly questionable).
Of course the arms indicating chiefship that are granted or confirmed in
such cases also come in question. The MacCarthy case has now been
resolved, largely as a result of my 'virulence', and we will see how the
second goes. Again, what a pity you are not in a position to MODERATE
this group as you have done others. Of course, you should feel free to
continue to express your opinions, and I certainly do not call on you to
withdraw a single one of them, even when I find them objectionable.
Sean Murphy
Report on the Mac Sweeney Doe Chiefship (incorporating some preliminary
comments on the MacDonald of Keppoch case)
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/macsweeneydoe.html
Sean J Murphy
MacDonald of Keppoch website at
http://macdonaldofkeppoch.org/cadetsandsepts.htm:
'NB : The surnames MacBride, O'Donnell, Doyle and Drake (originally
Polish ' Kaczorowski)are new septs of Clan Ranald of Lochaber by
Marriage to your Chief.'
Sean Murphy
Sean J Murphy
http://macdonaldofkeppoch.org/eulogy.htm
Sean Murphy
The Chief
Reverting to type - "when in doubt, repeat, repeat, repeat..."?
I shall leave you to your grapes, while I savour the legal and armorial
vindication of the sloinneadh in this case. A triumph indeed.
Regards,
The Chief
tignarius
It seems to me Mr Murphy is ducking my question. Where is the evidence
of the lax heraldry? The genealogy here is irrelevant, shoddy or
otherwise. Mr Murphy claims the heraldry is lax, but why is it lax?
Does Mr Murphy even know what Mr MacDonald's arms are or is he just
assuming that because he (Murphy) does not agree the Court of
Session's decision that the Lord Lyon must have done a poor job of
designing the new arms? It is complete nonsense.
I think Mr Murphy does not understand the petitioning of arms in
Scotland or that the whole process is judicial in Scotland. I think Mr
Murphy is probably better employed forever rabbiting-on about macCarthy
Mor and his alleged involvement in the uncovering of that
world-shattering event! Surely he should leave commenting on Scottish
legal matters to those qualified to do so.
I am sure that everyone here understands that Mr Murphy thinks Mr
MacDonald's claim is questionable but due legal process in Scotland
has ruled otherwise with the over-riding caveat "for aught else
unseen". If Mr Murphy wants to make a useful contribution to the
Lords Lyon (Innes and Blair)'s case, then perhaps he should seek out
that 'aught else unseen' and produce it in the Court of the Lord
Lyon. I am sure Lyon Blair would welcome it. But then, I am sure Mr
Murphy will not have time to do any worthy research because he needs to
keep telling the rest of us how he is always right.
I have no idea whether Ranald MacDonald is the true heir to the chiefs
of Keppoch and I don't suppose there is anyone in the world today who
can say one way or the other. However, due legal process has said that
the Lord Lyon must accept him as the heir of Keppoch and as such the
Lord Lyon is obliged to grant arms to MacDonald in the name of
'MacDonald of Keppoch'. The arms that are newly granted to
MacDonald are nothing to do with the former chiefs of Keppoch as they
all neglected to have any arms granted to themselves and oddly there
are no arms reliably recorded as belonging to any chief of Keppoch.
Thus the new arms have no historic significance connected to the
ancient chiefs of Keppoch. There is no 'lax' heraldry here, just
the lax, jaundiced views of Sean Murphy questioning a legal decision in
connection with heraldic authority presumably that it will lead to some
huge cover-up of miss-goings-on in Scots heraldry. Dream on Mr Murphy!
Anthony Maxwell
StephenP
A higher court has ruled in favour of Keppoch and he is obliged to
follow its ruling. If there is questionable geneaology then the error
for its acceptance lies with the Court of Session. If there is no
historical heraldry to follow I fail to see how new Arms can be deemed
"lax".
Yours ayes
Stephen
Sean J Murphy
broader view we take of heraldry, here, Mr Maxwell has provided some
useful armorial information. In particular, I find the following
statement of his interesting: 'The arms that are newly granted to
MacDonald are nothing to do with the former chiefs of Keppoch as they
all neglected to have any arms granted to themselves and oddly there
This tends to confirm my suspicion that Keppoch is a dead title
artificially revived, and the questions concerning the recently
recognised claimants's pedigree and entitlements just will nae gang
awa'. I have added the following finely drawn arms and seals (the work
of Mr Maxwell if I am not mistaken) to my collection of data:
http://scotsheraldry.com/ArchivePictures/gallery.asp?ID=60
Sean Murphy
Sean J Murphy
. . . . .
>>>Dear Sean,
>>> You really need to watch your diet - such regular over
>>>indulgence in sour grapes can lead to well known problems with the
>>>spleen.
>>>Regards,
>>> The Chief
>>
>>Tremendously witty, Chief ole' buddy, but I am unmoved. Recall if you
>>will the situation when the Chief Herald of Ireland and his acting
>>deputy both signed a certificate in 1992 confirming that Terence
>>MacCarthy was a chief. Oh yes, those who questioned this were no doubt
>>exhibiting 'sour grapes', 'clownish antagonistic propaganda', etc. When
>>are you going to come out from the long grass, tell us who you are and,
>>exhibiting your triumphant 'sloinneadh', inform us what you think you
>>are chief of?
