Lyons Office Statements Re Clan Mactavish

[tavish]

Mr thompsons lengthy and detailed reply is appreciated and gives many facts. However, it does raise more questions than it answers.

IT IS LORD LYONS OFFICE THAT SUPPLIED THE FOLLOWING ..

The following is a direct quote from ( a small portion of a detailed letter ) from Lord lyons letter dated 10th APRIL 2003.

This is with regard to BOTH Lachlan and Simons Arms grant.
Lyons office state.

....."I may say that john Hooke Campbell of Bangeston would be well versed in Campbell history, being a descent of the Campbells of Cawdor, and would be the first to object if Arms had been granted that were not appropriate.
I can confirm that Amoral Bearings are on record for Lachlan Mactavish of Dunardry and Simon Mactavish of Gartbeg. Lachlan is not described as mactavish of Mactavish and Dunardry, and NO mention is made therein of him being a chief. Indeed , until relatively recently , I do not think the the Mactavishes were regarded as a distinct branch or clan with their own head. It has long been the understanding, and certainly was the understanding in the late 18th century, that the mactavish campbells descended from clan campbell, most likely through taius coir, an illegitimate son of colin maol math , chief of the name campbell. The very name Tavish means son of tavish , and it is . I am quite sure, for that reason that in 1793 the campbell quarter was given to show the then accepted descent of mactavish of dunardry from greater clan campbell. Indeed the most recent work on the history of clan campbell continues to support the theory that the most likely candidate for the ancestor of the mactavishes is the person i mention above. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FORETHCOMING IN RECENT TIMES TO GIVE ANY OTHER POSSIBLE ANCESTORY.".........end of quote from lyons court

so in summary then......

1... .. Lachlan Mactavish arms grant of 1793 makes NO mention of him being a chief. The court of Lord Lyon state ..APRIL 2003..."I do not think that the Mactavishes were regarded as a distinct branch or clan with their own head."

2..Lyons office believe that the Mactavish clan NEVER had a chief until recently

3...lyons office state that NO information has come to hand recently that shows ANY other descent OTHER than from clan Campbell. Court of Lord lyon states .. " the most recent work on the history of clan Campbell continues to support the theory that the most likely candidate for the ancestor of the mactavish is taius coir , illegitimate son of Colin maol math chief of clan Campbell. "...
. THESE FACTS FROM LYONS OFFICE WERE RECEIVED... April 2003 ...( note the date )
- 3 MONTHS AFTER THE MACTAVISH CLAN PRESS RELEASE STATING...
A NEW ARMS GRANT HAD BEEN ISSUED THAT SEPARATED CLAN MACTAVISH FROM CLAN CAMPBELL AND THIS APPARANTLY RESULTED FROM NEW INFORMATION BEING SUPPLIED TO LYONS OFFICE )..?????

.it appears lyons office have no such information at all

a "mactavish clan " press release in my Inverness Courier JAN 2003 stated ..."an ancient wrong has been righted and clan Mactavish have reversed the grant of arms given to lachlan mactavish in 1793 that showed connection to clan Campbell.." ...
THE COURT OF LORD LYON STATE THAT THE 1793 ARMS GRANT WAS CORRECT


4...Lyons office confirm that in 1793 the lord lyon was ( i quote ) "john hooke Campbell and he would be well versed in Campbell history, being a descent of the campbells of Cawdor , and would be the first to object if Arms had been granted that were not appropriate"...

you do state the "lyons office are the authority in these matters"....so at this stage it appears that lyons office have an entirely different list of facts compared to your own...
You also state that simon mactavish arms grant is wrong as it is "differenced" by only a bordure. Are you suggesting we now ignore simons arms grant and go against the decision of the court of lord lyon ?
All i can do is confirm records held by Lyons office .
These records show that Lachlan and Simon were close blood relations ( from the arms grant )
When you read the work by mathews on the Dunardry and Garthbeg Mactavish you see the probable explantion for this arms grant and the bordure differencing.
Mathews is of the belief that both lachlan and Simon are descended from the same father...and mathews details this when describing the Dunardry fight in 1300 odd between the chiefs sons in which the elder was slain and the survivor departed for Stratherrick with a band of followers.
You do state you feel these men were "banished " from the Mactavish clan ...but this must be an "opinion" as I find NO reference to any "banishing " in any historical documents.

We have many, many letters between Lachlan mactavish and Simon mactavish ..one of which Lachlan refers to himself as "chief " but he made NO attempt to apply for arms that confirmed this. We know then that lachlan felt he was chief and was intending to apply for 'supporters" to confirm this...but they were never granted....???
clans often used the name of "chief" as a reference to the head family or ?tribal leader?and it is only lyons office that have in recent centuries placed a more detailed terminlogy of the title "chief". the local use of this term and lyons records should always be separated to some extent for understanding "context" and intent of the use of the word.
Why then did lachlan not apply to be legally recognised as a legal and accepted chief ?. it may have stemmed from lyons office believing the mactavishes were a sept and as such would have had an "informal" chief or head family of the tribe only.
This word sept is used as a term that decribes clans that showed allegiance and obedience to a ?superior? chief. We see mactavish fighting battles wearing the Campbell and Fraser kilts/colours.

We do not see cambells or frasers fighting mactavish battles wearing the mactavish kilt This fact alone shows historically that the mactavish were the supporting clan and history shows this clearly even at the battle of Culloden where the mactavish fought under the cambell and fraser clans ?colours? and others and NO mactavish fought as a separate clan or tribe under mactavish name as a seperate power and/or tribe.. That is history and the way of Scotland. You cannot today place a ?clinical? definition of clan tribe life and customs because clans didn?t refer to a definition or a handbook on how to strictly operate. Clans had a strict code of ethics that was followed for centuries but as with all ancient customs these were amended slightly from chief to chief and area to area and even father to son. .

The use even of the phrase ?distant relation? is a phrase still used in Scotland today. This has no reference to ?distance in bloodline? it is a Scottish phrase . A friend wrote from Edinburgh saying ? my distant brother from Canada is returning shortly?. So when we see documents that list Simon Mactavish as a ?distant relation? to Lachlan please try to understand this statement in the meaning of the time and land. Further remember to now state that Simon Mactavish was not a close blood relation to Lachlan requires you to blatantly disregard the rulings of Lyons office ( and you state time and time again that Lyons office are the authority ) and again it would require us to dismiss the work of mathews as mathews himself lists Simons families descent from the Dunardry chief of 1300s.

