Thamhais

[REALMACTAVISH]

3 WEEKS AGO I RELOCATED THE GRAVE OF THAMHAIS IN KILMARTIN KIRKYARD. I PULLED BACK THE TURF. THE ESTIMATED DATE BY THE HISTORICAL MONUMENTS SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH IS CIRCA 1050-1100.
WE ARE CLAN MACTAVISH THAT IS THE MODERN ANGLOCIZED FORM OF CLANN MHICTHAMHAIS FROM THE GAELIC. SO, IF WE ARE SONS OF THAMHAIS, IT FOLLOWS THAT THIS IS OUR PROGENITOR; HE'S BURIED IN THE MACTAVISH KIRK. HE HAS A GRAVESLAB FASHIONED BY AND TRANSPORTED FROM THE MONKS ON IONA.ITS A WARRIORS GRAVE WITH THE SWORD DOWN ITS LENGTH. THE AGE IS CORRECT......AND THE GRAVE LIES NEXT TO IVOR'S GRAVE-HIS TWIN BROTHER WHICH QUALIFIES HISTORICAL DATA.
BOTH GRAVES, LESS THAN A FOOT APART,LIE WITHIN FEET OF TAVISH THE TEMPLAR'S GRAVE SLAB.
SO WHO THE F*** IS THIS TAUS CORR THE IDIOTS KEEP TALKING ABOUT AND; IF HE EXISTED ,IF HE WAS THIS IMPORTANT CHAP IN ARGYLL, WHERE THE F*** IS HIS GRAVE?
ANOTHER POINT; IF KILMARTIN IS THE HISTORICAL BURIAL GROUND OF THE MACTAVISH'S AND THEY'VE HAD 27 CHIEFS OF UNBROKEN LINEAGE FROM THIS INVISIBLE TAUS CORR -WHERE THE F*** ARE THEY ALL BURIED, BECAUSE THEYRE NOT IN KILMARTIN!
THE TRUTH IS THAT THE CHIEFSHIP LEFT ARGYLL WITH THAMHAIS MHOR 2nd AFTER THE FIGHT WITH HIS BROTHER.
THEN YOU HAD TAUS COGHA(COUSIN OF TAVISH)- A CAMPBELL, TAKE OVER AND ENGULF DUNARDRY AS A CAMPBELL SEPT.

[migovie]

yes yes and yes my friend...this is why lachlan mactavish hand written family line as supplied to lyons in 1793 starts at 1400....
lachlans family tree begins 300 years down the track from our clans proginator.

1400 is a date of signifance as its the time of the fight between the dunardry chiefs 2 sons..the surviving son leaving dunardry with a band of followers and settling at garthbeg stratherick.

heres some more facts to ponder.

1...dr mathews research on mactavish clan states that legend details this fight and that garthbeg mactavish stem from this surviving son who was titled with the most prestigous and valued name given to any mactavish . He was titled also as "thamhais mhor" the same title as our clans proginator..BUT...
(A) ...patrick thompson disputes mathews work on this point . and patrick says he now feels this fight never occured ...why? on what basis? he simply hopes it didnt occur...

2...mathews states this fight in 1400 was the reason the mactavish clan failed and dwindled from its original position of pwr,,,and this due to the departure of thamhais and his warriors.
(B)...and patrick says thamhais left but he doubts he was ever the chiefs son.? well read the friggin document written by mathews...this is proof the event is written down....in front of you patrick...so cease writing your own fabricated suggestion of events .and just to jog memory...thamhais mhor ...this very name ...this name being the most powerfull and important name of mactavish...this name being the same as the man who started our clan...thamhais mhor born died 1100....the name being used by the garthbeg settler also titled "thamhais mhor" doesnt this give the strongest hint that he was a chiefs son....?? noone else but a chiefs son would be allowed to have shared the same name identicat to that of our clans proginator ...PROOF.....