>>
>>Sean Murphy
>
>
> Reverting to type - "when in doubt, repeat, repeat, repeat..."?
> I shall leave you to your grapes, while I savour the legal and armorial
> vindication of the sloinneadh in this case. A triumph indeed.
>
Chortle on, Chief, the triumph may prove to be Terentine, and the
questions concerning MacDonald's pedigree and right to chiefship just
cannot be suppressed.
Sean Murphy
Sean J Murphy
I must admit that I am impatient with legal fictions, especially when
they lead to absurd results (or worse still, miscarriages of justice).
Thus I have been informed that the Arbitral Court in Casale Monferrato
had no choice on the basis of the evidence before it but to find in
favour of Terence MacCarthy in his (obviously contrived) suit against Dr
Marco Horak. Similarly, the Scottish Court of Session had no choice on
the basis of the evidence before it but to find in favour of Randald
MacDonald in his appeal against Lord Lyon's decision. Fortunately, I
find myself in the service of a higher court, that of History, which
insists on much higher standards of evidential proof and never adjourns.
Sean Murphy
Emungo
That's great - truly inspired. As is the truly Pindaric epinician ode
below the picture.
"After many years of struggle, anguish and rebuffs
The men are no longer as hinds without their stag
Or lambs without their shepherd ..."
E. J. Thribb of that ilk, if I'm not mistaken.
mj...@btinternet.com
I share Sean's concerns. The reliance on an "oral pedigree", while no
doubt of great appeal to those who see the Court ruling as a slap in
the face for normal (i.e. "British" as opposed to "Celtic"?) standards
of proof, seems to me a troubling development. In addition to any
concerns about the accuracy of the present claims (now recognised) it
does seem to risk opening the flood-gates to other doubtful claimants.
I note that the new MacDonald of Keppoch's cousin is also petitioning
for recognition as a Chief - using similarly claims, I wonder? - and
that he is now starting up business in earnest: creating hereditary
chieftainships, offering genealogical services (how to construct your
own ancient oral pedigree as evidence of questionable rights to
titles?).
None of these seem welcome developments to me, and I find it hard to
understand the crowing and jeering of those who apparently do not
believe that proper evidential proofs and high standards ought to be
applied to these matters.
But that's just my opinion, of course.
Michael Andrews-Reading
StephenP
Sean J Murphy wrote:
>
> I must admit that I am impatient with legal fictions, especially when
> they lead to absurd results (or worse still, miscarriages of justice).
> Thus I have been informed that the Arbitral Court in Casale Monferrato
> had no choice on the basis of the evidence before it but to find in
> favour of Terence MacCarthy in his (obviously contrived) suit against Dr
> Marco Horak. Similarly, the Scottish Court of Session had no choice on
> the basis of the evidence before it but to find in favour of Randald
> MacDonald in his appeal against Lord Lyon's decision. Fortunately, I
> find myself in the service of a higher court, that of History, which
> insists on much higher standards of evidential proof and never adjourns.
>
> Sean Murphy
Sean
I'm not sure that is an accurate or a fair comparison. In the Keppoch
case (for good or ill) all the actions were in the appropriate
jurisdiction. An Italian court ruling on Irish matters is not in the
same league as a Scottish court ruling on Scottish matters.
Yours aye
Stephen
Joseph McMillan
Sean J Murphy wrote:
> Leaving aside the usual personal venom and incomprehension of the
> broader view we take of heraldry, here,
Sorry, Sean, but this time the venom has been coming from you, not
Anthony. And, as Stephen has already suggested, please tell us what
more expansive view of "heraldry" would justify describing any newly
granted arms as "lax"?
>Mr Maxwell has provided some
> useful armorial information. In particular, I find the following
> statement of his interesting: 'The arms that are newly granted to
> MacDonald are nothing to do with the former chiefs of Keppoch as they
> all neglected to have any arms granted to themselves and oddly there
> are no arms reliably recorded as belonging to any chief of Keppoch.'
> This tends to confirm my suspicion that Keppoch is a dead title
> artificially revived,
How so? One of the more damaging fictions perpetrated by Sir Thomas
Innes of Learney was that a clan chiefship or chieftaincy was somehow
dependent on armorial recognition by Lyon Court. If you had been able
to check the Register of All Public Arms and Bearings before the end of
1742, your logic would have forced you to conclude that chiefship of
the MacMillans was not only dead but had never existed, since the
MacMillan entry does not appear in the register until December of that
year. The MacMillans of Murlaggan are well documented in the 17th-18th
centuries, but no one of that line matriculated arms in Lyon Court
until 1957. Does that make the house of Murlaggan dead and
artificially revived? Does it mean the Murlaggans never existed?
Maybe the oral genealogy on which the Keppoch case was decided is phony
or flawed, and maybe it's not. But the lack of a previous grant or
matriculation of arms to a Keppoch chief is neither here nor there.
Joseph McMillan
Martin Goldstraw
> I must admit that I am impatient with legal fictions, especially when
> they lead to absurd results (or worse still, miscarriages of justice).
It is surprising how often one hears the term "legal fiction" in
discussions of Scottish Heraldry. I too was disappointed that the
higher court accepted a Sloinneadh when previous Lords Lyon had felt
unable to do so. Acceptance of such a level of proof could I think (I
hope) only happen in Scotland and with the standards of forensic proofs
required universally in all other court business it seems barely
credible that a higher court would find against Lyon on the basis of
such a pedigree.
