Continuing from our blog on the use of feathers within a clan, a question has come up regarding in part, the use of the title ‘Laird’. It seems some may think that it is equivalent to, or on par with a clan chief, more so if the individual has ownership of an ancient clan seat.
As such what is the role of a clan seat, and what does ownership or the lack of it, bring with it?
When one investigates such things, whether in the highlands, lowlands or here in the borders there are many ancestral clan/family seats that are no longer in ownership of the chiefly line, if in fact that chiefship still exists at all. Currently not all clans and families who can have chiefs do, and some are extinct with no apparent nor proven senior of the chiefly line to hold the title (armigerous). As such, in order to fill the role, this clan or family would require a derbhfine (family gathering) to have a Commander accepted through the auspices of the Lord Lyon.
But how does a family seat, the clan and chiefship tie together? Some ancient seats are in ruins, some are in trusts, some are owned by government agencies, while some others are in private ownership. So, what rights or claims of title can ownership of an estate give? What does it mean to the clan whose ancestral seat it is ? Can they, the owners be seen as chief of that clan or family and of course, accepting the confusion of some, what is a laird?
What is a Clan seat?
It seems that the concept of a ‘family seat’ in Scottish life was influenced by the introduction of the Norman feudal system in Scotland in the 11th century. It was originally called a ‘caput’ and is mentioned in the Doomsday Book commissioned by none other than William the Conqueror himself. Many families took their territorial designation from the lands on which their seat was built and will be reflected in the name of the keep, castle or mansion house itself.
A clan seat is therefore by definition the ancestral home of the chief of a Scottish clan/family. It is typically characterized by the following features:
- Type of Residence: Usually a castle or similar historic building or large estate.
- Symbol of Power: Represents the clan’s political power and social identity.
- Cultural Significance: Serves as a central location for clan gatherings and events.
- Heritage Reflection: Reflects the clan’s history and traditions.
Does the Chief have to live there?
A chief living elsewhere does not automatically make their new home the clan seat but neither does not living there change their chiefly status. The clan seat is important as a traditional, symbolic ancestral home. However, a chief can effectively establish a different seat by publicly treating a new residence as such (using it for clan functions, referring to it as the seat, and updating clan materials), but that change would be cultural/ceremonial rather than through a formal legal process.
NB: To clarify, recognition of chiefs themselves, through the right to bear the chiefly arms, is exclusively handled by the Lord Lyon and is not by automatic reassignment or ownership of an ancestral seat.
Territorial Designation
A territorial designation in Scotland is a title that indicates a person’s connection to a specific area of land, often linked to ownership of a substantial estate or property. It is typically used in peerage titles and is recognized by the Lord Lyon, who governs the use of such designations in association with the granting of arms. ie John Smith of Auchinshoogle, ‘of Auchinshoogle‘ being the territorial designation.
As such a territorial designation may be granted with Arms, and although they can be permitted for those petitioning for new arms, they are commonly used by Barons (either bought or retained) and Scottish nobility to include clan chiefs.
With regards the holder of a Scottish Barony, where Baronies can be purchased since the Feudal Reform Act, the Lord Lyon will currently recognise the holder of a Scottish Barony duly registered in the Scottish Barony Register, as having the appropriate jurisdiction to apply for a Coat of Arms. However, the applicant will still need to prove that he or she is a “virtuous and well deserving person”. It should further be noted that Lord Lyon currently will not refer to the Barony title in any Letters Patent he might issue.
Hereditary chiefs will normally have a territorial designation linked with the chiefly arms, whether they own the land associated with it or not. The territorial designation is therefore a title that connects a clan chief to a specific geographical area. This designation is significant in Scottish culture and heritage, symbolizing the chief’s historical ties to the land and reflecting the clan’s identity and heritage. It therefore, clearly identifies the chief’s historic clan/family seat or estate and as such is used in a matter of Scottish heraldic and social style.
What is a Clan Chief?
Scottish clans and families are extended kinship groups with deep historical, cultural, and territorial significance. A clan chief is recognised as the leader of a Scottish clan or in the lowlands and borders, a Scottish clan/family. The position of clan chief was often passed down through the chief’s family, with the eldest son or closest male relative typically inheriting the role, although that has changed to inclusion of a female relative if they are the senior living member of that line. They therefore represent, through genealogical proofs, the founder of the clan, which can, if some claims are accurate, go well beyond the naming of the first recognised chief. They hold within the clan/family a position of social dignity and proven heritage and they are recognised in Scottish law. The chief is therefore responsible for preserving the clan’s traditions, culture, and history which is rooted in tradition and through that, carries personal significant social and legal status which brings through them, the same to the clan.
Therefore, to be recognised as chief these requirements need to be fulfilled:
- Lineal descent/claim: a chief is normally the senior genealogical descendant of the clan’s historic chiefly family (the senior person who can show a legitimate hereditary claim as the most senior individual of that line).
