Post by John A. DuncanI see Mr Akins is back to his, "I am Akins of that Ilk, Chief of Clan
Akins" see his cut and paste jobs in answer to Sean Murphy's article
on Fake Scots Titles'http://www.scots-titles.com
I think is is rather interesting that the posts that I made to your
forum entitled "Dispelling a number of myths surrounding Scottish
Clans" and "Scottish Crest Badges - A Victorian Invention", have
apparently been removed or otherwise made inaccessable. For those who
may be interested, I will repost them here:
Myth #1: Clans are exclusive to the Highlands - while the word
[i]clan[/i] comes from the Gaelic word [i]clann[/i], meaning
"descendants" or "offspring", clans themselves were historically
considered withing Scottish culture to be any group composed of
extended family claiming descent from a common ancestor. The fact that
clans are found in the Lowlands as well as the Highlands is made clear
in an Act of Parliament of 1597 pertaining to the "Chiftanis and
chieffis of all clannis...duelland in the hielands or bordouris" thus
using the word clan to describe both Highland and Lowland families. As
Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw put it, the "belief that clans are
Highland and families are Lowland....is really a development of the
Victorian era."
Myth #2: Clan tartans are of great antiquity - the concept of named
tartan "setts" or patterns of a specific design serving to distinguish
a particular Scottish clan or family is of fairly recent origin,
having evolved since the latter half of the 18th century when certain
distinctive tartan patterns were first adopted by Scottish military
regiments, often named after their founders, such as the Gordon
Highlanders, the Fraser Highlanders, the Cameron Highlanders, etc.
These regiments used tartans based on the original "Government tartan"
worn by the Black Watch or 42nd Highland Regiment, with the addition
of distinctively colored stripes which served to distinguish the
tartans worn by one regiment from the others. The government
contractor who supplied tartan cloth to the Scottish military was a
firm known as William Wilson & Sons of Bannockburn, Stirlingshire, who
held the monopoly on the tartan trade during much of the early 19th
century. In addition to naming tartan patterns after military
regiments such as the Gordons, the Frasers, the Camerons, etc.,
Wilsons' expanded this practice to include tartan patterns named after
Scottish clans, families, locations, historical and royal personages,
etc.
Myth #3: Tartan is a Highland Scottish innovation - Actually the
oldest known surviving Scottish tartan fragment was discovered in the
Lowlands of Scotland, it was found in Falkirk, Stirlingshire, inside a
clay pot filled with over 2000 Roman era silver coins dating back to
the 3rd century, A.D. The oldest known tartan fragments to have been
found were discovered outside of Scotland itself among artifacts
belonging to Gallic tribes located in what is now Salzburg, Austria,
which was inhabited by the Gauls between 400 B.C. and 100 B.C. By the
18th century tartan was being commercially produced on a large-scale
basis in the Scottish Lowlands by firms such as Wilsons of
Bannockburn, who held the monopoly for tartan cloth supplied to the
Scottish military regiments as part of their uniforms, and it is known
that during the era of the Jacobite rebellions, many Lowlanders who
supported the House of Stuart wore tartan, such as Sir Robert
Dalrymple of Castleton, who appears in a portrait dated 1720 dressed
in a robe of tartan, the pattern of which was later adopted by the
Dalrymple Clan and registered as their clan tartan in 1985.
Myth #4: Clansmen's Crest Badges are of great antiquity - The notion
that what is commonly referred to as a "clan crest badge" is derrived
from some supposedly historical practice of Scottish noblemen giving
their retainers a metal representation of their heraldic crest to wear
suspended from a leather strap and buckle, which was coiled about the
crest when not being worn as described by Margaret O. MacDougall in
Robert Bain's "The Clans and Tartans of Scotland" is an absurd
fiction. Nowhere in any of the early works on Highland Dress by
authors such as James Logan, David Stewart of Garth, R.R. McIan, or
Charles Niven MacIntyre North is there any mention of the clansman's
crest-badge. It is not until the latter half of the 19th century,
during the Victorian era, that clan crest badges in the form of a
heraldic crest surrounded by a "strap and buckle" design borrowed
directly from the insignia of the English Order of the Garter first
make their appearance in the artwork of Kenneth MacLeay who painted a
series of portraits in 1869 which were published in a volume entitled
"The Highlanders of Scotland." It should be noted that during that
early period of the clan crest-badge's development, the strap and
buckle surround was not indicative of a follower of a clan chief, as
MacLeay painted clan chiefs such as The Chisholm wearing exactly this
style of crest badge on both his kilt and his bonnet (see:
Loading Image...
