clantavish1
11-20-2004, 12:41 PM
Just to help some clear up some things regarding Dunardry viz Garthbeg. I hope this may help in understanding.
The Clan
Definition of the word 'Clan', the Gaelic word for children, is more accurately translated as 'family or children' in the sense in which the word clan became accepted in the Scottish Highlands during the 13th century. A clan is a social group whose core comprises a number of families derived from, or accepted as being derived, from a common ancestor. Almost without exception, that core is accompanied by a further number of dependent and associated families who have either sought the protection of the clan at some point in history or have been tenants or vassals of its chief. That chief is owed allegiance by all members of the clan, but ancient tradition nevertheless states that 'the Clan is above the Chief'. Although Gaelic has been supplanted by English in the Lowlands of Scotland for nearly a thousand years, it is an acceptable convention to refer to the great Lowland families, like the Douglases, as clans, although the heads of certain families, such as Bruce, prefer not to use the term. Allegiance was generally given to a father's clan, but Celtic tradition includes a strong element of descent through, and loyalty to, a mother's line. In reality, the chief of a clan would 'ingather' any stranger, of whatever family, who possessed suitable skills, maintained his allegiance and, if required, adopted the clan surname.
The Sept
A Sept is a family name. It can be related to a clan or larger family for various reasons: Either from a direct bloodline of a son or grandson (in the past) but not bearing the Clan name, through marriage or from those without the clan seeking protection from a larger and more powerful clan or family. Many names which are recorded as septs in early times have since become ?clans in their own right? and many can be related to more than one clan. One such example of a sept becoming a clan is MacKinnon. Many of the clans today sprang from other clans. Such clans are, accepted in the full meaningof clan. They simply separated themselves from the main body or family and followed a Chieftain, who established his own following.
As to MacTavish being a clan, and having a legitimate Chief, and with all due consideration to what has been published contrary to that view, we can only consider what in known to be factual, historic, and recorded at HM New Register House, and within the Records of the Court of the Lord Lyon. All else can be discounted.
The Clan Hawes, considers MacTavish to be a clan. In the writings of Captain G. W. Haws we find:
At the beginning of the 1st century JOHN HAWS (HAWES) succeeded his predecessor, also called JOHN HAWS, (as was the next one before him) who was the last chief in the 17th century, who died just after the commencement of the 18th century, as the first chief in the 18th century of this small Highland clan in the Highlands to the north of the Clyde. The clan territory was over beyond the Trossacks and among the greater clans such as Campbell, MacDonald' (Glengarry) and the clan MacTavish being the nearest of the greater clans.
People have stated contradictorily that it is known that MacTavish is an Independent Clan, but yet a sub-clan, or Sept of Clan Campbell. That is very interesting. A clan cannot be a sub-clan and be independent at the same time. Where there is a High Chief to consider, such as with MacDonald or Chattan, each Chief within that confederation of families is a Chief unto himself with governance of his own clan. These then are Sub-clans, who show allegiance to their own Chiefs, but also to a High Chief. The Duke of Argyll, Chief of the Clan Campbell is not a High Chief, hence MacTavish cannot be a sub-clan. Clan MacArthur is also in this same boat. If you consider Clan Arthur a sept of Campbell then I suppose you will do the same for Clan Tavish. Yet the Court of the Lord Lyon says otherwise. I present this for your consideration. If anyone, as did the late Duke of Argyll, and perhaps the present one, choose to ignore the legal ruling of the Lord Lyon, that MacTavish is an independent clan, then I present to all that none of Lord Lyon?s rulings, past or present, hold water. If you choose to discount one legal ruling of Chiefship, which by the way holds the affirmation of the sovereign, Her Majesty, Elizabeth the Second, then you can ignore and therefore discount ALL such rulings of the Court of the Lord Lyon (CLL) and can throw the whole of chiefs and clans out into the sea. For in choosing to ignore just one ruling, which falls under the juris of CLL, which demands strict legal proof of descent from either a cadet branch, or lineal chiefly line to ascend to chief; such discounts all the other ruling by CLL as meaningless. Either one holds Lyon Court as a legal, substantive court of the UK and Scotland in particular, and considers Lord Lyon, as Her Majesty?s Chief Heraldic Officer, a Judge of the Realm and Minister of the Crown, or you hold CLL in distain. One cannot have it both ways. Anyone can check with the Lyon Court and find out the truth without taking my word for it. If one desires to resurrect a dormant clan, one must have ?some type of legitimate bloodline? which ties them to the Chiefly line. One cannot just be ?a Scot with good standing?, and hope to have Lord Lyon rule him or her to be chief. One might attain the standing of Captain or Commander of the clan, in this instance, but as a Chief, I think not.