- Undifferenced arms: the chief is the bearer of the clan’s undifferenced (chiefly) arms; possession/authority over those arms is central to legal recognition.
- Heraldic/legal recognition: in Scotland formal recognition comes only from the Lord Lyon King of Arms (a petition, evidence of descent, and matriculation of arms).
In short: A chief must have evidence of hereditary right i.e. proven descent, plus possession/recognition of the chiefly arms. These are confirmed and granted within Scotland by the Lord Lyon, who acts as the Monarch’s representative in all things heraldic here in Scotland.
Carruthers in all this.
None of the Carruthers seats have survived. Mouswald Tower is a ruin, Holmains Keep is just groundworks and Kirkwood (Holmains) no longer exists as previously owned by our family.
Regarding the chiefship, ours had lain dormant for 210 years after the passing of John Carruthers 12th of Holmains, before another chief was confirmed. After the death of the last chief of the Mouswald line, and the extinction of that house in 1548, the chiefship passed to the senior cadet line of Holmains and the cousin of Simon 8th of Mouswald, 3rd Baron. As such Carruthers had retained the male line from approximately 1150 to 1809, after which it passed through the female line for one generation.
Between 1809 and 2019, there were 5 generations who could have taken on the mantle of chief, but for whatever reason chose not to. For the current chiefship, there were two petitioners, one from Holmains and one from a cadet line. The evidence and decision after analysis of the proofs and two court cases, went to the proven principal line of Holmains.
The 5 individuals who could have petitioned to bear the Carruthers chief’s arms prior to 2019 were:
- Christian Carruthers (d.1859), eldest daughter of John, whose brothers had all died before the father.
- John Peter Carruthers-Wade (d.1873), a Carruthers armiger, who in order to claim would have had to change his surname to put Carruthers in dominance i.e Wade-Carruthers. If he had, he could legally have applied for matriculation of the chief’s arms. Nephew to Christian.
- Rev William Mitchell-Carruthers (d. 1931), a Carruthers Armiger, 1st cousin of John.
- Alexander Douglas Mitchell-Carruthers (d. 1962), William’s eldest son.
- Charles Nigel Simon Carruthers (d. 1997), Alexanders nephew, and father of the current chief.
- Hereditary Chief: Dr. Simon Peter Carruthers of Holmains, Chief of the Name and Arms of Carruthers, was confirmed by the Lord Lyon through matriculation of the chiefly arms in 2019, inauguration in Annan in 2024.
The recognition of the right to bear the arms of the chiefly line allowed the granting of supporters, which again reflect a chief’s status in Scot’s society. Supporters are figures or animals placed on either side of a shield. These often represent the owner’s lineage or achievements and are set on what is called a compartment. In our case the two fallow deer bucks rampant represent the lands from which Carruthers originated and previously owned.
The chief wears three feathers, while a clan armiger would wear one and would not normally have supporters to their arms. In the case of Carruthers, in line with many other clan chiefs throughout Scotland, the personal territorial designation ‘of Holmains’ was included in his Letters Patent from the Lord Lyon reflecting his right to bear the Chiefly Arms.
The chief would also have his own flag, standard and pinsel, again reflecting his rank and arms.
NB: Accepting Carruthers no longer has an ancestral seat still standing, it is the hope that the new Society headquarters in Annan i.e. ‘the Reivers‘ , although not replacing a clan seat, will soon become a focal point for future clan activities going forwards. It would ideally fly the flag of our next armiger, if arms were granted, and the pinsel of the chief.
Can the owner of an Ancestral Seat claim any social dignity within that clan?
This is interesting, but common sense would dictate not, as ownership does not bequeath status. If it did for instance and ownership carried with it the chiefship, it would simply be down to finances and therefore would be open to all a sundry, rather than proven descent and the continuation of a clan’s ancestral chiefly line. Case law it seems, has shown that giving up the right of the ancestral home does not see the chiefly line give up their rights of chiefship.
However, if an owner also has the hereditary claim (proven descent) they can of course petition the Lord Lyon for recognition, at that point and if successful, the rights of chiefship and ownership become a moot point as they are one and the same. The chief therefore carries the arms of his line, is recognised legally as chief and through him/her the clan becomes a noble incorporation in Scots law as it is no longer seen as being armigerous.
Absent to a strong genealogical claim and through that the right to bear the chiefly arms, ownership of an ancestral seat is only symbolic and has it seems, no automatic legal effect in Scots law regarding clan status.
Ownership of an ancestral seat, however, can give the owner, some recognition by the clan itself. This is usually in order that the clan can continue to have access to their ancestral home so that it can host events, lead gatherings etc. The owner can therefore be described as the ‘seat‑holder’ of the estate or even laird (more on that later) but cannot be recognised legally as clan chief, unless of course they are.
