Found this at http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/14781092.htm
Charlotte Observer (9 June 2006)
Scottish honors for Huntersville group
ERICA BESHEARS
ebeshears@charlotteobserver.com
http://www.charlotte.com/images/charlotte/charlotte/14781/218480457989.gif
Members of the Catawba Valley Scottish Society for years have worked as stewards of Rural Hill Farm in Huntersville, hosting the Loch Norman Highland Games as well as events like the Amazing Maize Maze and sheep dog trials.
For all their work, they can now be considered members of the Scottish nobility. The Lord Lyon King of Arms of Scotland has granted the group a corporate Coat of Arms.
The coat of arms has a crest with the flag of St. Andrew, a symbol of Scotland, over three dogwood blossoms and a sprig of Autumn Olive. Dogwoods are the N.C. state flower, and Autumn Olive is a plant that grows at Rural Hill.
It’s the first coat of arms granted to a highland games organization in the world.
The society was presented with the coat on Thursday by Romilly Squire of Rubislaw, Baron Bailie of Plean and Rathdown, acting secretary of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs and chairman of the Heraldry Society of Scotland. For those unfamiliar with Scottish titles, that’s one person.
Rural Hill Farm, located off of Beatties Ford Road, was the home of American Revolutionary John Davidson, the son of Scottish immigrants, and six generations of his family. It’s now owned by Mecklenburg County.
Quote:
It’s the first coat of arms granted to a highland games organization in the world.
Hi Guy,
I thought the Braemar Gathering was one of the first.
http://www.braemargathering.org/images/arms.GIF
Guy posted from the Charlotte Observer:
Quote:
For all their work, they can now be considered members of the Scottish nobility. The Lord Lyon King of Arms of Scotland has granted the group a corporate Coat of Arms.
Ah yes, the famous and nonsensical "corporation noble in the noblesse of Scotland" clause in modern Scottish corporate grants. Sorry, but no, the people who run the games are not considered members of the Scottish nobility; they’re not even individually, even in the imagination of Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, members of the "noblesse."
Quote:
The coat of arms has a crest with the flag of St. Andrew,
Oops, no, it has a chief of St. Andrew. Perhaps whoever briefed the reporter should have had Mr. Squire explain the terminology a little better.
Quote:
It’s the first coat of arms granted to a highland games organization in the world.
See John Duncan’s comment. Wonder who told them this?
Quote:
The society was presented with the coat on Thursday by Romilly Squire of Rubislaw, Baron Bailie of Plean and Rathdown, acting secretary of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs and chairman of the Heraldry Society of Scotland. For those unfamiliar with Scottish titles, that’s one person.
For those unfamiliar with Scottish titles, none of those are titles.
Very pretty, and I don’t mean to carp (I’ll leave that to those who object to white dogwood blossoms, albeit "proper," on a gold field), but our members, at least, ought to get the straight scoop. (No, there’s nothing to be gained by straightening out the reporter or the society—it would just make us look pedantic.)
Quote:
The society was presented with the coat on Thursday by Romilly Squire of Rubislaw, Baron Bailie of Plean and Rathdown, acting secretary of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs and chairman of the Heraldry Society of Scotland. For those unfamiliar with Scottish titles, that’s one person.
Quote:
Joe wrote:
For those unfamiliar with Scottish titles, none of those are titles.
Well the jury could be out on whether or not the ‘of Rubislaw’ is or is not a ‘title’, as according to Clan Septs and Regiments page 402 perhaps reading from page 396 would be more in-depth ‘of Rubislaw’ is indeed a ‘Scottish Title’.
Although perhaps it would have been better to address him as The Much Hon. Romily Squire of Rubislaw or Laird of Rubislaw (all be it a minor Lairdship and based on a fuedal superiority only). As far as ‘Baron Bailie’ is concerned and the rest, I would agree.
Quote:
Very pretty, and I don’t mean to carp (I’ll leave that to those who object to white dogwood blossoms, albeit "proper," on a gold field),
I would like to see the Blazon of the arms on this, surley the image is incorrect! The white dogwood blossoms should be at least fimbriated in a colour.
Yes, Sir Thomas seems to have been very eager to find titles and honors and nobility everywhere one turned. But if I understand it correctly, "of" a place was simply an indication that one held the freehold of that place. Isn’t the basic principle that titles must emanate from the Sovereign? I know there’s a big point that people make about Lyon recognizing the territorial designation on behalf of the Sovereign, but there are plenty of examples of people having been legally X.Y. of Z (a whole chain of John MacMillans of Brockloch in the 18th century, for example) without any involvement by Lyon at all.
I really can’t see how "of" can be a title, and would be interested to know if anyone before Sir Tam interpreted it as such. And if they did, does that make "in" and "at" as used with Scottish names titles as well?
J Duncan of Sketraw wrote:
Quote:
I would like to see the Blazon of the arms on this, surley [sic] the image is incorrect! The white dogwood blossoms should be at least fimbriated in a colour.
They are - I can quite clearly see the fimbriation of Sable there although the nomenclature of ‘proper’ would be seem to also be quite adequate! 
Joseph McMillan wrote:
Yes, Sir Thomas seems to have been very eager to find titles and honors and nobility everywhere one turned. But if I understand it correctly, "of" a place was simply an indication that one held the freehold of that place. Isn’t the basic principle that titles must emanate from the Sovereign? I know there’s a big point that people make about Lyon recognizing the territorial designation on behalf of the Sovereign, but there are plenty of examples of people having been legally X.Y. of Z (a whole chain of John MacMillans of Brockloch in the 18th century, for example) without any involvement by Lyon at all.
