Confusing

[Alex]

I have recently taken an interest in your website and as yet have been reluctant to involve myself in your forum and debates. There are two sides to every story and from the vantage point of an outsider one can gauge all aspects. I see a clan divided by mistrust and different slants on history, that should really be healing it's wounds; not widening them, moving forward to reassert itself as a valuable asset to promote Scotsness.
Does it really matter who's at the helm? People are ready to condemn Edward 'Dugald' Mactavish for the inconsistancies he had; but what about the positive things he did? He established the Society, the DHA and worked to put the name MacTavish where it belongs. I'll admit he may have been unorthadox in his avenues but did he have clan interests at heart? I know you'll shoot me down and cite all his shortcomings- but answer this; were he alive today, would things be as bad as now?
I myself am named Mctavish; Alexander McTavish and am descended from Simon McTavish. If what you say is true, I could conceivably call myself 'Dunardry' and oust the present representative. To what end?
I am a lowly teacher in a place in scotland no ones heard of,trying to do the best for those I care for. I have no vast fortune; Simon's was squandered, I cannot trail around the world attending Highland games and building expensive websites.
True I want to see Right done but mostly I want unity of family.Come on, close the divide.
What is the term Armiger anyway?I've read the Canadian's citing their opinion and youre couter claims, could we establish the true explanation?

[migovie]

welcome fellow mctavish. Its awesome to find yet another garthbeg mactavish alive and kicking.
Just a quick note re this "armiger" question.

The defintion is clear and concise and can be easily found with any search .
All definitions are the same . A person described as an armiger is " one who is able to bear heraldic arms and titles"

Simon Mactavish was firstly an armiger due to his gartbeg titles awarded 1794.
These have lay dormant and unclaimed since his last sons death in 1828 .along with .......
Simons arms "of dunardry"

Several documents and letters written between 1800 and 1818 describe simon and his son/heir william as "being titled armiger of dunardry"
This means that docs prove simon mactavish and his son william held and were known to have held the titles and arms "of dunardry"..

Other documents show without doubt that simon felt and acted as chief. Simon did not apply to lyons to have final confirmation of the passage to his family and name in 1799 as he should have.
However letters from lachlans family lawyer , prove simon was titled "of dunardry"
Letters from duke of argylle ealry 1800 prove the same fact.
Letters from lachlans son and heir sherrif dugald also prove simon and family were titled with the arms and titles "of dunardry"

Simons will of 1804 shows his desire that the arms and titles of dunardry were never to leave his family "forever" and were to be inherited by male heirs of his family "forever"...

Letters from the executors of simons estate and will show clearly that simons heir is to be prepared and educated in the very best manner to be "heir of dunardry"..They even detail instructions should simons heirs somehow decline to accept the role as "heir of dunardry" ..This executors letter demands that should simons sons and heirs refuse to be title of dunardry then all attempts are to be made to persuade them of the importance of this role.

In summary.....an amriger is a person who has inherited the right to bear arms as awarded to an ancestor..OR an armiger can be a person given that right >

It is clear that Simon neglected to approach lyons to confirm the dunardry titles were now in his family.
This in NO way means this event cannot be detailed to ylons today and therefore Simon mactavish will be historically recorded as "simon mactavish of dunardry" as were his sons and heirs.( many docs etc prove this )

Lyons will shortly be asked to retrospectively declare Simon Mactavish as "chief of mactavish" and the bearer of the titles of dunardry.Once this is done , then any rights of any descendant of lachlans bloodline will cease to have ANY right to bear lachlans arms. Lachlans arms have lay with the garthbeg mactavish since 1799.. FACT....Simons will of 1804 demands and details his wishes that thefamily of lachlan were to NEVER have any rights to the titles "of dunardry " again FOREVER......

I will stand proudly behind the desires and requests of simon mactavish. For this he will shake my hand in the afterlife. I will stand by the decision of lachlan and lachlans heir sherrif dugald to move the titles of dunardry to the family of simon mactavish of garthbeg. For this lachlan too will shake my hand in the afterlife. Lachlan went to great effort to prepare the xfr of the dunardry titles to simon. We MUST respect the wishes of these 2 men.

