Talk:Clan Mackenzie

Battle information

A lot of the information on clan battles in the article is wildly inaccurate, or entirely speculative. Also, many of them seem to contain text lifted directly from the websites linked to as sources. Lianachan 00:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is a great deal to do if we are to create an article of genuine historical reliability. I have made a start - but only a start - in relation to the clan's early history. 45ossington (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Clan MacKenzie to Clan Mackenzie

Any objections to moving the page so it is titled with a lower-case k?--Celtus (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. 45ossington (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, i put up a request for an admin to move it over (Wikipedia:Requested moves). I tried to do it myself but for some reason it wouldn't work.--Celtus (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the page. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks GTBacchus.--Celtus (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Modern Clan Mac(k/K)enzie

Ditto in this heading - unless you have decided to leave it unchanged until the heading of the whole article is changed. There is a slight breakdown of language where you refer to the Earl of Cromartie's present estates; but, in any event, I wonder if he really is still a substantial land-owner - is there any evidence that he retains more than a few acres? I haven't found any on the web. Oh, and thanks for taking this page on. 45ossington (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, no wonder i put a citation needed tag on that.--Celtus (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Mac is a separate Gaidhlig word. MacKenzies would be under the C s in a Gaidhlig phonebook. The least we can do is keep the capital K. While I am at it. Coinneach MacCoinneach (Kenneth son of Kenneth), should be Coinneach mac Coinnich. In Gaidhlig it is required to get the Genitive case correct.  :) Wrmckinney (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't compete with your knowledge of Gaelic, but should the name's Gaelic origin be determinative in an English encyclopaedia article? My own guess is that more people called MACKENZIE (including my own Highland, if English-speaking, grandfather) would spell their name Mackenzie than MacKenzie - and they probably pronounce the 'z' as 'z' as well. One argument in favour of strict Gaelic usage might be that "CLAN MACKENZIE" has not existed as a real entity since the middle of the 18th century, or perhaps earlier. But, if one is to talk about the "modern Clan Mackenzie" at all, should one not have regard to how the majority of Mackenzies prefer these days to spell their own name? (And, if so, does anyone know how one could test the issue?) 45ossington (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, i think the article should be named the official name of the clan. The Clan Mackenzie Society of Scotland and the UK spells it with a lowercase k, same as the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, also Burkes Peerage lists the chief as "Chief of Clan Mackenzie". About the Gaelic, obviously today Mackenzie is not a patronymic name which describes someone's father, it has turned into an Anglicised surname. I don't see how Gaelic spelling should effect how an English wikipedia article is titled though. I can see why someone would object to a lowercase letter if most people actually spell the name with an uppercase, but still the clan article should be titled after the official name. Thats what i think, anyways.--Celtus (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly object on behalf of myself and my family members and we are McKenzies/MacKenzies. My family... like many other McKenzie/MacKenzies now live in the U.S. and Canada. Furthermore, while most of us may not care if it is spelled Mc or Mac as we know the meaning, we ALL spell it with a capital K. I can't fathom that someone would think that changing the meaning by ignoring the original Gaidhlig capitalization of the second word would be okay. As a child, my grandfather's explanation that Mc and Mac meant that we were descendants of Kenzie (Kenneth) was an integral part of his oral history of our ancestry and fundamental to my understanding of what it meant to be part of a clan.

If you want to know how McKenzies/MacKenzies prefer to spell our names, why don't you take a look at how we spell it worldwide? All you have to do is take a quick look at how we name businesses, things, people, and places after ourselves: Baker & McKenzie; The McKenzie Institute International; McKenzie Group Consulting; McKenzie's Foods; McKenzie's Toursist Services; McKenzie Partners; McKenzie Taxidermy Supply; a "McKenzie friend", legal term of art originating from the case McKenzie vs. McKenzie; Spuds MacKenzie, a famous dog actor; "Father McKenzie", a reference to Tommy McKenzie by the Beatles in the song Eleanor Rigby; "Sgt MacKenzie", song by Joseph Kilna MacKenzie; Graham McKenzie, Australian cricket player; Sir John McKenzie, New Zealand statesman; McKenzie River, Oregon; McKenzie River, Victoria; Lake McKenzie, Queensland; MacKenzie Bay, Ontario; MacKenzie Bay, Antarctica; McKenzie Towne, Calgary; McKenzie, Alabama; McKenzie, Tennessee; McKenzie, Maryland; McKenzie North Dakota; Point MacKenzie, Alaska . . . TaraMcKenzie (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