When we look at the time both men applied for arms we see...............
lachlan applied in 1793 and this was after a 50 year period in scotlands history when all clans had their powers restricted by the crown. From Culloden until around 1788 it was illegal in scotland to be a chief , or to show respect or allegiance to a chief, to wear a kilt, to play bagpipes, to show any great clan allegiance etc.
Lachlan and Simon applied for arms very shortly after this ban was lifted.
We know that not every clan bothered with the legality of making formal application to Lyons office to register their arms and apply to register their chiefs (especially around this time frame ).
This in no way means that particular clan didnt have a chief..It simply means that legally ( in the court of lord lyon ) they held no record of this fact . In this case we see Lachlan Mactavish registering for arms but never applying or being granted arms that confirmed him to be a chief.
It pays to also note that Lachlans reasons for neglecting this duty may have been that he simply didnt bother because in 1793 he didnt actually own any clan land (having sold it a few years previously ) or as we know he was living in Edinburgh and his mactavish kinsmen had been dispersed worldwide for many years already due to the methodic destruction of the clan system by the english.
It would seem very inlikely that lachlan mactavish would legally "dispone" his titles and duties as chief to simon mactavish via lord lyons office. Lord lyons hold no record of lachlan ever being chief, so such an approach by lachlan would be unnecessary .
A check of lyons records would obvioulsy be a waste of time for such "disponing" documents. However the lack of any record of this at Lyons office doesn?t mean it didn?t actually happen.
It is also clear that from correspondence between lachlan and simon that both men were understandably unsure of the correct procedures and duties required by lyons office with regard to titles and their use etc.
This again may shed explanation as to their lack of correct procedures in duties and when you tie this with the fact that in 1795 the mactavish clan lived as a unit no more, and a chief at this time was a duty requiring commitment and funding. The days of clan chiefs living from their clansmans rentals were long gone . Communications were primitive so chiefly duties were limited to your immediate family for the smaller clans such as mactavish. This again may have been a reason for lachlan to suggest to simon that he now take over this role. lachlan would have been aware that he was dying in financial hardship and at a time in scottish history when a chiefly role was a financial burden with little reward. Lachlan owned no land and no home and his sons as heirs would inherit nothing, However simon mactavish was extremely wealthy and perhaps lachlan thought it a wise move to entrust your clans future in the hands of simon and his wealth. With regard to lachlans other relations being offered the titles ? probably again that in 1796 it was simply a burden that noone really cared about as much as previous generations. Previous centuries saw chiefs ( or family heads) having great standing and power and land ownership that gave them great income. In 1796 this was all but gone for many clans and certainly without doubt was ALL gone for the mactavish clan.
No land, no rentals, no castles, no income meant a chiefly role was a huge financial burden at a time when the crown had succesfully reduced the role to almost "chief of nothing status"
There are many many facts that suggest lachlan did actually ask simon mactavish to subsequently accept lachlans titles as simply "dunardry" as granted and also take over the chiefly role
The most obvious being lachlans sons neglect to apply for neither lachlans titles nor duties as chief. Lachlans son dugald is said to have been too young at 14 ys . In which case lachlan should have detailed his titles passage to his son via a description in his will or used the word chief . There is No mention of anything of this sort in lachlans will.
We do see simon mactavish detailing his land of dunardry and separately his titles of dunardry in his will and their passage to his sons and heirs that were in fact younger than lachlans at the time death.
Why then did lachlans heirs refuse to make any attempt to conduct chiefly role or duties or register for lachlans arms in the years to come ?
Pehaps this was because they understood and respected their fathers wishes to "dispone" the titles etc to simon mactavish and simon mactavishs clearly written will that precludes these same titles from ever leaving his family or descendants.
Why then did lachlans son dugald never apply to lyons office for the title of dunardry.??/
in addition to the reason above it is noted the mactavish website states lachlans son and heir dugald neglected to apply for arms as heir as he was too busy as a lawyer. He must have been an extremely busy man not to afford the time to write a simple short letter to lyons office which was all that was required at the time. He wasnt too young at 14 years to be given titles as "heir" and he certainly wasnt too busy as a lawyer to apply to lyons office to aquire his fathers title as dunardry. Neither of these expalnations make any sense nor reason at all.
We will continue searching through old family papers and documents and hopefully unravel these mysteries shortly.
I can see you display quite a "hostility' towards mr bradford and his work on the history of the mactavish. Further investigation will eventually reveal if documents do exist that prove lachlan did dispone his chiefly role as head of the small mactavish tribe. Such documents will certainly not be found at Lyons office as you suggest , and they will most likely appear as a simple letter to simon asking him to assume the role . We can see clearly from lachlans will that he died with very little money and no land nor assets of any real value..
Perhaps the letters we have from simon to lachlans widow offering financial assistance to herself and her children are an indication of lachlans dying wishes and perhaps even part of an agreement between the 2 men as condition of simon receiving the titles etc.
Mr. mathews document on garthbeg is quite clear that he believes that simon mactavish family had wanted reinstatement and re-attachment to the dunardry family as of right , and this may well have been the real motive behind simons approach to lachlan .
It appears blatantly clear to me that simon mactavish was a man of integrity and was in his own way attempting to re.stich the obvioulsly fragmented mactavish clan back together...in 1796
simon mactavish re.purchased his clans land of dunardry and its heritage....(perhaps no great feat ...).
BUT...simon did this as a HUGE gesture from a man that had no history of being frivolous or foolish with money. nor investment...he was a businessman with success as his goal and his clan in his heart
Lets respect and pay due tribute to the greatest and most succesful mactavish clan member to date. Simon mactavish needs to be upheld by ALL Mactavish as our greatest mentor


thank you

[clantavish1]

Since this is rather lengthy, I will intersperse my comments between each point made by ?Tavish or Migovie or whatever name you are using today?.? to my original post on the subject. I don?t mean to be harsh, but it appears the situation needs some very direct language, particularly when a letter is touted as being from Lyon Court, which does not correspond to the facts surrounding historical records, nor to the facts surrounding the LEGAL ratification of Chief Dugald MacTavish of Dunardry, nor to his grant of NEW arms, by Lord Lyon Robin Blair, the current Lord Lyon.


Mr. thompsons lengthy and detailed reply is appreciated and gives many facts. However, it does raise more questions than it answers.

IT IS LORD LYONS OFFICE THAT SUPPLIED THE FOLLOWING ..

The following is a direct quote from ( a small portion of a detailed letter ) from Lord lyons letter dated 10th APRIL 2003.

MY COMMENT: I would dearly love to see a HARD COPY of this letter, and note whose signature appears at the bottom. I note you make reference to this letter in two very different ways. 1. LORD LYONS OFFICE THAT SUPPLIED THE FOLLOWING, and 2. from Lord lyons letter dated 10th APRIL 2003, I wonder which is factual. Is this letter from someone who works in the Court of the Lord Lyon, or is it a letter of Lord Lyon?s own hand? As Dunardy?s Lieutenant, I have personally corresponded with the Court of the Lord Lyon (CLL); with two Lords Lyon and with members of the staff. I know the writing style of both Lords Lyon I have communicated with, and none of what you write sounds as if it comes directly from either Lord Lyon. I therefore suspect it comes from a member of his staff. If it is the person I believe it to be, then I can say bluntly that this person does not like Dunardry one bit, and I would expect such from this person.

This is with regard to BOTH Lachlan and Simons Arms grant.
Lyons office state.

....."I may say that john Hooke Campbell of Bangeston would be well versed in Campbell history, being a descent of the Campbells of Cawdor, and would be the first to object if Arms had been granted that were not appropriate.

MY COMMENT: John Hooke Campbell of Bangeston, was indeed the Lord Lyon who matriculated both Lachlan MacTavish and Simon McTavish. Yes he would be versed in Campbell History. But we are not talking about Campbells here, but MacTavishes, and even the Campbell History of Craignish stated that the MacTavishes disponed allegiance to the Campbells and are considered a clan (that is ANCIENT HISTORY).

