Lord Lyon and Clans

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
17 October 2011 13:14
 

The relationship between Lord Lyon and Scottish clans is at best marginally on-topic here or in any other heraldry forum.  I’d rather not go off on a long excursion on the issue, but it seems worthwhile to clear up some misconceptions.


steven harris;88986 wrote:

It is true that Lord Lyon has no jurisdiction over Clan Chiefs (who are uniquely sovereign in themselves)


Clan chiefs are not sovereigns of any kind, and Lord Lyon has jurisdiction over their use of arms in Scotland just as he does for anyone else.  What he doesn’t have jurisdiction over is adjudicating a dispute between rival claimants to chiefship.


Quote:

However, Lord Lyon is the only authority on the “Chief of the Name and Arms” – which is a strictly heraldic term.


Correct.


Quote:

If I am reading his website correctly, Lord Lyon is also the authority on whether or not a clan exists as recognized in Scots law.


The Scottish courts have consistently ruled that the concept of "clan" is without meaning or content in Scottish law.  Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, who was Lord Lyon for nearly a quarter century, didn’t much like this ruling and did his best to obfuscate the issue, but the present Lyon seems very clear that what he adjudicates is the right to arms and the things that go with them.  One of the vehicles for doing this is what used to be called an ad hoc derbfhine (but which Lyon Sellar prefers to call a "family convention") to designate a person as the successor to the stem arms associated with a name in the absence of anyone with a provable hereditary claim.

 

Of course that requires that Scottish arms already exist in which the person selected by the family convention can be confirmed.

 
Caledonian
 
Avatar
 
 
Caledonian
Total Posts:  153
Joined  13-09-2011
 
 
 
17 October 2011 13:47
 

Joseph McMillan;88991 wrote:

The relationship between Lord Lyon and Scottish clans is at best marginally on-topic here or in any other heraldry forum.  I’d rather not go off on a long excursion on the issue, but it seems worthwhile to clear up some misconceptions.


Quote:

Originally Posted by steven harris It is true that Lord Lyon has no jurisdiction over Clan Chiefs (who are uniquely sovereign in themselves)


Clan chiefs are not sovereigns of any kind, and Lord Lyon has jurisdiction over their use of arms in Scotland just as he does for anyone else.  What he doesn’t have jurisdiction over is adjudicating a dispute between rival claimants to chiefship.


Quote:

However, Lord Lyon is the only authority on the “Chief of the Name and Arms” – which is a strictly heraldic term.


Correct.


Lord President in the Court of Session, College of Surgeons of Edinburgh v. College of Physicians of Edinburgh (1911 S.C. at p. 1060):


Quote:

"Now, your Lordships will have already noticed that this petition is presented as a petition to the Lyon King of Arms in his capacity as a Judge in one of the inferior judicatories of Scotland. From that inferior judicatory an appeal lies to your Lordships’ Court and your Lordships have to determine upon the merits such things as come from that Court by appeal. and I think it is a corollary of that that your Lordships would enforce any decree, which was pronounced, by the usual methods by which the Court enforces its decrees."


Lord Dunedin in the House of Lords, Stewart Mackenzie v. Fraser-Mackenzie (1922 S.C. (H.L.) at p. 41):


Quote:

"The Court of the Lyon is an inferior Court, and from inferior Courts there lies an appeal to the Court of Session, and final interlocutors of the Court of Session in civil matters are appealable to your Lordships’ House."


* Interlocutor (Scots Law): A judgement or order of a court or of the Lords Ordinary, signed by the pronouncing or presiding judge. `Interlocutors, correctly speaking, are judgments or judicial orders pronounced in the course of a suit, but which do not finally determine the cause. The term, however, in Scotch practice, is applied indiscriminately to the judgments or orders of the Court, or of the Lords Ordinary, whether they exhaust the question at issue or not’ (Bell Dictionary of the Law of Scotland 1861).

There has been one other instance of a case appealed from Lyon Court (1985 S.L.T. (Lyon Ct.) 6) to the Inner House (1985 I.H. 158) and thence to the House of Lords (1986 H.L. 463). The case, Dunbar of Kilconzie, brought against each other two half-brothers; one was older than the other, but born illegitimate, but legitimated by marriage afterwards. On the death of their father in 1953 or thereabouts, the younger born-legitimate brother inherited the baronetcy. Then, in 1968, an act made effective in Scotland an act which had become effective in England in the 1950s which removed the exclusion of hereditary honors from the provisions of the Legitimacy Act of 1926 (16 & 17 Geo V c. 60). The presently legitimated older brother decided that he was in fact the heir. Lyon dismissed his petition, he appealed to the Court of Session which upheld, he appealed to the House of Lords which upheld.

 

Innes of Learney, in his article in the Juridical Review (1940), has argued that Lord Lyon has privative jurisdiction on all causa armorum, and that the Court of Session can only be appealed to reduce a matriculation that is found to infringe someone’s rights. I am not sure I can make sense of that assertion; if Lyon decides incorrectly that A is entitled to an undifferenced coat of arms, that B sues and that Lyon’s decision is overturned by the Court of Session, the result will take the form of a reduction of the incorrect matriculation;  it remains that Lyon’s decision in a matter of coat of arms can be overturned, and therefore Lyon does not have privative jurisdiction in cases of arms.

 

Thus, it follows that since Lyon’s decisions are subject to appeal to the Court of Session, Lord Lyon in not "the only authority on the Chief of the Name and Arms", so let us not pretend that he is, nor seek to further perpetuate such a misconception.

 
steven harris
 
Avatar
 
 
steven harris
Total Posts:  696
Joined  30-07-2008
 
 
 
17 October 2011 14:13
 

Joseph, thank you for your insight.  This is what makes forums such a good resource for people learning the ins and outs of a field of study - even if it is on the very edge of "on topic". smile

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
17 October 2011 22:22
 

I’m glad this topic now has its own thread, rather than playing the cookoobird (sp?) in other at-best-marginally-related threads that then have to be closed off by the moderators when the discussion grows heated.  Can’t speak for them (I’ve often thought that the heraldic badge for a forum moderator would be a purple cow—as in the nursery rhyme, "I’d rather see, than be one" smile ) but I don’t mind a little sound & fury when its in a special (maybe padded) room & not interrupting other discussions on different topics.

