j.carrasco;89389 wrote:
So random question about our dear friend Mr. Ilk that I didn’t want to ask while he was on the board for fear of what would transpire afterwards, but what exactly does "....of That Ilk" refer to? Is that supposed to reference his "clan"? I was always confused by that title.
Yup.
Most Scots gentry/nobleman (the distinction is much less clear-cut then it is in England) use a territorial designation in their names to indicate they are Lairds or Barons of that place. So if you owned a farm called Whitestone in Scotland the Lord Lyon (and most legal documents) would refer to you as Jesse Carrasco of Whitestone.
Obviously a clan-chief’s most important territorial designation is gonna be his title as chief, so instead of being Carrasco of Whitestone the chief would be Carrasco of Clan Carrasco. That’s too repetitive for the Lyon’s taste so he uses "Carrasco of that Ilk."
Nick
Nick B II;89392 wrote:
Yup.
Most Scots gentry/nobleman (the distinction is much less clear-cut then it is in England) use a territorial designation in their names to indicate they are Lairds or Barons of that place. So if you owned a farm called Whitestone in Scotland the Lord Lyon (and most legal documents) would refer to you as Jesse Carrasco of Whitestone.
Obviously a clan-chief’s most important territorial designation is gonna be his title as chief, so instead of being Carrasco of Whitestone the chief would be Carrasco of Clan Carrasco. That’s too repetitive for the Lyon’s taste so he uses "Carrasco of that Ilk."
Nick
That makes sense. Thanks Nick.
If they don’t like repetition then why do they talk about "the Chief himself himself"? That has always sounded strange to me.
"Ilk" means roughly "the same" or "of that sort" so e.g. "Burnside of that Ilk" (a hypothetical AFAIK) meant the same as "Burnside of Burnside"—someone who (or whose ancestors) owned the lands of Burnside and took that as their surname. Cadet branches of the same family who acquired or inherited different lands would be e.g. (still hypothetical) Burnside of Broadacres. In some cases where they inherited a piece of the original property, e,g, Burnside of Over Burnside or Burnside of Nether Burnside (Over = upper, "nether" = lower) or whatever.
In some cases, where the chiefship of the clan (name) was more important than the land (or where the name is a patronymic not derived from an estate) the chief would be called e.g. (not hypothetical) either Mackintosh of Mackintosh or Mackintosh of that Ilk—the chiefship being thought of as more or less equivalent to ownership of the clan.
In Latin, the equivalent for "of that ilk" was "de Eodum"—i.e. "of the same" - i.e. "of the same place." You may see that in older Scottish documents in Latin.
Of course all this, while of sentimental interest, is essentially foreign to us. The closest I’ve seen here (apart from a Scottish clan context) was Carroll of Carrollton, a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His surname was Carroll, and his plantation was named Carrollton. But this approach never really caught on here—e.g. GW never AFAIK signed his name as "George Washington of Mount Vernon."
Michael F. McCartney;89401 wrote:
Of course all this, while of sentimental interest, is essentially foreign to us. The closest I’ve seen here (apart from a Scottish clan context) was Carroll of Carrollton, a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His surname was Carroll, and his plantation was named Carrollton. But this approach never really caught on here—e.g. GW never AFAIK signed his name as "George Washington of Mount Vernon."
Not necessarily in signatures, but many legal records in Maryland and Virginia used such territorial designations to distinguish among various people of the same name, particularly necessary in families that customarily repeated the same given names generation after generation. For example, Charles Carroll of Carrollton’s near contemporaries included his son Charles Carroll of Homewood, his father Charles Carroll of Annapolis, and his cousin Charles Carroll of Duddington—not to mention his somewhat more distant kinsmen Dr. Charles Carroll and Charles Carroll, Barrister (also known as Charles Carroll of Mount Clare). Then there were Daniel Carroll of Duddington, Daniel Carroll of Rock Creek, and Daniel Carroll of Upper Marlborough. (Predictably enough, Charles Carroll of Carrollton’s grandfather was also named Charles Carroll, and his father was Daniel Carroll of Litterluna and Aghagurty, of King’s County, Ireland.)
