Talk:Armigerous clan

Comments

Wanted to raise the question of whether we should list "incumbent", as armigerous clans have no chief and can therefore not have an incumbent. Thoughts? (Nfras 00:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC))

Is there such a title as Much Honourable in reference to Campbell of Craignish? AFAIK there is Honourable, Right Honourable and Most Honourable. (Nfras 05:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree the 'Incumbent' section should be removed. But yes, the title 'Much Honoured' not 'Much Honourable' IS the formal Scottish honorific for a feudal Baron.Abc1818 20:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems pretty stupid in the extreme that a page listing Armigerous Clans, defined by the fact that they have no Chief or 'incumbent', should have a list with an 'Incumbent' column! Does anyone know how to remove it?Clanmcghee 17:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that many of the names on the Armigerous clans list are actually septs of other clans. some of these have never been classed as a clan or had a chief. For exaple MacCulloch. I think these types should be removed from the list as they are septs. MacCulloch is listed in the septs for both Clan Ross and Clan Munro. On the other hand a true Armigeous clan is a clan which once owned territory and did once have a chief. For example the Clan Douglas.

mjgm84 16:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before – they are all, in fact, families rather than clans. The reason that Armigerous clan was introduced as a separate article was that these names are not recognised by the Lord Lyon King of Arms as those of clans, and it was felt that it would be more accurate to differentiate the family names on the original list from those of true Scottish clans. Septs as such do not exist any more. – Agendum 17:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well thats a shame because it means that clans like Clan Douglas with their great clan history get put on the same list as a family name which has never been classed as a clan.mjgm84 13:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

French translation

Hi everybody ! I'm currently working on the french Projet Écosse (Scotland Project), and I wondered how you would translate «Armigerous clan» to french ? Thanks ! (or mòran taing if you prefer ;-) ) 84.101.77.52 (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC) (aka Stockholm on Wikipedia.fr)

No idea. I'd have thought the rootword Armiger is derived from Latin or French, but i don't know for sure. It is such an uncommon word it might be hard to find in an English-French dictionary.--Celtus (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand better the meaning of armigerous applied to clans now. So it's a clan that has no chief (definition), but that has a coat of arms nonetheless... if we take the example of Clan MacInnes : «Since there is no Clan Chief, the arms are lodged with Lord Lyon King of Arms.» I don't know if there's a french word for families with a coat of arms but, say, commoners (since the case in which there would be no family chief couldn't exist in pre-Revolutionary France). Though it's quite possible armiger came with the Norman kings. I think I'll ask the advice of wikipedia-heraldists for that. Thanks a lot ! 84.101.77.52 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC) (still Stockholm)

Yeah, just so we are clear: these clans aren't the ones with the coat of arms in question - its that these clans once had recognised chiefs who possessed undifferenced arms, but for whatever reason there isn't a suitable claiment for these arms today. I kind of wonder how we are ever going to verify a list like this, because people just add Scottish names to the list with mottoes though without any references. How do we know all the names in the article are actual registered clans who once had a recognised chief? The only list i've seen for 'armigerous clans' is the one on ElecticScotland here. Maybe unless there is reference that says otherwise we should remove any 'clans' which don't show up on that list. I dunno. Good luck on the French article.--Celtus (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, that's what I had globally understood - it's a clan that once had a chief, who himself had a coat of arms, but there's no one to claim these now. I don't know how the French article will do - but thanks anyway for your help ! 84.101.77.52 (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC) (aka Stockholm)

I wonder if this list should even include mottos. People are going to assume they are clan mottos, when they actually belong to the chiefs. Since these clans don't currently have recognised chiefs, there's not really any reason to include them in the first place.--Celtus (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited the list so now it is somewhat verifiable. A couple of the names that were removed had articles written about them, these are: Campbell of Craignish, Clan Hall, Clan Neish, Clan Spalding, Clan Straiton, Clan Udny, Porteous family.--Celtus (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Spalding and Straiton back in, noticed the clans are listed on the SCoSC site. The others are not, though.--Celtus (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think mottoes should be listed. Just because they don't now have a Chief doesn't make their historical mottoes not interesting or notable. This is useful information for WP. Isoxyl (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats true they are interesting. But the mottos (supposedly) belonged to someone, that should be made clear somehow.--Celtus (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