I can confirm that Amoral Bearings are on record for Lachlan Mactavish of Dunardry and Simon Mactavish of Gartbeg. Lachlan is not described as mactavish of Mactavish and Dunardry, and NO mention is made therein of him being a chief.

MY COMMENT: That portion regarding the records of armorial bearings is entirely correct, but Lyon Campbell made a huge mistake in not matriculating Lachlan MacTavish as Chief. ?The Papers of Lachlan MacTavish of Dunardry?, make clear that he knew himself to be Chief of the Clan. This was the proof required by Lord Lyon Sir Malcolm Innes of Edingight, before he would matriculated Dugald MacTavish as Chief of the Clan. Dugald MacTavish had to provide proof that Lachlan knew himself to be CHIEF. As I said in my original post, that you question so diligently, you need not take my word for it, that proof (that Dugald is descended from the MacTavish CHIEF, Lachlan MacTavish of Dunardry ) is at the CLL. Please go there, personally, and look it up.

Indeed , until relatively recently , I do not think the the Mactavishes were regarded as a distinct branch or clan with their own head. It has long been the understanding, and certainly was the understanding in the late 18th century, that the mactavish campbells descended from clan campbell, most likely through taius coir, an illegitimate son of colin maol math , chief of the name campbell. The very name Tavish means son of tavish , and it is . I am quite sure, for that reason that in 1793 the campbell quarter was given to show the then accepted descent of mactavish of dunardry from greater clan campbell. Indeed the most recent work on the history of clan campbell continues to support the theory that the most likely candidate for the ancestor of the mactavishes is the person i mention above. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FORETHCOMING IN RECENT TIMES TO GIVE ANY OTHER POSSIBLE ANCESTORY.".........end of quote from lyons court

MY COMMENT: Certainly Tavis Coir is the epytom (founder) of Clan MacTavish. There is no dispute about this by loyal MacTavish. Certainly the MacTavishes were considered a Clan. Clan Hawes considered them one, at least from the 17th Century, as taken from the writings of one Captain Haws. Don?t forget the Campbells of Craignish say also that MacTavish is a Clan. From the honored work ?Clans and Families of Ireland and Scotland: An Ethnography of the Gael, A.D. 500-1750 by C. Thomas, Ph.D.?, Page 6., we read, ?As a genealogical note, however, it should be pointed out that, especially in Scotland, the tribal following of a chief was often encouraged to take the name of the chief, once surnames came into general use in place of clan names. (NOTE: Iver was the brother of Taus and progenitor of the Clan MacIver - they became the MacIver-Campbells. The MacTavish, steming from Taus, never took the name of Campbell, and, thus, was not a tribal following of Clan Campbell.)?
?Clan Tavish?, by Niall Diarmid Campbell, the 10th Duke of Argyll, wrote, ?Though the MacTavishes were never a large or powerful clan, they have nevertheless been deemed a brave and honourable race and numbers of them still live in Argyll under their old patronymic. Though the clan as a whole never seem to have made the slightest sign of adopting the name Campbell, they followed always the bratach or banner of the Lords of Lochow in war and all hostings..? Now if the 10th Duke of Argyll, who by the way, was a well renown, well educated, historical writer and speaker of his day, tells us that the MacTavishes were a clan, I think we can count on it. Duke Niall also listed several generations of the MacTavish Chiefs. So we have a MacTavish Clan and we have its Chiefs, courtesy of the 10th Duke of Argyll; a literary mind and historian far more versed in Campbell History and Heraldry than was Lord Lyon John Hooke Campbell. Further Duke Niall, compiled the ?Argyll Transcripts?, a lengthy voluminous set of records, regarding things surrounding the Campbells et al. It is considered the Campbell Bible. However, the ?most recent work? (on Clan Campbell) does most definitely dispute the epytom of Clan MacTavish as being one Thomas Campbell. So, whom ever wrote this letter that you quote has no knowledge of the ?newest version? of Campbell History, which by the way was written four years prior to the date of the letter you are quoting. The author of the latest Campbell history is Alastair Lorne Campbell of Airds, former Chief Executive of Clan Campbell.
Certainly, the Campbells have written and even re-written their own history, no less that 10 times, to no doubt, further their own cause and this has been noticed by quite a few historians. Many of the Campbell dates don?t jive with history, and some people and events are completely ignored. Thomas Campbell was born about 1220 AD, as he appears as an adult in 1292-1296. There is very little mention of him at all, yet Alistair Campbell of Airds, ?suggests? that he, and not Tavis Coir, founded Clan MacTavish. Alastair provides no proof of his ?suggestion? regarding Thomas Campbell. Yet noted in the ?Highland Papers? is that Tavis Coir is the son of Colin Maol Maith, Chief of Clan Duine (or MacDwine), the latter Campbells. Colin was killed at Dunstaffnage in 1110 defending the person of the King, so Tavis was born before that time, as he (Tavis) had a younger brother, Iver who founded Clan MacIver.

so in summary then......

1... .. Lachlan Mactavish arms grant of 1793 makes NO mention of him being a chief. The court of Lord Lyon state ..APRIL 2003..."I do not think that the Mactavishes were regarded as a distinct branch or clan with their own head."

MY COMMENT: Yes that is true, Lachlan is noted as Esquire, and that was the mistake made by Lyon Campbell, and corrected with the ratification of Lord Lyon and the affirmation of Her Majesty, when Dugald MacTavish became Chief.

2..Lyons office believe that the Mactavish clan NEVER had a chief until recently

MY COMMENT: I don?t believe that. Neither did Lords Lyon, Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, or Sir Maclom Innes of Edingigh. Proof was offered that there were Chiefs of Clan MacTavish. This is also spelled out in the ?Families of Knapdale? by MacMillan, by the 10th Duke of Argyll, and others.
Check personally at Lyon Court.

3...lyons office state that NO information has come to hand recently that shows ANY other descent OTHER than from clan Campbell. Court of Lord lyon states .. " the most recent work on the history of clan Campbell continues to support the theory that the most likely candidate for the ancestor of the mactavish is taius coir , illegitimate son of Colin maol math chief of clan Campbell. "...

MY COMMENT: I already commented on that, and certainly CLL DOES INDEED have such information at hand. Colin was Chief of Clan MacDuine, the name Campbell was not even is use in that era. Look it up.

. THESE FACTS FROM LYONS OFFICE WERE RECEIVED... April 2003 ...( note the date ) - 3 MONTHS AFTER THE MACTAVISH CLAN PRESS RELEASE STATING...
A NEW ARMS GRANT HAD BEEN ISSUED THAT SEPARATED CLAN MACTAVISH FROM CLAN CAMPBELL AND THIS APPARANTLY RESULTED FROM NEW INFORMATION BEING SUPPLIED TO LYONS OFFICE )..?????

.it appears lyons office have no such information at all

MY: COMMENT: It is interesting indeed that there are NEW Letters Patent issued to Chief Dugald MacTavish of Dunardry changing his arms. Something happened at The Court of the Lord Lyon resulting in this change. Yet Lyon Court says, no... very, very strange ndeed.

a "mactavish clan " press release in my Inverness Courier JAN 2003 stated ..."an ancient wrong has been righted and clan Mactavish have reversed the grant of arms given to lachlan mactavish in 1793 that showed connection to clan Campbell.." ...
THE COURT OF LORD LYON STATE THAT THE 1793 ARMS GRANT WAS CORRECT

MY COMMENT: Your newspaper was correct. Go to Lyon Court, personally, and view the new Letters Patent issued for new MacTavish Chiefly arms.