What about the Scots themselves? I have had a quick look at the telephone directory for Dingwall, being a town sufficiently near the Mackenzie heartlands, and the vast majority (out of 102 in total) are identified as "Mackenzies", there are a few "MacKenzies" and a very few "McKenzies". It's interesting if the Scottish diaspora has adopted a different practice.45ossington (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that 25 million people across the world claim Scottish ancestry <Scottish National Museum @ http://www.nms.ac.uk/our_museums/national_museum/explore_the_galleries/scotland/scotland_a_changing_nation/leaving_scotland.aspx> and apparently only 5 million live in Scotland, I think it's much more likely that the shift occurred in Scotland, perhaps recently, as opposed to it occurring upon emigration to the many different countries Scots have relocated to over the centuries. My grandfather's grandfather came to North America and my grandpa told me that his grandpa didn't change his name. I know this is only anecdotal evidence, but what are the odds that Canada, Australia, the U.S., etc. all mistakenly capitalized the K? Perhaps the more important question is whether current Scottish citizens that are Mackenzies want to acknowledge expats and their offspring. I would sure hope so. The last time I was in Scotland, I separately ran into two McKenzies that had repatriated from Canada.TaraMcKenzie (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The official clan website spells it "Mackenzie" with a lower case "k".[1]. This is also the correct grammatical way to spell it in the English language.QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, cite your source for your assertion about the grammatical spelling of the name. TaraMcKenzie (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I was told that the modern convention was a capital letter for names which remain largely unchanged (eg. MacDonald, MacNeil etc), but lower case for names substantially changed/substituted by an English name (so Mackenzie for Mhic Coinnich, Maclean for Mhic Gille Eoin) or for clans where the name refers to a title/position rather than an individual (so Macintaggert son of the priest, Mackintosh son of the toisech etc). Unfortunately I can't cite a reference for this. I realize however that no convention was in place when many Gaelic clan names were translated into English on emigration forms for instance in the 18th and 19th centuries, resulting in the many different spellings we see today. Perhaps in our case it doesn't help that Kenneth (the z was originally silent in Kenzie, so pronounced Kenny) is an English name originally unrelated to the Gaelic Coinnich, or even the Gaelic Cináed, also often translated as Kenneth, as in Cináed Mhic Alpin or Kenneth MacAlpin first King of Scots.Ian Macken (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Chief of Clan Mackenzie?

More nonsense. The Chieftaincy of a Gaelic now follows agnatic descent: the individual currently "chief" is merely the holder of the most prestigious (British) aristocratic title rather than the lineal male descendant. The current holder's father was a Blunt, changed his name to "Blunt-Mackenzie", then Mackenzie upon marriage to the Countess of Cromartie. His supposed descent is through a descendant of the Earls of Cromartie. In 1979, Roderick Grant Francis Blunt-Mackenzie, 4th Earl of Cromartie legally changed his surname to Mackenzie and was appointed chief of Clan Mackenzie by the Lord Lyon King of Arms. Although not descended from a Mackenzie in the male line (his father was born a Blunt and later changed to Blunt-Mackenzie after marrying Sibell Lilian Sutherland-Leveson-Gower, Countess of Cromartie) he inherited his titles and Mackenzie descent through his mother (even she only claims a Mackenzie descent as a great-great-great-great-granddaughter of George Mackenzie, 3rd Earl of Cromartie). !!!!!

Mackenzie of Kincraig is the lineal descendant of the Mackenzies of Redcastle (descendants of Rhoderick Mackenzie, son of Kenneth Óg, brother of Colin Cam Mackenzie).

There are plenty of branches of Clan Mackenzie that I am sure are more genuinely chiefly i.e. senior agnates....

MACKENZIES OF ACHILTY, 505-7. Mackenzie, Rory Mor, I. of Achilty, incidents of his great strength 104-8,his marriage and issue, 505

MACKENZIES OF ALLANGRANGE, 355-61. Mackenzie, Simon, of Lochslinn, 355, his first marriage and issue, 356, 361,his second marriage and issue, 362

MACKENZIES OF APPLECROSS, 595-603. Mackenzie, Alexander, “of Coul,” instances of his prowess, 203-4, anecdote of his infancy, 595-6, his character, 596,his first marriage and issue, 596-7, his second marriage and issue, 597

MACKENZIES OF ARDLOCH, 563-5. Mackenzie, Alexander, I. of Ardloch, marriage and descendants, 563-4

MACKENZIES OF ARDROSS AND DUNDONNEL, 508-12. Mackenzie, Rev. William, Rosskeen, marriage and descendants, 508