This particular topic, or various aspects of it, have been pretty well beaten to death over the years—on rec.heraldry, the HSS forum (where it really belongs, if they care to host it—maybe by now they don’t!) & and now here.

 

I have my own views on the subject, largely but not 100% overlapping Joe’s; but in this present context—i.e. the AHS—IMO the main point is that "it ain’t us."

 

It can be interesting, especially but not only for those of us who have an abiding historical and heraldic interest in things Scottish—and we can substitute Irish or German or Polish or Italian or Japanese—fun to study and appreciate.  But whatever we may think about or most appreciate in any of these foreign cultures, they all share one common point—they are all foreign cultures. They may be where we are "from" but not whare we "are."  We can appreciate but not really "own" them as our own, simply because (other than our very welcome foreign members) we are not Scottish or Polish or German or whatever—that may be where we or our families came from, but not who or what or where we are now.

 

Thus there are no American "Scottish" clans—merely Americans with a sentimental interest in & attachment to one or the other of the Scottish clans recognized by law or custom or whatever in Scotland, a wonderful but foreign county.

 

We do have quintessentially American "clans" here with long histories—but they originated and in some cases still exist in the long houses or hogans or whatever of our Native American tribes, which bore at most only a superficial resemblance to "clans" in various parts of Europe.

 

And we have—or in most cases, "had" prior to urbanization—de facto American "clans" in Appalachia and other rural areas, but based on geography and family ties here, not in some lost semi-mythical ancestral homeland. While certain aspects of these American clan-like rural social structures may have resembled Scottish or Irish or whatever European clan structures to some degree, they were not Scottish clans.  Brigadoonery was not a facet of their society, howevermuch the occasional schoolmarm (e.g. my mother in the 1930’s) may have enjoyed reciting "Young Lochinvar has come out of the west…"  In simple terms, neither the Martins nor the McCoys wore tartan kilts while ambushing each other (and some of my Howard ancestors) in the Rowan County wars.  That sort of thing (the Brigadoonery, not the bushwhacking) is a fun, but essentially foreign, bit of dress-up here.

 

And now I’ve wandered way off-topic too—my apologies.  My point, if not entirely lost by now, is that while Scottish clans have a heraldic aspect, its Scottish heraldry, not American.

 
Caledonian
 
Avatar
 
 
Caledonian
Total Posts:  153
Joined  13-09-2011
 
 
 
17 October 2011 22:59
 

Michael F. McCartney;89030 wrote:

I’m glad this topic now has its own thread, rather than playing the cookoobird (sp?) in other at-best-marginally-related threads that then have to be closed off by the moderators when the discussion grows heated.  Can’t speak for them (I’ve often thought that the heraldic badge for a forum moderator would be a purple cow—as in the nursery rhyme, "I’d rather see, than be one" smile ) but I don’t mind a little sound & fury when its in a special (maybe padded) room & not interrupting other discussions on different topics.

This particular topic, or various aspects of it, have been pretty well beaten to death over the years—on rec.heraldry, the HSS forum (where it really belongs, if they care to host it—maybe by now they don’t!) & and now here.

 

I have my own views on the subject, largely but not 100% overlapping Joe’s; but in this present context—i.e. the AHS—IMO the main point is that "it ain’t us."

 

It can be interesting, especially but not only for those of us who have an abiding historical and heraldic interest in things Scottish—and we can substitute Irish or German or Polish or Italian or Japanese—fun to study and appreciate.  But whatever we may think about or most appreciate in any of these foreign cultures, they all share one common point—they are all foreign cultures. They may be where we are "from" but not whare we "are."  We can appreciate but not really "own" them as our own, simply because (other than our very welcome foreign members) we are not Scottish or Polish or German or whatever—that may be where we or our families came from, but not who or what or where we are now.

 

Thus there are no American "Scottish" clans—merely Americans with a sentimental interest in & attachment to one or the other of the Scottish clans recognized by law or custom or whatever in Scotland, a wonderful but foreign county.

 

We do have quintessentially American "clans" here with long histories—but they originated and in some cases still exist in the long houses or hogans or whatever of our Native American tribes, which bore at most only a superficial resemblance to "clans" in various parts of Europe.

 

And we have—or in most cases, "had" prior to urbanization—de facto American "clans" in Appalachia and other rural areas, but based on geography and family ties here, not in some lost semi-mythical ancestral homeland. While certain aspects of these American clan-like rural social structures may have resembled Scottish or Irish or whatever European clan structures to some degree, they were not Scottish clans.  Brigadoonery was not a facet of their society, howevermuch the occasional schoolmarm (e.g. my mother in the 1930’s) may have enjoyed reciting "Young Lochinvar has come out of the west…"  In simple terms, neither the Martins nor the McCoys wore tartan kilts while ambushing each other (and some of my Howard ancestors) in the Rowan County wars.  That sort of thing (the Brigadoonery, not the bushwhacking) is a fun, but essentially foreign, bit of dress-up here.

 

And now I’ve wandered way off-topic too—my apologies.  My point, if not entirely lost by now, is that while Scottish clans have a heraldic aspect, its Scottish heraldry, not American.


I would disagree with you in that ethnicity is not determined by place of residence, but by one’s ancestry, their DNA if you will. Obviously people of any given ethnicity can be found in just about any country in the world. We may live in America, and our geographic designation and political citizenship may be referred to as "American" but America is not populated by any single ethnic group; rather it is now home to a broad range of ethnicities or nationalities, including Scots-Americans.

 

The Scots did give their name to the country that has been called Scotland since the High Middle Ages; however even before the Scots first came to settle in a small colony along the western shores of northern Britain, the Scots were already a distinct people, as we read in the Declaration of Arbroath:


Quote:

“Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since."


