Hi all,
I apologize if you already knew about this, but I found this story fascinating:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=72732003
Here is a link to the chief’s first matriculation in 1997:
http://mysite.verizon.net/resrz8zf/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/mactavisharms1997.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/resrz8zf/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/mactavisharms1997.jpg
And here is a link to his subsequent matriculation from 2003:
Cheers
Interesting. I don’t blame him for wanting it corrected. I would if I were him as well.
As to the heraldry as mentioned in the article, I think they are wrong, or else I am tired this morning and missed it, as they wrote the Campbell arms were first and third, when really they were first and fourth. Also they messed up on MacTavish arms in the same way. My only question is if the MacTavish belief that they are not descended from the Campbells then why have the Campbell quarter at all even if it be in the second and third quarter? If there is no connection why would the correction have the Campbell arms in there at all? Is there a piece of Scottish armory I am missing here?
As to the renditions of the arms, well, I think they are very attractive – both of them.
I caught that too, I had to read it twice to make sure I wasn’t seeing things. I personally like the helm in the first rendering more, but it’s interesting all the same! I’m glad the current Lyon corrected the mistake, I’d be hopping mad if that was done to me.
Denny, it’s really not that the MacTavishes claim that there is no Campbell connections-there obviously are or the Campbell arms wouldn’t be there. The whole point is that MacTavish is a clan of it’s own and if the Campbell arms are in the 1st and 4th quarters then the feeling of the MacTavishes is that they are claiming to be septs, if you will, of Campbell, not an individual and separate clan. The new arms nod towards the connection, but proclaim that MacTavish is it’s own separate identity.
Patrick Williams wrote:
Denny, it’s really not that the MacTavishes claim that there is no Campbell connections-there obviously are or the Campbell arms wouldn’t be there.
I haven’t read the tale in quite a while (MacTavish is quite a character!)—but as I recall, he is insisting that the Campbells branched from the MacTavish.
Aha, found it:
Quote:
There is no dispute that MacTavish descends from the same genealogic root as does Campbell, but well before the name of Campbell ever appeared. In that era of the early 1100’s the Campbell ancestors were known as MacDuine.
Okay, I only slightly misremembered.
—Guy
Old Dugal MacTavish was indeed quite a character. He’s dead now, but his son is carrying on the weirdness in his stead.
Wow ... there is nothing like airing one’s dirty laundry is there??? (Ref the link Patrick provided). Thanks for the links Guy and Patrick.
Anyhow ... as to the Campbell quarter, I’m still a bit confused. I see where MacTavish says that they do not descend from the Campbells at all, but form a common ancestor before there was even a Campbell. So, if that is the case why would he not ask Lord Lyon to remove any and all forms of Campbell identification from his ‘corrected’ arms all together? If I were MacTavish and I truly believed that we were not descended formt he Campbells at all, but were around before they were, I would fight to have any connection with them removed from my arms. Now maybe he did, but lost that aprt of the correction … I just don’t know. Still it seems strange.
Also when looking at the crest it is really the Campbell crest. Sure it is on a different wreath, now, but even before that it was the same identical one as Campbell, as it was on the Or and Sable wreath. Am I wrong here as well? Are not Campbell’s and MacTavish’s crest the same boar’s head? Or am I missing a nuance somewhere?
It’s really hard to say why the arms are the way they are. Remember that MacTavish as a clan had slipped into abeyance for generations and it wasn’t until somebody ‘discovered’ Dugald living in Canada and then did the genealogical work to prove his claim to chief of name that MacTavish re-emerged as an active and recognized clan.
Here’s their explanation:
http://www.clanmactavish.org/documents/campbell_connection.pdf
Yes, the boar’s head is the same and probably alludes to the ancient Celtic totem animal of the clans they both claim descendancy from. In other words, it isn’t the MacTavish boar or the Campbell boar, but perhaps the boar of Dhiarmid odhuibhne the ancient progentior of their common line.
That’s probably true Patrick I didn’t even think of that being a totemic symbol, which I should, as the Irish are very totemic in their native (Gael, as opposed to Anglo-Irish, which is ca. 16th century and not to be confused with Anglo-Norman) heraldry as well.