I really can’t see how "of" can be a title, and would be interested to know if anyone before Sir Tam interpreted it as such. And if they did, does that make "in" and "at" as used with Scottish names titles as well?
Hi Joe, I think the point here is one of Lyon’s ‘recognition’ yes you can call your self ‘of whatever’ or anything you want to for that matter but that doesn’t give you official recognition that ‘of whatever’ is in fact a Territorial Designation. At the end of the day it is Lyon that recognises the ‘of whatever’ as a TD and he is HRH minister of the Crown in Scotland.
We sometimes forget that The Court of the Lord Lyon is also a Court of Law and is responsible for civil and criminal enforcement of armorial bearings and the right to use certain titles in Scotland and Sir Thomas was a previous Lord Lyon and a most respected one at that. I don’t think it was just a matter of his interpretation but if so, he was the one in the position to make or change the rules.
As far as TD’s are concerned it is now the only remaining title left in Scotland still attached to the land since the abolition of feudal tenure act. So you can no longer gain a TD by purchasing a feudal superiority or feudal Barony.
One of the passages from Adam, The Clans Sept’s & Regiments., 8th ed., p. 402; Quoting Burt:
Quote:
One thing which I take to be exclusively in its kind…a single enclosed field adjoining…this town, as near as I can guess about 5 or 6 acres, called Fairfield. This to the owner gives the title of Laird of Farifield, and it must be a neglect or kind of affront to call him by his proper surname, but only "Fairfield." For those they call "Lairds" in Scotland do not go by their surname, but—as in France—by the same of their House, Estate, or part of it.
As far as ‘of’, ‘in’ and ‘at’ are concerned and quoting James Dempster, who explained the meaning quite well on the HSS forum:
Quote:
I can’t comment on Lyon Court practice but common usage in Scotland tended to be "of" meant owner, "in" meant tenant and "at" meant landless.
Thus John Doe of Glendoe was the landowner, John Smith in Easter Glendoe was the tenant farmer of the farm of Easter Glendoe and John Johnson at Easter Glendoe was a farm servant there.
The above tended to apply to rural properties. I’m less sure of how residents of burghs were styled, but historically John Smith, Merchant in Doetown would be an appropriate style.
Although there may well have been a chain of John MacMillans of Brockloch in the 18th cent. and indeed they may have been owners of ‘Brochloch’ it doesn’t mean that the ‘of Brochloch’ was recognised by Lyon as a Territorial Designation. If indeed it needed to be. The only way to check the position on this would be to contact Lyon Clerk. I only know that this is the case at present if you have a grant of Scottish arms and you wish official recognition of your TD.
GJKS wrote:
They are - I can quite clearly see the fimbriation of Sable there although the nomenclature of ‘proper’ would be seem to also be quite adequate!
Yes Geoff, on close inspection you may be quite right.
I do not see a ‘fimbriation’ - I see ‘shading’.
Regards,
Iain Boyd
J Duncan of Sketraw wrote:
Although there may well have been a chain of John MacMillans of Brockloch in the 18th cent. and indeed they may have been owners of ‘Brochloch’ it doesn’t mean that the ‘of Brochloch’ was recognised by Lyon as a Territorial Designation. If indeed it needed to be. The only way to check the position on this would be to contact Lyon Clerk. I only know that this is the case at present if you have a grant of Scottish arms and you wish official recognition of your TD
Sorry, but "Brochloch" is already taken. David Donachie of Brochloch is the current incumbent "of Brochloch" as recognized by Lord Lyon.
—Guy
Didn’t Joe mention “of Brockloch†to begin with to make a point about “of� I think Joe did so and I think John is simply making a point in relation to Joe’s – of course I could be reading this all wrong.
Donnchadh wrote:
Didn’t Joe mention “of Brockloch” to begin with to make a point about “of”? I think Joe did so and I think John is simply making a point in relation to Joe’s – of course I could be reading this all wrong.
No, you were reading Joe & John correctly—I was just being me again :D
HA! - talk about feeling red in the face.
...but there are more than one "Brochloch" even in Galloway. There is IIRC one in Kirkpatrick-Duram parish, which is not the same farm or estate or "place" (whatever) as that owned by our fellow member. And if you look for placenames such as "Ingleston" you’ll find one in several adjacent Galloway parishes. Within the same parish there may be only one Laird of Brochloch or of Ingleston, so the simple place name is a quite sufficient identifier at that level. In broader society, however, the combined surname & place name (e.g. Smith of Glenjamfry) is more reliable as a unique identifier than either element taken separately.
Not to mention that, even if it is the same place in Galloway (Ordnance Survey No. 538959), the MacMillans of Brockloch held it for nine generations from 1592 to 1831, when they sold out. I believe that tenure of that length would entitle them to continue using the designation to this day, even without owning the property, if any of them are still about.
See Graeme Mackenzie’s genealogy of this branch (not, as far as I know, any close connection of mine) at http://www.clanmacmillan.org/Genealogy/Brockloch-Macmillans.PDF.
And the Society of Scottish Armigers will be holding its AGM at the Loch Norman Games this year, with a lecture on heraldry.
Capt G.A. Cook of Kingerly
Chairman