The "chronicles and books of the ancients" referred to in the Declaration are undoubtedly the annals contained in the medieval Irish text known as the Lebor Gabala Erenn (Book of the Conquest of Ireland), which describes how the Gaels originated in Scythia and made their way across Europe until they at long last reached Ireland, their prophesied destination:


Quote:

“Now Feinius had two sons: Nenual, [one of the two] whom he left in the princedom of Scythia behind him; Nel, the other son, at the Tower was he born. Now he was a master of all the languages; wherefore one came [to summon him] from Pharaoh, in order to learn the multiplicity of languages from him. But Feinius came out of Asia to Scythia, whence he had gone for the building of the Tower; so that he died in the princedom of Scythia, at the end of forty years, and passed on the chieftainship to his son, Nenual. At the end of forty two years after the building of the Tower, Ninus son of Belus took the kingship of the world…..Now that is the time when Gaedel Glas (from whom are the Gaels descended), was born…...Now Sru son of Esru son of Gaedel, he it is who was chieftain for the Gaels who went out of Egypt after Pharaoh was drowned with his host in the Red Sea of Israel: Seven hundred and seventy years from the Flood till then. Four hundred and forty years from that time in which Pharaoh was drowned, and after Sru son of Esru came out of Egypt, till the time when the sons of Mil came into Ireland.….Forty and Four ships’ companies strong went Sru out of Egypt. There were twenty-four wedded couples and three hirelings for every ship. Sru and his son Eber Scot, they were the chieftains of the expedition. It is then that Nenual son of Baath, son of Nenual, son of Feinius Farsaid, prince of Scythia, died; and Sru also died immediately after reaching Scythia….Eber Scot took by force the kingship of Scythia from the progeny of Nenual, till he fell at the hands of Noemius son of Nenual…..For that reason was the seed of Gael driven forth upon the sea, to wit Agnomain and Lamfhind his son, so that they were seven years on the sea, skirting the world on the north side. More than can be reckoned are the hardships which they suffered….they had three ships with a coupling between them, that none of them should move away from the rest. They had three chieftains after the death of Agnomain on the surface of the great Caspian Sea, Lamfhind and Allot and Caicher the druid….It is Caicher who spoke to them,….Caicher the druid said: Rise, said he, we shall not rest until we reach Ireland. What place is that ‘Ireland’ said Lamfhind son of Agnomain. Further than Scythia is it, said Caicher. It is not ourselves who shall reach it, but our children, at the end of three hundred years from today….Thereafter they settled in the Maeotic Marshes…..It is that Brath who came out of the Marshes along the Torrian Sea to Crete and to Sicily. They reached Spain thereafter. They took Spain by force…..Four ships’ companies strong came the Gael to Spain: in every ship fourteen wedded couples and seven unwed hirelings…..Brath had a good son named Breogan, by whom was built the Tower and the city - Braganza was the city’s name. From Breogan’s Tower it was that Ireland was seen; an evening of a day of winter Ith son of Breogan saw it.”


The Scythian origin of the Scots is also recorded in the text known as Chronica de Origine Antiquorum Pictorum (The Pictish Chronicle),  which is based on an earlier work, dating to the 7th century, entitled Etymologiae by Isidore of Seville, who wrote:


Quote:

“The race of the Picts has a name derived from the appearance of their bodies. These are played upon by a needle working with small pricks and by the squeezed-out sap of a native plant, so that they bear the resultant marks according to the personal rank of the individual, their painted limbs being tattooed to show their high birth. The Scots, now incorrectly referred to as Irishmen, are really Scotti, because they originated from the land of the Scythians…..It is a well known fact that the Britons arrived in Britain during the third Age of Man (the time between Abraham and David), while the Scotti, that is the Scots, migrated into Scotia or Ireland during the fourth Age of Man (the time between David and Daniel). The Scythian people are born with white hair due to the everlasting snow; and the colour of their hair gives name to the people, and thus they are called Albani: From this people both Scots and Picts descend. Their eyes are so brightly coloured that they are able to see better by night than by day. The Albani people were also neighbours with the Amazones. The Scythian territory was once so large that it reached from India in the east, through the marshland of Meotidas (the Sea of Azov), till the borders of Germania.”


The Picts were simply non-Romanised Britons, as the Romans didn’t conquer the entire island of Britain, they ended up building a coast to coast fortification (Hadrian’s Wall) to separate Romanised Britain from the non-Romanised Britons living in the northern third of the island of Britain. Because the Britons living north of Hadrian’s Wall were not under Roman control, they retained their own indigenous native Celtic culture and language, whereas the Britons living south of Hadrian’s wall were more influenced by Roman ways and manners. The names Briton and Britain themselves come from the Celtic words Prytani and Prydain, which the Britons used to refer to themselves and their island. These words are derived from the Celtic root word Pryd, meaning "to mark" or "draw" and refer to the native Briton practice of painting or tattooing their skin with designs using a dye or ink obtained from the woad plant which produces a blue color; a trait described by Herod of Antioch in the 3rd century A.D., who wrote:


Quote:

"The Britons incise on their bodies coloured pictures of animals, of which they are very proud."


So the Britons (or Prytani, as they called themselves in their own language) were the "painted" or "tattooed people". This is something Julius Caesar himself remarked about in his journals when he invaded Britain in 54 B.C.:


Quote:

"The mainland of Britain is inhabited by a people who claim to be indigenous to the island, on the coast live the immigrant Belgae, who crossed over for war and pillage, but settled to cultivate the land…Those living inland do not sow grain but live on milk and meat and wear clothes of animal hides. All Britons paint their skin with woad which makes them blue and more terrifying to confront in battle."


