Interesting story in today’s paper about Clan MacDonald of Keppoch. Don’t sure I like the "little more than a coat of arms…" line, though I see the point.
<hr class=“bbcode_rule” >
Scotsman wins fight to become clan chief
EDINBURGH, Scotland – In days of yore, clan chiefs ruled rugged swaths of Scotland as their fiefdoms, collecting taxes, calling men to arms and deciding land disputes.
These days, clan chiefs get little more than a coat of arms, a motto and a personal tartan for kilts, though the title still carries considerable prestige. But that didn’t stop Ranald MacDonald from waging a bitter, two-decade court battle to be named chief of Clan MacDonald of Keppoch – a title that has been dormant since 1848, when the 21st chief died without a male heir.
Persistence paid off for the 75-year-old MacDonald: The Highland clan installed the retired hearing-aid specialist as its leader yesterday.
MacDonald’s claim was contested by clansmen who say his ancestor Alexander MacDonald was born out of wedlock in 1832 and corrupted the bloodline.
Rory MacDonald, a historian of the Keppoch clan, which is a branch of the larger Clan Donald, said many clansman will continue to refuse to recognize MacDonald as their leader.
Associated Press
Apparently he rec’d his LP yesterday (?) I wonder if anyone has a link to them? I applaud him for fighting to the end and winning!
Here is the Clan’s site, on which his arms and/or LP may appear soon: http://macdonaldofkeppoch.org/index.htm
And this thread shows why I, as an Irishman, can not tolerate much of what Mr. Sean Murphy has done - most of which is probably good when reviewing his website.
The problem is that he is one of the most self-aggrandizing people I have ever read or even heard of. Most of the time he places truth(s) into his boastfulness and thereby destroys the flavor of the truth.
Mr. Maxwell, who I do not know and don’t believe I’ve ever corresponded with via an MB or otherwise, is dead on in dealing with Mr. Murphy. He is dangerous in that he does not care what he dirties in his ever constant endeavor of self-promotion.
Which is a shame considering that he does have some good info - at least on Terrance "I wanna be MacCarthy Mor" McCartney of Morocco via Belfast. Actually on his uncle "The MacGuire" and some others as well. However, he has been shown to be not exactly right on some of them. So, there is a history of his taking truths and embellishing them with his opinion, which he often portrays as fact. Sad really, again considering he could be doing a whole lot better for both genealogical research and heraldry overall. But as we Irish say, “bíodh sé mar sin” (so be it).
As for the Chief, well on the one hand I feel for Lyon, on the other, I wonder why the Court of Sessions ruled in this way if the accusation of oral history being incorrect is true. Yet, if that is what the court ruled, how can Lyon not give these presents to the Chief? Further, Mr. Maxwell is absolutely correct in that there appears to be nothing lax heraldically speaking at all despite Mr. Murphy’s opinion. Lax legal workings from the Court of Sessions – maybe. But I can’t see it applying to Lyon.
I think the Court of Session made its ruling not on the substance of the oral genealogy, but on the rules by which Lord Lyon can decide to accept or not accept such oral genealogies as evidence. The decision of the court can be read in its excruciating details at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/XA22.html, but as I read the key portions of it, Lyon Blair had refused to accept the oral genealogy offered by Mr. MacDonald in part because of a lack of corroborating evidence showing that it had been properly maintained. His decision was based on the writings of the famous Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, and earlier Lord Lyon. However, these writings were not actual decisions of Lyon Court, and in any case a 1988 act had eliminated any requirement for corroboration of evidence in Scottish civil cases.
The Court of Session also heard expert testimony on how these oral genealogies are maintained, how they should be interpreted, etc., but it seems to me that the decision really depended on evidentiary principles.
Perhaps if Hugh is so inclined he can read the decision and see how he interprets it.
What I don’t understand then is if this was all done by the book legally speaking then why is there such a hub-bub? I can see that Lyon didn’t want to do this, but was over ruled by a superior court - correct? So, that’s it then. There was due process and it appears, to me as a layman and far removed from this fight, that the matter is settled. Is it not?