I am often troubled by one other Scottish legal fiction, that of the
newly erected armigerous ancestor; a legal fiction which allows non
armigerous foreigners who are, in the male line,descended from anyone
who can be found to have been resident in Scotland at some point in
history, no matter what their actual status at the time they were
alive, to gain a matriculation of Scottish arms today.
I have no malice towards any armiger no matter how he gained his arms
and hope that this comment is not seen as one of heresy in Scottish
armigerous circles but it seems to me that the way in which the College
of Arms deals with this by only allowing exemplifications to
descendants of those who were armigers prior to their emigration to
another country is wholly correct since those persons have a right of
arms anyway by way of being descended from an armigerous ancestor. If I
dare use a "Gayreian" term, they are noble descended of noble stock.
The College does not grant arms retrospectively to an English ancestor
(beyond a generation) to facilitate a new grant to a living armiger.
In Scotland, however it seems to me to be a legal fiction gone too far
to "ennoble" an ancestor who, in reality, may never have been
considered in the social class which at that time would have been
considered worthy of armigerous status. Indeed in theory if one were
rich enough and had a genealogical tree consisting entirely of Scottish
subjects it would be possible to create, by way of legal fiction, the
seize quarters that some of the most rigid Orders of Chivalry might
demand even though your ancestors were little more than , for example,
farm labourers or mill workers (no offence to these honourable
occupations).
On the whole, I am not comfortable with legal fiction and although I
have no way of knowing that the accepted Sloinneadh is a fiction (the
court accepted it as fact), I am far happier when dealing with legal
fact.
Regards,
Martin
Sean J Murphy
(1) Again, the duties of a herald encompass not only armory, but
checking of pedigrees, succession to titles, and other matters we
discuss here from time to time. I repeat, it is lax heraldry to validate
or recognise a questionable or bogus chief.
(2) There are exceptions to every rule, but in general a chiefship that
has neither documented pedigree or recorded arms is showing all the
signs of dormancy if not extinction.
Sean Murphy
StephenP
> The College does not grant arms retrospectively to an English ancestor
> (beyond a generation) to facilitate a new grant to a living armiger.
>
I understand one of the prime criteria for any posthumous Grant of Arms
by the College of Arms is that the recipient must have been eligible
for Arms in their own right during their life time. How far back they
will go I am not sure. I believe it is possible to get some sort of
authorisation to put Arms on a memorial for a deceased ancestor.
Whether or not there are different generation considerations between
Grants and memorials I don't know.
As always in such matters, I am quite happy to be corrected.
Yours aye
Stephen
Sean J Murphy
> Sean J Murphy wrote:
>
>>I must admit that I am impatient with legal fictions, especially when
>>they lead to absurd results (or worse still, miscarriages of justice).
>>Sean Murphy
>
>
> It is surprising how often one hears the term "legal fiction" in
> discussions of Scottish Heraldry. I too was disappointed that the
> higher court accepted a Sloinneadh when previous Lords Lyon had felt
> unable to do so. Acceptance of such a level of proof could I think (I
> hope) only happen in Scotland and with the standards of forensic proofs
> required universally in all other court business it seems barely
> credible that a higher court would find against Lyon on the basis of
> such a pedigree.
> . . . . .
Ploughing a lone furrow never bothers me, but I find it interesting to
have it confirmed that others too are concerned over the MacDonald of
Keppoch judgement. I think that Lord Lyon may now need to be protected
from sloinneadh-bearing claimants to chiefship - not to mention from
feudal barons demanding additaments! Could Scotland also do with a
Genealogy and Heraldry Act like the one now being considered in Ireland?
Sean Murphy
Martin Goldstraw
Sean J Murphy wrote:
> (2) There are exceptions to every rule, but in general a chiefship that
> has neither documented pedigree or recorded arms is showing all the
> signs of dormancy if not extinction.
>
> Sean Murphy
Dormancy perhaps but surely in terms of the mechanism of a Clan it's
chiefship is never extinct.
A Clan is the property of its Chief but once a Clan exists, it can and
does remain in existence even when it is leaderless because the line of
its previous Chiefs has become extinct. There exists (in Scotland, I
have no knowledge of Ireland) a mechanism whereby a leaderless Clan
can, through the offices and assistance of the Lord Lyon, elect a new
chosen Chief - witness the recent events in the case of McArthur.
I am prepared to accept that the Courts believed that the Sloinneadh is
genuine but I am troubled by the reception the newly recognised Chief
is having from his clan as a result of the way he has gone about
securing recognition. Perhaps if he had taken the longer route as taken
by McArthur he would have achieved his aim and gained the lasting
respect of his clan in the bargain.
Either way, I wish him well.
Regards,
Martin
mj...@btinternet.com
Martin Goldstraw wrote:
>
> I am often troubled by one other Scottish legal fiction, that of the
> newly erected armigerous ancestor; a legal fiction which allows non
> armigerous foreigners who are, in the male line,descended from anyone
> who can be found to have been resident in Scotland at some point in
> history, no matter what their actual status at the time they were
> alive, to gain a matriculation of Scottish arms today.