MACKENZIES OF BALLONE, 573-80. Mackenzie, Alexander, I. of Ballone, marriage and descendants, 573-4

MACKENZIES OF BELMADUTHY, 485-7. Mackenzie, William, I. of Belmaduthy, his marriage and issue, 485

MACKENZIES OF CLEANWATERS, 584

MACKENZIES OF COUL, 604-8. Mackenzie, Sir Kenneth, I. of Coul, his marriages and issue, 604-5

MACKENZIES OF CROMARTY, 549-62. Mackenzie, Sir Roderick, of Coigeach, Tutor of Kintail, 177, disputes

with the Lewismen, 225-8, 232-5, 237-9, heavily fined, 228-9, exempted from joining Huntly’s forces, 229-31, his appointment as Tutor, 235, his vigorous management, 236-7, his meeting with King James, 549, encounter with the Athole men, 549-50, his marriage and issue, 550.

MACKENZIES OF DAILUAINE, 474-7. Mackenzie, Hector, I. of Dailuaine, his marriage and issue, 475

MACKENZIES OF DAVOCHMALUAG, 499-504. Mackenzie, Alexander, I. of Davochmaluag, marriage and descendants, 499

MACKENZIES OF DELVINE, 613-5. Mackenzie, John, I. of Delvine, marriages and descendants, 613-4

MACKENZIES OF DOLPHINTON, 613-4. Mackenzie, John, II. of Dolphinton, his marriage and issue, 613

MACKENZIES OF DUNDONNEL (OLD,) 362-6. Mackenzie, Kenneth Mor, I. of Dundonnel, marriage, 362, issue, 362-3

MACKENZIES OF FAIRBURN, 513-6. Mackenzie, Murdoch, I. of Fairburn, marriages and descendants, 513-4

MACKENZIES OF FAWLEY COURT AND FARR, 620-5. Mackenzie, Alexander, I., his marriage and descendants, 620-1

MACKENZIES OF FINDON AND MOUNTGERALD, 570. Mackenzie, Lewis Mark, I. of Findon and Mountgerald, 570

MACKENZIES OF FLOWERBURN, 490-1. Mackenzie, Roderick, I. of Flowerburn, his marriage and issue, 490

MACKENZIES OF GAIRLOCH, 385-447. Mackenzie, Hector Roy, I. of Gairloch, appointed Tutor of Kintail, 113, 385, 386, obtains extensive grants of land, 387, feud with the Macleods of Lewis, 390-6, murder of his nephews, 391-2, obtains a charter to Gairloch, 392, fights at Flodden, 395, his marriage, 397, and descendants, 397-8 his first marriage and issue, 436, his second marriage and descendants, 436-9

MACKENZIES OF GLACK, 375-81. Mackenzie, Rev. Colin, I. of Glack, purchases the estate, 375, 376, his marriages, 378, and descendants, 378-80

MACKENZIES OF GLENBERVIE, 592-4. Mackenzie-Douglas, General Sir Kenneth, I. of Glenbervie, his marriage and descendants, 592-4

MACKENZIES OF GROUNDWATER, 492-8. Mackenzie, Rev. Hector, Inverness, marriage and descendants, 492-3

MACKENZIES OF GRUINARD, 616-9. Mackenzie, John, I. of Gruinard, his marriage and issue, 616

MACKENZIES OF HIGHFIELD, 533-5. Mackenzie, Thomas, I. of Highfield, his marriage and issue, 533

MACKENZIES OF HILTON, 367-75. Mackenzie, Duncan, I. of Hilton, his marriage and issue, 367

MACKENZIES OF KERNSARY, 517-21. Mackenzie, Rev. Roderick, I. of Kernsary, 517, his character and that of his brother Kenneth, 518, his marriage, 519

MACKENZIES OF KILCOY, 581-91. Mackenzie, Alexander, I. of Kilcoy, marriage and descendants, 581-3

MACKENZIES OF KILLICHRIST, 522-4. Mackenzie, Kenneth, I. of Killichrist, 107-8, marriage and issue, 522-3

MACKENZIES OF KINCRAIG, 544-8. Mackenzie, Colin, I. of Kincraig, his marriages and issue, 544

MACKENZIES OF KINTAIL, 44-347, Mackenzie, Kenneth, I. of Kintail, gives his name to clan, 44,his ancestry, 46, defends Ellandonnan Castle, 46, his marriage, 46

MACKENZIES OF LETTEREWE, 454-60. Mackenzie, Charles, I. of Letterewe, marriage and descendants, 454-5

