www.clanlivingstone.info

As it is a sleepy Sunday morning I thought I might stir the pot and ask a few fundamental questions. The first is when did the phrase “the Noble Clan X” first start appeari? Second what do we mean by nobility, and is it’s meaning different in Scotland from England? In an attempt to answer this question I came across this site http://www.heraldica.org/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm which has some useful comments. “Romans recognized three orders: patricians, equestrians (Miles?) and plebeians, and earlier, before the foundation of the republic, a fourth: royalty. Added to this, there was the concept of nobilis; to be noble meant you were descended from someone who had been Consul; being a patrician was necessary to become Consul (though you could buy your way in), but to be noble was ineffably grander, at least to the Roman way of thinking.” It continues, “These notions of the Romans apply to present-day parlance. In the British system, one can discriminate between royalty, nobility, knights, gentry and commons: five grades. The Germans tend to regard certain of what the British regard as gentry as noble, and at the highest levels, what the British define as noble resembles what the Germans regard as "princely" and in general, continental systems as a whole tend to have a broader definition of 'noble'. In essence, the nobility were the landowners. ” The statement that “the nobility were the landowners” has some merit. In England the House of Lords evolved from the tenants-in-chief of the crown. In Scotland parliament consisted of “three estaits” one of which were the barons and landowners of estates of at least 40 shillings. “In the West, it is nearly impossible to trace any noble lineage back much before AD 800 (though the old Gaelic nobility of Ireland has a special claim to antiquity here); anything before 1100 is remarkable.” It should not be forgotten that many of our Scots families bear the Lion in their arms and these all descend from Erc, King of Dalriada. It was always the boast of the King of Scots that his was the oldest crown in Christendom. “The organized system of titles we have today is a rather late development, but ‘count’, and ‘prince’ go back to the Roman Empire. Only when it was recognized that one might have "betters" (i.e., with the organization of nation-states) did the nobles start paying attention to titles, styles, and pedigrees.” In the "Robes of the feudal baronage of Scotland" (27th Oct 1945) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Vol. 79, Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, then Lord Lion King of Arms, writes: “The baronage is an order derived partly from the allodial system of territorial tribalism in which the patriarch held his country under God, and partly from the later feudal system - which we shall see was, in Western Europe anyway, itself a developed form of tribalism - in which the territory came to be held off and under the King in an organised parental realm. "It [Baron] is a title superior to 'miles' (Knight, in the feudal sense, which is to be distinguished from the later Eques Auratus), and whilst a baron usually held his baronial fief feudally, instances arise of Barons par le Grace de Dieu - nobles who, of evident baronial status, held allodial fiefs, ie by ancestral family occupation, by no grant from, nor as vassals to, any Prince, in respect thereof.” François Velde states “In Old Regime France, the term Prince could refer to a rank or a title. In the strictest sense the term prince implied a notion of sovereignty. It was a rank generally reserved to the princes du sang (Princes of the Blood), who were all in line to succeed to the throne. This concept sits easily with the Irish Scot concept of the "true family" or Derbhfine. This is why the old families made great use of the hand which was considered a symbol of the Derbhfine and made other allusions to their royal blood wherever possible - such as the Lion Rampant borne in the arms. "In some areas (especially in Brittany), the title of prince was traditionally attached to a feudal land which had been considered allodial, i.e., without overlord. In France, almost all lands were feudal, that is, held from some superior, ultimately back to the king. But there were a few allodial lands (allods were more common in northern Italy and in Germany). Such titles of "prince", which appear in early charters, were considered by jurists to have no more meaning than the title of lord; there are dozens of examples.....Some families took upon themselves to change a title of lord into a title of prince (Condé, Conti). Most often, such changes were carried out by individuals who already ranked as princes, either foreign or of the blood: the princes of Condé and Conti are examples of the first, the Rohan (princes of Soubise, Guéméné, Rochefort) and the Luxembourg (Tingry, Martigues) examples of the second" http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/frprince.htm Hypthesis [ul] [li] noble is an ancient Roman Concept “to be noble meant you were descended from someone who had been Consul”. [/li] [li] in both England and Scotland the nobility were the major landowners: this meant that you were descended from someone who held their lands direct from the crown or held allodial lands “by the grace of God”. [/li] [li]in the continent those who held land “by the grace of God” often assumed the style “Prince”. [/li] [li] in England the Peerage were those nobles (barons) who actually held their lands from the crown and were therefore able to advise him, in what later became Parliament. That in Scotland this included the barons who sat in the Scots Parliament. [/li] [li] knights, baronets etc did not necessarily hold their land direct from the crown and were not nobles in their own right, but were probably so on the basis that they were descended from someone who held their lands from the crown. [/li] [/ul] It seems to me therefore, that the number of people who have an ancestor who held land direct from the crown must be very substantial. It is an interesting mathematical and statistical concept but it must include the vast majority of the population. In particular, given the nature of the clan system, it suggests that every clansmen is noble. So if that is the case, what now differentiates us? Is it our behaviour – those with lofty ideas? Something to chew on - and hopefully generate an informed discussion. Regards, Niall