[migovie]

Sorry i should have pointed out the most essential fact in all this.
simon mactavish is not simply declared an amriger by lachlans lawyer...
.
Simon is declared as .."THE ARMIGER >....OF DUNARDRY........"

BY LEGAL DECREE OF LACHLANS LAWYER ..

BY LEGAL DECREE OF THE SAME LAWYER WHO WAS AT THAT TIME TRAINING LACHLANS SON AND HEIR SHERRIF DUGALD

...SIMONS SON AND HEIR WILLIAM MACTAVISH IS DECLARED AS "ARMIGER...OF DUNARDRY"

i felt it was important to make it clear that simon wasnt simply an amiger of anything of unknown value.

SIMON MACTAVISH IS DECLARED AS NOW HOLDING THE HERALDIC TITLES AND ARMS ...OF DUNARDRY...

[Alex]

Hello to you too Migovie(as in the farm i assume?)
I accept what you say; youre actually just reiterating what the site has previously discussed,you have spoken of documents and events which certainly adds creadance to all you say. Playing devil's advocate, are the other side doing just the same?I think a decision needs to be made

[cathy]

Welcome Alex!


Our discussions here often get very heated, so be fore warned.

I asked my self similiar questions last summer. There has been a lot of action on this forum off and on over the past year, and I have allowed it continue. Why would I, you might ask??? This website has always been a quiet site for serious, yet friendly discussion of mutual family history. I am a history addict, with an extensive library of many subjects on much more than Scottish history.

Recently I allowed this study of history to get personal. I was tossed out of a society for the major crime of helping someone from a different group with their genealogy. I have watched people within this organization slander my ancestors; make things up as they go along etc. I have heard rumors of stolen historical documents in the past but never believed these rumors until I heard it from someone who once held these documents in their hands. HOW CAN SOMEONE TOLERANT THIS???????


I have been told that my branch of the tree can lay claim to the title of MacTavish of Dunardry. I have never wanted to pursue this. - But perhaps with the new evidence I will.

Here is a quotation from another website, referring of course to what is happening today:

"Writers who attempt to humiliate and slander other authors show their ignorance. In many cases they are there for personal gain (monetary, perceived power and acknowledgement, retribution against what they have perceived as an insult, numerous reasons that to them seem logical). The intelligent and interested reader and historian will get tired of that type of communication and will return to the works of the author who is legitimately attempting to produce historical writings that can be shared with all. "

I say:


However, writers who "fudge" history should not be allowed to publish. Writers who steal historical documents because they do not agree with their version of the story should not be allowed to publish.

Alex, it matters, because Integrity matters!

Good luck to you!

Cathy

[Alex]

Hullo Cathy, pleased to meet you. Can I ask whom you are quoting and to what they are alluding? I can see where you and Migovie are coming from but wonder if you understand how things appear? The tittle tattle serves only to confuse the Clansman in search of his past.
There seems to be one verified and unquestionable fact; the grave of Thamhais. Undeniably; from thence we all come. The date is 1100 ish and the person is the progenitor of the Clan. That's been established by historians as I understand it. Now the second person of historical importance is Taus Corr who lived about 1300. While I agree that Corr or Coir can only be the phonetic Gaelic for cousin I dont understand your problem with that. I do note that the other faction have changed Taus Coir's period on earth to 1100 from their previous acknowledgment that he lived in 1300; they were wrong historically and perhaps morally to do that. Perhaps they think the two beings are one and the same?
Now; the Jacobites. I've seen Steven wearing a white cockade on his photograph- on a beret rather than a bonnet- and my view is that he's just acknowledging that part of the Clan; Garthbeg, were Jacobites. True, Dunardry did not fight at Culloden but at least the current Chief is collecting to lay a stone in memory of the Garthbegs who did. He must have some respect for us. As I understand it Steven is well versed in Clan history and has Seanachies that constantly delve into the past to keep him posted.
Cannot the split with the DHA and indeed US! be repaired and directed forward to assert the Clan?