4...Lyons office confirm that in 1793 the lord lyon was ( i quote ) "john hooke Campbell and he would be well versed in Campbell history, being a descent of the campbells of Cawdor , and would be the first to object if Arms had been granted that were not appropriate"...

MY COMMENT: I doubt that, as Lyon Campbell was born and raised an Englishman and had been separated from his Scottish heritage. It is known, historically recorded, Ly9n Campbells fees were whatever he could raise from the fees at Lyon Court. He pocketed CLL monies. He also had a bias toward his Chief, the Duke of Argyll.

you do state the "lyons office are the authority in these matters"....so at this stage it appears that lyons office have an entirely different list of facts compared to your own...
You also state that simon mactavish arms grant is wrong as it is "differenced" by only a bordure. Are you suggesting we now ignore simons arms grant and go against the decision of the court of lord lyon ?

MY COMMENT: migovie, or tavis or whatever (your style and verbiage gives you away), YES, Lyon is the authority, and YOU seem to disagree with not only the Present Lord Lyon, but two former Lords Lyon. Edward Stuart Dugald MacTavish is Chief of the Clan MacTavish, ratified and confirmed, by the Court of the Lord Lyon, as proven in lineage submitted in petition, and descended from the Last Chief of the Clan, Lachlan MacTavish of Dunardry.
No do not ignore Simon?s grant of arms, they stand as they are in the historical Arms and Bearings of Scotland. Yes I am suggesting that Simon?s arms were matriculated in error, just as were Lachlan?s arms. Lord Lyon Robin Blair agreed and issued new arms. 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. Since the Stratherrick McTavishes appear to be descended from the second son, Tavish Mhor, Simon, as descended in the second generation, a border of the second was inappropriate. Lord Lyon Campbell also matriculated other armigers incorrectly.

All i can do is confirm records held by Lyons office .
These records show that Lachlan and Simon were close blood relations ( from the arms grant ),

MY COMMENT: You are misinformed, the Arms grant and the genealogy provided to show descent, contradict each other.

When you read the work by mathews on the Dunardry and Garthbeg Mactavish you see the probable explantion for this arms grant and the bordure differencing.
Mathews is of the belief that both lachlan and Simon are descended from the same father...and mathews details this when describing the Dunardry fight in 1300 odd between the chiefs sons in which the elder was slain and the survivor departed for Stratherrick with a band of followers.

MY COMMENT: THE SAME FATHER? You need to do some research. You also need to re-read what you are mentioning and that is Dr. Mathews? work. I find nothing there suggesting to what you refer.

You do state you feel these men were "banished " from the Mactavish clan ...but this must be an "opinion" as I find NO reference to any "banishing " in any historical documents.

MY COMMENT: No, this is an historical tradition, and Dr. Mathews even mentions it. Re-read Mathews.

We have many, many letters between Lachlan mactavish and Simon mactavish ..one of which Lachlan refers to himself as "chief " but he made NO attempt to apply for arms that confirmed this.

MY COMMENT: QUOTE and SOURCE where Lachlan refers to himself as Chief.
Lachlan simply knew who he was, he didn?t need arms to tell him so. Campbell gave him incorrect arms, and Lachlan was so far in debt -I doubt- he had the resources to challenge the arms.

We know then that lachlan felt he was chief and was intending to apply for 'supporters" to confirm this...but they were never granted....???

MY COMMENT: WE KNOW THIS?? DO WE?? GIVE ME THE SOURCE and QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS, and which archive it comes from!

clans often used the name of "chief" as a reference to the head family or ?tribal leader?and it is only lyons office that have in recent centuries placed a more detailed terminlogy of the title "chief".

the local use of this term and lyons records should always be separated to some extent for understanding "context" and intent of the use of the word.

MY COMMENT: This goes back many generations, even unto 1597. An Act of Parliament of 1597 refers to ?chiftains and chiefis of all clannis and the principallis of the brancheis of the saidis clannis duelland in the Heilands or bordouris?. This comes from the French ?chevetainrie-propri?t? d?un chevetain-seigneur?. The majority of great feudal landowners in Scotland were, of course, within the clan system. There is no doubt the head of a clan is chief, and accordingly a chieftain in the modern is the head of a subordinate house.

Why then did lachlan not apply to be legally recognised as a legal and accepted chief ?. it may have stemmed from lyons office believing the mactavishes were a sept and as such would have had an "informal" chief or head family of the tribe only.

MY COMMENT: Lachlan became ill and died. The situation determining Chiefship has been corrected. There is not, and never has been such thing as an ?informal? Chief.

This word sept is used as a term that decribes clans that showed allegiance and obedience to a ?superior? chief. We see mactavish fighting battles wearing the Campbell and Fraser kilts/colours.

MY COMMENT: Tell me where we find pictures of this.

We do not see cambells or frasers fighting mactavish battles wearing the mactavish kilt This fact alone shows historically that the mactavish were the supporting clan and history shows this clearly even at the battle of Culloden where the mactavish fought under the cambell and fraser clans ?colours? and others and NO mactavish fought as a separate clan or tribe under mactavish name as a seperate power and/or tribe.. That is history and the way of Scotland. You cannot today place a ?clinical? definition of clan tribe life and customs because clans didn?t refer to a definition or a handbook on how to strictly operate. Clans had a strict code of ethics that was followed for centuries but as with all ancient customs these were amended slightly from chief to chief and area to area and even father to son.

MY COMMENT: Where did you find ?this? stuff!

The use even of the phrase ?distant relation? is a phrase still used in Scotland today. This has no reference to ?distance in bloodline? it is a Scottish phrase . A friend wrote from Edinburgh saying ? my distant brother from Canada is returning shortly?. So when we see documents that list Simon Mactavish as a ?distant relation? to Lachlan please try to understand this statement in the meaning of the time and land. Further remember to now state that Simon Mactavish was not a close blood relation to Lachlan requires you to blatantly disregard the rulings of Lyons office ( and you state time and time again that Lyons office are the authority ) and again it would require us to dismiss the work of mathews as mathews himself lists Simons families descent from the Dunardry chief of 1300s.

MY COMMENT: If what you say is correct, that ?Simons families descent from the Dunardry chief of 1300s?, then why did you say (above) that Lachlan and Simon had the same father? AND please SHOW ME, (source and quote) where you found, other than my saying so, that Lachlan considered Simon a ?distant relative?.

When we look at the time both men applied for arms we see...............
lachlan applied in 1793 and this was after a 50 year period in scotlands history when all clans had their powers restricted by the crown. From Culloden until around 1788 it was illegal in scotland to be a chief , or to show respect or allegiance to a chief, to wear a kilt, to play bagpipes, to show any great clan allegiance etc.

MY COMMENT: SHOW ME WHERE YOU FOUND THAT CHIEFS OF CLANS WERE OUTLAWED. Quote the Act of Parliament that made it so.