True, I think listing the last Chief would be a good thing too. Good idea! Isoxyl (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of the Name of Newlands on this page -- I entered the fact that Jasper Newlands of that Ilk was recognised as chief in 1469 and gave "Penpont Court Documents, Buccleuch Library" as the reference. This accurate reference has been edited out and replaced with a vaguer date and cites Clanfinder.com. Another ref might be: "The Peerage of Scotland" (see Lord Carlyle). Would that be more acceptable? Clanfinder shows the Newlands tartan but failed to find the crest (a gamecock hooded as a falcon spurred or)as listed in Way and Squire (Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopaedia)or the motto, Honour the Spur (LR 67/92). Hundreds of Newlands family members around the Anglosphere wear the crest badge and tartan. The pipe tune "The Road to Lauriston Castle" (The Clan Newlands March), by Pipe Major Garth Newlands, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada is dedicated to the Name. William Newlands of Lauriston, Lauriston Castle, Kincardineshire, is holder of the undifferenced arms, granted by Lord Lyon Innes of Edingight in 1987. Thistlejacket (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The ClanFinder page is only used because the Standing Council of Scottish Chief's page for Newlands is incomplete and doesn't have anything actually written for the clan name. The clanfinder site seems to be have been updated more recently than the council's site. Though for the most part these sites have identical information. This "Penpont Court Documents, Buccleuch Library" is about as vague a reference as they come - how can anyone verify a reference like that? You can't expect a reader to hunt down "documents" in some obscure and unknown library. Making things as verifiable as possible to limits the misinformation that tends to creep in wikipedia articles. If the Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopaedia lists the heraldic motto then that should be used as a reference, with a page number if you can. How is it that William Newlands of Lauriston has been granted undifferenced arms by the Lord Lyon, yet he is not chief of the name, or chief of the clan? Do you mean that he matriculated arms and was appointed Clan Commander by the Lord Lyon? That would be different.--Celtus (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the Duke of Buccleuch's Library at Drumlanrig being an untraceable source, although well indexed, but "The Scots Peerage" (1904-1914) (correction to book title here) uses the same documents in describing the dispute over water rights in Nithsdale between Jasper Newlandis of that Ilk and Lord Carlyle in 1469 and should be an acceptable reference. "The Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopaedia" describes the heraldic crest and motto at p.441 in the 1994 edition. William Newlands of Lauriston was granted arms by Lyon in 1987. These arms (per saltire gules and or, in chief a cross patty fitchy at foot argent, and in each flank a cross patty fitchy at foot of the first) are the only arms ever recorded by Lyon for the Name of Newlands and are, technically, undifferenced. How is it, you ask, that he can be in this position without being a chief? The answer lies in the last four paragraphs of the Lyon Court document "The Search for Clan Chiefs" (at lyon-court.com) where it says that "The first stage would be for there to be a number of individuals using the same surname to record their own Arms ... derbh fine ... a Commander will be appointed ... a 10 year period must then elapse ..." This is a shorthand way of saying: "If you have members of your scattered worldwide family who are willing to invest many thousands of pounds in research and fees as part of a long-drawn out procedure to find a chief, we might be able to help." The Newlands family, although proud, has not found the money thus far, so they have to put up with a chieftain (wonderfully undefinable title) the only person who has been granted, and later matriculated as baron, Arms of the Name and whose crest-badge they are happy to wear.Thistlejacket (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Thistlejacket, those refs are a lot better. I still don't understand about Newlands of Lauriston's arms and him being a 'chieftain'. Do you have a reference that actually says Newlands of Lauriston was granted "undifferenced arms"? Because, being the only person of a certain surname and granted arms does not make these arms "technically undifferenced". An example i can think of would be that there are no chiefly arms recorded for Macfie and Gunn, yet there have been several grants of arms to people of these names in the last two centuries. None of them are considered chieftains, either. Also, this book on GoogleBooks [1] from 1830, has two Scottish coats of arms listed for the name Newlands. I noticed, Newlands of Lauriston is listed as a feudal baron [2]. Feudal barons whose baronies existed before 1587, are considered chieftains of their baronies by the Lord Lyon (and entitled to supporters like a clan chief). But Clan Newlands would be something entirely different, wouldn't it? Yeah, i've read the Lord Court website. There are more than a couple clans that the Lord Lyon has appointed Clan Commanders to 'rally' a clan , like Macfie and Gunn. I don't think the Lyon Court website mentions 'clan chieftains' at all. Do you have reference says Newlands of Lauriston has actually been appointed "Clan Chieftain" of Clan Newlands by the Lord Lyon? Here's another example: MacAulay had a Clan Commander appointed by the Lord Lyon, and after this man's death his son was elected "clan chief" by a clan association, but this does not mean he is a Clan Chief, Clan Chieftain, or even a Clan Commander in the eyes of Lyon Court - he isn't any of those. Do you mean that Newlands of Lauriston considers himself a 'clan chieftain', or that a clan association considers him a 'clan chieftain'?--Celtus (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Celtus has started a number of hares running here. Let us pursue a couple of them.

