steven harris;88966 wrote:
I don’t see any reference to there being a "Clan Akins" either in the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, the Council of Scottish Clans and Associations, or even on wikipedia.
The word clan comes from the Gaelic term clann, meaning "descendants" or "offspring." Within the context of Scottish culture, clans were historically considered 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 1587 for the quieting and keeping in obedience of the disordered subjects, inhabitants of the borders, highlands and isles, which was directed at "the captains, chiefs and chieftains of all clans, as well on the highlands as on the borders, and the principals of the branches of the said clans….which clans dwell upon the lands of diverse landlords and depend upon the directions of the said captains, chiefs and chieftains (by pretence of blood or place of their dwelling).” Thus the word clan is used 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." In the case of MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean it was legally determined in Scottish court that clan and family mean exactly the same thing:
Quote:
P.220) (Q.) "In your view, what does the word "clan" mean? (A.) It has a general meaning of family, ordinary meaning of family, but there is a peculiar sense in which it is used for this quasi-feudal organisation in the Highlands, or you might say feudal organisation. (Q.) But its primary meaning, I think, is family? (A.) Yes. (Q.)In your view, did the clans in fact consist either of persons linked by blood or persons linked by reason of place of dwelling in a territory? (A.) That is the defination of the Act of Parliament. (Reference Acts 1587 & Act of 11 Sept, 1593 A.P.S., IV, p. 40) (Q.) Do you see a reference there to the pretence of blood or place of dwelling? (A.)Yes. (Q.)Are those familiar terms? (A.) Quite familiar. Pretence means claim….(Q.) So that in your view do you get this dual element entering into the composition of the clan, blood-relation and place of dwelling? (A.) Oh, yes, you have both.
Evidence of the Very Rev. Lachlan Maclean Watt, LL.D., Bard of the Clan MacLean Association: (P. 517) (Q.) (Referred to Mackenzie’s "Works," II, 574, 618: (Q.)Do you deduce that Sir G. Mackenzie considered that from a heraldic point of view the "head of the clan" the "chief of the clan" or the "representer of the family" all meant the same thing? (A.) I respectfully suggest that it is a matter of "Head of a Family" and "Head of a Clan." He was a Highlander and he knew that clan means a family. Clan and family mean exactly the same thing."
steven harris;88966 wrote:
Perhaps you should go the route of having Lord Lyon recognize a derbhfine first, then (if I understand the process correctly) you could petition to have the arms granted as a clan commander. I’m not sure what all is involved there, but I think that it would take decades.
While the Lord Lyon is the foremost authority and arbiter in matters pertaining to the legal possession and use of coats of arms within the geographic boundaries of the country of Scotland itself, 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:
Quote:
“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:
Quote:
“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.”
Steven, to the best of my knowlege there have been a number of family heraldry cases litigated in France during the past ten years. There is no reason why a similar approach could not be used here in the USA.
Caledonian;88962 wrote:
One does wonder, however unlike yourself, I would expect Lord Lyon to be discerning enough to disregard distasteful articles published in disreputable tabloids of the sort which commonly carry stories focused on celebrity gossip, supernatural phenomenon, and conspiracy theories of the kind one regularly sees plastered on the pages of similar publications sold at supermarket checkout counters.
Steven, celebrity or not you made headlines on the front page.
After so many discussions about honor and pride it’s really sad to read this kind of story.You seem to be an intelligent man, you have a great deal of knowledge of Scottish history but being so consumed with this idea of chieftain you end up falsifying documents , being called a ‘conman’ and obviously damaging your own family.
It’s sad, it’s really sad.’ Clan and family mean exactly the same thing ’ .
Aquilo;89013 wrote:
Steven, celebrity or not you made headlines on the front page.
After so many discussions about honor and pride it’s really sad to read this kind of story.You seem to be an intelligent man, you have a great deal of knowledge of Scottish history but being so consumed with this idea of chieftain you end up falsifying documents , being called a ‘conman’ and obviously damaging your own family.
It’s sad, it’s really sad.’ Clan and family mean exactly the same thing ’ .