Lachlan and Simon applied for arms very shortly after this ban was lifted.
We know that not every clan bothered with the legality of making formal application to Lyons office to register their arms and apply to register their chiefs (especially around this time frame ).

MY COMMENT: WE KNOW THAT? From what Source?

This in no way means that particular clan didnt have a chief..It simply means that legally ( in the court of lord lyon ) they held no record of this fact . In this case we see Lachlan Mactavish registering for arms but never applying or being granted arms that confirmed him to be a chief.

MY COMMENT: MIGOVIE (TAVIS) YOU ARE RAMBLING HERE.

It pays to also note that Lachlans reasons for neglecting this duty may have been that he simply didnt bother because in 1793 he didnt actually own any clan land (having sold it a few years previously ) or as we know he was living in Edinburgh and his mactavish kinsmen had been dispersed worldwide for many years already due to the methodic destruction of the clan system by the english.

MY COMMENT: Duties, what duties were involved in being a Chief after Culloden? Can you give me a list of confirmed duties that a chief was supposed to fulfill in that era? Lachlan MacTavish of Dunardry sold Dunardy Lands at auction to Campbell of Barbeck on "31 December 1795", NOT in 1793. Your statement and conclusion are incorrect.

It would seem very inlikely that lachlan mactavish would legally "dispone" his titles and duties as chief to simon mactavish via lord lyons office. Lord lyons hold no record of lachlan ever being chief, so such an approach by lachlan would be unnecessary .
A check of lyons records would obvioulsy be a waste of time for such "disponing" documents. However the lack of any record of this at Lyons office doesn?t mean it didn?t actually happen.

MY COMMENT: An obvious waste of time, why is that? CLL is were all chiefly issues have been and are taken up. At that time, disponing, or abdication of a Chiefship, would indeed of legal necessity, go thru Lord Lyon. You just mentioned ?We know that not every clan bothered with the legality of making formal application to Lyons office to register their arms and apply to register their chiefs (especially around this time frame?,
On the one hand YOU say that Chiefs were, or were not, registering at Lyon Court after being outlawed, and then you say that after matriculation of arms Lachlan would not have formally disponed with Lyon Court. That is contradictory.


It is also clear that from correspondence between lachlan and simon that both men were understandably unsure of the correct procedures and duties required by lyons office with regard to titles and their use etc.
This again may shed explanation as to their lack of correct procedures in duties and when you tie this with the fact that in 1795 the mactavish clan lived as a unit no more, and a chief at this time was a duty requiring commitment and funding. The days of clan chiefs living from their clansmans rentals were long gone .

MY COMMENT: Duities, confusion. Lairds at that time, whether Chiefs or not still had tacksmen that collected the rents from those living on the land. Where did you come up with this? One of your ancestors was a Tacksman, in this era.

Communications were primitive so chiefly duties were limited to your immediate family for the smaller clans such as mactavish. This again may have been a reason for lachlan to suggest to simon that he now take over this role. lachlan would have been aware that he was dying in financial hardship and at a time in scottish history when a chiefly role was a financial burden with little reward. Lachlan owned no land and no home and his sons as heirs would inherit nothing, However simon mactavish was extremely wealthy and perhaps lachlan thought it a wise move to entrust your clans future in the hands of simon and his wealth. With regard to lachlans other relations being offered the titles ? probably again that in 1796 it was simply a burden that noone really cared about as much as previous generations. Previous centuries saw chiefs ( or family heads) having great standing and power and land ownership that gave them great income. In 1796 this was all but gone for many clans and certainly without doubt was ALL gone for the mactavish clan.

MY COMMENT: Communication was primitive everywhere, the size of the clan makes no difference. As anyone can tell you making conjecture here.

No land, no rentals, no castles, no income meant a chiefly role was a huge financial burden at a time when the crown had succesfully reduced the role to almost "chief of nothing status"
There are many many facts that suggest lachlan did actually ask simon mactavish to subsequently accept lachlans titles as simply "dunardry" as granted and also take over the chiefly role
The most obvious being lachlans sons neglect to apply for neither lachlans titles nor duties as chief. Lachlans son dugald is said to have been too young at 14 ys . In which case lachlan should have detailed his titles passage to his son via a description in his will or used the word chief . There is No mention of anything of this sort in lachlans will.

MY COMMENT: One does not need to offer titles in wills, even back then. The record at Lyon Court had Lachlan registered as MacTavish of Dunardry. Simon was MacTavish of Garthbeg. It was up to Simon to make the change if it were legally his to make.

We do see simon mactavish detailing his land of dunardry and separately his titles of dunardry in his will and their passage to his sons and heirs that were in fact younger than lachlans at the time death.

My Comment: What does this prove? Simon was Laird of Dunardry, NOT CHIEF OF THE CLAN. I note you do not mention that Simon states that one of his titles (in his will) was Chief of the Clan. He could not do so, as he was not.


Why then did lachlans heirs refuse to make any attempt to conduct chiefly role or duties or register for lachlans arms in the years to come ?

MY COMMENT: ATTEMPT??? THERE WAS NO POINT IN DOING SO. CHIEFS HAD NO POWERS OR DUTIES TO PERFORM AFTER CULLODEN! REMEMBER WHAT PARLIAMENT DID TO SCOTLAND?

Pehaps this was because they understood and respected their fathers wishes to "dispone" the titles etc to simon mactavish and simon mactavishs clearly written will that precludes these same titles from ever leaving his family or descendants.

MY COMMENT: AN ASSUPTION AGAIN- NO PROOF.

Why then did lachlans son dugald never apply to lyons office for the title of dunardry.??/

MY COMMENT: The son inherits his father?s arms, title(s) etc?. Lachlans eldest son was a technically MacTavish of MacTavish after the property was sold. CLL suggests re-registering every two or three generations, just to continue the genealogical progression.
One reason that Lord Lyon ?probably? ( and here I am making an assumption based on Learney?s letters to the MacTavish (Dunardry) family in the 1950?s) granted the Title of MacTavish of Dunardry to Chief Dugald MacTavish, is that the property was no longer in any MacTavish hands.

in addition to the reason above it is noted the mactavish website states lachlans son and heir dugald neglected to apply for arms as heir as he was too busy as a lawyer. He must have been an extremely busy man not to afford the time to write a simple short letter to lyons office which was all that was required at the time. He wasnt too young at 14 years to be given titles as "heir" and he certainly wasnt too busy as a lawyer to apply to lyons office to aquire his fathers title as dunardry. Neither of these expalnations make any sense nor reason at all.

MY COMMENT: Where did you come up with all this? How do you know if Lachlan?s eldest son was busy or not. ASSUPTION!

We will continue searching through old family papers and documents and hopefully unravel these mysteries shortly.
I can see you display quite a "hostility' towards mr bradford and his work on the history of the mactavish. Further investigation will eventually reveal if documents do exist that prove lachlan did dispone his chiefly role as head of the small mactavish tribe. Such documents will certainly not be found at Lyons office as you suggest , and they will most likely appear as a simple letter to simon asking him to assume the role . We can see clearly from lachlans will that he died with very little money and no land nor assets of any real value.