However, progressively clan members tend to err towards a person with the hereditary claim to the Chiefship as recognised by the Lord Lyon, especially within the diaspora. This seems to be true, even if they are no longer in ownership of the ancestral seat. This situation is clearly reflected in many other clans and families where ownership of the ancestral seat sits outwith the Chiefly line.
We have progressively seen that, as clansmen and women become better informed regarding their history and the facts surrounding it, usually through the mode of social media and their own research, they are far more particular in their choices. As such, lineage and clan heritage often becomes a key factor in where their chosen allegiance lies.
What is a Laird
So, this term is bandied about a lot, not necessarily used by the common folk in Scotland as any form of respect, but more a reference point to someone who owns the estate they work on or within their local area. It does, however, seem to have become more diluted as ownership changes hands, especially where the change does not directly affect the local community.
The legal aspect of owning land in Scotland is relatively straight forward, but the feudal system that once played a part in it has gone since the Abolition of Feudal Tenure Act (Scotland) in 2000. This Act separated certain feudal dignities from landownership ie baronies can be held separately from estate land, so owning a building or the land may not necessarily convey any feudal dignity. As such, owning land does not automatically grant ceremonial or noble privileges in either the peerage or clan society.
The term “laird” traditionally described a landowner or lord within a Scottish clan structure. In contemporary usage “laird” is often adopted by landowners outside official title systems, sometimes as a nod to heritage or more commonly as a marketing appeal but it carries no legal status or rights. Misconceptions therefore persist that purchasing land, grants aristocratic rights or automatic social prestige – it does not.
As an example, some sellers now market small plots of land with a symbolic lairdship/ladyship certificate, but again such documents have no legal standing in official records or governance and are often it seems, severely frowned upon.
Therefore ‘Laird’ does not mean Lord in the sense of the Scottish peerage nor should it be confused as such, rather as stated previously, it simply refers to the owner of a piece of land. The equivalent of a laird in England is typically a squire, as both titles refer to landowners, however neither are formal or legal titles and unless armigerous, neither carry personal arms.
In Summary
The more we delve into the intricacies of Scottish clans and families and the legalities surrounding them, the more questions are posed.
What is obvious and apparent is that a hereditary chief is a chief by descent through proofs of ancestry and is granted the right to bear the chiefly arms of that clan. They do not have to reside in the ancestral seat to retain the title. Neither does ownership of the ancestral seat carry any status with it i.e. the title of chief, unless the owner has the right to bear the chiefly arms and is recognised as such.
The ownership of a clan or family’s ancestral seat therefore gives no rights to the owner other than usage of the informal or courtesy title ‘laird’ which was in the past mostly used in the Scottish highlands. However, it is fair to say that it has over time become more commonplace in the lowlands and borders as used by rural landowners, mostly by the owners of reasonably sized estates.
Very large Scottish estates can be tens of thousands of acres (e.g., 10,000–200,000+ acres) which is the scale of major Highland estates and those owned by the biggest private owners. However, a small farm/holding would be considered as having under 100 ha (250 acres), a medium sized estate: 100–400 ha (250–1,000 acres) and a large estate would commonly be regarded as having 400 ha+ (1,000 acres+) of land.
For example, the estate of Dormont is still owned by a cadet line off Carruthers of Holmains in Annandale, and some of the locals to the land still title the owners, Carruthers of Dormont as the laird. As can be seen to the left, they are Carruthers armigers registered with the Lord Lyon whose arms, which include a border around the chiefly arms, show that they are a cadet line off Holmains.
It is guesstimated that the Dormont estate covers a couple of hundred acres or so and has been occupied continually by the same branch of the family since 1572 and with unbroken inheritance through the male line since then.
Does that mean that owners of smaller plots of say 20-30 acres cannot use the term Laird, one guesses not, as traditionally it simply and more commonly meant the owner of a landed estate with no legal acreage threshold attached to its use. So, what does Laird mean within Scotland these days? It means the owner, normally of a larger Scottish estate, and is used as a courtesy title/social designation by the owners themselves and/or those in the local area, mainly workers on or for the estate itself.
As we understand it, where there is an actual acreage limit, is when an individual is applying to the Lord Lyon for a new grant of arms, and through land ownership, a territorial designation to go with his name. However, as previously stated this is not relevant in its use by a legally recognised Scottish clan.
As always, understanding how things work here in Scotland, comes with a better understanding and appreciation of the clan and the role of chief within it. Interestingly and reflecting their function in modern clan society, the chief has of late been described by some in well-respected Scottish clan circles as being ‘the first amongst equals‘ within his clan, quite an apt description we feel.
Promptus et Fidelis
Non Sto Solus