In this case it does appear to be sour grapes that those who oppose it are living on. As for Sean Murphy, well, it isn’t sour grapes, but another opportunity to inflate himself and to hell with the consequences for the standing of Lyon, the Court of Sessions, MacDonald of Keppoch, and the whole of that clan. As long as he gets his 15 minutes of fame everything is cool. But aside form him why is there much debate now? Everyone had their say and the courts decided the way that they did.
Donnchadh wrote:
What I don’t understand then is if this was all done by the book legally speaking then why is there such a hub-bub? I can see that Lyon didn’t want to do this, but was over ruled by a superior court - correct? So, that’s it then. There was due process and it appears, to me as a layman and fart removed from this fight, that the matter is settled. Is it not?
In this case it does appear to be sour grapes that those who oppose it are living on. As for Sean Murphy, well, it isn’t sour grapes, but another opportunity to inflate himself and to hell with the consequences for the standing of Lyon, the Court of Sessions, MacDonald of Keppoch, and the whole of that clan. As long as he gets his 15 minutes of fame everything is cool. But aside form him why is there much debate now? Everyone had their say and the courts decided the way that they did.
I think Sean Murphy’s point is that the "truth" of the proposed genealogy has not been establed because the standards of evidence are set too low. I think this is a valid argument, and I am happy he is making it. There seems to be a disconnect between the standards of evidence used by modern professional genealogists and those used by the Scottish courts. Modern genealogists must footnote each parental linkage with multiple supporting documents such as birth records, death record, war records, marriage records, tax records, church records, etc. People who do DAR applications know what I mean. In fact, the DAR standards of evidence have been raised over the years as more records have become available and more "old" application errors have been found. For example, you can use old applications to establish any genealogical connections! DNA is now used more often (though not in the DAR yet) to support the paper trail.
On the other hand, I agree with those who think the discontent is out of proportion. The MacDonald’s have a leader now, but he is not a tribal leader who governs a group of people. Instead, he is figurehead whose primary responsibilities are….errr…to continue the interest in the MacDonalds. Of course, one would hope he would not depend on only oral histories to tell the tale of the clan.
Michael Swanson wrote:
....The MacDonald’s have a leader now, ....
Errrrr .... you mean the Keppochs have a leader. Clan Donald has always had a leader. What I find interesting is the overpowering silence eminating from Lord Macdonald of Macdonald, High Chief of Clan Donald—as well as the silence from Clanranald, Glengarry, Sleat, and the other chiefs of Clan Donald. [If support for Keppoch has come from these chiefs, will someone please copy me so that I can update my opinion?]
About a year ago I pinged one of the Canadian reps closely associated with the High Council of Clan Donald Chiefs, and I asked what the Macdonald chiefs thought about the Keppoch affair. I received a terse, "Lyon says it is so and the chiefs abide"—or something like that. However, I’ve not heard any of the chiefs speak out for Keppoch, nor were they present at his installation; and neither was Finlaggan Persuviant there as a representative.
"Enquiring minds want to know…."
—Guy
Guy Power wrote:
Errrrr .... you mean the Keppochs have a leader. Clan Donald has always had a leader. What I find interesting is the overpowering silence eminating from Lord Macdonald of Macdonald, High Chief of Clan Donald—as well as the silence from Clanranald, Glengarry, Sleat, and the other chiefs of Clan Donald. [If support for Keppoch has come from these chiefs, will someone please copy me so that I can update my opinion?]
About a year ago I pinged one of the Canadian reps closely associated with the High Council of Clan Donald Chiefs, and I asked what the Macdonald chiefs thought about the Keppoch affair. I received a terse, "Lyon says it is so and the chiefs abide"—or something like that. However, I’ve not heard any of the chiefs speak out for Keppoch, nor were they present at his installation; and neither was Finlaggan Persuviant there as a representative.
"Enquiring minds want to know…."
—Guy
I had a brain freeze about the Keppochs. The Keppochs were a branch of the Clan MacDonald.
Michael Swanson wrote:
... The Keppochs were a branch of the Clan MacDonald.
Yes, which is why the silence from Clan Donald is so intriguing. One would expect a hearty, "Hail! And well met, cousin!" .... but all I hear thus far is "..........."
Quote:
I had a brain freeze about the Keppochs.
Mike—lay off the massive doses of ice cream for the next couple of days. 
Cheers,
—Guy