MY COMMENT: Quote to me in Lachlan?s will were he had little money? I have a certified copy of the will. As far as Bradford goes, what I said stands. I have no hostility toward the man, I don?t even know him. He wrote one chapter of a book, the rest is MacTavish family correspondence that he put to type. Unfortunately Bradford, did not do his research very well and jumped to a few conclusions that were inaccurate. Bradford?s book, ?MacTavish of Dunardry?, was one issue dealt with at Lyon Court, before Lord Lyon confirmed Dugald MacTavish as Chief of the clan. So, Lyon, it seems, also disagreed with Bradford?s conclusions.

Perhaps the letters we have from simon to lachlans widow offering financial assistance to herself and her children are an indication of lachlans dying wishes and perhaps even part of an agreement between the 2 men as condition of simon receiving the titles etc.

MY COMMENT: Simon did offer, at one time, financial help but it never materialized.


Mr. mathews document on garthbeg is quite clear that he believes that simon mactavish family had wanted reinstatement and re-attachment to the dunardry family as of right , and this may well have been the real motive behind simons approach to lachlan .

MY COMMENT: QUOTE WHERE YOU FOUND THIS IN MATHEWS. I DON?T SEE IT.

It appears blatantly clear to me that simon mactavish was a man of integrity and was in his own way attempting to re.stich the obvioulsly fragmented mactavish clan back together...in 1796
simon mactavish re.purchased his clans land of dunardry and its heritage....(perhaps no great feat ...).
BUT...simon did this as a HUGE gesture from a man that had no history of being frivolous or foolish with money. nor investment...he was a businessman with success as his goal and his clan in his heart
Lets respect and pay due tribute to the greatest and most succesful mactavish clan member to date. Simon mactavish needs to be upheld by ALL Mactavish as our greatest mentor


thank you

MY COMMENT: It appears clear to you, not to me. Yes Simon was a very rich, accomplished, man, and a social climber. That?s why he purchased Dunardry. His HUGH gesture, as you put it, could have been a gesture toward the Chief of the Clan. Simon could have purchased the property FOR THE CLAN, but he purchased it for himself. He could have done so, and thereby have prevented the Chiefly family from being removed from the ancestral lands. Instead, Simon waited and bought the Dunardry property after it was lost at auction to Captain Campbell.

Three Lords Lyon have affirmed and upheld that Chief Dugald MacTavish?s family, being that of Dunardry, are the rightful heirs to the Chiefship. Dugald MacTavish of Dunardry IS Chief of the Clan MacTavish. Sorry, but it seems that you (Migovie or Tavish) don?t like that.

You are well aware that we have corresponded in the past, it seems a pity that you have not become more aware of the historical facts.

---------------------------
From The Canadian Encyclopedia:

McTavish, Simon
Fur-trade merchant (born in 1750 at Stratherrick, Scotland; died on July 6, 1804, at Montreal, Lower Canada [Que.]). He was the first chief director of the North West Company (NWC).
As a boy of 13, McTavish left the Highlands of Scotland to live in New York as an apprentice to a merchant. After learning the fur trade, he moved again, this time to Montreal where, in 1779, he was involved in the creation of the first NWC, a group of fur traders doing business in the interior beyond Lake Superior. McTavish himself never ventured into the fur country. He was a merchant, not a trader. He organized the purchase of trade goods, saw that they were shipped to the distant posts, and arranged for the sale of the furs. Because of his skill, he emerged as the leader of the NWC.
McTavish was a strong-willed businessman who earned the nickname, "the Marquis." He drove many competitors out of business, or forced them to join in his partnership, until the NWC was the leading fur-trade company in Montreal.
-----------------------

It seems Simon was shrud, and often a harsh man, who came from humble beginnings, and got his wealth by being a tough guy. Some other descriptions of him are less flattering. No doubt he was a very cool customer.

[tavish]

a very busy time of year but heres a few facts for you to check.

1...dunardry sale
according to the mactavish website ( under "the clan".. footnote 125)
the dates of sale ARE as i quoted ( unless the mact website has made an error ? ...if so please correct your statements )....

>>>>> lachlan sold dunardry 31st dec. 1785 by public auction to neil malcolm of potalloch
then it was purcahsed by simon mactavish april 1797.

i stated that "lachlan applied forms in 1793 and had sold dunardry a few years previoulsy "....and you have corrected me stating it was sold 31st dec 1795.??



2...regarding my comments re. the state of scotland post culloden and the banning of pipes and destruction of clan system etc....

you asked me to provide proof or copies of such legilsation ?? and where did I get SUCH information.....( i suppose this indicates you strongly believe no such things occured ?.)
.

heres a few examples

"disarming act of 1746"
and many more pieces of legislation of 1746 and 1747 that was passed to provide a determined effort to end the clan system in scotland once and for all.
and a quote from
"Scotland's History"
quote "After Culloden 1746 - 1860 The English and the Lowland Scots were determined to squash the rebellious Highlanders for ever. They enforced the Act of Proscription in 1747, banning Highland dress, the bearing of arms and even the playing of the pipes. Jacobites who had not died at Culloden were either executed or transported. The old way of life was dead.

The act was repealed in 1782, but by this time it was no longer relevant; the Highland Clearances had begun. Between 1780 and 1860, thousands of crofters were evicted from their homes in the Highlands and Islands, to make way for sheep. Many others emigrated voluntarily, to escape persecution, to Canada, America, New Zealand and Australia. In the middle of the 19th century Ireland's potato famine reached the Highlands, resulting in appalling hardship and causing further emigration. By the end of the 19th century, the rural Highlands and Islands were almost deserted. " end of quote

So i suppose you are correct when you say there was no legislation to ban chiefs. But in the effort to destroy the clan system clan land was confiscated and heads of families/chiefs executed post culloden. This all came under the post battle genocide
A clan without land and a clan where most of the family heads were treated as "wanted men " for years to come could no longer operate efficiently as a unit.. That is the point i was making. Clans that showed sympathy to the crown benefited.Those who refused had their men on "wanted lists" for years.
The crowns determination to extiguish highland clans and clan life resulted in the destruction of the clan system . To be head of one of those clans left you in a very precarious situation.


the remaining facts you have asked for will be posted shortly but ill give you time to research this latest list
.I wont bother sending you copies of these acts as you suggest. Im sure you are capable of locating the history books and paperwork yourself.

Oh and id appreciate you naming the lyons office staff member that you feel would go to the effort of mailing deliberate incorrect facts to me as you suggest .
You state you feel they would go to this effort because.....they dont like dunardry ?
Name that person please, and I will then ensure I get the next list of facts from another source.
Name the staff member or remove your allegation . Your comments are undermining the entegrity of this court.

One more quick note ..you asked where i obatined the info. that suggested that lachlans heir dugald was " too busy to register for arms"
IT CAME FROM THE CLAN MACTAVISH WEBSITE
mactavish site states
" As lachlans son dugald was under age in 1796 and did not register the arms, and as a grown man, his duties as a Writer of the Signet did not allow him time to register the Arms , he died without registering them. "..end of quote

I simply made the comment that i think it highly improbable for Dugald to be too busy not to write a letter to lyons office and register for arms. It would take very little time nor effort. So UNLESS you have direct proof that confirms your suggestion dugald was to busy....it must stand that my opinion that he wasnt too busy , holds equal amount of power with or without me providing proof.
Unless you statement is supported by proof he was too busy, then it is simply is suggestion and in that case is abled to be equally countered by another suggestion without supporting proof.
And in reality my suggestion is far more plausable in the real world .

have a fine xmas
im enjoying this debate

more documented facts to come shortly

[clantavish1]

It appears that your entire premise for your postings is based in what you read from a letter of a staff member at the Court of the Lord Lyon (CLL), that you mentioned previously, I find no further reason to comment indepth on your statements, and particularly since you have misquoted, misinterpreted, or taken out of context, not too few items from the MacTavish web site.