The immigrant Belgae, mentioned by Caesar as having settled on the coast of Britain, were a group of Gallic tribes which included the Cimbri, who had formerly inhabited the Himmerland in the Jutland peninsula of Denmark, prior to the occupation of that region by the Germanic Danes The Greek historian Plutarch mentions the Cimbri in his Life of Gaius Marius, written in 75 AD:


Quote:

"There are those who say that Gaul was once wide and large enough to reach from the furthest sea and the arctic regions to the Maeotic Sea eastward, where it bordered on Pontic Scythia, and from that point on the Gauls and Scythians were mingled together….so that the whole legion was generally known by the name of Gallo-Scythians. Others say that the Cimmerii, anciently known to the Greeks, were only a small part of the nation, who were driven out upon some quarrel among the Scythians, and passed all along from the Maeotic Sea to Asia, under the conduct of one Lygdamis; and that the greater and more warlike part of them still inhabit the remotest regions lying upon the outer ocean. These are said to live in a densely wooded country hardly penetrable by sunlight, the trees being so close and thick, extending into the interior as far as the Hercynian forest….and from this region the people, anciently called Cimmerii, and thereafter, by a slight change, Cimbri"


Somewhat earlier, in about 60 B.C., Diodorus Siculus wrote:


Quote:

"the valour of these people [the Britons] and their….ways have been famed abroad. Some men say that it was they who in ancient times overran all of Asia [Minor] and were called "Cimmerians" - time having corrupted the word into the name "Cimbrians" [Brythonic: "Cymru"] as they are now called."


The Cimbri, or Cymric tribes as they were known in Britain, were descendants of the ancient Cimmerians who originally inhabited what is now the Crimea on the northern shores of the Black Sea bordering Scythia, until they were scattered after generations of intramural struggles for rulership with competing Scythian tribes; not unlike the events described in the Lebor Gabala Erenn.

 

While the Britons living in the southern two-thirds of Britain became more "civilized" under Roman military rule and adopted Roman ways and manners, the Britons living in the northern third of the island beyond Roman control retained their own native Celtic customs and practices, which included tattooing their skin with woad. Thus by the end of the third century AD, the Romans began to refer to the Britons living in the northern third of the island as the "Picti" or Picts (from the Latin word Pictus, meaning "painted"). The term Pict first appears in a in a verse praising the emperor Constantius Chlorus written by the Roman orator Eumenius in 297 AD; while in 416 A.D. the Roman poet Claudian wrote:


Quote:

"This legion, set to guard the furthest Britons, curbs the savage Scot and studies the designs marked with iron on the face of the dying Pict".

 


Thus it is not the country of Scotland that makes its native inhabitants Scots, but rather it is the Scots themselves who, by inhabiting the northern third of Britain, made the country that came to be called Scotland "Scottish."

 
Caledonian
 
Avatar
 
 
Caledonian
Total Posts:  153
Joined  13-09-2011
 
 
 
17 October 2011 23:52
 

Michael F. McCartney;89030 wrote:

I’m glad this topic now has its own thread, rather than playing the cookoobird (sp?) in other at-best-marginally-related threads that then have to be closed off by the moderators when the discussion grows heated.  Can’t speak for them (I’ve often thought that the heraldic badge for a forum moderator would be a purple cow—as in the nursery rhyme, "I’d rather see, than be one" smile ) but I don’t mind a little sound & fury when its in a special (maybe padded) room & not interrupting other discussions on different topics.

This particular topic, or various aspects of it, have been pretty well beaten to death over the years—on rec.heraldry, the HSS forum (where it really belongs, if they care to host it—maybe by now they don’t!) & and now here.

 

I have my own views on the subject, largely but not 100% overlapping Joe’s; but in this present context—i.e. the AHS—IMO the main point is that "it ain’t us."

 

It can be interesting, especially but not only for those of us who have an abiding historical and heraldic interest in things Scottish—and we can substitute Irish or German or Polish or Italian or Japanese—fun to study and appreciate.  But whatever we may think about or most appreciate in any of these foreign cultures, they all share one common point—they are all foreign cultures. They may be where we are "from" but not whare we "are."  We can appreciate but not really "own" them as our own, simply because (other than our very welcome foreign members) we are not Scottish or Polish or German or whatever—that may be where we or our families came from, but not who or what or where we are now.

 

Thus there are no American "Scottish" clans—merely Americans with a sentimental interest in & attachment to one or the other of the Scottish clans recognized by law or custom or whatever in Scotland, a wonderful but foreign county.

 

We do have quintessentially American "clans" here with long histories—but they originated and in some cases still exist in the long houses or hogans or whatever of our Native American tribes, which bore at most only a superficial resemblance to "clans" in various parts of Europe.

 

And we have—or in most cases, "had" prior to urbanization—de facto American "clans" in Appalachia and other rural areas, but based on geography and family ties here, not in some lost semi-mythical ancestral homeland. While certain aspects of these American clan-like rural social structures may have resembled Scottish or Irish or whatever European clan structures to some degree, they were not Scottish clans.  Brigadoonery was not a facet of their society, howevermuch the occasional schoolmarm (e.g. my mother in the 1930’s) may have enjoyed reciting "Young Lochinvar has come out of the west…"  In simple terms, neither the Martins nor the McCoys wore tartan kilts while ambushing each other (and some of my Howard ancestors) in the Rowan County wars.  That sort of thing (the Brigadoonery, not the bushwhacking) is a fun, but essentially foreign, bit of dress-up here.

 

And now I’ve wandered way off-topic too—my apologies.  My point, if not entirely lost by now, is that while Scottish clans have a heraldic aspect, its Scottish heraldry, not American.


The original Scots were not native to the country now called Scotland (which did not exist until the High Middle Ages), but were a tribe of Gaels who inhabited the north of Ireland. These Gaels or Scotti, as they were known to the Romans, eventually established an outpost colony called Dalriada in what is now Argyllshire around the year 500 A.D. About 350 years later, Kenneth MacAlpine, a descendant of both the royal lines of the Irish Scots of Dalriada and of the Picts (who were descendants of the native Britons that inhabited the non-Romanized northern third of Britain) united both tribes to form the Kingdom of Alba, which would eventually become known as "Scotland" several centuries later. At one time Ireland was referred to (in Latin) as Scotia after the Gaels or Scotti. When the Scotti emigrated to the northern third of Britain, that part of Britain came to be known as Scotia Minor while Ireland was known as Scotia Major.