MACKENZIES OF LOCHEND, 448-53. Mackenzie, John, I. of Lochend, his marriage and issue, 448

MACKENZIES OF LOGGIE, 382-4. Mackenzie, John, I. of Loggie, his marriage and issue, 382

MACKENZIES OF MOUNTGERALD, 472-3. Mackenzie, Colin, I. of Mountgerald, his marriages and issue, 472

MACKENZIES OF MUIRTON, 581-2. Mackenzie, Alexander, I. of Muirton, his marriage and issue, 581

MACKENZIES OF MUIRTON AND MEIKLE SCATWELL, 463-4. Mackenzie, William, I. of Muirton, his first marriage and descendants,463-4, his second marriage, 464

MACKENZIES OF ORD, 526-32. Mackenzie, John, I. of Ord, his marriage and descendants, 527-8

MACKENZIES OF PITLUNDIE AND CULBO, 487-90. Mackenzie, Kenneth, I. of Pitlundie, his marriage and issue, 487

MACKENZIES OF PORTMORE, 461-71. Mackenzie, Provost Alexander, his first marriage and issue, 461, his second marriage and descendants, 461-2

MACKENZIES OF REDCASTLE, 536-43. Mackenzie, Roderick Mor, I. of Redcastle, marriage and issue, 536

MACKENZIES OF SCATWELL, 566-72.Mackenzie, Kenneth, I. of Scatwell, his marriage, issue, and funeral, 566

SLIOCHD ALASTAIR CHAIM, 478-84 Mackenzie, Alexander, wounded at Worcester, 478, his marriage anddescendants, 478-80

MACKENZIES OF SUDDIE, 524-6. Mackenzie, Alexander, I. of Suddie, his marriage and descendants, 524 Mackenzie, Captain Kenneth, II. of Suddie, 524, his marriage and issue, 525, his gallant death at Mulroy, 525 (n)

MACKENZIES OF TORRIDON, 608-12. Mackenzie, Simon, I. of Torridon, his marriage and descendants, 608-9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.9.194 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What your saying may well be correct but can I suggest the information is moved to a new article called "Chiefs of Clan Mackenzie" as has been done with Chiefs of Clan Fraser and Chiefs of Clan Munro. The size of the clan article is massive and is already far bigger than the average article size given in guide lines. QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. The huge paragraphs seem to be copy and pasted from old books. Reading about the specific descent of multiple branches, over and over again, and how they die-out in 18-whatever, is pretty boring IMO. It's hard to wade through that kind of stuff.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

At the same time this is a very real issue and no matter how friendly, beloved and generous, the current Earl of Cromartie needs be removed from the article as chief. His family may have legally changed their name but they are illegally claiming a Gaelic title, of a kind which cannot be held by his family. It is simply against Gaelic law. The decision of the Lord Lyon is irrelevant. DinDraithou (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I rather agree that Lord Lyon has no business muscling in on Highland chiefships. But there are at least three ways of identifying where the chiefship resides (to the extent that the issue still has any meaning in the 21st century). One is to hunt remorselessly for lineal heirs male, in which case Lord Cromartie doesn't begin to qualify (and Macleod of Macleod no longer sits in Dunvegan). Another is to take the view that the chiefship resides where the majority of Mackenzies consider it to reside. If one adopts this pragmatic approach, then it is quite possible that most Mackenzies across the world would (rightly or wrongly) follow Lord Lyon in acknowledging Cromartie as their chief. A third approach (not one that appeals to me personally) would be to say that Lord Lyon knows best. By one of these measures (the third), Cromartie is the chief and, by another (the second), he may be the chief. So I am not sure that his removal from this article as chief has necessarily been shown to be justified. 45ossington (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As it is with many Scottish clans, the majority of Mackenzies will not a be a majority of Mackenzies, because of their tendency to accrete over time a huge number who are not genealogical (male-line) descendents, through marriage, etc. Their general opinion really doesn't count, the election of chief being properly up to the extended Scottish equivalent of the derbfine, in other words those who can actually prove their male-line descent from earlier clan aristocracy. Clearly some of these true Mackenzies still exist, as we can see from all of this material added to the article, and the decision was never up to anyone but them.