One noted item which you misinterpret is:

"1...dunardry sale
according to the mactavish website ( under "the clan".. footnote 125)
the dates of sale ARE as i quoted ( unless the mact website has made an error ? ...if so please correct your statements )...."

Here (I suppose) you are referring to Argylshire (Dr. Mathews) as that is the only likely place for a footnote of 125. So...... it would not be that the MacTavish web site made a mistake, but rather that these are Dr. Mathews' words which are presented for perview. Is that what you meant? Dr. Mathews' manuscript was presented as an historic and literary find, one that was previously unknown or neglected by the Scottish historic community, until found in 1999 and transcribed for the web in about 2001. The Clan MacTavish does not state that his work is flawless, but it is one of the most comprehensive historical manuscripts ever to be written on the MacTavish legacy. He did make a few mistakes when writing his manuscript, as has been borne out by additional research.

I do not desire to withdraw my statement regarding a certain person at CLL, since I am well aware of the situation, considering my position. You, in your particular position would haveno such knowledge. Not that I am blaming you , its just that you could not know this. As I am not desirous of slandering any one person, I will not name that person.

Since you do not confirm that Lord Lyon, himself, wrote the letter you mention, and have not denied that the letter was indeed from a staffer at CLL, then I must readily assume that the latter is the case. You must admit that your reply presents nothing definitive as to the writer, one way or the other. The CLL letter you have previously 'quoted', does have some very unenlightened statements, and I would AGAIN refer you to the documents held at CLL in the file for the Matriculation of the present MacTavish of Dunardry. Please, do not try to toss this back in my direction again.

One of those statements refers to the MacTavish not having a Chief until recent times (paraphrased), which, is refuted in the matriculation records file at CLL. Thusly, it appears that whomever it was wriitng this letter is not familiar with the situation under which Lord Lyon, Sir Malcolm Innes, confirmed and ratified Chief MacTavish, or, there is a bias against MacTavish presented in the letter. Either of these would be the only reasons for the statements made in the CLL letter you have 'quoted'. And this AGAIN is based in the documented evidence, presented and ruled upon, by Lord Lyon King of Arms, for the ratification of Chief MacTavish. Does a legal court ruling from Lord Lyon, himself, overshadow a letter written by a staff member? Only you can answer that.

Again you say, "I simply made the comment that i think it highly improbable for Dugald to be too busy not to write a letter to lyons office and register for arms. It would take very little time nor effort. So UNLESS you have direct proof that confirms your suggestion dugald was to busy....it must stand that my opinion that he wasnt too busy , holds equal amount of power with or without me providing proof."

It was not entirely necessary for Dugald to do so, as Lyon court only suggests that arms be re-registered every two or three generations, as arms are inherited and the genealogic progression is often listed in the wording of the matriculation document itself, showing the next potential heir or heirs. It is the best situation for each generation to re-register their arms, but not necessary.

I note, also, in the records at Lyon Court that Simon's son(s) did not re-register the Garthbeg (nor for that matter Dunardry) arms at CLL. Where they busy, as well, with other things? One must readily assume so. Either that, or according to your own logic, what excuse is there for Simon's heirs not to have re-registered?

I think that the Juris of Lord Lyon, himself, is sufficient PROOF to dismiss any further discussion on this matter. That is, if you hold Lord Lyon as the authority on the matter. If you do not, then I suspect you will proceed further.

Regards
Patrick

[padams]

"NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FORETHCOMING IN RECENT TIMES TO GIVE ANY OTHER POSSIBLE ANCESTORY.".........end of quote from lyons court

so in summary then......"
__________________________________________________ __

WOW! I really have to question some of these statements as truly coming from the Lord Lyon's office. The Lord Lyon in the 1950s was aware and that's modern times. I would not put any confidence in something like this. I would write directly to the Lord Lyon and I would bet that you will not get a negative statement from him.

Dugald MacTavish of Dunardry was recognized as Chief in 1997. Obviously, in order to get that type of recognition from the Lyon Court, proof had been established. The job of the Lyon Court is not taken lightly and does not matriculate someone as a Chief simply because the person says they are. Petitioning/proving can take several years. It takes much more than just a birth certificate and/or a driver's license, to say the least.

I have traveled to Edinburgh and been privileged to be introduced to the Lord Lyon in the presence of Chief MacTavish. I have met the Lord Lyon's secretary and staff. At all times, they called him Chief MacTavish and recognized him as such. I met Mrs. Elizabeth Rhoades, who also call him Chief MacTavish. Even the security guard at the entrance to the building, recognized him and greeted him as Chief MacTavish. It seems strange that they would do so if it were not true. I guess I will rely on the Lord Lyon for the truth.

Perhaps you might consider putting the entire letter (with letterhead and signature) online for people to view. I am sure that if the letter sent to you was done under any type of forgery, the Office of the Lord Lyon would want to be able to see it.

I also consider it a little irresponsible for a staff member to write such a letter to you. This type of confirmation should come directly from the Lord Lyon, himself.

Disponing? Hmmm! Another thought - just because a person writes one book does not make him/her a historian.

Also - George Black in his "Surnames of Scotland" says that Mc is a contraction of Mac. Doesn't necessarily means one thing or another. I am sure that all of us reading this are aware that names changed drastically over the years - with one family or another taking on a different spelling at times - i.e., Mc instead of Mac, or Thompson instead of Thomson. Doesn't really prove anything in the final scheme of things. Black's book is considered one of the most important books in doing Scottish name research and I am sure anyone can find a copy at their nearest public library.

And - Patrick - some good points made by you.

My, my - this has been going on for quite some time. One would think that by this time, people would go straight to the proper authority to get the truth.

However, keep on researching. The important thing in life is that we learn and grow. You never know what you might find on your own family line while trying to prove something negative about another. Just be careful of what you quote and who you quote. We humans are so susceptible to making statement without stating sources and so on.

Cathy - I appreciate all of the research you have done on your McTavish line and like your site. Keep up the good work.

Patricia :)

[rhona]

My sense of mis-CHIEF has finally got the better of me and I apologise in advance if I'm throwing a spanner in the works,-----but I like to think cold water may be the best remedy for the fire that's burning rather than the traditional spirit!
Believe it or not; my grandfather James McTavish was encouraged to apply for the title of McTavish Chief back in the 1970's when he knew Lord Lyon personally and actually worked at the Crown Office in a senior position,but unfortunately--- or perhaps wisely, he refused to pursue the title.Sadly he is no longer here to explain the source of the research which was put before him,but I have traced his direct line back to the Aberdeen area ,thru' Nairn and probably back to Inverness,with a definite Campbell connection.Grampa always believed his ancestors were affiliated to the Frasers--------
so Im not sure where that leaves us! My family is still resident here in Scotland but truth be told, I think we're all far more interested in finding our bonafide roots than wrangling over which twist of fate led to some being born into priviledge over their poorer brothers and sisters.
If only all our affluent cousins would return to their homeland to re-envigorate the economy and national identity we really could have a clan to be proud of ;) once again!! ;)

[padams]

"My family is still resident here in Scotland but truth be told, I think we're all far more interested in finding our bonafide roots than wrangling over which twist of fate led to some being born into priviledge over their poorer brothers and sisters."