It would customary for a Chief of a clan to have at least a Pinsel, Standard and Plant badge on the grant of arms. In Dunardry’s letters patent it only shows a Guidon.
Likewise you would perhaps expect supporters to have been granted to the Chief of a clan. I wonder if this is because he is not MacTavish of MacTavish of that ilk. Come to think of it I wonder who is, if indeed there is and if there is why is he not Chief?
Another thing that strikes me strange is why as head of a ‘Territorial House’ and Chief of Mactavish are his arms quartered in the first place.
John, are all Chiefs entitled to supporters? Or only Chiefs in special circumstances? I was under the impression it was reserved for Chiefs in special circumstances (substantiating long use etc.)
Donnchadh wrote:
John, are all Chiefs entitled to supporters? Or only Chiefs in special circumstances? I was under the impression it was reserved for Chiefs in special circumstances (substantiating long use etc.)
I don’t know is the answer Denny regarding the lack of supporters and you could well be right about the reason being "substantiating long use ect."
What I cant understand is why only a guidon and not a standard, it is like he was being pushed down the pecking order and why no pinsel the personal flag of a chief, or a plant badge? http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/flyingherald2.html
It is like saying ye OK your a chief in name only and your ‘of Dunardy’ is a ‘Territorial House’ so that only warrants you a guidon. Was Lyon leaving the door open in case someone came along with a better claim to the chiefship?
John Gaylor on the HSS forum has just pointed that it is indeed a standard as the wording can just be made out in the grant.
What threw me was that it has no split ends and had the salire in the fly and looked simmilar to McKerrell of Hillouse’s Guidon.
Quote:
Another thing that strikes me strange is why as head of a ‘Territorial House’ and Chief of Mactavish are his arms quartered in the first place.
Not that I’ve lost any sleep over this, but I have also wondered about this. You’d think he’d simply have the arms of MacTavish. I’m trying to think of any other chief that would have quartered arms, other than West Highland arms, which is a different matter altogether.
I remember when the chief of Cumming was still a Gordon-Cumming, he had quartered arms but he was not considered the chief until he got rid of the hyphon (his arms were quartered with Gordon). At that point he was granted the arms of Cumming, Azure three Garbs Or, as well as being recognized as chief.
Okay, guys, I’ve dug through the archives here, I’ve surfed the net till my fingers are sore, and while I’ve seen it mentioned time and time again, I’ve found no actual definition: what the heck is Western Highlands Quartering?
Quote:
Not that I’ve lost any sleep over this, but I have also wondered about this. You’d think he’d simply have the arms of MacTavish. I’m trying to think of any other chief that would have quartered arms, other than West Highland arms, which is a different matter altogether.
I remember when the chief of Cumming was still a Gordon-Cumming, he had quartered arms but he was not considered the chief until he got rid of the hyphon (his arms were quartered with Gordon). At that point he was granted the arms of Cumming, Azure three Garbs Or, as well as being recognized as chief.
Father Archer
There are many Chiefs who have quartered arms:
Boyd - 1st quareter Boyd, 2nd Hay, 3rd Livingstone, 4th Callender.
Boyle - 1st & 4th Boyle, 2nd & 3rd Boyle of Kelburne
Campbell - 1st & 4th Campbell, 2nd & 3rd Lorne
Charteris - 1st & 4th Charteris, 2nd & 3rd ?
Chattan - 1st McDuff, 2nd Mackintosh, 3rd ?, 4th Clan Chattan, inescucheon for captain or chief of clan Chatton
Without going into complete detail, others are:
Colville,Elphinstone, Erskin, Farquharson, Fraser of Lovat, Gordon, Graham, Guthrie, Haldane, Hamilton, Home, Keith, Kerr, Leslie, Lindsay, Lyon, Macbain, Macdonald of Macdonald, Macdonald of clan Ranald, Macdonald of Sleat, Macdougal, Macintyre ......... the list goes on and on.
More worryingly for MacTavish is the fact that if he were to opt for the simple shield of McTavish, it would indicae that he might be a cadet of Thompson! I don’t think that would be a course he would wish to take - hence the retention of the Campbell quartering.
Regards,
Martin