Furthermore, those sources supporting the Blunt claim here, namely the "Clan Mackenzie" website and Burke's Peerage, cannot be considered reliable. DinDraithou (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

References seem to all give cromartie as chief, we should not decide who is chief or how a chief ship descend. This is not our role as editors of the wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. see WP:V. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

references that give The 5^th Earl of Cromartie as Clan Chief:

• burkes peerage
• The Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs
• clan-mackenzie.org.uk
• clanmackenzie.com
• ross-shirejournal
• The Independent (London, England) articles
• Toronto Star - Toronto, Ont
• The Nelson Mail
• The Scotsman
• Sunday Mail (Glasgow, Scotland) articles
• etc....

references that give another as chief:

• none found

references that say the chiefship is in dispute:

• none found

I have to say that I agree with Czar Brodie. And I wonder what authority there is for the proposition that in the 21st century a chief can be chosen only by a system described in 8th century Irish law books.45ossington (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a single one of those above is a reliable source for legal opinion. DinDraithou (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

All the references that give The 5^th Earl of Cromartie as Clan Chief are reliable sources; wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for legal interpretations or opinions, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. In any case by ignoring the material on legitimate agnatic descendants you are not allowing Wikipedia to be encyclopedic... or academic. Also see Wikipedia:Anti-elitism. I won't dispute that the Blunts now have the support of the great unwashed, who obviously want a Peer to represent them and wear their ridiculous crest badge and other stupidity, and that this should be recognized in the article (minus my attempt at humour). But there is not sufficient evidence that they are Chiefs of the historical Clan Mackenzie, or have any proper right to those arms. DinDraithou (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Anti-elitism and do not see the relevance. The fact is that it seems to be your opinion that Cromartie is not chief. The sources, whether clan , society, newspapers etc all give cromartie as the current chief. I am aware of the problems associated with the recognition of chief, and I placed many of the contradictions associated with the dubious influence of the lord lyon and the use of arms in association with chiefs in the appropriate section, see my edits at Scottish clan chief. We should however i think guard against individual editors opinions on who should be chief. This could led to very opinionated interpretations etc. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Again you are overreacting to my removal of the Earl of Cromartie from the infobox, which you apparently designed. His family is clearly chiefly to some but also clearly not so to all, and evidently not so to many genealogical Mackenzies, who are most important. Including him as chief in the infobox violates Wikipedia:NPOV.

On sourcing, clan associations especially are known to attract the lower orders and can never be regarded as reliable sources. DinDraithou (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

not sure what you mean by lower orders, but see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clans of Scotland/Archive 1#Clan Web Sites as references. note also the various press articles from world media per above references confirming Cromartie as chief. The Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs is the only official body of chiefs, and burks is a reliable source on titles. If a reliable source does mention the chiefship of Mackenzie being in dispute, then this would be an appropriate point to mention; however, it seems to me that your suggestion that the chief is not the chief appears as an opinion, especially if you can not source this information. I see that you are an experienced editor, so surely you understand the problems associated with editors giving personal unsourced opinions. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Their novel claim only dates from 1962.[2] DinDraithou (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If the official current clan chief is actually the Earl of Cromartie then it should say so in the article. I myself added the original list of the historical chiefs of the Clan Mackenzie to this article taken from the History of the Clan Mackenzie by Alexander Mackenzie but of course it didn't include the most recent chiefs because it was first published years ago. It seems much of the editing since on the Mackenzie chiefs has been personal opinion which isn't what is supposed to be included in wikipedia articles. QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is absolutely fine for it to say whatever "official" in the article, just not in the infobox which Czar Brodie has designed and everyone is aesthetically attached to, where the Mackenzie arms are made to look properly Blunt's own. There is also the matter of the Lord Lyon's actual authority, and then of the lack of any legal basis for the awarding of the long dormant chiefship to the Blunts after they "legally" changed their name, apparently desiring the chiefship before "holding" it. The absurdity factor is pretty great. If Scotland weren't such a backwater more people might notice this interesting activity.