Thank you - thank you. Excellent advice. :D

Patricia

[cathy]

I concur, great advice! Rhonda, why don't you send me some of your family history, perhaps I can work my magic on it and find out what Lord Lyon's might have thought the connection was to the title.

After the holidays I intend to post several of the letters back and forth between Simon McTavish of Montreal and Lachlan of Dunardry. I will also post the last piece of Simon's will that makes reference to Dunardry and its succession. I will also transcribe some of the letters between Simon's sons and Lachlan's heir just before Dunardry was sold. They provide some insight into many areas of the "story"

Until then have a very Merry Christmas!

Cathy McTavish
Great Grand Daughter of the Last Tacksman of Garthbeg

[clantavish1]

Hello to all,

The reason I posted here originally, not being descended from the Stratherrick McTavishes, is because I came upon this website, and recognizing Cathy as a contributor and moderator, I believed this would be a good place to investigate. Cathy has done a wonderful job in persuing her ancestral line, and presenting this website and message board. Cathy, those parts of the letters you mention about the "succession" of titles etc.. might do some good in clearing things up a bit, I totally concur with this effort. They will show everyone, what did and did not happen. That's a lot of work if its what I think it is, but go for it.

I noted that the fellow posting as either Migovie or Tavish, made some (what I consider) rather outlandish statements, which, if left to stand, presented what I believe are some rather grave inconsistancies, and inaccuracies. These needed to be addressed, which I did.

If you note in my last posting, I attempted to calm the waters, particulary since my post was answered by 'tavish' with more of the same -- statements made without any evidence, sources, or references, except one thing, an unpublished letter, presumably written by a Lyon Court staff member. I regret that such a discourse was necessary, however, if one reads the original member's postings there are many things (in many places herein) which just do not make much sense.

Rhoda, I very much appreciate your posting, to add some cold water. My intent was NOT to cause an inferno, but rather to present an historic and legal counter to inconsitant statements. I am very interested that your relative was urged to apply for the McTavish Chiefhship. This is VERY interesting, indeed. Dunardry, nor do I think does any M(a)cTavish, dispell a Campbell connection, M(a)cTavishes are indeed cousins of the Campbells, but rather the MacDwines, the former name, as we (MacT's) 'seem to have' split from them well before the Campbell name came into use. There were also marriages between MacTavishes and Campbells, and Campbells and MacTavishes. Such does not prove that MacTavishes were sub-serviant to Campbells. People marry whom they desire. Campbells and MacTavishes married others as well, so it does not seem that this alone makes the so-called 'Campbell connection' a Holy Grail. I beleive, without actaully lookin at my own records, that MacDwine was used prior to Campbell and in the era that Clan Tavish separated from them, and this is confirmed in at least two documents (Patrica, please correct me if I am wrong on this point.)

Patricia, long time, I hope you are doing well!!! And I am very much in agreement with you, that one must go to THE SOURCE, LYON HIMSELF! I had posted that previously, but it seemed not to gain any headway. Thanks for the interjection of that very valid point. And, yes, one must give definitive proof to be ratified as the chief of a clan. Your examples spell out most eloquently that everyone at the Court of the Lord Lyon addresses Dugald MacTavish of Dunardry as Chief MacTavish. They would not do so if such were not held as a 'fact in law'.

As this site seems to be mainly for genealogy, I wondered why such a prattle of inconsistancies was being posted in nearly every topic heading by 'migovie or tavish', which did little to further genealogical research, but seemed -rather-to 'slam' the Dunardry MacTavishes, and Chief MacTavish himself. There is really no need for this, as we are all MacTavish descendants and all justly proud of our ancestry and of our individual ancestral lines. Though we had been separated for some generations, we seem to have found some common ground for unification. Such banter as was presented here was to what end? Whether affiliated with Dunardry or Lovat, it makes no difference, we share common blood. We are relatives. If someone does not like the fact the Dugald MacTavish was ratified as Chief, then they need to discover someone better suited to be chief, and senior in lineage to the present chief; someone who stems directly from the last valid chiefly line, and who can PROVE such a claim legally at Lyon Court. Until, and if, that ever happens, Dugald MacTaivsh is still Chief of the NAME and Arms of MacTavish, and Chief of the Clan MacTavish.

[FONT=Arial]Correcting some of the outlandish statements made herein, is the ONLY reason I posted response, as no one else had presented any historical perspective as a counter-point. If I ruffled some feathers in doing so I am sorry for this, but I am not apologizing for presenting accurate information.

My Regards,
Patrick

[cathy]

I have posted the portion of Simon McTavish will relating to Dunardry in the section on the North American Fur Trade, under the section relating to Simon. I thought that a more appropriate place for this post!

Sincerely
Cathy McTavish

[cathy]

This is for Ronda

I have tried to answer your e-mail to me through this forum about Whitehills. I am so excited at your discovery for me. Please e-mail me directly at
garthbeg@garthbeg.com
I have been unable to send a message to you through this forum!

Thanks again!
CAthy

[Jim Thompson Australia]

G'day all, I won't say much, especially since these replies are quite old now, but, just like to say that I am glad that both Patrick and Patricia replied here. I have known these people over the web for some years now and I put their credibility to the highest standards. I 1000% agree with their replied statements to the very many inconstancies that I have seen from this "migovie" or "tavish" person. I wonder if it is Alan, wouldn't surprise me. Well, non the less, glad to see these good people still about helping to spread the truth about our connected names and yes, we are cousins of the Campbells, but certainly not septs.

To all who are searching their MacTavish, McTavish and connected variant name ancestry in all their lines, I wish you the very best. Great to see this site and all it has to say, well done to those involved.

Regards

Jim Thompson, Australia :)

[cathy]

Welcome Jim!

Please take a look at the information on
http://www.garthbeg.com/letters.htm

I welcome your reponses, but we will keep it polite! Any and all information is welcome!
Sincerely,

Cathy McTavish

[Truth Seeker]

Welcome Jim!

Please take a look at the information on
http://www.garthbeg.com/letters.htm

I welcome your reponses, but we will keep it polite! Any and all information is welcome!
Sincerely,

Cathy McTavish
[/b]

I just ran across this one from Jim Thompson in Australia. He must be BLIND and have absolutely NO understanding of clan history and current manipulations if he thinks what Patrick and Patricia post on ANY forum is the truth. I have seen proof that Patrick offered to "fudge" clan history in order to write a book and Patricia can't even get her own genealogy right, let alone Dugald's or anyone elses!

No wonder "jim" didn't answer again after you sent him to read some truths - it doesn't mesh with the deceit being palmed off from Patrick, Patricia, Steven McT, Larry and the rest of them from CMU. Truth means nothing there and when presented with it, it's ignored.

T.S.