 

These Irish Scots, together with the Picts and some Viking admixture, became the ancestors of the Highlanders. The Lowland Scots were descended mainly from the native Celtic Britons and Picts together with a bit of admixture from the Angles who came to Britain from Germany during the Dark Ages and settled in Bernicia (Northumbria). The majority of the population of Britain however is descended from the native Celtic Britons, a people who the Germanic Anglo-Saxons referred to as Welas meaning "strangers", from which the modern words Welsh and Wales are derived. The Britons of Ystrad Clud, Rheged, and Goddodin, which were located in the Scottish Lowlands were ethnically and culturally the same people who are known as the Welsh today, though in Scotland they became the ancestors of the Lowland Scots.

 

The Gaels who first came to Ireland from the European continent by way of Spain were of Scythian origin. Scythia was a vast region that in ancient times encompassed much of Eastern Europe including present day Ukraine and the Caucasus. The Scythians were known by many names: Scyths, Sacae, Skuthes, Skuda, Scoloti, etc. (meaning "archers") and from them the Gaelic tribe known as the Scotti or Scots is descended. It was in that part of Scythia, located along the current Polish-Ukranian border, that the ancient province of Galicia is found. Galicia was the original homeland of the Gallic people, who were the earliest ancestors of the Gauls of Europe, and the Gaels of Ireland and Scotland. This history is recalled in the words of the Scottish Declaration of Arbroath, addressed to the Pope in 1320:

 

“Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since."

 

The "chronicles and books of the ancients" referred to in the Declaration are undoubtedly the annals contained in the medieval Irish text known as the Lebor Gabala Erenn (Book of the Conquest of Ireland), which describes how the Gaels originated in Scythia and made their way across Europe until they at long last reached Ireland, their prophesied destination:

 

“Now Feinius had two sons: Nenual, [one of the two] whom he left in the princedom of Scythia behind him; Nel, the other son, at the Tower was he born. Now he was a master of all the languages; wherefore one came [to summon him] from Pharaoh, in order to learn the multiplicity of languages from him. But Feinius came out of Asia to Scythia, whence he had gone for the building of the Tower; so that he died in the princedom of Scythia, at the end of forty years, and passed on the chieftainship to his son, Nenual. At the end of forty two years after the building of the Tower, Ninus son of Belus took the kingship of the world…..Now that is the time when Gaedel Glas (from whom are the Gaels descended), was born…...Now Sru son of Esru son of Gaedel, he it is who was chieftain for the Gaels who went out of Egypt after Pharaoh was drowned with his host in the Red Sea of Israel: Seven hundred and seventy years from the Flood till then. Four hundred and forty years from that time in which Pharaoh was drowned, and after Sru son of Esru came out of Egypt, till the time when the sons of Mil came into Ireland.….Forty and Four ships’ companies strong went Sru out of Egypt. There were twenty-four wedded couples and three hirelings for every ship. Sru and his son Eber Scot, they were the chieftains of the expedition. It is then that Nenual son of Baath, son of Nenual, son of Feinius Farsaid, prince of Scythia, died; and Sru also died immediately after reaching Scythia….Eber Scot took by force the kingship of Scythia from the progeny of Nenual, till he fell at the hands of Noemius son of Nenual…..For that reason was the seed of Gael driven forth upon the sea, to wit Agnomain and Lamfhind his son, so that they were seven years on the sea, skirting the world on the north side. More than can be reckoned are the hardships which they suffered….they had three ships with a coupling between them, that none of them should move away from the rest. They had three chieftains after the death of Agnomain on the surface of the great Caspian Sea, Lamfhind and Allot and Caicher the druid….It is Caicher who spoke to them,….Caicher the druid said: Rise, said he, we shall not rest until we reach Ireland. What place is that ‘Ireland’ said Lamfhind son of Agnomain. Further than Scythia is it, said Caicher. It is not ourselves who shall reach it, but our children, at the end of three hundred years from today….Thereafter they settled in the Maeotic Marshes…..It is that Brath who came out of the Marshes along the Torrian Sea to Crete and to Sicily. They reached Spain thereafter. They took Spain by force…..Four ships’ companies strong came the Gael to Spain: in every ship fourteen wedded couples and seven unwed hirelings…..Brath had a good son named Breogan, by whom was built the Tower and the city - Braganza was the city’s name. From Breogan’s Tower it was that Ireland was seen; an evening of a day of winter Ith son of Breogan saw it.”

 

The Scythian origin of the Scots is also recorded in the text known as Chronica de Origine Antiquorum Pictorum (The Pictish Chronicle),  which is based on an earlier work, dating to the 7th century, entitled Etymologiae by Isidore of Seville, who wrote: “The race of the Picts has a name derived from the appearance of their bodies. These are played upon by a needle working with small pricks and by the squeezed-out sap of a native plant, so that they bear the resultant marks according to the personal rank of the individual, their painted limbs being tattooed to show their high birth. The Scots, now incorrectly referred to as Irishmen, are really Scotti, because they originated from the land of the Scythians…..It is a well known fact that the Britons arrived in Britain during the third Age of Man (the time between Abraham and David), while the Scotti, that is the Scots, migrated into Scotia or Ireland during the fourth Age of Man (the time between David and Daniel). The Scythian people are born with white hair due to the everlasting snow; and the colour of their hair gives name to the people, and thus they are called Albani: From this people both Scots and Picts descend. Their eyes are so brightly coloured that they are able to see better by night than by day. The Albani people were also neighbours with the Amazones. The Scythian territory was once so large that it reached from India in the east, through the marshland of Meotidas (the Sea of Azov), till the borders of Germania.”