3...mathews states that the garthbeg settlers in 1400 were in "no way broken men" which means they were not "outcast" or withjout a clan or in any way seperated from the mactavish as if they were outcasts on the run then they WOULD have been known as "broken men" ...so mathews found it essential to document the fact that they werent broken men
(C)....then patrick writes and fabricates his myth with NO facts at all to support it...but patrick writes that thamhais mhor and his men were "banished" and expelled from the dunardry home...WHY?....why ignore the documents in front of you patrick that tell you plainly the opposite...

4...mathews states that the thamhais mhor who settled in stratherricjk was "A CHIEF" not a chieftan a chief..proving he was the son of a chief and the son of the dunardry chief who was back at dunardry with no heirs.
(D) and patrick simply ignores this fact

5....dr bradford researches mactavish ...His reason for conducting such research was that his wife phoebe was a descendant of lachlan mactavish.
Bradford was handed some papers and letters . Whilst recording the mactavish story proudly in support of his wifes family , bradford finds it important to state he sighted docs that prove lachlan mactavish family disponed their rights to chiefship to simon mactavish he details that the titles of dunardry were now in possesion of simo0n mactavish and were passed by heir to simons sons.The last son died 1828 and bradford states that "the fate of these titles today remains unknown".Now ,this fact gives explantion for the mactavish dunardry titles having not been seen since that date , and why the mactavish chiefship lay dormant for hundreds of years..it due to simon mactavish last son going to the grave with them ...FACT...documumented FACT...
(E) so patrick writes that bradford lied and made this story up and that the chiefship continue uninterupted in lachlans family...IF it did ...where are lachlans original amrs and papers then eh..? why have they never been seen since 1828 ...Bradford had no resaon to insert any untruths regarding this fact ...esp since his motive for writing this nmactavish book was to support his mactavish wife...WHY would bradford then include a statement confirming simon of garthbeg was chief...no reason to lie about this is there, no motive...bradford just wrote the facts....and patrick simply states he reckons bradford mustve "lied" ...i think you are all beginning to see a trail of deceipt here eh...and it all starts with the same name doesnt it patrick.

[migovie]

want some more ?

1..in 1812 the duke of argylle and lachlan mactavish family lawyer sign a document confirming that lachlans arms were now in simon mactavish possesion. They sate in this document that "papers have been presented that confirm simon mactavish was known as armiger of dunardry " and they then state that this title has been inherited by his son william .
(A) ...now patrick thompson says he doesnt belive this document proves anything. he sasy he belives it shows land xfr only. ? well well...of course we know patrick hasnt got a copy of this doc . But I do have in my file a statement by patrick in which he declares that simon mactavish only simply held papers of ownership of dunardry lands as result of his purchase of it...patrick then states that simon could never have titled himslef "of dunardry" as this was lachlans title...today youll note patrcik has twisted his stance a tad and now states that simon WAS titled as "of dunardry" but this title was a land title only..???? hmmm...hes hoping hard here.

2...then we have the papers gievn to edward dugald mactavish by his researcher ...this states that "simon mactavish returned to scotland after lachlans death and became chief." and that "simon mactavish wished to be chief of mactavish"...
(B) edward dugald mactavish had this written information given him prior to his own matriculation and he chose to "bury it"....patrick has this information and chooses to ignore it..

3...then we have lyons writing to edward dugald mactavish demanding he resolve the question of simon mactavish being given the chiefly rights...
(C) patrick chooses not to display this lyons letter nor tell his clan about
it. Edward dugald mactavish made little effort to resolve this question apart from writing to lyons offcie and telling them hed had no luck finding the papers re simon and the chiefship..edward dugald mactavish then wrote and informed lyons that he had visited bradford and discussed this ....i am presently investigating this as information given to me recently only confirms edward dugald mactavish making a phone call to bradford and bradford was so anoyed with his rantings that he hung up on him and refused to talk anymore . I have been informed edward duagld never at any stage visited bradford ...lies and yet more lies in his part ..ill let you know ...

4...then we have the documented detail in the mathews document regarding the burial place of sherrif dugald mactavish.in kilmartin mathews states that in 1900 it was noted that on the ground a small stone monument sat on the grave of sherif dugalds wife...it read "the burial place of the mactavish of dunardry" so in 1900 this wording was laying on the ground at the foot of sherrif dugalds wifes grave but today it appears on top of sherrif dugalds monument...very strange ..