>
> I have no malice towards any armiger no matter how he gained his arms
> and hope that this comment is not seen as one of heresy in Scottish
> armigerous circles but it seems to me that the way in which the College
> of Arms deals with this by only allowing exemplifications to
> descendants of those who were armigers prior to their emigration to
> another country is wholly correct since those persons have a right of
> arms anyway by way of being descended from an armigerous ancestor. If I
> dare use a "Gayreian" term, they are noble descended of noble stock.
> The College does not grant arms retrospectively to an English ancestor
> (beyond a generation) to facilitate a new grant to a living armiger.
You raise an interesting point, Martin.
As I understand it, the College of Arms makes grants (as opposed to
confirmations or registrations) in two circumstances where the status
of an ancestor whom the petitioner represents is crucial.
The first is will a grant to someone outside the UK who is othwerwise
themselves personally qualified and who can prove male-line descent
from someone who was a subject of the English/British Crown - e.g. an
American who can trace his patrilineal ancestors back to beyond 1783.
I don't believe the status of those ancestors in terms of their
personal eligibility to obtain a grant is relevant. However, this is a
grant to the present-day individual, and is not retrospective in
application.
The College will also make extensively retrospective grants if the
circumstances warrant it. (I am not sure what you mean by saying that
they won't grant retrospective arms in order to facilitate a new grant
- granting retrospective arms usually means there is no need to make a
new grant). That is to say, they will only these retrospective grants
where the retrospective grantee would themselves have been qualified to
petition for a grant - a so-called "arms suitable to be put upon a
monument" grant).
I am aware of one recent case where, for the intention of acquiring a
potential quartering for an 18th century non-armigerous heiress, the
College was prepared to make a retrospective grant notionally in favour
of an even earlier ancestor of that heiress (an Alderman who died in
1636) - many generations removed from the person who would have then
had the right to quarter the arms!
I would be interested to know how this contrasts with Lord Lyon's
practice.
Regards, Michael
Martin Goldstraw
Stephen,
I would be delighted to be proved wrong - I'll start saving up my
pennies now ... seize quarters .... hmmm.
I'm sure that there will be those far more knowledgeable than I who
will put me straight.
Regards,
Martin
Martin Goldstraw
>I'm sure that there will be those far more knowledgeable than I who
>will put me straight.
>Regards,
>Martin
They have done! - I am grateful Michael.
Martin
StephenP
> Stephen,
> I would be delighted to be proved wrong - I'll start saving up my
> pennies now ... seize quarters .... hmmm.
>
> I'm sure that there will be those far more knowledgeable than I who
> will put me straight.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
Martin
I think your pennies are probably safe and are going to be used for
something else. Even if the CoA were prepared to go back more than one
deceased generation, I would be very surprised if they would consider
anything outside the paternal line.
I await more learned council on the matter.
Yours aye
Stephen
mj...@btinternet.com
Martin Goldstraw wrote:
> Martin said:
> >I'm sure that there will be those far more knowledgeable than I who
> >will put me straight.
>
>
> >Regards,
> >Martin
>
>
> They have done! - I am grateful Michael.
>
> Martin
My pleasure. I should add that in the latter case to which I referred,
the present-day petitioner was himself armigerous, so there was no
question of anything other than one grant for the earlier
non-armigerous heiress ancestor whose own family had used arms without
authority but who would themselves have qualified for a grant. I
understand it is not uncommon for such retrospective grants to "fill
holes" in respect of quarterings. In theory the only thing to stop one
from acquiring quarters in this fashion would be the eligibility of the
ancestresses' families and the size of the fees! I suppose
seize-quartiers could be pursued in a similar fashion, provided that
the relevant petitioners (e.g. if your mother was not an heiress, then
someone who genealogically represents your maternal grandfather would
need to apply, and that grandfather - or one of his male-line ancestors
- would himself need to have been eligible for a grant).
What I don't know is whether such a retrospective grant would be made
in respect of an heiress ancestress whose family qualified if the
petitioner was himself non-armigerous - i.e. where the arms once
granted could not be displayed without a further grant to the
petitioner himself in order to bring into play the quartering thus
acquired. It would be interesting to know whether an eligible ancestor
through an heiress would make an otherwise unqualifying petitioner
eligible for a grant (given that the bar for grants seems to be set
rather low, this may in practice never be an issue!). I suspect that,
provided the fees were paid, the answer would be yes.
It is also worth noting that such retrospective grants are much more
expensive than even the usual grants, because each generation in the
pedigree needs to be confirmed (to standards of documentary proof far
exceeding the oral pedigree!) and the registration fees paid per
generation.
MA-R
StephenP
StephenP wrote:
> I await more learned council on the matter.
Oooops. Ruddy spollchuckar.
I await more learned counsel on the matter.
StephenP
mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
> I would be interested to know how this contrasts with Lord Lyon's
> practice.
>
Michael
I think it differs in the the Alderman may well have qualified for Arms
in his own right had he applied in his own life time. Had he been an
Ag Lab I doubt if the case would have proceeded.
Yours aye
Stephen
mj...@btinternet.com
You are absolutely right in saying that the retrospective grant was
only considered because there was a descent from a male-line ancestor
who was himself personally eligible. The facts of the case were:
A gentleman married in 1774 a wife who was one of four daughters and
co-heirs of a grocer. The wife was not personally eligible for a
grant, and neither was her father the grocer (they both used
unauthorised arms, however).
