Talk:Armigerous clan

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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 . Though the name turns up on the clanfinder page @ the Standing Council website .--Celtus (talk) 10:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clan Adair 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Families not covered here 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated claims 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for separation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why do they have no chief? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definition