[migovie]

taus coir ...???
well if we refer to scots documents as to the identity of this elusive "taus coir" we have a defined documented trail
we know without doubt that our clan began with a man named "thamhais mhor" and he was born 1100 ish...
we dont have much clue as to who this "taus coir" is ...and even less as to his time frame in the mactavish history ...

or do we.......

papers define this taus coir as actually being a man known as "thomas campbell" this thomas campbell owned lands and documents attach him to the dunardry lands of argylle...1350 ish

documents declare him as being the pos founder of the "later mactavishs of dunardry"

well this is again proof that

1...our clan was begun by a man titled "thamhais mhor"

2...the mactavish started from this man.

3..the mactavish were gifted dunardry lands from the king as reward for the soldiering of this thamhais. early 1200s

4..the family built a clan system at dunardry from that time.

5...the dunardry chiefs sons fought sometime in late 1300s and the survivor departed and resettled at garthbeg titled also as THAMHAIS MHOR

6..the "later mactavishs of dunardry" were fathered by a sir thomas campbell circa 1300/1400 and it appears he then re-fathered the mactavish name and this may well have been a demand of the marriage contract ...just as simon mactavish will of 1804 demanded that any heir of dunardry in the future not of mactavish name HAD to change name to mactavish...this same demand may have taken place regarding this thomas campbells marriage to the dunardry widow in late 1300s..he was firstly known as thomas campbell but his marriage to the dunardry widow demanded he now adopt the name of "taus coir"...which has been disclosed actually is gaelic for "tavish the cousin "

7 at this same date it probable that the campbells of argylle obtained the dunardry lands thru this marriage ...but the clan demands of name respect to mactavish required argylle to sell or gift the dunardry lands back to the mactavish at dunardry ..and thus we have the reason for loss of dunardry lands to campbell and the subsequent centuries of feudal obediance by dunardry to campbell
the statement that sir thomas campbell mayhave been the prginator of the "later mactavish of dunardry" actually could mean in reality the the "earlier mactavish" of dunardry had failed and died out after the dunardry chiefs sons fight and the dunardry clan was struggling. We know for fact the huge number of dunardry family marriages to campbell woman .Its quite pos that the campbell chief offered one of his younger heirs as marriage to the dunardry widow and this act resurrected the failing dunardry mactavish and saved the family and the lands ?

8...this same reason may actually have been the reason for the fight...and may explain why thamhais mhor was titled again with the name of our proginator...it was the mactavish way of restarting at garthbeg with connection back to the roots...and the garthbeg thamhais mhor may well have fought and left dunardry simply becuase he refused to accept this campbell marriage in .of thomas campbell to the dunardry widow

9..this now explains why lachlans family line starts at 1400...and begins with a man titled "taus coir"/....300 years after our mactavish proginator

10...lachlan wasnt attached back to the root of our clan...and this fact is documented numerous times thru history...

this is a suggested list of explantions for facts and events already documented in scots history ....i

[migovie]

mathews....well of course the most comprehensive paper yet researched on the history of mactavish.
mathews does also state that
" the garthbeg mactavish ran a clan system equal to that of dunardry "

so equal gives proof of 2 scenarios

1...both clans had their own chief ( which would be the definition of EQUAL wouldnt it)

or..?????

2...neither branches had a chief at all.....

# mathews didnt state that garthbeg were under control of dunardry and this could not ever be the case if both branches were "of equal clan structure " would it..

SO THE PRESENT FRIGGIN ARMS GRANT STYLING GARTHBEG MACTAVISH AS INCLUSIVE AND PART OF DUNARDRY CHIEFS CONTROL IS WRONG ...IT IS SO WRONG IT DEFIES WRITTEN DOCUMENTS HELD BY DUNARDRY MACTAVISH...

GARTHBEG COULD NEVER BE UNDER CONTROL OF DUNARDRY ...
THIS WAS NEVER DEFINED IN LACHLANS ARMS GRANT .