All I'm doing is defending (but not quite crusading for, yet) the rights of however many genealogical Mackenzies happen to remain in the world, the true Clan Mackenzie of Scottish history, versus the 20th-century commercial social club represented by that terrible infobox. This is hardly an original idea. The current Earl of Cromartie hardly represents the actual clan of history, which is essentially defunct. Really they are two very different entities. DinDraithou (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the Official Clan Mackenzie Society, the current chief is the Earl of Cromartie. You may be right in saying that he shouldn't be chief but at the end of the day he is the official chief. Also it is true that the Lord Lyon does not have the power to decide who is actually the chief of a clan. He can decide who is "chief of the name and arms" but not who is chief of the clan association. I think that the article can be editied to include all of these points but at the end of the day if Cromartie is the offical chief then that is what the article should say. Not personal opinions of who should and who shouldn't for whatever reason. And Czar Brodie's info boxes have done wonders for these clan articles. Still I think all this information could be included in a seperate article called "Chiefs of Clan Mackenzie" where people would be able to add facts about the rightful lineage and so on. QuintusPetillius (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It has taken me awhile to get here, since I started posting before I knew all the facts (a bad habit), but what I am saying now is that the Earl of Cromartie may be chief of something called the Clan Mackenzie but he is not chief of the historical Clan Mackenzie, which again has been defunct since the 19th century, arguably the 18th. The original clan consisted of its genealogical aristocrats, male-line descendants of its founders, and since they appear all but gone the poorly defined entity or organization calling itself (or being called) the Clan Mackenzie needs to be explicitly pointed out as not properly a natural descendant of the original, not an "heir male of the body", so to speak. The article says as much but is presently not explicit about it in the discussion. DinDraithou (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about creating a separate article. Unless the current "chief" and his father are moved there too it might give the wrong impression. But if the main article could be reserved for the historical clan ending in the 19th century then I would support it. DinDraithou (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for the main article being reserved for the historical clan history. Although technically all of the clans ended mid-way through the 18th century. But I am sure you mean the real chief's line ended in the 19th century. DinDraithou why don't you create the article Chiefs of Clan Mackenzie and add all your info there. It has been done with Chiefs of Clan Munro and Chiefs of Clan Fraser, the main reason being that the main clan articles got far to big. And you will see with both of the mentioned articles that it is not unusual for the chieftainships to be disputed. QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm not the IP editor who started this discussion, but I can understand if it looks like that. Someone else should create the article. My experience with early historical and late prehistoric Ireland will not aide me greatly, I fear. I originally visited the Scottish clan articles to get an idea of their ancestry and when I found out elsewhere that the Mackenzies were one of those to claim descent from the Cenél Loairn I became interested and added that. There is a Mackenzie DNA Project which has discovered some Irish ancestry, in which case they might be the most prominent of the ancient Dál Riata to survive. There still is some debate in genetic genealogy and academic circles over which signature is "the" Dál Riata one but in any case the Mackenzies have a little of each. Thus I may further rewrite the origins section of the main article but am not suited to create Chiefs of Clan Mackenzie. Why don't you? DinDraithou (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have decided it is time to list the chiefs on a seperate page as has been done with Clan Fraser and Clan Munro. See Chiefs of Clan Mackenzie. QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there anything in the infobox which dates from before the 19th century? Does any of it have anything to do with the clan? DinDraithou (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Traditional origins