On the subject of the arms granted to Newlands of Lauriston, which he later matriculated as baron (see Burke’s Peerage, under Lauriston) it seems that the Lord Lyon, in granting arms to someone of an armigerous clan, the arms of which have been lost (i.e. no one knows what they looked like), makes the assumption that the arms he is granting are the same as those which have been lost. Other grants made later to other members of the clan or name make reference to these arms. The arms granted to McPhees and Gunns all show a family resemblance. The arms granted to William Newlands of Lauriston in 1987 show no resemblance and bear no reference to anything except themselves, but it was accepted by Lord Lyon Innes of Edingight that there had been an earlier armigerous Chief of the Name. These are, therefore, the Arms of the Name, past and present.

Lyon did not say: “Let us postulate that the Arms of Jasper Newlandis of that Ilk were “per saltire, gules and or”. I shall put a note to that effect in Lyon Register. Following upon that ruling, I shall therefore grant William Newlands of Lauriston his arms: “per saltire gules and or, in chief a cross patty fitchy at foot argent and in each flank the same cross of the first”, the crosses being added just to show that he does not hold the original arms.”

It might have been tidier if he had done that, but it doesn’t seem to be the way it works.

Celtus raises the question of Scottish arms of Newlands, as described by Robson in 1830, but these are not in Lyon Register, so therefore outside the scope of the discussion. Were they self-assumed? – we do not know. They bear no similarity to one another in design, which weakens the notion that they were “family arms”.

I described “chieftain” as a “wonderfully undefinable title” in my earlier post. I take as my reference Way and Squire (again) at p.28 of the first edition. “… a judgment of the Appeal Court of the Court of Session in a case concerning Maclean of Adgour, heard initially in 1938 and again in 1941. The Court categorically stated that the title of chieftain, when not synonymous with that of chief, was not determinable before the courts.” And nobody seems to have an accurate and universal definition of a Scottish chieftain.

It is, however, agreed that a Scottish baron is a two-feather man and “chieftain of the country”. Newlands family members who wear the baron’s crest-badge are recorded as his tenants on a plot of land on the barony at Lauriston Castle, part of the estate owned by William Newlands of Lauriston, and therefore become “of the country”. This where their allegiance lies.Thistlejacket (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Because someone is the first person to even apply for a grant of arms, doesn't mean that this person possesses a "technically undifferenced" coat of arms. You even started out by stating it was a fact that Newlands of Lauriston holds the undifferenced arms of the name Newlands. Its like your explanations or interpretations are getting more and more vague. Same with how Clan Newlands has to "put up with a chieftain", and making it seem that no one can really define what a chieftain really is. Clans associations don't have to "put up" with anything - they certainly don't need or automatically have clan chieftains before having a Clan Commander appointed by the Lord Lyon. There are procedures to follow, in order to put forward a petition for someone to be recognised Clan Commander, but this has nothing to do with 'chieftains'.