 

The Picts were simply non-Romanised Britons, as the Romans didn’t conquer the entire island of Britain, they ended up building a coast to coast fortification (Hadrian’s Wall) to separate Romanised Britain from the non-Romanised Britons living in the northern third of the island of Britain. Because the Britons living north of Hadrian’s Wall were not under Roman control, they retained their own indigenous native Celtic culture and language, whereas the Britons living south of Hadrian’s wall were more influenced by Roman ways and manners. The names Briton and Britain themselves come from the Celtic words Prytani and Prydain, which the Britons used to refer to themselves and their island. These words are derived from the Celtic root word Pryd, meaning "to mark" or "draw" and refer to the native Briton practice of painting or tattooing their skin with designs using a dye or ink obtained from the woad plant which produces a blue color; a trait described by Herod of Antioch in the 3rd century A.D., who wrote: "The Britons incise on their bodies coloured pictures of animals, of which they are very proud." So the Britons (or Prytani, as they called themselves in their own language) were the "painted" or "tattooed people". This is something Julius Caesar himself remarked about in his journals when he invaded Britain in 54 B.C.: "The mainland of Britain is inhabited by a people who claim to be indigenous to the island, on the coast live the immigrant Belgae, who crossed over for war and pillage, but settled to cultivate the land…Those living inland do not sow grain but live on milk and meat and wear clothes of animal hides. All Britons paint their skin with woad which makes them blue and more terrifying to confront in battle."

 

The immigrant Belgae, mentioned by Caesar as having settled on the coast of Britain, were a group of Gallic tribes which included the Cimbri, who had formerly inhabited the Himmerland in the Jutland peninsula of Denmark, prior to the occupation of that region by the Germanic Danes The Greek historian Plutarch mentions the Cimbri in his Life of Gaius Marius, written in 75 AD:

 

"There are those who say that Gaul was once wide and large enough to reach from the furthest sea and the arctic regions to the Maeotic Sea eastward, where it bordered on Pontic Scythia, and from that point on the Gauls and Scythians were mingled together….so that the whole legion was generally known by the name of Gallo-Scythians. Others say that the Cimmerii, anciently known to the Greeks, were only a small part of the nation, who were driven out upon some quarrel among the Scythians, and passed all along from the Maeotic Sea to Asia, under the conduct of one Lygdamis; and that the greater and more warlike part of them still inhabit the remotest regions lying upon the outer ocean. These are said to live in a densely wooded country hardly penetrable by sunlight, the trees being so close and thick, extending into the interior as far as the Hercynian forest….and from this region the people, anciently called Cimmerii, and thereafter, by a slight change, Cimbri"

 

Somewhat earlier, in about 60 B.C., Diodorus Siculus wrote: "the valour of these people [the Britons] and their….ways have been famed abroad. Some men say that it was they who in ancient times overran all of Asia [Minor] and were called "Cimmerians" - time having corrupted the word into the name "Cimbrians" [Brythonic: "Cymru"] as they are now called." The Cimbri, or Cymric tribes as they were known in Britain, were descendants of the ancient Cimmerians who originally inhabited what is now the Crimea on the northern shores of the Black Sea bordering Scythia, until they were scattered after generations of intramural struggles for rulership with competing Scythian tribes; not unlike the events described in the Lebor Gabala Erenn.

 

While the Britons living in the southern two-thirds of Britain became more "civilized" under Roman military rule and adopted Roman ways and manners, the Britons living in the northern third of the island beyond Roman control retained their own native Celtic customs and practices, which included tattooing their skin with woad. Thus by the end of the third century AD, the Romans began to refer to the Britons living in the northern third of the island as the "Picti" or Picts (from the Latin word Pictus, meaning "painted"). The term Pict first appears in a in a verse praising the emperor Constantius Chlorus written by the Roman orator Eumenius in 297 AD; while in 416 A.D. the Roman poet Claudian wrote:"This legion, set to guard the furthest Britons, curbs the savage Scot and studies the designs marked with iron on the face of the dying Pict".

 

Thus it is not the country of Scotland that makes its native inhabitants Scots, but rather it is the Scots themselves who, by inhabiting the northern third of Britain, made the country that came to be called Scotland "Scottish."

 
Kathy McClurg
 
Avatar
 
 
Kathy McClurg
Total Posts:  1274
Joined  13-03-2009
 
 
 
18 October 2011 02:05
 

In response to post #5.  What does this have to do with the Lord Lyon and the Clans OR the granting of arms by the Lord Lyon to Clan Chiefs or membership? (that was rhetorical!)

Here’s a more appropriate place to discuss "pre" Lyon Court Scottish history:

 

http://skyelander.proboards.com/index.cgi

 

Or whatever google picks up.  Long diatribes on history unrelated to Arms don’t belong here. And Micheal’s point wasn’t addressed - last sentence.  Sometimes less is more.

 
Jeff Poole
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeff Poole
Total Posts:  138
Joined  07-03-2009
 
 
 
18 October 2011 02:48
 

Kathy McClurg;89037 wrote:

In response to post #5.  What does this have to do with the Lord Lyon and the Clans OR the granting of arms by the Lord Lyon to Clan Chiefs or membership? (that was rhetorical!)

Here’s a more appropriate place to discuss "pre" Lyon Court Scottish history:

 

http://skyelander.proboards.com/index.cgi

 

Or whatever google picks up.  Long diatribes on history unrelated to Arms don’t belong here. And Micheal’s point wasn’t addressed - last sentence.  Sometimes less is more.


Hear Hear Kathy

 
Ce Howard
 
Avatar
 
 
Ce Howard
Total Posts:  63
Joined  29-09-2011
 
 
 
18 October 2011 04:56
 

Michael F. McCartney;89030 wrote:

I’m glad this topic now has its own thread, rather than playing the cookoobird (sp?) in other at-best-marginally-related threads that then have to be closed off by the moderators when the discussion grows heated.  Can’t speak for them (I’ve often thought that the heraldic badge for a forum moderator would be a purple cow—as in the nursery rhyme, "I’d rather see, than be one" smile ) but I don’t mind a little sound & fury when its in a special (maybe padded) room & not interrupting other discussions on different topics.

This particular topic, or various aspects of it, have been pretty well beaten to death over the years—on rec.heraldry, the HSS forum (where it really belongs, if they care to host it—maybe by now they don’t!) & and now here.

 

I have my own views on the subject, largely but not 100% overlapping Joe’s; but in this present context—i.e. the AHS—IMO the main point is that "it ain’t us."