A few, and really very few, have attempted to discredit MacTavish, but none of their bantering holds up. People have said that the MacTavish Chiefship was ?disponed? (relinquished in favour of a cadet, otherwise, abdication), and at the same time, often within the same paragraph, said that Clan MacTavish never had a chief, and were never a clan but a sept. If there never was a clan or chief, how can a chiefship be disponed? For those who seek to discredit the MacTavish, or perhaps agree with the negative arguments set forth, ever noticed the combination of words actually used in this attempt? They are contradictory, to say the least.
There is no documentation to even suggest that the sons of Lachlan MacTavish "disponed" the Chiefship. This ?theory? is set forth by ONLY ONE AUTHOR (not even an historian) and certainly not by many historians. Why is there no proof of this? Because it simply did not happen. The eldest son was 14 years of age when Lachlan MacTavish of Dunardry died, and was not a legal age to make such a determination. Lord Lyon would not have granted a chiefship to be waved by a minor. This tale of disponement comes from E. F. Bradford?s book, ?MacTavish of Dunardry?. It appears nowhere in historical records, and is repeated only recently by Alistair Campbell of Airds, to prove his points relating to Clan Campbell. There is no basis for the theory, whatever. It is solely the author's opinion and summation in the later chapter of his book. He gives no substantive source or records for this opinion. If a disponing ( or abdication ) of a chiefship takes place, legal documentation of such must be recorded with CLL. No such document exists within the Records at HM New Register House. Hence it is not fact. Bradford is not recognized as an authorative historian, and in his book he merely compiled letters of correspondence on the MacTavish, and writes (of his own hand) only the end of the book, wherein he assumes disponement. The entire book, except for the end is handwritten letters put to type.
McTavishes of Garthbeg, or rather, Simon McTavish, who introduced himself to Lachlan MacTavish of Dunardry, is a DISTANT relative, and was not even of senior membership within of the Clan. There were others who of Right of Lineage, would have ascended to the Chiefship had Lachlan?s sons desired to abdicate (dispone). They were of closer blood relationship to Chief Lachlan MacTavish of Dunardry, than was Simon McTavish. The Garthbegs were a long lost branch of the MacTavishes of Dunardry. Simon bought the Dunardry estates from Campbell of Barbeck. The Dunardry estates sold in 31 Dec 1785. Refer to the Poltalloch Writs ? Such is no secret.
The ENTIRE premise of E. F. Bradford?s theory on disponing is that Simon McTavish bought the Dunardry estates, and became chief. If one can become Chief of a Clan, by simply purchasing land, then Captain Campbell of Barbeck would have been Chief of the MacTavishes. In essence therefore, it seems from the hypothesis set forth for disponement, that one can purchase a chiefship when one purchases land once owned by the chief. Now I think we all know, and can agree, that Lord Lyon does not appoint any chief of clan or family based on purchasing land. Ascending to chiefship is based on bloodline. Garthbeg is not of the Chiefly line, his ancestors were banished from the clan in the 13th century, and since there was no abdication (disponement) on record at the Court of the Lord Lyon for the transfer of MacTavish Chiefship, Garthbeg did not/could not become clan chief. Simon held a simple, local geographic title, ?Laird of Dunardry?, as would any land owner at that time. There is no legal president for ascension to chiefship based on the purchase of property - it just does not work that way.
The title referred to in Simon McTavish?s will is ?Laird of Dunardry?, NOT Chief of Clan MacTavish. Simon could state in his will that the titles be kept in his family, but that would legally terminate upon his death and the death of his immediate blood line, which occurred. A title such as Laird descends to the next owner. In Fact, though it is not recorded as such, Captain Campbell of Barbeck, who actually bought the Dunardry estates first, could have used the same title. No formal application of removal was made for titles of Simon McTavish to be removed from his family. The use of Dunardry as a title ended with the death of Simon's immediate line, since he was not Chief.