Don’t believe everything that you read. The Sunday Mail is a decidely low-brow tabloid, as anyone who has ever seen it’s front page can tell:
In filing a petition with Lyon Court for confirmation of arms, one must provide proofs in the form of certified documents; plain photocopys of records bearing no seal of certification are not acceptable. All copies of records that I sent to Lord Lyon as proofs for my petition were certified documents.
Did you include this will, allegedly from the Cecil County, Md, probate records held at the Maryland State Archives?
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/archibald1764a.jpg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/archibald1764b.jpg
The will that the Maryland State Archives somehow can’t find in the records from which it is purportedly copied? The one that your researcher Mr. J. Barrentine supposedly copied in Annapolis yet bears in this copy the reversed image of the seal of the Cecil County Probate Court? The one that refers to the "Colony of Maryland" when Marylanders of the colonial period invariably called it the "Province of Maryland"?
The one that bears such a striking resemblance to this will which is in the archives…a resemblance that extends even to the precise writing of the page number, the names of the witnesses, and the wording of the notice of what was written on the back of the original will?
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/archibald1768genuine.jpg
Joseph McMillan;89015 wrote:
Did you include this will, allegedly from the Cecil County, Md, probate records held at the Maryland State Archives?
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/archibald1764a.jpg
The will that the Maryland State Archives somehow can’t find in the records from which it is purportedly copied? The one that your researcher Mr. J. Barrentine supposedly copied in Annapolis yet bears in this copy the reversed image of the seal of the Cecil County Probate Court? The one that refers to the "Colony of Maryland" when Marylanders of the colonial period invariably called it the "Province of Maryland"?
The one that bears such a striking resemblance to this will which is in the archives…a resemblance that extends even to the names of the witnesses and the wording of the notice of what was written on the back of the original will?
http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/archibald1768genuine.jpg
Indeed I did furnish Lyon Court with that copy which Mr. Barrentine obtained for me, and which, as you have yourself pointed out, carries a seal for Cecil Co., Maryland, as a certified copy; thus satisfying Lyon Court’s requirements for documents submitted as per the schedule of proofs.
Quote:
"All statements made in Petitions must be accompanied by legal proof, which should be either original or certified copies of Certificates of Birth, in the long form giving parents’ names, and Certificates of Marriage for statements of parentage and ancestry. Birth Certificates for those born in the United States of America must, where possible, be Certificates of Live Birth. It is the Petitioner’s responsibility to provide this proof. Neither the Lord Lyon nor the Lyon Clerk may take any part in providing the proof. Petitioners may employ their own genealogists to provide the proof. They may employ any of them directly at their own responsibility, or with the assistance of an Officer of Arms." - THE COURT OF THE LORD LYON Information Leaflet No. 4
PETITIONS FOR ARMS
Caledonian;89014 wrote:
Don’t believe everything that you read. The Sunday Mail is a decidely low-brow tabloid, as anyone who has ever seen it’s front page can tell:
In filing a petition with Lyon Court for confirmation of arms, one must provide proofs in the form of certified documents; plain photocopys of records bearing no seal of certification are not acceptable. All copies of records that I sent to Lord Lyon as proofs for my petition were certified documents.
Steven,
I don’t even read tabloids and if we are going to discuss this serious matter on the forum of the American Heraldry Society I’d rather present the arguments of someone who spent some time researching and documenting your case .Here it is by Sean Murphy from Center for Irish Genealogical and Historical Studies -
Aquilo;89017 wrote:
Steven,
I don’t even read tabloids and if we are going to discuss this serious matter on the forum of the American Heraldry Society I’d rather present the arguments of someone who spent some time researching and documenting your case .Here it is by Sean Murphy from Center for Irish Genealogical and Historical Studies -
I’m glad to know that you have better things to do with your time than to waste it reading the trash that is regurgitated by the tabloid press; others would be wise to follow your example.
As for Mr. Sean Murphy, he is someone who has shown themselves to have an axe to grind against the present day continuation of Gaelic clans and chiefships, and has gone to great lengths to see that the recognition of such in Ireland is abolished. Whatever his personal vendetta is against the clan system, I can assure you that it has naught to do with me as I have never met the man.