A leaflet on crest badges from Lyon Court actually gives a brief description of a chieftain "Chieftains: Heads of large branches of a Clan and Officially Recognised as such by the Lord Lyon King of Arms". Crest badges suitable for clan members are derived from arms that have been recorded at Lyon Court. So if there has been only one grant or arms for the name Newlands, this one coat of arms will be the source of the crest used for a clan members crest badge (until the chiefly arms are actually granted to someone). For example Clan Macfie uses the crest of the first person to be granted arms. Clan MacInnes uses a crest of an armiger, not a chieftain or anything. Hopefully i'm not coming across as insulting. I think this may be something near to your heart. I'm just trying to understand, and learn more about this subject.--Celtus (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

To pick up, after some delay, on Celtus’ last point: “I’m just trying to understand, and learn more about this subject.” I think it helps if he understands that the study of the clans, chiefs, their heraldry, history and status, is not a science but more like a faith. The rules change with time and with the opinions of the ayatollahs. Currently changing very rapidly, for example, is the status of the feudal barons, who were raised up in the last century and are now being cut down to size by the Scottish Parliament and the heraldic authorities. All their heraldic additaments have already gone. Also under threat is the idea that a Scottish grant of arms is a patent of nobility.

As a family member of a Name which has been careless enough to lose its chief and his lands (two unwise marriages, one land dispute, supporting the wrong side in two dynastic-religious wars, and pouf! everything has gone) it is galling to discover how difficult it is to re-establish credibility in Scotland. We might want to rally round a prospective leader, but how is he/she to emerge? There is no process. There may be a process once the rallying has occurred, one by which the clan association nominates a number of armigerous or landowning members of the Name who form a selection committee and suggest a chief to the Lord Lyon, but there is no way for a scattered family, whose most prosperous members are citizens of the United States, Canada, Australia and Portugal, to do the rallying.

According to today’s version of the rulebook, the selection committee must consist of armigers and Scottish landowners (owners of property outside the burghs). A family with just 6,500 of the Name, although ancient and honourable, does not find this easy. As Celtus suggests, this is something near to my heart. If you are a Mac, it is easy to respond to the increasing tendency for aggressive Scots to question their neighbours’ origins. If you are a Spalding or a Straton, not so easy at all. If members of these families try to rear their heads in a Wikipedia discussion they are soon asked: “Who do you think you are?” -- even though their arms (as is the case with the Stratons) might be among the dozen most ancient in Scotland.

I am glad that Celtus finds it easy to define the word “chieftain”. But the Lyon Court definition which he quotes is contradicted by Lyon's acceptance of barons as chieftains. They wear two eagle feathers in their bonnets at many ceremonial events, and that is definitely the prerogative of a chieftain.