The grocer (born 1724) was in turn son of a second, earlier grocer
(born 1694), who was in his turn the son of a third, even earlier
grocer (born 1649), who was the son of a tanner. None of these men was
personally eligible for a grant.
The tanner was the youngest son of a clothier who served a term as
Alderman on a borough corporation before his death in 1634. That
Alderman was personally eligible for a grant.
Therefore, in order to obtain a retrospective grant today, the
petitioner would need in theory to prove:
(1) legitimate descent in the male-line from the gentleman and his wife
(or from an heiress of the gentleman and his wife);
(2) proof that the wife was an heir of her father the grocer;
(3)) proof of each generation of legitimate patrilineal descent from
the mid 18th century grocer to the early 17th century Alderman,
then
(4) register the generations established by the proofs - I think the
fees are about 100 pounds per generation, and some 11 generations are
comprehended here, and then
(5) petition for a grant in memory of the Alderman
This particular case was complicated further by the fact that the
prospective petitioner, an armiger, who sought to regularise the use of
a quartering founded on arms which were themselves doubly unauthorised
(viz 1. granted during the Commonwealth and 2. no descent from the
grantee, the original grant being without wider limitations), was
descended from an heiress of the gentleman and his wife of 1774 via a
further heiress, and the right to the arms used by that second heiress
were themselves doubtful and (so far as I know) have not yet been
resolved; this is why the proposed grant, which the College agreed they
would make, subject to the proofs, was not proceeded with.
Had there been no-one in the first heiress's patrilineal ancestry who
was personally qualified for a grant, no grant would have been
considered.
I would be curious to know more about the way this English position
contrasts with that of the Scottish heraldic authorities.
MA-R
mj...@btinternet.com
Martin Goldstraw wrote:
> I am often troubled by one other Scottish legal fiction, that of the
> newly erected armigerous ancestor; a legal fiction which allows non
> armigerous foreigners who are, in the male line,descended from anyone
> who can be found to have been resident in Scotland at some point in
> history, no matter what their actual status at the time they were
> alive, to gain a matriculation of Scottish arms today.
This is the point I don't understand, and it may illustrate whether
there is in fact a difference between the English and Scottish
practices.
Under the Scots system, are you saying that the ancestor acquires a
retrospective grant or right to the arms, regardless of his personal
eligibility, i.e. some form of retrospective ennoblement?
Or is is closer to the English system, in which the status of the
ancestor serves merely to give the petitioner an hereditary right to
petition - i,e. my male-line ancestor was within Lord Lyon's
jurisdiction, therefore so am I?
Regards, Michael
Martin Goldstraw
mj...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> Under the Scots system, are you saying that the ancestor acquires a
> retrospective grant or right to the arms, regardless of his personal
> eligibility, i.e. some form of retrospective ennoblement?
>
It would appear that this is the case. Forgive for not immediately
responding but I had remembered an actual case with which I could
illustrate the point so had to wait until I had access to my library.
The Double Tressure (Journal of the HSS) number 26 2003 records the
story of the Craster Pringles and their journey to arms.
[Quote] Out of our various e-mails and exchanges emerged the idea that
it would be good to give some visual sense of identity to the family by
applying for armorial bearings. The senior male descendant traced so
far, Tony Pringle from Suffolk, obligingly applied to Lord Lyon for a
grant of arms in memory of the original Craster Pringle.
The arms were granted on 9th December 2002 and are recorded in volume
85, page 15 of the Register blazoned thus //snip [End Quote]
Earlier in the text of the article it identifies the first Craster
Pringle (the one to whome the arms were in memory of and from whom all
now living Craster Pringles have matriculated arms) as "the Christer
who became Craster was baptised at Earlston in 1773, the son of George
Pringle 'plasterer in Mellerstain'.
Thus we have modern day armigers petitioning for arms in memory of
their common Scottish ancestor, who was a plasterer by trade, in order
that they, who are not Scottish, can matriculate Scottish Arms and
themselves become "Scottish" armigers.
Scotland has always had a different criteria for the application of
arms and never used the port of gentility but I can't believe that in
1773 a plasterer or his son would have been considered a noble in the
nobless of Scotland!
A legal fiction methinks.
Regards,
Martin
Martin Goldstraw
goes on to say in the same article that " The first Craster, a
plasterer by trade, would presumably not have been considered "eminent"
by English criteria, nor, as I understand it, would the English Kings
make a grant in name of an ancestor so far back. The Lord Lyon, by
contrast, has done something significant for a family, the benefits of
which, in terms of an enhanced sense of identity, are already enjoyed
by a not insignificant number of people (all those who have applied for
matriculations so far have descendants).
Martin
Alex Maxwell Findlater
I have commented before on the "port of gentility". The quotation is
from Gregory King, I believe, and is "the port and countenance of a
gentleman". The port is his comportment, not the door he came in by!
On a more serious matter, the Scots system allows, as does the English,
a grant to the deceased person, as long as he was in the jurisdiction
of Lyon in his lifetime. It is a truism that heralds have always made
retrospective grants, indeed what herald would accept any limitation on
his right to grant arms? That is the legal logic of the matter.
