Simon Mactavish Arms Grant

[migovie]

i must firstly quote patrick thomson where he states
..." The Border granted on Simon?s arms was a Bordure of the Second. Such a Bordure, is reserved for sons, and sons of sons (with slight differences) who are descended from the first generation of Chiefly relatives."
well even tho we all know patrick thomson is on record as writing an email saying he is willing to fudge mactavish history in order to earn more dollars.....i have to agree he is almost correct with this snippet of fact re simons arms grant ...

YES simon was without doubt the direct lineage to the mactavish chief ....

and YES simons arms grant shows this clearly.....

BUT what is not been said is the fact that simons family line descends DIRECT back to the mactavish chief of 1300s and simons arms grant proves this ,,,

BUT what patrick has very cleverly avoided in his usual barage of crap is that in 1300s the ELDER son of the chief was slain and the survivor was titled with the UTMOST tribute of the same name as our clans proginator ....'THAMHAIS MHOR".....

due to normal scots customs and law when the eldest heir to chiefship dies ( as with this 1300s fight ) then the rightfull heir to chiefship is passed to the next son ...who was simons ancestor .....

so NOW we have the REAL truth behind simons arms grant with a bordure so close.....

so now we know why lachlans grant of 1793 showed no hint of chiefship......

now we see why lachlans grant simply confirms lachlan to be of a family that had occupied dunardry for generations ....generations that actually START at 1300 ....and start as lachlans family being introduced as a "head" family from 1300 ONLY....( refer to lachlans family lineage supplied to lyons in 1793 ...it begins 1300 )

simon was the direct blood BUT lachlans family had sat their bums at dunardry since 1300....that fact proven beyond question by the 2 grants....

the dunardry and garthbeg mactavish had lived for 500 years and each branch had their own head or chief........

strange to take note that dunardry mactavish assisted garthbeg in battles yet garthbeg NEVER showed any "subordinate " actions to dunardry......

why should they....the garthbegs were the TRUE chiefly blood ...never "banished"...never "broken men" ...just deciding to live in a new area of scotland and this may simply stem back to a desire to NOT sign pledge of feu to campbell in 1300s ..

[cathy]

I like that thought...........that the Garthbeg branch left so as NOT to swear loyalty to the Campbells....thank you for this thoughtful insight Migovie












i must firstly quote patrick thomson where he states
..." The Border granted on Simon?s arms was a Bordure of the Second. Such a Bordure, is reserved for sons, and sons of sons (with slight differences) who are descended from the first generation of Chiefly relative
well even tho we all know patrick thomson is on record as writing an email saying he is willing to fudge mactavish history in order to earn more dollars.....i have to agree he is almost correct with this snippet of fact re simons arms grant ...

YES simon was without doubt the direct lineage to the mactavish chief ....

and YES simons arms grant shows this clearly.....

BUT what is not been said is the fact that simons family line descends DIRECT back to the mactavish chief of 1300s and simons arms grant proves this ,,,

BUT what patrick has very cleverly avoided in his usual barage of crap is that in 1300s the ELDER son of the chief was slain and the survivor was titled with the UTMOST tribute of the same name as our clans proginator ....'THAMHAIS MHOR".....

due to normal scots customs and law when the eldest heir to chiefship dies ( as with this 1300s fight ) then the rightfull heir to chiefship is passed to the next son ...who was simons ancestor .....

so NOW we have the REAL truth behind simons arms grant with a bordure so close.....

so now we know why lachlans grant of 1793 showed no hint of chiefship......

now we see why lachlans grant simply confirms lachlan to be of a family that had occupied dunardry for generations ....generations that actually START at 1300 ....and start as lachlans family being introduced as a "head" family from 1300 ONLY....( refer to lachlans family lineage supplied to lyons in 1793 ...it begins 1300 )

simon was the direct blood BUT lachlans family had sat their bums at dunardry since 1300....that fact proven beyond question by the 2 grants....

the dunardry and garthbeg mactavish had lived for 500 years and each branch had their own head or chief........

strange to take note that dunardry mactavish assisted garthbeg in battles yet garthbeg NEVER showed any "subordinate " actions to dunardry......

why should they....the garthbegs were the TRUE chiefly blood ...never "banished"...never "broken men" ...just deciding to live in a new area of scotland and this may simply stem back to a desire to NOT sign pledge of feu to campbell in 1300s ..
[/b]

[REALMACTAVISH]

Simon Famously Was Known By The French Canadians(?) As The Marquesse And Went Aroung Montreal In A Carriage Bearing Heraldic Arms.
Do We Know Which Arms? Garthbe/dunardry? Do We Know Exactly When This Began?

[cathy]

No we do not know which arms, but we do know that the arms were applied for in 1793 and that Simon expressed a wish to have them on his carriage in a letter at that time.


<STRONG><FONT color=#008000>London, April 11th 1793

[migovie]

i think simon actually had the mactavish arms in gold fitted to his carriage which was located in london . He was planning to resettle in london with his new bride, but she became homesick and severley depressed to the point simon elected to temp return to montreal and at this time he began construction of his stone castle on the slopes of mt royal , perhaps as a way to appease his wifes depression etc. he actually died whilst finishing this mansion , which adds more tragedy to the event.
Simons london carriage and arms are not listed in the executors list of his estate , but a carriage and horses are mentioned in the montreal list.
What is also not mentioned is simons london office for the fur co , and his house or rooms he must have owned and lived in whilst on his frequent and essential bus trips between montreal and london.

WHY?

Simons london residence would have been grand , and obvioulsy full of all the goodies he was known to proudly display in order to exhibit his wealth and success.
A little more digging and investigating required regarding simons position in london society circa 1793 thru to his death in 1804.
YES simon was planning to return to london to live permantly .
YES simon stated in a letter he wished to spend the rest of his days in london with his new wife and in fact he hoped to end his days in london .
YES it is obvious simon chose to delay his approach to lyons to confirm lachlans arms were now in simons family. Simon had no reason to approach lyons regarding this UNTIL simon had resettled permanently in london.
In fact at this date of 1797 thru to 1804 lyons demanded that a man actually reside in england in order to be recognised legally as a chief.
YES we know simon was chief and wished to be chief and returned to scotland after lachlans death and became chief . ALL these facts were given to edward dugald mactavish by col galloway IN writing and prior to edward dugalds matriculation .

SIMON WAS CHIEF BUT COULD NOT BE LEGALLY RECOGNISED BY LYONS AS BEING CHIEF UNTIL HE RESIDED PERMANTLY IN LONDON OR SCOTLAND. SIMON WAS IN THE PROCESS OF ACTUALLY RETURNING TO LONDON TO LIVE PERM WHEN HE DIED UNEXPECTEDLY IN 1804.