[migovie]

garthbeg mactavish fought at colluden FACT.Dunardry did not make it to the battle...FACT....dunardry mactavish remained in argylle.....

the mactavish clan was headedin this battle by john mactavish of garthbeg .

After the battle john mactavish had a warrant for his death issued by the english govt....this warrant listed ALL mactavish father and sons of fighting age from the homes of garthbeg , sth migovie and migovie.

John garthbeg avoided capture and this death warrant was finall lifted around 40 years later.

John garthneg was obviously concerned about his own safety as well as the safety of his sons.To the point john garthbeg sent his 2 eldest heirs to dunardry to stay for some time in early 1750...

Why..?......because he knew the mactavish dunardry family were 100% safe and were never persecuted after the battle.. BECAUSE DUNARDRY MACTAVISH NEVER ARRIVED TO FIGHT .....

john garthbeg knew the saftey and security of his own eldest 2 sons would be guranteed if in the dunardry family home for a time .So he fostered his 2 male heirs to stay with lachlans father . ( proven by lachlans own admission in a letter to simon mactavish in 1793)

edward dugald mactavish , however, insisted that the garthbeg and dunardry branches had been "seperated" since 1400 and had ONLY reunited due to simon mactavish making contact with lachlan in 1793.

WRONG.......and strangley enough edward dugald had this same letter and facts in his possesion that proved the 2 branches were in close contact for many decades prior to colluden (if not centuries)....He also had documents that stated that in early 1700s some "dunardry mactavish moved to settle with the mactavish of garthbeg"

So then why did he continue to vigorously promote the idea that the 2 branches had no contact until 1793.?

To the point he actually phoned the person who found these documenst and at her work. He yelled and raved for a very long time inisisting the 2 branches had no contact.He would NOT accept the facts.

I have to accept that edward dugald mactavish was able to read and understand the english language , so i as yet have no reason for him to ignore docs in his posession that stated the above. I do not understand why he waisted clan funds on long distnace calls to dicsuss matters that neednt have ever been bought up , This entire ph converstion was pointless, a waste of time and breath..and his argument went against ALL docs already in his posession.

[migovie]

Alex...you and i MUST talk (offline)....if you are who my research indicates we all have business to discuss.

I have some people at present searching museum records.

Family documents state this museum was gifted in 1902 the following...( ill quote direct from the letter given me...)

" I bequeath the following item for safe keeping ....1x oak box holding my family sword and impliments "

This has taken some time. ( as you can imagine)

BUT ALEX.....YOU COULD WELL BE THE HEIR TO THESE SWORDS AND DAGGERS ETC......THEY ARE STATED TO HAVE MACTAVISH CRESTS IN GOLD IN THE HANDLES ETC...

THESE APPEAR BY DESCRIPTION TO HAVE BEEN THE LOST DUNARDRY SWRODS AND CHIEFLY GEAR AS GIVEN TO SIMON MACTAVISH IN 1799.....

i NEED to meet discuss with you in sincerity the implications of all this.
please contact cathy direct and well discuss ...as soon as possible please.

i think you may have been "jesting" when you said you could title yourself "of dunardry" ...I AM NOT....

[Alex]

Hullo migovie.and cathy, it would seem that not all facts have been made public yet, there always seems to be more revelations!What you say interests me in the context of the sons going to Dunardry, Ididnt know that. I knew that there were always ties between the 2 branches. I have read my ancestor's account of BOTH funerals of lachlan's son; Dugald,an account so full that he was certainly in attendance. Why would that be? My thought is that it would have been bad manners not to attend. we all attend funerals of family members even if we dont get on...well I often have anyway.
I have heard of the regalia you speak of yet always thought it a myth. i myself am in possession of certain objects that would not wish to discuss over the forum but perhaps we can talk privately. I understand that you have an ongoing relationship with a certain archivist in Glasgow, Iknow that person socially. Were you to contact her she has been given permission to give you my E mail address and private phone number. I trust these are safe with you. We need to repair all damage. Alex.

[migovie]

thank, i look frwd to that..
Heres something that a keen person can calculate for interests sake.