) while earlier portraits pre-dating the Victorian era show a complete
absence of clan crest-badges of the style known today. It is not until
the latter half of the 19th century, during the Victorian era, that
clan crest badges in the form of a heraldic crest surrounded by a
"strap and buckle" design borrowed directly from the insignia of the
English Order of the Garter first make their appearance in the artwork
of Kenneth MacLeay who painted a series of portraits in 1869 which
were published in a volume entitled "The Highlanders of Scotland." It
should be noted that during that early period of the clan crest-
badge's development, the strap and buckle surround was not indicative
of a follower of a clan chief, as MacLeay painted clan chiefs such as
The Chisholm wearing exactly this style of crest badge on both his
kilt and his bonnet (see:
http://i1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/Historic%20Highland%20Dress/chisholm_macleay.jpg
) while earlier portraits pre-dating the Victorian era show a complete
absence of clan crest-badges of the style known today (see:
Loading Image...
).
It is thought that the use of heraldic cap badges surrounded by the
strap and buckle Order of the Garter style insignia was first
introduced by the British military Regiments whose regimental cap-
badges often included the Garter-style surround. Among some Scottish
military regiments of the 19th century, the use of minature silver
eagle's feathers worn behind the cap badge to indicate the officer's
rank is known from surviving examples (see:
Loading Image...
) This style would later be adopted by civilians in the wearing of
minature silver eagles feathers to indicate whether the wearer was an
armiger, a chieftain or a clan chief (see:
Loading Image...
)
Myth #5: The status of Clan Chief is subject to the determination of
Lord Lyon - While Lord Lyon is the foremost authority and arbiter in
matters pertaining to the legal possession and use of coats of arms in
Scotland, he has no power to determine the status of Clan Chiefship.
This is made clear in the Introduction to the Law of Scotland, 9th
edition, 1987, p. 25, where we read: "“The Lord Lyon King of Arms has
jurisdiction, subject to appeal to the Court of Session and the House
of Lords, in questions of heraldry, and the right to bear arms.
(Hunter v. Weston (1882) 9 R 492, Mackenzie v. Mackenzie (1920) S.C.
764, affd. 1922 S.C. (H.L.) 39.) He has no jurisdiction to determine
rights of precedence (Royal College of Surgeons v. Royal College of
Physicians, 1911 S.C. 1054.), nor to decide a disputed question of
chiefship or chieftainship. (Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean, 1938
S.L.T. 49; and see 1941 S.C. 613.)” This was determined in part by the
case of Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean, in which Lord Wark stated: “I
agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a
substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of
chieftainship of a branch of a clan. [...] The question of chiefship
of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in
itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the
law can recognise. At most, it is a question of social dignity or
precedence. In so far as it involves social dignity it is a dignity
which, in my opinion, is unknown to the law. It was decided in the
case College of Surgeons of Edinburgh v. College of Physicians of
Edinburgh (1911 S.C. 1054), that Lyon has no jurisdiction except as is
conferred by statute, or is vouched by the authority of an
Institutional writer, or by continuous and accepted practice of the
Lyon Court. [...] in my opinion, there is no practice or precedent
which entitled Lyon to decide a question of disputed chiefship or
chieftainship, either by itself or incidentally to a grant of arms.
[...]But it is a different thing altogether to say that in a case of
dispute Lyon has jurisdiction to determine and declare who is chief.
For that no precedent has been cited to us. In my opinion, it is
outwith his jurisdiction to decide because (1) at best it is a
question merely of social status or precedence; (2) this social status
is not one recognised by law; and (3) and, most important of all, it
depends, not upon any principle of law of succession which can be
applied by a Court of Law, but upon recognition by the clan itself.
Like your Lordship, I am at a loss to understand how any determination
or decree of Lyon ever could impose upon a clan a head which it did
not desire to acknowledge.”