To round up this discussion, I should be grateful if Celtus would be gracious enough to allow me to restore at least some of the original text I entered for the Name of Newlands in the Armigerous Clan entry. I would propose “Jasper Newlandis of that Ilk, 1469, Nithsdale (see The Scots Peerage, under Carlyle)” and “HONOUR THE SPUR (Scottish Clan and Family Encyclopaedia, Way & Squire, 1994, p.441)”.Thistlejacket (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I will say one thing on this subject: The Clans are older than Lord Lyon. Through careful writing in the 20th century, it was made to be "law" that Lyon had some authority (through the power to determine who has the "undifferenced arms") to determine Chiefships. Undoubtedly, historically each Clan was different in how they approached succession, and no other Clan (and certainly not some aristocrat in Edinburgh) would have been able to have a say about who was Chief besides the members of that Clan. Still, now with the "ad-hoc derbhfine" process, we are to suppose that this is the only way to "revive" a Clan that has much history. Frankly, I don't buy it. There has been skepticism in recent years about Lyon's authority in this, and it is certainly worth considering. Do we really think every Clan had the same way of choosing a Chief? Is there really only one way to revive a Clan? My guess is that if you don't apply for the undifferenced arms, you can act outwith Lyon, perfectly reasonably. And if you're recognized by your Clan, do you have to be recognized by Lyon or the Standing Council to be every bit as much a Chief? Anyway, I'm not suggesting we need to rewrite this article, only that it subscribes very strongly to the pro-Lyon-as-Adjudicator-of-Chiefs ideas. Once, I took them as gospel. Now, I wonder. Isoxyl (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If there wasn't a set of procedures, with a court and judge, i wonder if the whole concept of modern clan chiefship would turn to chaos. Endless claims, assumptions, and bickering. It is almost illustrated in the posts above. You'd have one self-styled 'chieftain' with his clan society on one side, another clan association with their 'chieftain' on the other - all claiming the chiefship, chiefly arms, and to represent the same 'clan'. If there wasn't an competent authority to regulate what exactly is a 'clan', and what is a 'clan chief', it wouldn't be long until something like the McCarthy Mor scandal, or something similar, would destroy all credibility to the whole thing.--Celtus (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Or, heaven forbid, another Akins of that Ilk. --Heraldic (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is a better alternative to complete chaos and "pretender chiefs." I only wonder if there is a way that Lyon might approach this that isn't so rigid, time-consuming, and requiring of so many people to pay for Arms. Either way, my opinion is not important. I think we have to be cautious in approaching any chief that is not recognized by Lyon or the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs.Isoxyl (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The whole Clan Chief thing is part and parcel of Scotland and its culture & history. If an individual thinks that they are the chief of a Scottish clan then they need to play by the rules as defined by the Scots. --Heraldic (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help -- much appreciated. Thistlejacket (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Much of this has now been clarified by the recent Convention of Clan Chiefs in Edinburgh, and we look forward to seeing some useful rulings on the status of the armigerous clans.Thistlejacket (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide links? I'd love to read up on any conclusions or reports of this meeting! Isoxyl (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Clan Adair

User:67.46.0.13 added Clan Adair to the list. This name doesn't appear on ElectricScotland's list of armigerous families registered with Lyon Court [3]. Though the name turns up on the clanfinder page @ the Standing Council website [4].--Celtus (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would NOT rely on electricscotland.com as any kind of authority on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.49.108 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Families not covered here

Some years ago, when this article was entitled Armigerous families, I added the Porteous family, as I was very clear that it is not a Scottish clan but a historic family − and it remained here for a while. However, it was removed some time ago and I am not sure why that was − perhaps I missed an explanation at the time.

I would be interested to know, as Porteous researchers are certain about the family's antiquity (as far back as 1439 anyway), and wonder what the criteria for inclusion are? I have no axe to grind here − if the Lord Lyon's list is regarded as the final word, then so be it. Thanks − Agendum (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims

The article on Armigerous Clans is not cited with reliable sources and makes unsubstantiated claims. It states

Block quote

"An armigerous Clan refers to a Scotish Clan, family or name which is registered with the court of the Lord Lyon and once had a chief who bore undifferenced arms but does not have a Chief currently recognised by Lyon Court". This inaccuate, subjective, uncited and unsourced. The term Armigerous Clan was first penned in the Clan and Family Encyclopedia by Way and Plean. It was not defined in this work and within the section on Armigerous clans it included many so called Armigerous Clans and Families which had never had a Chief. The legal status under scots law between clans who once had Chiefs and no longer do and armigerous families whom have never had a chief is exactly the same. To distinguish between them as in the above article is bias and subjective. The term armigerous clan or family simply refers to a family of which a member had been granted armorial bearings at some point in history by the Lord Lyon. The fact that Clan and Family mean the same thing has been judicially determined in MacLean V MacLean of Ardgour case 1938 Scots Law Times 49, In addition, people including Clan Chiefs, and not Clans or families are governed by the Lyon Court. No Clans are "registered with the Court of the Lord Lyon" In addition, the statement that all Chiefs had armorial bearings before 1745 is also uncited and inaccurate. Great Clans such as the Clan Robertson, Clan MacLaren, MacThomases etc never had a Chiefly grant of arms in history until the last 30 or so years ago. It doesnt matter if they were in use but not matriculated with Lyon prior to 1745 as they were required to matriculate them under the Lord Lyon Act of 1672, since 1672. As Sir Thomas Innes of Learney States when discussing the recognition of Clan Chiefs and the importance of them obtaining a grants of arms, Clans, Septs and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands, 1951 ed. P153

Block quote

"Confirmation by, or on behalf of, the Ard Righ, the King, as the Fountain of Honour is indispenable to affirm the position of the community as an "honourable clan" in place of a gang of mere ignobles or "lawless limmaris".