LACHLANS ARMS GRANT NEVER DEFINED HIM AS CHIEF ...

GARTHBEG WAS HELD UNDER CHIEFLY CONTROL EQUAL TO THAT OF DUNARDRY ....FACT...

LYONS NEED TO BE MADE AWARE THAT THE RECENT REGRANT OF ARMS TO MACTAVISH DEFIES FACTS IN SCOTS ARCHIVES ...
IT IS WRONG...
IT IS FRAUD....
IT DEFIES FACTS...
IT HAS TO BE WITHDRAWN...

1..LACHLAN MAY HAVE BEEN HEAD OF THE DUNARDRY FAMILY ...??
YET THERE IS NO HISTORICAL RECORD OF HIM ACTUALLY ACTING AS A CHIEF ....
OR ASSISTING THE MACTAVISH CLAN AS A WHOLE OR GUIDING THE MACTAVISH FAMILY AS A UNIT
...NEVER ...NEVER ...NEVER AT ANY STAGE
...AND NONE OF HIS DESCENDANTS ACTED AS A CHIEF IN ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION AT ALL AT ANY STAGE...

2...SIMON WAS HEAD OF THE GARTHBEG/STRATHERICK FAMILY

3...SIMON WAS BEQUEATHED LACHLANS ARMS AND TITLES MEANING SIMON WAS HEAD AND CHIEF OF BOTH BRANCHES.....

LACHLAN NEVER WAS AND NEVER ACTED AS A CHIEF OF BOTH BRANCHES ....
LACHLAN AND HIS SON COULDNT EVEN PROVIDE A FUTURE NOR EDUCATION FOR THEIR OWN CHILDREN
YET ALONE A CLAN...
THEY OBTAINED THE FUNDS TO EDUCATE THEIR OWN CHILDREN FROM SIMON MACTAVISH..

SIMON MACTAVISH DID ACT AS CHIEF ...
IN EVERY STYLE AND METHOD EXPECTED OF A CHIEF..
FINANCIALLY AND MORALLY...

AT NO STAGE IN HISTORY WILL ANYONE FIND ANY HINT THAT GARTHBEG MACTAVISH ACTED UNDER ORDERS FROM DUNARDRY ...
NOT IN THE 500 YEAR SEPERATION...

SO IT IS 100% WRONG TO ACCEPT LACHLAN WAS CHIEF OF ALL MACTAVISH.....

####....SO WHY WOULD EDWARD DUGALD PUSH FOR ALL THIS...??

SAME REASON HE STOLE FUNDS AND DESTROYED DOCUMENTS AND CREATED A MYTH OF SEPT LISTS...

MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY....$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

HE HAD NONE....

HE WAS AN EX DOOR TO DOOR SALESMAN

( YOU KNOW THE TYPE YOU SLAM THE DOOR IN THE FACE OF WHEN THEY CALL)

[migovie]

lachlan mactavish did of course write in 1793 and state he "had documents in his possesion going back to 1550 that confirmed HIS families descent from argylle"...
so we can state without doubt that lachlan mactavish had no doubt HE was a campbell ...He had docs in his possesion that he says prove it.
So perhaps lachlan had the facts that he descended in reality from this "thomas campbell/mactavish" of 1350/1400.

we cant deny lachlans own written letters can we.

[REALMACTAVISH]

WHICH WOULD ADVOCATE WHY THE ANCIENT CAMPBELL PAINTING OF A TREE WITH ALL ITS FAMILY BRANCHES HAS DUNARDRY MACTAVISH AS A DEFINATE BLOOD TIE FROM JUST PRIOR TO 1400 AND YET IN CONTRADICTION ;JOHN, THE 4th EARL DECLARING THAT IN RIGHT THE CAMPBELL CAME FROM MACTAVISH........THE PAINTING CAN BE SEEN IN INVERARAY ARMOURY....

[cathy]

I saw the picture in Inverary Castle..............the Dunardry MacTavish was at the root of the tree...............the very root.

Cathy