Caledonian;89019 wrote:
As for Mr. Sean Murphy, he is someone who has shown themselves to have an axe to grind against the present day continuation of Gaelic clans and chiefships, and has gone to great lengths to see that the recognition of such in Ireland is abolished. Whatever his personal vendetta is against the clan system, I can assure you that it has naught to do with me as I have never met the man.
Oh,prize the Lord you never had an eye to eye contact because an axe to grind is dangerous thing , but ...if you click on the green button in the up right corner next to your photo it will bring you back to the main Homepage of the CFIG&HS .There are plenty of old and updated articles about Irish Chiefs, studies of historical background and registers ,so I rather see it as reflection of Mr Murphy’s vivid interest in clans not a sign of vendetta.
Aquilo;89021 wrote:
Oh,prize the Lord you never had an eye to eye contact because an axe to grind is dangerous thing , but ...if you click on the green button in the up right corner next to your photo it will bring you back to the main Homepage of the CFIG&HS .There are plenty of old and updated articles about Irish Chiefs, studies of historical background and registers ,so I rather see it as reflection of Mr Murphy’s vivid interest in clans not a sign of vendetta.
I take it that the following article by Sean Murphy may be what you are making reference to:
Quote:
In the course of the Gaelic revival of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a number of individuals laid claim to chiefly titles, including The O’Mahony and The O’Rahilly. Alas, these gentlemen appear to have fallen victim to wishful thinking and fantasy, for no satisfactory genealogical evidence was produced to justify their claims. At the same time there was increasing interest in organising Irish ‘Clans’, and this culminated in the 1950s in the activities of the enthusiastic but not very scholarly Eoin ‘The Pope’ O’Mahony. In 1943 Edward MacLysaght was appointed as first Chief Herald of Ireland and head of the Genealogical Office (the latter has now been subsumed into the Office of the Chief Herald, which is a branch of the National Library of Ireland, Kildare Street, Dublin). MacLysaght took it upon himself to endeavour to regulate Chiefly titles, in an effort to counter the significant number of questionable Chiefs, including a bogus O’Brien, Prince of Thomond. Now it can be argued that MacLysaght’s intervention was inappropriate in a country which was well on the way to becoming a Republic, but then as now, there was a pressing need to exert some control over the activities of fakes and fantasists.
In 1944, MacLysaght established a system of ‘courtesy recognition’ of Irish Chiefs, as of course formal recognition of titles is forbidden by the 1937 Constitution. MacLysaght rightly considered that Tanistry, which as we have seen is selection of Chiefs by the derbfine or kin group, was no longer a practical system after a lapse of so many centuries. As a compromise MacLysaght therefore adopted primogeniture, or senior male line descent from the last inaugurated Chief, as the basis for recognising a modern successor. This decision remains controversial today, but in the present writer’s opinion provides the only practical basis on which to determine Chiefly succession. Of course, we should realise that the title of Chief is now more honorary than real, as the system that produced it is gone forever and can never be revived. And just as the method of Chiefly succession has been adapted to primogeniture, so too it is not impossible that in time female Chiefs will be recognised, as is already the case in Scotland.
Following fairly exhaustive research, some 15 Chiefs were recognised by MacLysaght in 1944-45. There then followed a gap of 45 years, when between 1989-95 an additional 7 Chiefs were recognised. Unfortunately, MacLysaght’s standards were largely abandoned during the latter period, and it has now become clear that some Chiefs were recognised on the basis of flimsy or nonexistent evidence. The year 1989 also saw a renewed and largely tourism-driven interest in organising Irish ‘Clans’, and there was a general atmosphere of fantasy and scholarly carelessness which paved the way for what has become known as the MacCarthy Mór Hoax.
While there have been attempts in Ireland to minimise or deny the scandal, the MacCarthy Mór affair has dealt a serious blow to the reputation of Irish genealogy and heraldry and its after effects will be felt for some time to come. What happened was that a certain Terence MacCarthy of Belfast laid claim to being The MacCarthy Mór, Prince of Desmond and Chief of the MacCarthy Clan, and managed to get the then Chief Herald and his Deputy to grant him an official patent of recognition in 1992. MacCarthy then took this documentation and persuaded individuals in America and elsewhere to part with an estimated total of $1,000,000 or more for worthless titles and honours. A university graduate, MacCarthy was also a genealogist and heraldist of some ability, misusing his skills to produce pseudo-scholarly publications which led some to believe that Chiefs, Tanistry, the Brehon Code and other trappings of the Gaelic order could once again be restored.