Other examples include Lees of Stratford, Lee Hall, Leesylvania, Blenheim, and Sully; Randolphs of Turkey Island, Wilton, and Roanoke; Carters of Corotoman and Shirley; Harrisons of Brandon and Berkeley; and so on.
Even where there was no confusion, a man might use his estate name. The man who was responsible for one of the Maryland private name and arms bills was routinely referred to in various documents as Henry Rozer of Notley Hall, even though the only other Henry Rozer I’ve found was his son.
Hmm, McClurg of the Virgina Beach ‘Burbs. I don’t own em, but there aren’t any other McClurgs here (last check). So my Brother can be McClurg of the Madison ‘Burbs. Na, that wouldn’t work - his son lives there.
If my estate is about 1/4 acre, I guess I can just stick to my name. 
Some people claim a territorial designation with an “estate” of only 1 square foot. A quarter acre is enough for a whole clan
Michael F. McCartney;89401 wrote:
In Latin, the equivalent for "of that ilk" was "de Eodum"—i.e. "of the same" - i.e. "of the same place." You may see that in older Scottish documents in Latin.
The earliest use of the term lord "of that Ilk" in the translations of the Records of the Parliament of Scotland is of a charter in 1354, when the latin original shows two of the witnesses as: "Bernardo de Hauden’ domino eiusdem, Willelmo de Rotherford domino eiusdem".
The first use of the term in English/Scots is in 1471 refering to "James of Ruth[ir]furde of that Ilk", though the word "ilk" meaning "each" or "same" had been around from the 14th century.
Derek Howard
Ton/All,
What was I was getting at that is one should not adopt items such as coronets, supporters, etc, without substance just because they look like nice, that does seem somewhat pretentious. In reality, my post was really aimed at the soi-disant chief who has recently been in our midst.
On the other hand, if an American citizen is made an honorary Knight Grand Cross (Knights Commander do not have the right to supporters) of a British Order of Knighthood he can therefore along with other substantive Knights Grand Cross petition for a grant of arms which will include if he so desires a grant of supporters for life. Once in receipt of same, I cannot see any reason why he may not use his full heraldic achievement in the United States. This should not cause offence. It is an honest award without any ambiguity as to its status as no title is involved. Again, we should not worry about individuals not being versed in such things who may think it pretentious and self seeking. Their lack of knowledge can only laid at their own door and at no one else’s. In essence, being described as an honorary Knight Grand Cross/Knight Commander is no different from being described as an honorary Doctor of Laws or Letters or some such subject from the University of Oxford or Cambridge if one has been fortunate to have one conferred upon you by the universities in question.
Likewise, if an American citizen who is or succeeds to a Chiefship of a Scottish Name or Clan why should he/she not use his/her full heraldic achievement in the United States? Again, this should not cause the least offence. It is plainly declaring that this individual is the chief of such and such Name or Clan. If this is a fact duly recognized by Lord Lyon, how can it be seen as one ‘lording’ it over others? Most chiefs like peers, baronets and knights would be appalled by the very thought.
With regard to territorial designations, at the time of petitioning for a grant or matriculation of arms, one needs to be in possession of the lands in question in order to be recognized in the territorial designation. The other qualification that pertains is that the lands from which such a designation depends must be a named place on the map of Scotland and without of a burgh (ie: not town lands). A quarter acre would not suffice for recognition of territorial designation, although it need not be hundreds of acres in extent. Each Lord Lyon generally dictates his own policy in this regard.
John
liongam;89410 wrote:
...With regard to territorial designations, at the time of petitioning for a grant or matriculation of arms, one needs to be in possession of the lands in question in order to be recognized in the territorial designation. The other qualification that pertains is that the lands from which such a designation depends must be a named place on the map of Scotland and without of a burgh (ie: not town lands). A quarter acre would not suffice for recognition of territorial designation, although it need not be hundreds of acres in extent. Each Lord Lyon generally dictates his own policy in this regard.