The reference to Cernunnos is nonsense. As the Wikipedia article on this Celtic deity makes clear, the name occurs only on the "Pillar of the Boatmen" discovered in 1710 within the foundations of the cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris (Koch, Celtic Culture, p. 396). The earliest surviving Mackenzie stags head is on the tomb at Beauly Priory of Coinneach a Blair, died 1492, more than 200 years before Pillar of the Boatmen was discovered (Moncreiffe of that Ilk, pp.150–154). There are more than twenty stags head seals on the Ragman Roll of 1296, none of them belonging to anyone identified on the roll as a Mackenzie ("May we be Britons", Andrew Mckenzie, 2012 p. 13). As these include both Gaelic and Norman families, clearly they don’t all relate to Cernunnos. It is unclear where the Collins Encyclopaedia of Scotland got the idea that the stags head coat of arms represented a deity from a thousand years before the first Mackenzie, as it provides no source, but there is no evidence that any Mackenzie ever believed this. I suggest that the opening section of the "Traditional Origins" should read "The surname Mackenzie in Scottish Gaelic is Maccoinneach which means son of the fair bright one. The Mackenzies are believed...". Ian Macken (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well if you could provide a published secondary source for your information then you are welcome to present it here for discussion and once it has been discussed then we can see about changing the article. However please note that the article says that the stags head merely may "allude" to the pagan god.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The dates I've provided, 1710 for the discovery of the only known occurrence of the name Cernunnos and 1492 for the earliest known Mackenzie stag's head, both referenced, indicate that the Mackenzie stag's head cannot allude to the Celtic god. Moreover, it is clear that the stags head emblem was not originally limited to the Mackenzies alone, as indicated by it's appearance in over twenty seals belonging to individuals of various family names on the Ragman Roll of 1296. Again the dates indicate that none of the owners of those seals could have been aware of the name Cernunnos. The earliest histories of the Mackenzies, by the Earl of Cromarty and by Mackenzie of Applecross, both compiled in the 17th century, make no mention of Celtic gods of any kind in their speculation on the origins of the Mackenzies. Given that the origins of the stag's head emblem are unknown, should modern {Collins Encyclopedia, 1994} speculation about what it might or might not allude to be included in a section on "traditional" origins, or indeed in article of this sort at all? Ian Macken (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that bit has bugged me too. The surname actually means nothing more than 'son of Coinneach' (Black's Surnames of Scotland says as much, as will any reliable book on surnames). Whatever the origins of the personal name Coinneach, the real reason the clan bears the surname MacCoinnich is because Coinneach was the name of a particularly revered ancestor (whoever he may have been: Kermac Macmaghan?). The encyclopaedia seems to do a similar thing with the Kennedys as well, implying that their surname links them in a meaningful way with the fifth-century Cunedda and the Votadini. Anyway, I think it would be best to ignore the Cernunnos bit. We can just give a straightforward etymology of the surname. As for 'traditions', a Mackenzie pedigree is preserved in MS 1467, which I think is the evidence for the supposed kinship with the Mathesons and Clan Anrias that the article mentions; also there was a seventeenth century claim that the Mackenzies descended from the Fitzgeralds that we could briefly mention somewhere (maybe in a footnote?). We've just got to find references that mention these things. Ian, if you have a reference for the earliest example of the Mackenzie arms maybe you could add that somewhere.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The simplest references for the tomb at Beauly Priory of Coinneach a Blair are Alexander Mackenzie and Aonghas MacCoinnich, which are references 32 and 8 respectively on the Article page. The text on the tomb as given by MacCoinnich is "hic aicet kanyaus mknch dns de kyntayl q obit vii die februarii a di m.cccc.lxxxxi", which translates to "here lies Kenneth Mackenzie, lord of Kintail, died 7th February 1491". As this is in a religious institution, the date used is from the ecclesiastical calendar, so on the secular calendar we use today the year would be 1492. The effigy has Mackenzie in full armor and this is the earliest known physical representation of a Mackenzie which survives. The entrance to the tomb is surmounted by a stag's head shield, also the earliest known example. The next example I'm aware of is Colin Cam's seal of 1574 (MacCoinnich, Ref 8). I believe this contains a star between the antlers, not present in the Beauly example (I checked the Beauly tomb).

You are correct that the earliest traditional histories claim Mackenzie descent from a Fitzgerald progenitor. As described by MacCoinnich (reference 8 in the article) these include those by John Mackenzie of Applecross (died c.1684/5), George Mackenzie first Earl of Cromarty (died 1714) and the unpublished Letterfearn, Ardintoul and Allangrange manuscripts. Jean Munro, who has analyzed these documents, (West Highland Notes and Queries Series 2, no 19, pp 12 - 17, 1999) has argued that all these ultimately derive from a single manuscript created by William MacQueen, Parson of Assynt in 1576, now lost. Alexander Mackenzie (of reference 32) followed the Fitzgerald scheme for his first 1879 edition of his History of the Mackenzies, but abandoned it in his later 1894 edition based on the publication of the genealogies contained in MS1467, by W. F. Skene in Celtic Scotland: A history of Ancient Albyn, 3 vols, 2nd edition, Edinburgh 1886 - 90. The Mackenzie and Matheson genealogies in MS1467 (compiled in 1476) all derive from a Gilleoin of the Aird, but make no mention of any Fitzgerald. Although some Mackenzie clan members cling to the Fitzgerald myth, it has not so far proved possible to demonstrate that Colin Fitzgerald ever existed and it is likely that he is a sixteenth century invention. MS1476 was compiled 200 years before the earliest surviving Mackenzie traditional history. The best recent reference for MS1467 is Martin MacGregor, Genealogies of the clans: contributions to the study of MS 1467, The Innes Review, vol 51 no 2 pp 131 - 146, 2000). MacGregor argues that the MS1467 genealogies, which mostly end at around 1400, may have been "in part a census of the military resources available to Domhnall lord of the Isles in a period when he was seeking to make good his wife's claims to the earldom of Ross, culminating in the battle of Harlaw in 1411". Based on MS1467 and a series of charters associated with Beauly Priory, David Sellar in Highland Family Origins - Pedigree Making and Pedigree Faking (in The Middle Ages in the Highlands, Inverness Field Club, 1981, pp 103 - 116) has suggested that the Mackenzies and Mathesons were junior branches of the Del Ard family, heirs to Gilleoin of the Aird. The senior line of this family, prominent in the 13th and 14th centuries, terminated in an heiress Margaret del Ard, the Lady of Erchless, who married Alexander Chisolm of Cromer c. 1350.Ian Macken (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I am happy for the article to be adjusted providing that the info is properly referenced.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I was suggesting dropping the text concerning Cernunnos. I'm not sure how an excision can be referenced, or what relevance to the Article a reference to something that is no longer there would have. However the reference for "The name Cernunnos occurs only on the "Pillar of the Boatmen", now displayed in the Musée National du Moyen Age in Paris. It was discovered in 1710 within the foundations of the cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris" is <Koch, Celtic Culture, p. 396>, as quoted on the Wikipedia page for Cernunnos. References for the 1491/2 date recorded on the tomb of Kenneth Mackenzie, which includes a stag's head shield, include <Mackenzie, Alexander. (1894). History of the Mackenzies>, <Moncreiffe of that Ilk, pp.150–154> and <MacCoinnich, A. (2003) "Kingis rabellis" to Cuidich 'n' Righ; the emergence of Clann Choinnich, c. 1475-1508. In: Boardman, S. and Ross, A. (eds) The Exercise of Power in Medieval Scotland, 1200-1500. Four Courts Press, Dublin, pp.175-200>. Please note these publications already appear in the reference list to the Article. The logic that the Mackenzie stag's head cannot allude to Cernunnos is simply based on a comparison of the 1710 vs 1491/2 dates. An emblem dating from before 1500 cannot allude to a name only discovered in 1710. I would suggest text as follows. The surname Mackenzie in Scottish Gaelic is Maccoinneach which means son of the fair bright one.<Way, George and Squire, Romily. (1994). Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia. (Foreword by The Rt Hon. The Earl of Elgin KT, Convenor, The Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs). pp. 226 - 227> The Mackenzies are believed to have the same ancestry as the Clan Matheson and Clan Anrias.<Way, George and Squire, Romily. (1994). Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia. (Foreword by The Rt Hon. The Earl of Elgin KT, Convenor, The Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs). pp. 226 - 227>

