Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Scottish titles

Expand Messages
  • Julie Stackable
    Dear Eogan - I was perfectly aware of why the heralds declared he couldn t have the name - I was making a joke, wich I thought was clear. He wants to be of
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Eogan - I was perfectly aware of why the
      heralds declared he couldn't have the name - I
      was making a joke, wich I thought was clear. He
      wants to be 'of something' because that's what he
      wants and it IS a period Scottish naming
      practice, which is why my 'of Ardrossan' did
      pass. The Montgomeries are NOT a Highland clan,
      but are a Lowland family and did not style
      themselves this way, i.e. the Earl did not refer
      to himself as 'the Montgomerie' - he was always
      known as the Earl of Eglinton as it was his
      highest title, at least in the court papers of
      Mary Queen of Scots and of King James I have
      found so far. Their titles were done in the
      English style and the Montgomerie head of
      household was Baron of Ardrossan, but Earl of
      Eglinton and in the 16th century, the Earl did
      not reside in Ardrossan, which for them was only
      a minor holding.I am still putting together all
      the research for this in hopes we can eventually
      let my husband be 'of Ardrossan' and pass it
      through the College of Heralds, but it's going to
      take a while because I'm waiting on things from
      the Scottish public record office that I have
      ordered and for some research I have requested
      from a local historian in Ardrossan and so for
      the nonce, we were trying to find a different
      locale to place him in which would not appear to
      cause a confliction of rank. There is still an
      Earl of Eglinton, I believe the current one is
      Hugh Montgomerie, but again, he is known as the
      Earl of Eglinton and I have not seen him styled
      anywhere as 'the Montgomerie' because, again,
      they are not a clan and don't use the same type
      of titles. I'll be more careful with what I joke
      about in the future - I did not intend to step on
      any heraldic toes.
      Toujour a vos ordres,
      Margaret Hepburn of Ardrossan
      > > The
      > > SCA heralds wouldn't let my hubby be 'Simon
      > > Montgomerie of Ardrossan' for fear of
      > > presumption
      > > of rank or some silliness (I'm a herald - I
      > > say
      > > that with all respect) > Presumption of rank
      isn't silliness at all.
      > Being "somebody" of "somewhere" is how a lot of
      > Scottish titles are called. If I wanted to be
      > Eogan MacQuarrie, I could not be Eogan
      > MacQuarrie of Ulva. That would make me chief
      > of
      > the clan. I also could not be Eogan MacNeill
      > of
      > Bara, or Ewan Stewart of Galloway for similar
      > reasons.
      >
      > Likewise, he would be able to call himself "the
      > Montgomery," because this is also the way many
      > Scottish titles are styles. There was a person
      > a few years back that singed all of her emails
      > on the Atlantian mailing list, "the MacNeil of
      > Atlantia." This bothered me, because it made
      > it
      > sound like she was not only the chief of the
      > MacNeils, but that their seat was Atlantia, our
      > Kingdom!
      >
      > There are two reasons why this is not allowed.
      > Number one, we do not presume rank in our SCA
      > names. Ranking is earned in our game, so if
      > you
      > want to be a baron or a duke, etc., you have to
      > go about it in the usual way. You cannot give
      > yourself a name (a title, really) that
      > presupposes that. Number two, in cases like
      > you
      > mention, there might very well be a "Montgomery
      > of Ardrossan" still about (I don't know that
      > for
      > a fact, I haven't checked). But if there were,
      > we would want to make sure you do not claim
      > presumptively to be him by use of his title
      > (same reason you would not be able to register
      > the Montgomery arms as your device).
      >
      > If your husband can't find another place name
      >
      === message truncated ===


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
      http://greetings.yahoo.com
    • Sharon L. Krossa
      ... It is indeed period -- though in the 16th century, it does imply that you hold the territory called Ardrossan. ... But, you see, the style X Y of Z is
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        At 6:06 PM -0800 12/30/01, Julie Stackable wrote:
        >Dear Eogan - I was perfectly aware of why the
        >heralds declared he couldn't have the name - I
        >was making a joke, wich I thought was clear. He
        >wants to be 'of something' because that's what he
        >wants and it IS a period Scottish naming
        >practice, which is why my 'of Ardrossan' did
        >pass.