>,,,in 1852 sherrif dugald mact writes and says he is 10th male in line of descent from "taus corr"

>...iif we allow an average of 50 year life span for each male.....( yhis allows for some dying young and some living to 70s etc...

>>,,,,then we have sherrif dugalds family line starting 500 years prior to 1850...

which means sherrif dugald states his family line begins from 1300.....

and by all accounts that starts 200 years after our clans proginator 1100

GO FIGURE

[cathy]

Hullo Cathy, pleased to meet you. Can I ask whom you are quoting and to what they are alluding? I can see where you and Migovie are coming from but wonder if you understand how things appear? The tittle tattle serves only to confuse the Clansman in search of his past.
There seems to be one verified and unquestionable fact; the grave of Thamhais. Undeniably; from thence we all come. The date is 1100 ish and the person is the progenitor of the Clan. That's been established by historians as I understand it. Now the second person of historical importance is Taus Corr who lived about 1300. While I agree that Corr or Coir can only be the phonetic Gaelic for cousin I dont understand your problem with that. I do note that the other faction have changed Taus Coir's period on earth to 1100 from their previous acknowledgment that he lived in 1300; they were wrong historically and perhaps morally to do that. Perhaps they think the two beings are one and the same?
Now; the Jacobites. I've seen Steven wearing a white cockade on his photograph- on a beret rather than a bonnet- and my view is that he's just acknowledging that part of the Clan; Garthbeg, were Jacobites. True, Dunardry did not fight at Culloden but at least the current Chief is collecting to lay a stone in memory of the Garthbegs who did. He must have some respect for us. As I understand it Steven is well versed in Clan history and has Seanachies that constantly delve into the past to keep him posted.
Cannot the split with the DHA and indeed US! be repaired and directed forward to assert the Clan?
[/b]

The split must be repaired, however, it effort must come from Steven MacTavish and his organization. It was this group that caused the most recent split. I have copies of letters that go back and forth between Simon of Montreal's son and Lachlan's son just before the Dunardry property was sold once again and became nothing more than a canal. The letter was desperate, and I believe was the split that happened two hundred years ago. It was in these letters that the House of Garthbeg was cursed. Then the most important split happened in about 1300, when the oldest son of the Chief left Dunardry for Stratherrick with a band of clansman. That is the ancient split and the most important split. My belief is that Stevens organization needs to recognize our line as the line with the direct descendancy of the Title of Chief. At minimum they must recognize that Simon McTavish obtained the COA of Dunardry and with it the title of Chief. And that Simon left that title to his sons. While both sons died without heir, there is a last will and testament that states how the title and reponsibility of MacTavish of Dunardry goes. It is our job to find the person with the most direct claim to the title and correct the wrongs done by Lyons.

Cathy

[Alex]

Has Steven been approached that he should be given the chance to rectify matters? I would welcome any moves on both parties to establish at least the foundations of concensus. I feel that both parties have mislaid the fundamental edicts of leadership; to represent the clan.
Here in Scotland we M(a)cTavish consider ourselves 'Chiefless' and not represented. Any delving into research leads us to our last Chief; William McTavish who died in London and then dormancy. We don't in fact have representation.

[cathy]

I am at a loss as to how to approach him. He knows of this website, and I am sure that if he does not read it, his supporters do. If they were serious about mending the wounds and had the best interests of our clansman at heart, then he or someone he trusts would contact me.

Do you have any suggestions??
Cathy

[Alex]

They are an unknown entity to me yet you seem to have had dealings with them, albeit negative. Two wrongs do not make a right however. Ask yourselves your goals, are they the good of the Clan? If so; make the overtures needed to settle the dispute, unite the people and move forward. It's easy for me to say, i still feel an outsider.
Steven cannot be all bad and we can assume that he wants whats best for those represented. At least attempt to strike up cordiality and the willingness to discuss. At the moment he is only half a jigsaw and he's being misguided about the missing pieces. He has partial history with the rest made up or forced together to fit. Together you can create the true history and make us all proud again.