 

It can be interesting, especially but not only for those of us who have an abiding historical and heraldic interest in things Scottish—and we can substitute Irish or German or Polish or Italian or Japanese—fun to study and appreciate.  But whatever we may think about or most appreciate in any of these foreign cultures, they all share one common point—they are all foreign cultures. They may be where we are "from" but not whare we "are."  We can appreciate but not really "own" them as our own, simply because (other than our very welcome foreign members) we are not Scottish or Polish or German or whatever—that may be where we or our families came from, but not who or what or where we are now.

 

Thus there are no American "Scottish" clans—merely Americans with a sentimental interest in & attachment to one or the other of the Scottish clans recognized by law or custom or whatever in Scotland, a wonderful but foreign county.

 

We do have quintessentially American "clans" here with long histories—but they originated and in some cases still exist in the long houses or hogans or whatever of our Native American tribes, which bore at most only a superficial resemblance to "clans" in various parts of Europe.

 

And we have—or in most cases, "had" prior to urbanization—de facto American "clans" in Appalachia and other rural areas, but based on geography and family ties here, not in some lost semi-mythical ancestral homeland. While certain aspects of these American clan-like rural social structures may have resembled Scottish or Irish or whatever European clan structures to some degree, they were not Scottish clans.  Brigadoonery was not a facet of their society, howevermuch the occasional schoolmarm (e.g. my mother in the 1930’s) may have enjoyed reciting "Young Lochinvar has come out of the west…"  In simple terms, neither the Martins nor the McCoys wore tartan kilts while ambushing each other (and some of my Howard ancestors) in the Rowan County wars.  That sort of thing (the Brigadoonery, not the bushwhacking) is a fun, but essentially foreign, bit of dress-up here.

 

And now I’ve wandered way off-topic too—my apologies.  My point, if not entirely lost by now, is that while Scottish clans have a heraldic aspect, its Scottish heraldry, not American.


I could not agree more. Well said!

 
Andrew Stewart Jamieson
 
Avatar
 
 
Andrew Stewart Jamieson
Total Posts:  244
Joined  13-05-2011
 
 
 
18 October 2011 05:02
 

Kathy McClurg;89037 wrote:

In response to post #5.  What does this have to do with the Lord Lyon and the Clans OR the granting of arms by the Lord Lyon to Clan Chiefs or membership? (that was rhetorical!)

Here’s a more appropriate place to discuss "pre" Lyon Court Scottish history:

 

http://skyelander.proboards.com/index.cgi

 

Or whatever google picks up.  Long diatribes on history unrelated to Arms don’t belong here. And Micheal’s point wasn’t addressed - last sentence.  Sometimes less is more.


As a kilt wearer myself I have to agree with you Kathy.

 
Caledonian
 
Avatar
 
 
Caledonian
Total Posts:  153
Joined  13-09-2011
 
 
 
18 October 2011 07:46
 

Kathy McClurg;89037 wrote:

In response to post #5.  What does this have to do with the Lord Lyon and the Clans OR the granting of arms by the Lord Lyon to Clan Chiefs or membership? (that was rhetorical!)

Here’s a more appropriate place to discuss "pre" Lyon Court Scottish history:

 

http://skyelander.proboards.com/index.cgi

 

Or whatever google picks up.  Long diatribes on history unrelated to Arms don’t belong here. And Micheal’s point wasn’t addressed - last sentence.  Sometimes less is more.


Actually it was, my point being that the Scots are an ethnicity older than Scotland itself, and therefore independant of the geographic boundaries of the country that was named for them. The original post (which addressed Michael directly) was removed for some reason, and I didn’t feel like retyping the entire thing over again, so what you see is a less personalized response which carries the same basic message but without bringing up the fact that there is no single American ethnicity, that the Scots are an ethnic group irrespective of where they may reside, and that Scottishness doesn’t originate from the country named after the Scots, but in the DNA of the Scots themselves.

 
Caledonian
 
Avatar
 
 
Caledonian
Total Posts:  153
Joined  13-09-2011
 
 
 
18 October 2011 08:06
 

Since this is a thread for discussing Lord Lyon, I would like to bring up the question of the why the myth that Lord Lyon will prosecute anyone bearing arms in Scotland that are not recorded in Lyon Register continues to be perpetuated when there is absolutely no legal basis for this widespread, yet erroneous, misconception?

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
18 October 2011 08:24
 

Caledonian;89049 wrote:

Since this is a thread for discussing Lord Lyon, I would like to bring up the question of the why the myth that Lord Lyon will prosecute anyone bearing arms in Scotland that are not recorded in Lyon Register continues to be perpetuated when there is absolutely no legal basis for this widespread, yet erroneous, misconception?


a. Perpetuated by whom? The AHS page on grants and registrations says only "Armorial bearings are protected by law in Scotland and it is illegal to use arms there unless they have been granted by Lord Lyon or matriculated in Lyon Court." It doesn’t say anything about prosecutions.

 

b. The official website of the Procurator Fiscal to the Court of the Lord Lyon, http://www.procuratorfiscallyoncourt.org.uk/, says "The procurator fiscal is an independent prosecutor whose function is to bring criminal proceedings before the Lyon Court to enforce breaches of the Law of Arms."

 

c. The legal authority for prosecuting people who use arms that are not matriculated is contained in the 1592 and 1672 Lyon King of Arms Acts, both of which are still in force.

 

d.  Within the last 18 months, the Procurator Fiscal has successfully threatened prosecution against the Aberdeen National Front (for using the arms of the city of Aberdeen and the Province of Nova Scotia) and a number of rugby and soccer clubs (for using unmatriculated armorial devices at all).  If he didn’t actually have the authority to prosecute, the threat of prosecution wouldn’t have worked.

 

So what is it exactly that you think is mythical, other than that it is not the judge (Lyon) but the prosecutor (the Procurator Fiscal) who brings the prosecution?