Very interesting idea - I have seen those recent articles talking about the statistics of ancestry that are very interesting.  It seems extremely likely, then, that we do ALL have noble blood.  i don't think i have any great informed discussion to start here, but I find your posting very interesting! Kyle=

Very interesting material! I believe the Clan is noble in law, as its Name-father was, and is, noble in the noblesse of the Kingdom. Further those whom connect to the familial stem are accordingly likewise noble. The question is put forward, to “what now differentiates us? Is it our behaviour – those with lofty ideas?" Or a principle universally appreciated- Such as; Noble is the fraternal spirit, which all people of good will can ascribe. What now differentiates us, I believe it is the motivation of custodianship, rather than ownership. Custodianship is a state, which naturally delivers support to the aspirations of others. It this sense I do believe the principle of hereditary nobility and personal nobility are aligned. All the best. Grant South

What a superb posting with lots to get one's teeth into! I'm not really sure where to start. Question 1- no idea. Question 2 part 1 needs a book, Q2 part 2 essentially not different whatever land we are talking about in my view.We must ignore the very narrow English concept of peerage alone being 'nobility' being those with a title. In continental Europe, the idea that a grandchild or greatgrandchild of a sovereign is not noble because he or she is Mr or Mrs X would be ludicrous. Of course they are noble (title is totally irrelevant).In Poland, the nobles were those who belonged to the noble clan (many were very poor and worked almost as labourers but they belonged to that group even though others were wealthy landowners). Others were rich but were not noble i.e. they did not belong to a specific social group. England is unusual in its division into nobles (lords) and 'commons'. Winston Churchill (whether Sir or not) was a commoner in England but in any European(or indeed Scottish context) would have been considered a noble, descended as he was from Spencer Churchill Dukes of Marlborough. I am not too sure about Scotland, but in England I would suggest almost everyone (if he but knew it) has royal blood since the Kings of the Middle Ages married their sons & daughters to great barons & landowners. After all of their children had married and a generation or five had gone by, many had become but simple folk, others landowners. Anyone tracing back to a landowning ancestor(esp. in Nothern England) has an almost certainty of hitting royal blood sooner or later. Hoping for lots more sleepy Sunday mornings, Neil!

We've not had a sleepy Sunday morning in a while, and so I thought I would post something. I do agree that the English practice is limited. It does not embrace the various branches of shared descent, as the family naturally grows. I note that in terms of the 'Blood Royal', descent of this claim is in both the paternal and maternal lines. I would imagine in Scotland, all those whom descend from the Royal House or the Peers and Chiefs, are classed as noble, as is the practice in Europe- excluding England. The Blood Royal in Scotland, may have been associated with the ancient matrilineal practice of the Picts. We know that the later Picto-Scottish culture of descent from the Blood Royal was marked, as the Young Bachuil mentioned, with the Lyon in their Armorial Bearings. I see that Anradhan O'Neill married a Royal heiress of Cowal & Knapdale. Those families whom descend from this marriage, such as the McLea's, all bear the Lyon quartered in their arms. All the best. Grant South

Does anyone have an interest in Scottish heraldry? One of the unique cultural practices of Scottish Clans is their relationship to armorial ensigns, crest badges, banners and other assorted colourful expressions. Look forward to any replies? All the best!

Hi Grant! There has been discussion about the symbols associated with the clan on this list before, but I was wondering in particular, and for a special reason, if there is any relationship between symbols of the clan Maclea, and the Livingston aristocrats of the lowlands. Ever heard of any? Regards Andrew

Hello Andrew, I can only offer something provisional in nature. The Scots legal tradition maintains that each Name hold distinct ensigns. As the two families are distinct kinship groups I do not think a symbol could be found other than national ensigns. In terms of togetherness, I believe historical records support a long respected bond of friendship existing between the Lowland Livingstons and the Highland McLea/Livingstones. I would say this has left it's own mark, and is it's own symbol. All the best!

Hmmm. Very politically correct. I am wondering if there are any symbols I could think of using for the DNA project which of necessity deals with both the clan and the Lowland Livingstons? Regards Andrew

Andrew, The Cinquefoil is considered a lowland Livingstone symbol.