All MacTavish names were written several ways, several spellings of the name were used: MacTavish, McTavish, Mactavish, Mac (space) Tavish. This is of no great significance.
Simon McTavish did acquire arms, after he went to Lachlan MacTavish, asking him to take out arms at CLL, as recorded in the ?Papers of Lachlan MacTavish?. This was done so that formal Arms of the Chief could be registered, and thereby allow Simon to acquire arms based upon (sic) his chief?s arms, since the MacTavish arms werenot registered prior to this time. Lyon Campbell gave Lachlan MacTavish arms, and within two months Simon also had arms. Simon?s arms were granted with a ?Bordure of the Second?, which is completely wrong. Bordure of the Second is reserved for Close Blood relationship, which Simon was not. A Bordure signifies a descendant not of the Chiefly line.
If Simon had ascended to the Chiefship, he would have had to re-register for arms at the Court of the Lord Lyon, petitioning for the UNDIFFERENCED arms of the Head of the Family or as Chief of the Clan. This never happened. Hence another example of why Simon McTavish was never Chief of Clan MacTavish. He may have been known as Laird of Dunardry, but NOT Chief of the Clan.
Any book showing use of the Campbell motto ?Ne Obliviscaris? by MacTavishes would be incorrect, and written by the ill informed. I am certain that the Chief of Clan Campbell would strongly OBJECT to such use. The 10th Duke of Argyll, Niall D. Campbell, tells in his work ?The Clan Tavish? that the MacTavish motto has ALWAYS been ?Non Oblitus?. The Boar?s Head Crest is used by several clans, not just Campbell and MacTavish. The illustration of a boar?s head is up to the artist and the form is of no real meaning.
Regardless of the sale of property, or dormancy; the bloodline does not change. Dugald MacTavish of Dunardry, proved his claim, by descent from the last known Chief on record, Lachlan MacTavish of Dunardry, and was matriculated by Lyon Court on 23 July 1997. The last request of the Lord Lyon before ratifying Dugald MacTavish the Arms and Title of Chief of the Clan MacTavish, was submission of proof that Lachlan MacTavish of Dunardry, MacTavish?s lineal ancestor, knew himself to be Chief of the Clan. Such was given, and is found in the ?Papers of Lachlan MacTavish?. Anyone may check the records at CLL to find Lachlan?s affirmation of Chiefship. You need not take my word for it.
Any other statements regarding the MacTavish position to the contrary are made without grounds, and ignore the facts, both historical and legal. If MacTavish of Dunardry were indeed a sept or cadet of Campbell, such as is Inverawe, then MacTavish would have been recognized by CLL as a Chieftain, not as Chief. Lyon Court and the Register House is full of documentation which, if it existed, would yield any facts contrary to the current Chiefship of MacTavish, and the MacTavish of Dunardry position. Since there is no contrary ?position in fact? yielded, thus the current position, affirmed by and based in the Laws of Scotland is that E. S. Dugald MacTavish of Dunardry is Chief of the Clan MacTavish.
My regards and in humble Kinship
Patrick Thompson
Chief?s Lieutenant.
Clan MacTavish
(My paternal ancestors were cadet MacTavishes (MacCavishes) of Nether Rudil, in Argyllshire, who changed the spelling of their name to Thompson.)
cathy
11-20-2004, 04:20 PM
Welcome Patrick!
I look forward to your posts, I had hoped we might attract some McTavish kin, and perhap unlock the ancestral secrets that most of us are looking for! Esquire Simon McTavish of Montreal is my 4th Great Uncle. I find it interesting that two of Simon's brothers were fostered to Lachlan's father at Dunardry. (My theory is that John (Simon's father), was trying to establish himself again politically after the mess at Culladen) Lachlan remembers the two brothers in a letter he wrote to Simon. My interest is simply trying to tangle the relationships of the various McTavish and MacGillivray families that were in the Northwest Company, and later in the Hudson Bay company and in Canadian politics. My direct ancestor was the last Tacksman of Garthbeg, Archibald McTavish (abt 1755 to 1831). He took over the property after the death of Simon's brother Alexander. I know Archibald was a cousin of Simon's as his will indicates he was due money from a legacy from Simon.
Cathy
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.3 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.