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip of details of a proposed grant of arms to an ancestor of 11
generations previously>
> This particular case was complicated further by the fact that the
> prospective petitioner, an armiger, who sought to regularise the use
> of a quartering founded on arms which were themselves doubly
> unauthorised (viz 1. granted during the Commonwealth and 2. no descent
> from the grantee, the original grant being without wider limitations),
> was descended from an heiress of the gentleman and his wife of 1774
> via a further heiress, and the right to the arms used by that second
> heiress were themselves doubtful and (so far as I know) have not yet
> been resolved; this is why the proposed grant, which the College
> agreed they would make, subject to the proofs, was not proceeded with.
I have a case very similar to this in my distaff ancestry and in 1868 it
was resolved by obtaining a royal licence via the College of Arms.
One James Trotter, who died in 1833, had four children of whom the two
sons and one of the daughters dsp. The daughter Anne whose line
continued married a George Welbank who had no arms that anyone has ever
heard of nor any that were mentioned in the later RL.
Anne and George Welbank had a son who dsp and a daughter Elizabeth who
married a William Brown. Anne died in childbirth to Elizabeth in 1812.
In 1868 the last of Anne's siblings died leaving a property which was
left to William Brown on condition that he changed his name to Trotter
and adopted the Trotter arms. At that stage William Brown, like his
father-in-law George Welbank, had no arms; nor, of course did his wife,
the heiress Elizabeth, have any arms.
So William Brown got someone, probably a lawyer, to organise the royal
licence to change his name to Trotter and bear the Trotter arms
quartered with some new Brown arms with a small distinction in his
lifetime only. William Brown's children were able to bear the
Trotter-Brown quartered arms undifferenced. In 1869 and after this RL
was signed, William Brown, who was of Scots parentage, got a grant from
Lyon of these new Brown arms.
This seems to me to be a mass of irregularities, saved only by the royal
licence.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/
Martin Goldstraw
I am, as always, obliged to you for your counsel Alex. I am aware of
these facts however the point I make is that the armorial tree created
by the retrospective grant gives the legal fiction that there exists an
armorial tree when in reality the person who begins the tree (in this
case the original Craster Pringle) and all the intervening generations
to the present day were not in fact armigerous and, more importantly,
during their lifetimes may never have been considered eligible for
arms. Whatever the criteria of acceptance for a grant of arms may be,
it is, in my humble opinion, highly unlikely that a plasterer of 1773
could have stretched his purse to a grant of arms and would therefore
be highly unlikely to have either aspired to, or been accepted in, the
nobless of Scotland.
This is the basis of my belief that such retrospective grants create a
legal fiction - it is, even if done for the best and nicest of reasons,
interfering with historical fact. The original Craster Pringle was not
armigerous and so it is a fiction to think that his descendants can
matriculate their own arms off his.
I mean no disrespect to the Pringle family and apologise for using this
as an example merely to illustrate my point; there are numerous such
examples and my point is not personal.
Regards,
martin
barrassie
A proposed chief can be elected by a derbhine, of 7 Scottish Armigers
of the name, it can be possible to make up the numbers required with
Scottish landowners of the name. The Armigers can all be quite modern,
and an armigeer in his/her own right can vote on arriving at the age of
16 years, always providing that they ave held the Arms for at least a
year and a day. If the elected armiger has not had Arms for many
generations, it is possible that Lord Lyon would appoint that elected
person as a Commander, the commission to run for a number of years. A
Commander of a clan does have a number of powers. If though the clan
are fortunate to have the Head or Representer of an old Territorial
House available it would be likely that the Lord Lyon would appoint
that person as Chief for aught yet seen, at the end of 20 years and if
there has been no serious challenge that person then is Chief and can
no longer have their position challenged.
The important point to realise is that Lord Lyon's office and Court is
the ancient one of the old Kingdom of Scotland and not that of a
conquerer or successor state.
It was/is the Lord Lyon's duty to recite the Royal Pedigree, as a
Chiefs Sennachie would for a newly inorgarated Chief.
Charles McKerrell of Hillhouse
Sean J Murphy
Keppoch is getting a fair amount of press coverage internationally. I
read into the record the following UPI release of yesterday as it is
brief but balanced:
'New chief of MacDonalds has disputed claim
FORT WILLIAM, Scotland, Sept. 14 (UPI) -- Scotland's Clan MacDonald of
Keppoch got its first chief in more than 150 years this week, a retired
Edinburgh audiologist.
But some members of the clan say Ranald Alasdair MacDonald's claim is
invalidated by the illegitimate birth of an ancestor in 1832, The
Scotsman reports.
"In the years he has been pursuing this claim, he has not attracted the
support of the clan," Rory MacDonald of Blarour said. "We have ignored
him pretty successfully until now and I think we will be able to go on
ignoring him."
While the MacDonalds were famous in centuries past for their fighting
spirit, the new chief pursued his claim through the courts for decades.
He won an appeal to the Court of Sessions after rejection by the Lord
Lyon, King of Arms.
The last chief, Chichester MacDonald, died in 1848, leaving no sons.
The Highland Council arranged the installation ceremony, which included
pipers piping the new chief in and the clan bard reciting his ancestry.