A recognised clan is a Chiefly Stem with armigerous branches. An armigerous clan consists of one or more armigerous branches with no Chiefly stem. Its as simple as that.--An goather (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand Lord Lyon there is no such thing as an 'armigerous clan'. From the Lyon web page -

'There is a widespread misconception that a family or a clan can have a family or clan Coat of Arms. Many heraldic and clan web sites and other media suggest that a person has the right to use the family or clan Arms. This is completely incorrect...What is permitted is for a member of a clan to use the clan crest . Usually what is referred to as the clan Coat of Arms is in fact the personal Arms of the chief of the clan which can only be used by the chief.' http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/216.181.html

He has also said "there is no such thing as a clan coat of arms" Lord Lyon information leaflet 10 http://www.scotarmigers.net/pdfs/info-leaflet-10.pdf accessed 23 January 2014.

So if Lord Lyon quite clearly states that Clans do not have 'coats of arms' by definition clans can not be armigerous. This, even more so, is true for the Clan Gunn as they have never had a chief recognised by Lord Lyon... (AlastairJG (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC))

I've gone back to lord Lyon again and checked all sorts of stuff. There is no basis in Lord Lyon for the concept of an 'armigerous clan'. Can anyone find Lord Lyon statements in support of the idea? This article should be removed.(AlastairJG (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC))

References

Request for separation

Dear: Nfras, Celtus and Thistlejacket:
It seems to me that: the subject (of this article) as a whole, as well as each issue in itself, is very well worth being discussed propperly. But it sems to me that these issues are pretty mixed, especially under the heading of French translation.
And I guess: these issues will have to be decided on each seperately, based on the relevant pros and cons.
I therefore suggest, that someone who understands more of this whole subject than me, takes the time to seperate the issues, contributions and arguments properly.

I also suggest that, in the future, the contributors think about whether a specific contribution concernes the title of the chapter or deserves a seperate chapter.

I also suggest, that each chapter be named, so that the issue can be recognised by the title of the chapter.
Steue (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Why do they have no chief?

In studying all contributions in the talk, I found some explanations, but I suggest, that this question be answered in the article.
Steue (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Clan Houston is a sept of the Clan MacDonald

Clan Houston is a sept of the Clan MacDonald. 170.249.153.5 (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition

My understanding from Wikipedia was that there are 3 requirements to be defined "armigerous":

• Registration with the Court of the Lord Lyon
• Having a chief with undifferenced/plain coat arms
• Not having a chief currently recognized by the Court of the Lord Lyon

These requirements have been bugging me for some time, especially the third. I decided to contact the office of Lord Lyon and here's what I learned:

1. "An armiger, or to be armigerous in the eyes of the Office of Lord Lyon is to be represented by arms registered with a heraldic authority who are under the auspices of a monarch or government."

2. "to be armigerous is simply to be registered in the Public Records of all Arms and Bearings in Scotland, to to be the senior male line that represents those arms."

3. "A woman can Petition for Arms in her own right. To matriculate it is usually the heir male line. However women can inherit, for example, their father’s Arms if they are the senior line and have no male siblings, even if younger. They must still have the same surname as their father. A woman can use the Arms of their husband as a courtesy."

Based on the third requirement in this article, I was under the impression that to be "armigerous" meant a clan has no recognized chief. This is very misleading.

I guess the definition in this article is somewhat confusing to me. I suggest revising as necessary to make sure it's clear and accurate. I leave this task to the experts on the subject.

ICE77 (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)