 
Aquilo
 
Avatar
 
 
Aquilo
Total Posts:  278
Joined  02-10-2010
 
 
 
18 October 2011 08:29
 

Michael F. McCartney;89030 wrote:

I’m glad this topic now has its own thread, rather than playing the cookoobird (sp?) in other at-best-marginally-related threads that then have to be closed off by the moderators when the discussion grows heated.  Can’t speak for them (I’ve often thought that the heraldic badge for a forum moderator would be a purple cow—as in the nursery rhyme, "I’d rather see, than be one" smile


Quote:

This particular topic, or various aspects of it, have been pretty well beaten to death over the years—on rec.heraldry, the HSS forum (where it really belongs, if they care to host it—maybe by now they don’t!) & and now here.

Yes , Michael , it was and still is but this time in more effective way, addressing problem to wider audience .It resulted in creating some useful websites like

www.faketitles.com

www.scots-titles.com


Quote:

It can be interesting, especially but not only for those of us who have an abiding historical and heraldic interest in things Scottish—and we can substitute Irish or German or Polish or Italian or Japanese—fun to study and appreciate.

That’s true and this is from where my interest originated.


Quote:

Thus there are no American "Scottish" clans—merely Americans with a sentimental interest in & attachment to one or the other of the Scottish clans recognized by law or custom or whatever in Scotland, a wonderful but foreign county.

This is also true and I see it as a main reason why in some cases this sentimental interest in and attachment can cause many -not only Americans- fall victims of fake chiefs or clansmen, peddlers of titles and arms ,trading even Scottish land.So the problem should not be ignored .


Quote:

And now I’ve wandered way off-topic too—my apologies.  My point, if not entirely lost by now, is that while Scottish clans have a heraldic aspect, its Scottish heraldry, not American.

I believe that many Americans wish for some reasons incorporate elements of Scottish heraldry in they ‘American’ arms, so IMHO this aspect should be regarded as American .At least it makes sense to me ...

 
Caledonian
 
Avatar
 
 
Caledonian
Total Posts:  153
Joined  13-09-2011
 
 
 
18 October 2011 08:55
 

Joseph McMillan;89052 wrote:

a. Perpetuated by whom? The AHS page on grants and registrations says only "Armorial bearings are protected by law in Scotland and it is illegal to use arms there unless they have been granted by Lord Lyon or matriculated in Lyon Court." It doesn’t say anything about prosecutions.

b. The official website of the Procurator Fiscal to the Court of the Lord Lyon, http://www.procuratorfiscallyoncourt.org.uk/, says "The procurator fiscal is an independent prosecutor whose function is to bring criminal proceedings before the Lyon Court to enforce breaches of the Law of Arms."

 

c. The legal authority for prosecuting people who use arms that are not matriculated is contained in the 1592 and 1672 Lyon King of Arms Acts, both of which are still in force.

 

d.  Within the last 18 months, the Procurator Fiscal has successfully threatened prosecution against the Aberdeen National Front (for using the arms of the city of Aberdeen and the Province of Nova Scotia) and a number of rugby and soccer clubs (for using unmatriculated armorial devices at all).  If he didn’t actually have the authority to prosecute, the threat of prosecution wouldn’t have worked.

 

So what is it exactly that you think is mythical, other than that it is not the judge (Lyon) but the prosecutor (the Procurator Fiscal) who brings the prosecution?


I believe that there is confusion over the fact that while in Scotland it is illegal to use the registered arms of someone else as if they were your own, there is no illegality in using arms that are unique to one’s self which are not recorded in Lyon Register. Certainly there is no statement to this effect on the current Lyon Court website, and while the aforementioned 1592 & 1672 Acts may still be on the books; there are many cases of obsolete laws still being in place which are not enforced and are therefore moribund.

 

While in Scotland arms that are not recorded in Lyon Register may not enjoy Lyon Court’s protection from usurption by others, that does not mean that unique arms that are unregisted are illegal; it simply means that they have no protected status as far as Lyon Court is concerned.


Quote:

"Once Arms have been granted and recorded in the Public Register of All Arms and Bearings in Scotland they are protected under the Laws of Scotland. Any infringement of a person’s armorial rights in Scotland may be drawn to the attention of the Procurator Fiscal to the Court of the Lord Lyon who may mount any necessary prosecution of the offender." - THE COURT OF THE LORD LYON Information Leaflet No. 4 PETITIONS FOR ARMS


So, by the wording of the above statement issued by Lyon Court, it would seem that the only cases which the procurator fiscal would bring before Lord Lyon would be those involving the unlawful use of someone else’s coat of arms, as the Information leaflet makes no mention in regard to individuals simply bearing a coat of arms which has not been recorded in Lyon Register. Such arms would simply be without protection from usurption in Lyon Court, but would not necessarily be illegal nor would they automatically subject the bearer to prosecution.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
18 October 2011 09:30
 

Caledonian;89056 wrote:

I believe that there is confusion over the fact that while in Scotland it is illegal to use the arms of someone else as if they were your own, there is no illegality in using arms that are unique to one’s self which are not recorded in Lyon Register. Certainly there is no statement to this effect on the current Lyon Court website, and while the aforementioned 1592 & 1672 Acts may still be on the books; there are many cases of obsolete laws still being in place which are not enforced and are therefore moribund.

While in Scotland arms that are not recorded in Lyon Register may not enjoy Lyon Court’s protection from usurption by others, that does not mean that unique arms that are unregisted are illegal; it simply means that they have no protected status as far as Lyon Court is concerned.


This is arguably true in England (I myself would argue it). It is clearly not true in Scotland. The statute is on the books and the Procurator Fiscal clearly acts to enforce it. His moves against the rugby clubs, which provoked a recent furor in some parts of the Scottish press, are clear evidence that the law is taken seriously.

 

If it were simply a matter of protecting one person’s arms against usurpation by someone else, Lyon would have only civil, not criminal jurisdiction, and the court would not have a prosecutor.

 

The note on the Lyon Court website that the bearer of arms can bring infringements of his rights to the attention of the PF does not mean that the PF is unable to act without such a complaint.  An American can go to the local DA asking him to bring criminal charges against someone, but that doesn’t mean the DA is barred from bringing charges on his own authority without such a request.