"I think it's quite sad that the MacDonalds cannot get together and
unite on this," said Olwyn MacDonald, committee convenor for the
Highland Council in the Lochaber area.'
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060915-122318-7277r
Sean Murphy
Turenne
keep popping up.
Richard Lichten
Nathaniel Taylor
I see three cruxes of controversy, but they are not given consistent
emphasis in the press accounts. Can someone comment on these three
different aspects of the issue? :
1. The record of his descent from an earlier chief is itself based on
oral testimony (sloinneadh) and therefore unverifiable through written
documentation. Are there specific doubts about the alleged descent
(that is, do some believe it is fraudulent?), or is the objection simply
that accepting oral pedigrees sets a dangerous precedent? Since the
sloinneadh was apparently flawed by an omission and subsequently
emended, do people suspect invention or simply a cracked & mended, but
sound, tradition?
2. The descent includes an illegitimacy--which some think invalidates
claims to chiefly status. Now, are there other near kin or descendants,
in legitimate lines, who have been put forward for chief in his stead?
Is he alleged to be *the* heir male of the last chief (laying aside the
bastardy)? Or only the one, from among other male kin, who has striven
(and paid) most for the privilege?
3. Is acclamation (or at least consent) by some quorum of clan members
seen as necessary for recognition of someone as chief? Whatever the
reason the claimant may be unpopular (either they suspect his descent,
or think him barred by the bastardy, or perhaps they merely find him
personally objectionable), should such lack of support disqualify a
particular claimant?
As a corollary to this last point, I presume the "High Council of Clan
Donald Chiefs" --
http://www.clandonaldchiefs.org.uk
-- played no role in his recognition. Are they prepared to let him join
them?
Nat Taylor
Peter Constantine
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/5341444.stm
Ranald MacDonald accuses others of being clownish? Priceless.
x
["...do you want fries with that?"]
Sean J Murphy
1. I would imagine that proponents of the 'sloinneadh' in the Keppoch
case would go for the 'simply a cracked & mended, but sound, tradition'.
Our scepticism concerning the 'sloinneadh' does not appear to be much in
evidence even among opponents of Ranald MacDonald.
2. The illegitimacy objection was new to me. See interesting articles on
the claims to chiefship by D Rory MacDonald (presumably the critic
quoted in media reports) and Norman H MacDonald, unfortunately both
dated as far back as 1991:
http://www.clandonald.org.uk/cdm12/cdm12a29.htm and
http://www.clandonald.org.uk/cdm12/cdm12a28.htm
3. Again, Rory MacDonald's observations are telling here: 'There are two
traditional things that are required for a clan chief. One is that he
should be descended from the direct line of the chiefs and the other
that he should be acceptable to the clan and I don't think that Ranald's
claim is legitimate.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/5341444.stm
Finally, the High Council of Chiefs of Clan Donald at
http://www.clandonaldchiefs.org.uk/profile/profile.htm does not feature
Keppoch. Indeed, turning to another but more low key controversy,
MacDonnell of Antrim is listed as the Earl of Antrim, rather than the
'Mac Donnell of the Glens' recognised by Irish Chief Herald Begley in
1995. See my critique of the Irish claimant at
http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/4chiefs.htm#macdon, and
note the arms with supporters.
Sean Murphy
Irish Chiefs http://homepage.eircom.net/%7Eseanjmurphy/chiefs/
StephenP
know which Chief is his? If one does not appeal, what is to stop a
MacDonald picking another Chief to follow?
Puzzled
Stephen
Don Aitken
The multiplicity of MacDonald Chiefs is an indirect consequence of the
forfeiture of the Lordship of the Isles in the 15th century
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Turenne
been claiming the chieftainship? Did anyone see this coming? If his
claim is bogus, and there seem to be a number of people here that think
so, is it too late to do anything about it?
Richard L
Sean J Murphy
> Further to the previous couple of points. How long has Mr MacDonald
> been claiming the chieftainship? Did anyone see this coming? If his
> claim is bogus, and there seem to be a number of people here that think
> so, is it too late to do anything about it?
>
> Richard L
According to the article at
http://www.clandonald.org.uk/cdm12/cdm12a28.htm, Ranald MacDonald first
presented a petition to Lord Lyon in the mid-1970s, claiming descent
from Alexander MacDonald, of Delafour. In 1990 he presented a second
petition, this time claiming descent from Donald Gorm MacDonald, of
Inverroy, starting the process which culminated in his triumph in the
Court of Session in 2004, and installation as chief this month. As the
Court of Session has accepted the malleable 'sloinneadh' or orally
transmitted pedigree, I cannot think of any grounds for a legal appeal,
other than proof of fabrication or demonstrable error. However, I
believe that it would be worthwhile for those who realise that only
heraldists, and not legalists, possess the full range of skills
necessary to evaluate such claims, to continue to take an interest in
the case. Barring a reconciliation, what may do for the new Chief of
Keppoch is the clear antipathy of numbers of his clansmen.
Sean Murphy
Andrew Chaplin
news:Z1ZOg.13850$j7.3...@news.indigo.ie...