        It is indeed period -- though in the 16th century, it does imply that
        you hold the territory called Ardrossan.

        >The Montgomeries are NOT a Highland clan,
        >but are a Lowland family and did not style
        >themselves this way,

        But, you see, the style "X Y of Z" is _Lowland_, not Highland. The
        only times Highland lords used it was when they were operating in
        Scots and so in Scots-speaking Lowland culture. It is not a native
        Highland (Gaelic) style.

        >i.e. the Earl did not refer
        >to himself as 'the Montgomerie' - he was always
        >known as the Earl of Eglinton as it was his
        >highest title, at least in the court papers of
        >Mary Queen of Scots and of King James I have
        >found so far.

        Do you mean King James VI? (James I would have been a couple
        centuries earlier ;-)

        Also, I would expect the Baron of Ardrossan to be identified as of
        Ardrossan in some fashion in cases that pertain to that territory. It
        is not unusual for even a noble with a higher title or greater lands
        to be identified with a lesser title/lands when dealing with things
        regarding that lesser title/lands.

        Regardless, the <the Y> styles are a different issue from the <Y of
        Z> styles -- though both are Lowland styles and often interrelated.

        >Their titles were done in the
        >English style and the Montgomerie head of
        >household was Baron of Ardrossan, but Earl of
        >Eglinton and in the 16th century, the Earl did
        >not reside in Ardrossan, which for them was only
        >a minor holding.

        You may want to see above about the implications of styling yourself
        <Margaret Hepburn of Ardrossan> -- in the 16th century, this does
        imply that you hold Ardrossan, or at the very least are very closely
        related to the person who does (such as his daughter).

        >I am still putting together all
        >the research for this in hopes we can eventually
        >let my husband be 'of Ardrossan' and pass it
        >through the College of Heralds,

        Putting on my SCA hat -- this isn't going to happen. As you yourself
        indicate, a Montgomery was Baron of Ardrossan, and so it will always
        bounce due to the SCA rules and precedents regarding presumption. A
        major change in SCA registration practice would be required for a
        different end result (one that I don't anticipate happening any
        decade soon).

        Switching hats to my historical-authenticity-the-SCA-be-damned hat,
        in the 16th century a man called <Simon Montgomery of Ardrossan>,
        again, I would expect to either hold the territory of Ardrossan
        himself or at least be very closely related to the person who does
        hold it (like, his son or, possibly, her husband -- see below).

        And, as I may have written in another post, in the 16th century if
        both you and your husband are styled <of Ardrossan> after your
        surnames, this would suggest to me that _you_ are the heiress who
        inherited Ardrossan and that your husband adopted the style after
        your marriage. But I would not expect the wife of the man who
        inherited Ardrossan to style herself <of Ardrossan> after her
        marriage, especially if the land was not placed in conjunctfee (joint
        ownership).

        Now, all this is fine if the above is indeed what you intend to imply
        with your personas (which if I recall correctly are 16th century?) --
        but if this isn't the effect you're after, you may want to reconsider
        just from historical authenticity regardless of the SCA registration
        issues.

        >but it's going to
        >take a while because I'm waiting on things from
        >the Scottish public record office that I have
        >ordered and for some research I have requested
        >from a local historian in Ardrossan

        I can't imagine that they will be able to turn up anything that would
        change the SCA CoA's mind, unless it is to prove that a Montgomery
        did _not_ hold Ardrossan (and was not Baron of Ardrossan) at any time
        in period. It just might be possible if you were to find a number of
        people unrelated to the Earl who were known as <X Montgomery of
        Ardrossan> that you could therefore persuade the CoA that that
        combination wasn't presumptious... but then, I doubt you'll find
        people with the byname Montgomery of Ardrossan who were not related
        to the Montgomery who was Baron of Ardrossan.

        Just be glad they allow the name formation <X Y of Z> in general --
        my understanding is that at one time it wasn't allowed at all due to
        presumption!

        >and so for
        >the nonce, we were trying to find a different
        >locale to place him in which would not appear to
        >cause a confliction of rank. There is still an
        >Earl of Eglinton, I believe the current one is
        >Hugh Montgomerie, but again, he is known as the
        >Earl of Eglinton and I have not seen him styled
        >anywhere as 'the Montgomerie' because, again,
        >they are not a clan and don't use the same type
        >of titles.

