Donnchadh wrote:

Joe, nope it is there. He is called "chief of the MacDonnells of Antrim" on that webpage. Unless I am missing it, which I can be, he would therefore be The MacDonnell of the Glens, because that is who would be the "chief of the MacDonnells of Antrim," which of course he is not.

I think this is what you may be missing:

1. Apparently, unlike "chief of name and clan", a chieftainship can be decided by the ‘big chief’ of a particular name. The "big chief" (MacDonald of MacDonald, I suppose) has apparently made the decision (from the chart and from how the Earl is styled in their publications) that the Earls of Antrim are chief(tain)s of the MacDonnells of Antrim, but has also decided (from the chart) that the chieftaincy of the Glens of Antrim is dormant. So, in fact, what MacDonald has done is create a "new" chieftaincy called "of Antrim".

2. That there might be those who are better qualified, closer in blood, or more deserving for what ever reason for the title of Chief(tain) of Antrim is beside the point. Not unimportant, mind you, but merely beside the point. MacD of MacD has given the chieftainship of Antim to the current Earl and his family as his heirs. We never have to like it, but we do have to accept that, for the time, the Earl of Antrim is "the Chief of the McDonnells of Antrim".

Now if the McDonnells of Antrim broke away from the Clan Donald organization and were no longer a subordinate sub-clan within the structure of the MacDonald name, then everything could change. Or, if MacD of MacD decided to reactivate the chieftancy "of the Glens of Antrim" (which I’d imagine is pretty unlikely) then there might be a little clan war in Antrim until it was all sorted out. But until something like this happens, MacDonald apparently has the authority and says that "the Earl is the chief".

I’m not sure that any of this is as structured as we usually make it out to be.  The most sensible thing I’ve ever read on this subject was the "first advising" of the Scottish Court of Session back in 1937 in the long-running case of Maclean of Ardgour vs. Maclean.  Extended quotations from the court’s decisions can be found at http://heraldica.org/topics/britain/lyondocs.htm#Maclean of Ardgour, but what I would point to is this statement by Lord Aitchinson, the Lord Justice Clerk (i.e., the second highest judge in Scotland):

Quote:

The fundamental thing to bear in mind is that neither chiefship of a clan, nor chieftainship of a branch, subject to one exception as regards the right to supporters in arms, is any longer a status known to the law. Highland chiefship or chieftainship in the modern sense is today no more than a high social dignity. Historically it was otherwise. The chief and the chieftain were at one time in the governmental system of the Highlands high political personages, who wielded a large and often an arbitrary authority. But not even a semblance of this now remains. To stand in the succession of an ancient line of chiefs or chieftains maybe a legitimate ground of family pride, but it is not a status that the law recognises. It carries no I patrimonial consequences that the law will countenance and enforce, subject to one exception in the law of supporters. It does not depend upon any defined law of succession of which a Court of law could take cognisance. It ultimately depends, as it must, upon recognition by the clan, in the case of chiefship, or the branch of the clan, in the case of a lesser chiefship. The recognition of the clan or the branch is immune from challenge before any tribunal. Historically the idea of a chief or chieftain submitting his dignity to the arbitrament of it Court of law is really grotesque. The chief was the law, and his authority was derived from his own people.

By this logic, which I think makes sense both legally and historically, the chief of Clan Donald may have the "right" to name whomever he pleases as chieftain of a branch, but if the members of the branch don’t accept his nominee, the nominee has no standing.  And the state authorities, whether heraldic or otherwise, have nothing to do with it.  (Nor, for that matter, does the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, a private organization.  They, in effect, recognize that a person is a chief of one of the clans or names, but their recognition does not make him the chief, any more than acceptance into the Society of the Cincinnati makes someone a descendant of an officer in the Continental Army.)

The state heraldic authorities (in Scotland, Lord Lyon) do get to decide who bears the undifferenced arms of a name by right of descent according to the law of arms.  Generally—but not necessarily—this will be the same person who is the hereditary chief of the clan.  Again, Lord Aitchinson:

Quote:

Has chiefship of a clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, apart from headship of an armigerous family, any significance in the law of arms? The existence of chiefship and chieftainship, as. part of the political organisation of the Highlands, has been recognised by statute, as, for example, by the Act of 1587, cap. 59, which ordained any party harmed by oppressions or thefts " to require or calls require redres thairof at the cheiff of the clan or chieftane of the countrie wherein (his) saide guidis sal be ressett." Similarly, an Act of 1593 ordains sureties to be entered by " the chieftanis and chieffs of all clannis and the principallis of the brancheis of the saidis clannis duelland in the hielandis. . . ." This has no relation to arms. The reference to " chief of clans " and " principals of branches " is not to persons bearing coats of arms, but to persons who were vested with military power and authority in the clan organisation of the Highlands that existed in the sixteenth century. There is no evidence of any practice that would point to the use of " chief of clan," or " chieftain of branch of clan," as correct heraldic descriptions of headship of an armigerous family. The characters may, of course, concur in the same person, bid, they are not identical.

Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, as Lyon, set up an elaborate, pseudo-Celtic system for "official" designation of the chiefs of clans that is still more or less followed today, but given the views of the higher court (which have never been overturned), whether decisions made through that process are legally binding is doubtful at best.  Of course, as long as they are accepted by the members of the clans concerned, then there’s no problem.

How any of these Scottish rules/customs/usages would apply to people long settled outside Scotland (whether in Antrim or the Cape Fear Valley of North Carolina) would seem open to serious question in any case.

*edited by member*

Donnchadh wrote:

And what if Lyon decided to go against the superior claim and with an inferior one for both chiefship and arms? What recourse does a rightful heir have when Lyon makes a mistake?

Anyone who thinks Lyon has made an incorrect decision in a matter of armorial inheritance (i.e., when Lyon is acting in his capacity as a judge) can appeal to the Court of Session.  That’s how the Maclean case came before the court, and more recently, in 2004, the MacDonald of Keppoch case (in which the court overruled Lyon Blair’s refusal to accept as evidence an oral genealogy that had, in Blair’s assessment, been inadequately maintained).  See the decision at http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2004/23.html.

In 1826 (MacDonnell v MacDonald—what a litigious bunch they are!), the Court of Session found that Lyon’s actions are not subject to review by anyone when he is acting in his ministerial capacity—that is, when he’s making a new grant of arms, not judging someone’s right to inherit existing arms.  It would be interesting to see if the court would still agree with that view today, since it amounts to saying that there’s an officer of the Scottish state whose decisions are above the law, no matter how arbitrary or even whimsical.

Anyway, here’s how the court differentiated the two situations in 1826:  "His [Lyon’s] power to [grant] new armorial bearings is merely discretionary and ministerial, and with that this Court cannot interfere. But if the Lord Lyon should grant to one person arms which another is entitled to bear, and should refuse to give redress, there could be no doubt of the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an action at the instance of the party to have his right declared, as this would involve a question of property, which a right to bear particular ensigns armorial undoubtedly is."

*edited by member*

Donnchadh wrote:

If the CHoI had not already granted the arms and courtesy recognition as Chief of Clan Iain Mhor (MacDonnells of Antrim) and as The MacDonnell of the Glens to Count McDonnell of Dublin I wonder if he would go this route to see what he could stir up.

"This route" meaning an appeal to the Court of Session?  He couldn’t—unless he’d first gone to Lyon and been turned down.  A decision by Ulster or the CHI wouldn’t be reviewable by a Scottish court.  It would be really interesting to see what would happen if there were a reason to bring a case in an Irish court—might resolve some of the mishigas over the status of the OCHI and the status of arms in Ireland.

A fine mess, but an interesting one.  The Macdonnells now resident in Ireland (or in the two parts of Ireland) have a Scottish heritage, and therefore a right to matriculate in Scotland off of their Scottish ancestor’s arms—just as they would if they lived in Oz or South Africa or the USA.  Lyon would of course apply Scottish law, and his decisions could be appealled to teh Scottish courts.  (Or at least his judicial decisions, in his role as a Scottish judge; his ministerial decisions could not.  And contrary to Joe’s observation, there would not be an anomolay of a Scottish officer of the devolved Scottish state exempt from the Scottish court’s jurisdiction, because the office of Lyon was IIRC reserved as a Crown appointment which IIRC is still the exclusive prerogative of the crown & not "devolved" to the new Scottish parliament.  Or at least I think that’s the case…thank God for 1776 and 1783!—it’s only spectator sport to us!)

Back to the Irish Macdonnells.  In addition to their earlier Scottish roots & armorial heritage, they also have an only slightly less ancient history and heraldry in Ireland; and under whatever laws anciently applied there, and in whichever of the two modern successor states they now reside, they have whatever Irish heraldic rights their ancestors may have established or acquired there.  With these rights, Lyon has no role - thus it seems highly unlikely that Lyon could or would attempt to say who is Macdonnell "of Antrim" or "of the Glens of Antrim" etc.—he could only recognize whatever territorial designations (if any) that an Irish Macdonnell’s ancestor might have borne in Scotland, or that said Irish Macdonnel might have purshcsed there.

Unfortunately, as noted by several here, its unclear just who, if anyone, actually does have a role nowadays, or at least just who is prepared to effectively exercise it, on the Irish side if the sea.  Putting that aside for the moment & thinking "as if" there actually were a functioning heraldic authority that cared to exercise jurisdiction over clan status & heraldry in Ireland north or south, their answers might well differ from what Lyon would do if Ulster were Scottish; or as between north & south, from each other.  Native Irish clans/families/septs/whatever, and by osmosis the Ango-Irish & Northern Irish ex-Scots, tended to follow what in other places is called Salic succssion—male heirs need only apply.  Thus it is predictably inevitable that at least some determinations of succession to arms and senior status (ciefship) would differ between Lyon (typically heir general) vs. the two Irelands (heir male)

One can only hope that, in such cases, the resulting arms would somehow or other be differenced or distinguished, either byn open policy or by happy accident orchestrated behind the scenes.

I’m sure there’s more that could be said, but other than repeating the blessing and benefit of distance between British heraldic customs (holwever wel they may suit British/Irish needs, and however much we may respect them) and our own, I’ll refrain.