>
> According to the article at http://www.clandonald.org.uk/cdm12/cdm12a28.htm,
> Ranald MacDonald first presented a petition to Lord Lyon in the mid-1970s,
> claiming descent from Alexander MacDonald, of Delafour. In 1990 he presented
> a second petition, this time claiming descent from Donald Gorm MacDonald, of
> Inverroy, starting the process which culminated in his triumph in the Court
> of Session in 2004, and installation as chief this month. As the Court of
> Session has accepted the malleable 'sloinneadh' or orally transmitted
> pedigree, I cannot think of any grounds for a legal appeal, other than proof
> of fabrication or demonstrable error. However, I believe that it would be
> worthwhile for those who realise that only heraldists, and not legalists,
> possess the full range of skills necessary to evaluate such claims, to
> continue to take an interest in the case. Barring a reconciliation, what may
> do for the new Chief of Keppoch is the clear antipathy of numbers of his
> clansmen.
The imp in me wants another claimant, a more evidently legitimate one, to
petition, Lord Lyon to have to recognize his claim and then to watch the
sparks/fallout whatever.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Turenne
Richard L
mj...@btinternet.com
Turenne schrieb:
> Brilliant! I feel a name change coming on...
>
> Richard L
I have a couple of spare oral pedigrees I can let you have.
That way, if the first one fails, you can always have another go.
MA-R
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
<herald...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'll give you a modern example, Michael.
In 1986 I obtained an Irish grant of arms for my paternal grandfather
and his descendants. I subsequently matriculated my arms with Lyon
Court and received the due differences for a second son of a third son
of the grantee.
And all this without having any geographical or ancestral connection
with Scotland!
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
Editor - Cracroft's Peerage
The Complete Guide to the British Peerage & Baronetage
www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk
======================================================
ghp9...@yahoo.com
> I'll give you a modern example, Michael.
>
> In 1986 I obtained an Irish grant of arms for my paternal grandfather
> and his descendants. I subsequently matriculated my arms with Lyon
> Court and received the due differences for a second son of a third son
> of the grantee.
>
> And all this without having any geographical or ancestral connection
> with Scotland!
Patrick,
As well, I came in Lyon's back door Matriculating my father's Irish
grant in 1982; however, at that time I had a 10-year association with
Clan Donald and had worked at Armadale Castle for three months.
(Hmmmmm, perhaps my case was more "side door" than "back door.") You
would perhaps not be surprised to learn the current Lyon's policy is to
disallow foreign matriculations unless the armiger is actually going to
be physically present in Scotland, conducting business, etc.
Back to MacDonald of Keppoch -- in 2004, after the Court of Appeals
issued its finding (http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/XA22.html), I
queried a person who is aware of the goings on with the High Council of
Clan Donald Chiefs. I asked him what the Chiefs of Clan Donald thought
of the Keppoch case and his short response was something to the effect,
"The Chiefs of Clan Donald abide by the ruling and accept Ranald
MacDonald as chief of the Keppochs." I was, and still am, overwhelmed
by the silence eminating from Lord Macdonald, Glengarry, Clanranald, et
alia, as not even Finalggan Pursuviant was present at Keppoch's
installation.
Perhaps an official statement from Clan Donald is forthcoming? And if
the Chiefs of Clan Donald *have* spoken out, will someone please send
me a link or quote so I can update my opinion?
So far, one could say the Chiefs' silence is deafening.
--Guy Power
StephenP
ghp95...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> So far, one could say the Chiefs' silence is deafening.
>
That thought had strolled through my mind and bit of "googling" did not
help.
Early days yet?
Yours aye
Stephen
Turenne
there or thereabouts at a number of important periods in Scottish
history, not least in 1715 and 1745. I think that most of the other
Chiefs of Clan Donald are just plain embarassed by the whole affair and
don't want their own positions besmirched by association.
Who did attend the ceremony? I noticed a couple of chaps photographed
with Keppoch in 'The Times' but failed to note down who they were.
Richard Lichten
Nathaniel Taylor
Sean J Murphy <sjbm...@SPAMOUTeircom.net> wrote:
> Turenne wrote:
> > Further to the previous couple of points. How long has Mr MacDonald
> > been claiming the chieftainship? Did anyone see this coming? If his
> > claim is bogus, and there seem to be a number of people here that think
> > so, is it too late to do anything about it?
> >
> > Richard L
>
> According to the article at
> http://www.clandonald.org.uk/cdm12/cdm12a28.htm, Ranald MacDonald first
> presented a petition to Lord Lyon in the mid-1970s, claiming descent
> from Alexander MacDonald, of Delafour. In 1990 he presented a second
> petition, this time claiming descent from Donald Gorm MacDonald, of
> Inverroy, starting the process which culminated in his triumph in the
> Court of Session in 2004, and installation as chief this month.
Thank you for citing this article from the Clan Donald Mazine. I had
not realized, before, that in successive attempts he alleged himself to
be descended from *different members* of the chiefly family, not simply
descended in a line whose oral tradition had been augmented or shrunk by
a one-generation error at some point.
If the whole point of a "sloinneadh" is that it is an immutable and
proudly-transmitted, albeit oral, repository and expression of family
and personal identity, how could one have one's alleged tradition be
disproved and then come back later, and with a straight face say "oh,
I'm sorry, our tradition is actually that I'm descended from Y, not X"?
Nat Taylor
Patrick Cracroft-Brennan
This is the very point that makes the whole affair so bizarre (at
least to English eyes!).