John
(emphasis mine)
sorry to butcher up your post John.
i was unaware of this part (emphasis). why wouldn’t they have a set amount as a threshold? wouldn’t that be easier? it seems to me if this is fluid and depends on the LL of the time one day you could have one with 1 foot of land having such a designation and then another day someone with, say, 30 acres, might not qualify. seems odd to me there’s no set threshold.
In my opinion, the whole TD thing only makes sense if the name of the land involved is reasonably well known, either because the name itself has legal standing (in colonial Maryland, a plot of land was often given an official name when it was first granted by the Lord Proprietor) or because it’s been called by a particular name long enough for people to get it when a person is referred to as "one of the Four Sixes Burnetts" (I throw that in for you Texas folks out there).
It may be legal in Scotland to buy 40 acres in the countryside, name it "Jim" and start calling yourself "James MacDoe of Jim," but it would still be silly.
I remember reading a FAQ about this on the Lord Lyon’s website. You are correct that the name has to be generally accepted and have a history of use. I forget the details, but essentially you couldn’t immediately buy the 30 acres, call it the Poncy Glen Estate and immediately seek a territorial designation. As I recall if a particular piece of land didn’t already have a known and accepted name then you would need to wait at least a decade after giving it a new name before you could apply for a TD.
As for the 1/4 Acre plot, I do remember seeing a post of someones arms grant with TD for a simple 1/4 acre plot. They were however also a fairly high level Knight in the Order of St. John so perhaps this helped sway LL.
Joseph McMillan;89420 wrote:
In my opinion, the whole TD thing only makes sense if the name of the land involved is reasonably well known, either because the name itself has legal standing (in colonial Maryland, a plot of land was often given an official name when it was first granted by the Lord Proprietor) or because it’s been called by a particular name long enough for people to get it when a person is referred to as "one of the Four Sixes Burnetts" (I throw that in for you Texas folks out there).
It may be legal in Scotland to buy 40 acres in the countryside, name it "Jim" and start calling yourself "James MacDoe of Jim," but it would still be silly.
Joe—to me at least, there is a difference between referring to John Doe of Wherever—using the placename essentially as a form of residence address VS. actually signing one’s own name as "John Doe of Wherever" as Carroll ,0f Carrollton did on the DoI. The former is common enough nowadays, though usually with a comma following the surname; the latter AFAIK didn’t catch on, or if so didn’t last.
Am I off base here?
Denny,
Each of the recognition of a territorial designation by Lord Lyon is undoubtedly taken on its merits. As I mentioned, the place cited for the TD must ordinarily be an historic geographical/topographical name found of the map of Scotland. I believe the present Lord Lyon has decreed that it is not adequate just to purchase a few acres of land which for all intents and purposes has no name and then give it a new name, say ‘Glensnooks’ and expect him thereafter to recognize it as a TD. Such a new name appended to such an acreage would in all probability need to be used for several years before the designated land acquired its new ‘identity’ which allow Lord Lyon to consider recognizing it for use as a TD.
The reference given by Chris regarding the recognition by Lord Lyon of a TD involved a 1/4 acre plot may very well refer to a caput of a barony, this being the the last remnant of baronal lands which was indeed required in years past for the ownership and recognition of a feudal barony and the continued use of its associated TD before the recent alienation of the baronial lands from its associated title.
John
Michael F. McCartney;89441 wrote:
Joe—to me at least, there is a difference between referring to John Doe of Wherever—using the placename essentially as a form of residence address VS. actually signing one’s own name as "John Doe of Wherever" as Carroll ,0f Carrollton did on the DoI. The former is common enough nowadays, though usually with a comma following the surname; the latter AFAIK didn’t catch on, or if so didn’t last.
Am I off base here?
I think what the people I’m talking about were doing in the 17th-19th centuries was the same as what Carroll of Carrollton did, but you’re quite right that it didn’t last here. Except in the southeastern part of Jasper County, Alabama, of course.