[nessie]

Sorry Alex----- but so far the only character references Ive heard for Steven are ;at worst describing a very unsavoury decietful rat who was disowned by his equally disengenous father----and at best a total numpty lounging on dubious earnings in Florida!
I personally think weve had enough of dodgy chiefs in this country dont you?
Why bother building bridges if you dont want the traffic?

[Alex]

I totally agree Nessie(HI), we need no more dishonest representation/chiefs over here. There is little interest in clan matters and our only choice of search is family history. However; there's a huge interest outside of Scotland with phenomenal crowds attending highland games and other events.There are clan societies that strive to rekindle flames in all the colonies. This alone prompts Lyon to promote and install Chiefships. How does that affect us? Well. Our Clan for example was previously led by 'Dugald' whom I havent heard a good word said, and now his son; Steven seems to be the brunt of abuse. What concerns me is that both men have twisted and misinterpreted our history by design or misinformation AND THIS REFLECTS ON YOU AND I. This needs to be addressed. What these people are creating is a theme park mentality that caters for rides down the genelogy shute and 'lets all get dressed up as highlanders instead of cowboys and play pretend'. The truth is an accepted casualty.

[nessie]

----It makes me mad to think of this young Pretender posing and parading our name and tartan swilling drams in Bush country of all places (Florida)------but what do you suggest we do?
Ive already written to Lyon and while he acknowledges the problem---he says he's bound to wait for a new contender. Come on guys---- lets do a muster roll!

[migovie]

nessie you are a lass to be admired. You have the fighting spirit of the most brave yet the compassion of a mother who wants for a safer future for her children.Both are fearsome traits , and both are mactavish traits.
You have hit the key question , right on the button.
Yes , lyons have acknowledged a problem and have admitted the mactavish chiefship has been a problematic and very questionable affair in recent years.
You are correct when you say Lyons are awaiting a claim from a line attached to simon mactavish.
You are correct when you say the chiefly line of mactavish IS open for contention. IS open for dispute.
and IS open for the truth to be laid down regarding simon and sons holding the arms and titles "of dunardry"
Yes , there has been a "lost line" or a "shift " due to simon mactavish both male heirs passing unmarried and without children.
This is the very situation that caused the mactavish chielfy line to lay dormant for hundreds of years.

Nessie, the line has been found, The line is being drawn. The entire mess will shorlty be sorted,.
The mactavish chiefly line WILL be reinstated as per the demands and requirements of lyons.

Lyons have asked for certain details .

These details have been found.

STAND PROUD .

[migovie]

I must add that i do not discourage an approach to steven mactavish regarding the situation.
I , must , however , insist that i am not party to that approach.

Do so , by all means , but my time for debate on this has long since passed.
I lost the desire for discussion when edward dugald mactavish stole our families documents.

When he lied about our families history.

When he stole clan funds,

When his son steven misappropriated research/funds from the DHA

When edward dugalds senachie patrick thomson wrote an email saying he was willing to "fudge mactavish history in order to earn more dollars "

When edward dugalds l/h supporter pat adams wrote numerous emails saying she was very concerned with her chief and his actions both financially and morally...

When edward dugald mactavish wrote an email saying he distrusted his senachie patrick thomson as he beleived patrick was a man wanting any show of importance in life..

When Edward dugald mactavish told a collegue he would not wish his son steven to ever inherit chiefship as he held no faith in his son steven.

After all this I have no time nor want nor energy for discussion .

I dont discourage such discussion. i just personally want no part of it. My gloves are off.

I didnt throw the first punch

But I WILL finish this battle

[nessie]

Yo Migsie!----I never realised you knew me so well---- those "fearsome traits" have got me into so much hot water in the past---and whenever I need to protect my own--- trust me --I can turn as red and rampant as that " lioness " on the Scottish flag !!! ---
----but actually most people round here know me as a mild-mannered wee moggie!
Thanks for your kind words tho and I really hope Alex will join us in our merry band-----on an ancient but timeless quest-------thats not so much about fighting the so-called chief----- but actually a matter of honour to establish the truth for future generations and you dear Migsie deserve a medal of valour for staying the course!