Working voluntarily, the writer and others exposed MacCarthy’s deception in 1999, showing that he was not of aristocratic descent and had no connection with the MacCarthys of Munster. Also exposed in a memorable Sunday Times article on the affair published in June 1999 was MacCarthy’s associate Andrew Davison, the so-called Count of Clandermond, who was shown to be a convicted blackmailer. Many with what they thought was a genuine interest in Irish heritage were deceived by MacCarthy and Davison, both of whom carried credentials issued by the Chief Herald of Ireland. The Office of the Chief Herald was obliged to strip MacCarthy of recognition in July 1999, and later quietly cancelled Davison’s grants of arms in September 2000. However, the present writer has shown that other dubious or bogus Chiefs were also given recognition, including Maguire of Fermanagh and O Long of Garranelongy. The Office of the Chief Herald has not taken action in these cases, citing unspecified ‘legal issues’, and indeed refusing access to much of the relevant background information in its files. The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands promised to establish a committee to review procedures for recognising Chiefs in September 1999, but did a u-turn on this in February 2001, inappropriately leaving the matter in the hands of the Office of the Chief Herald, the body responsible for the problem in the first place. I endeavoured to work constructively with National Library Director/Chief Herald Brendan O Donoghue to resolve the chiefs mess, but he famously sneered in 1999 that I was the ‘self-appointed saviour of Irish genealogy’, and indeed I have not received an official contract for consultancy or training work since that year.
In line with a recommendation of Director/Chief Herald O Donoghue and the Council of Trustees of the National Library, the Government decided at a Cabinet meeting on 23 July 2003 to sanction the discontinuation of the practice of granting courtesy recognition to chiefs (Sunday Times, Irish Edition, 27 July 2003). In an explanatory letter to the chiefs, sent be it noted after the public revelation that courtesy recognition was being discontinued, Director/Chief Herald O Donoghue summarised the advice of the Office of the Attorney General (current incumbent Rory Brady) as follows:
There is not, and never was, any statutory or legal basis for the practice of granting courtesy recognition as chief of the name; in the absence of an appropriate basis in law, the practice of granting courtesy recognition should not be continued by the Genealogical Office; and even if a sound legal basis for the system existed, it would not be permissible for me [the Chief Herald] to review and reverse decisions made by a previous Chief Herald except in particular situations, for example, where decisions were based on statements or documents which were clearly false or misleading in material respects. (Form letter of Director/Chief Herald O Donoghue to recognised chiefs and applicants for recognition, 28 July 2003, FOI release.)
The thoroughness of the purge was demonstrated by the subsequent removal of every one of the twenty or so chiefs’ banners which had been on display in the State Heraldic Museum in Kildare Street, Dublin. On reflection, the writer considers that in the light of the incompetence and worse displayed in relation to the Mac Carthy Mór and allied scandals, it is just as well that the Office of the Chief Herald has removed itself from any role in the recognition of chiefs. The discovery that the Chief Herald had no legal power even to grant arms should surely lead to a reconsideration of the need to maintain this chronically disfunctional office within the National Library of Ireland, and at present it is effectively in abeyance following the retirement of Chief Herald Gillespie in 2009. It should be emphasised again that the recognition of Terence MacCarthy as Mac Carthy Mór was not the only flawed decision made in the past, in that a range of spurious and questionable pedigrees, arms and titles were registered by the Office of the Chief Herald, all of which should be subject to proper review and rectification. Given the scale of the Mac Carthy Mór scandal and the irregularities involved (see reports on the present website and the writer’s Twilight of the Chiefs: The Mac Carthy Mór Hoax, Bethesda, Maryland, 2004), there is clearly a need for a thorough official enquiry into the cases of MacCarthy Mór and other bogus or questionable Chiefs recognised by the Office of the Chief Herald.
I wouldn’t presume to suggest that the above is any indication of a benevolent interest in Gaelic clans, but rather it appears to me that quite the opposite is the case.