        And, again, <the Y>, such as <the Montgomerie> is a Lowland style,
        not a Highland one. And I expect that if the Earl of Eglinton is the
        head of the Montgomery name (family, not clan), then I expect he is
        sometimes called <the Montgomery>, especially in the context of
        identifying him as head of the name.

        >I'll be more careful with what I joke
        >about in the future - I did not intend to step on
        >any heraldic toes.

        Oh, step on them all you wish -- that's what they're there for. And
        it is good to keep separate the issues of SCA registration rules and
        historical authenticity. There are many authentic things you cannot
        register and many registerable things that are not authentic. In your
        particular case, the authentic thing you are trying to do with your
        husband's name may not have quite the implications you are looking
        for, and the SCA isn't going to let you register it, whether
        authentic or not.

        Stepping on toes is how these things tend to get discussed ;-)

        Sharon
        --
        Sharon L. Krossa, krossa@...
      • Matt Newsome
        ... and I ll be more careful with what I joke ... You certainly didn t step on my toes. And I assumed that you were joking. But many people, those on this
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 31, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          At Sunday, 30 December 2001, you wrote:

          >Dear Eogan - I was perfectly aware of why the
          >heralds declared he couldn't have the name - I
          >was making a joke, wich I thought was clear.

          and

          I'll be more careful with what I joke
          >about in the future - I did not intend to step on
          >any heraldic toes.

          You certainly didn't step on my toes. And I assumed that you were
          joking. But many people, those on this list included, do not know
          much about why heralds in the SCA do what they do, and I thought
          you comment that the SCA heralds would not let your husband be Simon
          Montgomerie of Ardrossan for some "silliness" was an oportunity to
          explain to people trying to register their Scottish names, why this
          happened. I was not commenting specifically about this name and
          this case, but just making the comment that when you register a Scottish
          name that is "name" of "place" you have to be careful that you are
          not combining them in such a way that it reflects a mundane title.
          That's all.

          He
          >wants to be 'of something' because that's what he
          >wants and it IS a period Scottish naming
          >practice, which is why my 'of Ardrossan' did
          >pass.

          Here again, if that is what he wants, that is fine. Since most Scottish
          names, especially in our period, were recorded with many different
          variations, he may want to consider simply registering Simon Montgomery,
          to see if it passes, and then he can call himself "Simon Montgomery
          of Ardrossan" if he chooses. If you find enough research to show
          that this name should be acceptable, you can always have it changed
          later. I was just trying to suggest ways you can get his name passed,
          since you seemed to be having trouble.

          The Montgomeries are NOT a Highland clan,
          >but are a  Lowland family and did not style
          >themselves this way, i.e. the Earl did not refer
          >to himself as 'the Montgomerie'

          and

          There is still an
          >Earl of Eglinton, I believe the current one is
          >Hugh Montgomerie, but again, he is known as the
          >Earl of Eglinton and I have not seen him styled
          >anywhere as 'the Montgomerie' because, again,
          >they are not a clan and don't use the same type
          >of titles.

          I'm sorry, I was never meanign to imply that the cheif of the Montgomeries
          styled himself as "the Montgomery." You will notice that I never
          used that example. I was merely illustrating that some clan cheifs
          style themselves this way, so we should take care, in the SCA, not
          to refer to ourselves in such a way that would imply that we are
          a clan cheif.

            Their titles were done in the
          >English style and the Montgomerie head of
          >household was Baron of Ardrossan, but Earl of
          >Eglinton and in the 16th century, the Earl did
          >not reside in Ardrossan, which for them was only
          >a minor holding.

          Off hand, I would still be of the opinion that if the cheif of the
          Montgomeries was also the Baron of Ardrossan, whether or not it was
          considered his main holding, the name "Montgomery of Ardrossan" would
          still get returned.

          > we were trying to find a different
          >locale to place him in which would not appear to
          >cause a confliction of rank.

          I hope you can find one he likes. Let me know if there is anything
          I can do to help.
          Aye,
          Eogan

          Albanach.org
          Scottish History -- Highland Dress
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.