If you believe that any of the other material I provided in answer the questions Brianann MacAmhlaidh posed should be included in the Article, I would suggest the following draft text for consideration/discussion in between the first and second paragraphs. All of the earliest traditional Clan Mackenzie histories claim descent from a Fitzgerald progenitor. These histories include those by John Mackenzie of Applecross (died c.1684/5), George Mackenzie first Earl of Cromarty (died 1714) and the unpublished Letterfearn, Ardintoul and Allangrange manuscripts.<MacCoinnich, A. (2003) "Kingis rabellis" to Cuidich 'n' Righ; the emergence of Clann Choinnich, c. 1475-1508. In: Boardman, S. and Ross, A. (eds) The Exercise of Power in Medieval Scotland, 1200-1500. Four Courts Press, Dublin, pp.175-200> It is believed that all of these histories ultimately derive from a single manuscript created by William MacQueen, Parson of Assynt in 1576, now lost.<Jean Munro, West Highland Notes and Queries Series 2, no 19, pp 12 - 17, 1999> Alexander Mackenzie <Mackenzie, Alexander. (1879). History of the Mackenzies> followed the Fitzgerald scheme for the first edition of his History of the Mackenzies in 1879, but abandoned it in his later 1894 edition based on the intervening publication of genealogies contained in MS1467.<W. F. Skene in Celtic Scotland: A history of Ancient Albyn, 3 vols, 2nd edition, Edinburgh 1886 - 90> MS1476 was compiled 200 years before the earliest surviving Mackenzie traditional history. The Mackenzie and Matheson genealogies in MS1467, which end c.1400, both derive from a Gilleoin of the Aird, but make no mention of Fitzgerald. The genealogies in MS1467 have been interpreted as in part a census of the military resources available to Domhnall lord of the Isles in a period when he was seeking to make good his wife's claims to the earldom of Ross, culminating in the battle of Harlaw in 1411.<Martin MacGregor, Genealogies of the clans: contributions to the study of MS 1467, The Innes Review, vol 51 no 2 pp 131 - 146, 2000> Based on MS1467 and a series of charters associated with Beauly Priory, it has been suggested that the Mackenzies and Mathesons were junior branches of the Del Ard family, heirs to Gilleoin of the Aird.<David Sellar, Highland Family Origins - Pedigree Making and Pedigree Faking, in The Middle Ages in the Highlands, Inverness Field Club, 1981, pp 103 - 116> The senior line of this family, prominent in the 13th and 14th centuries, terminated in the heiress Margaret del Ard, the Lady of Erchless, who married Alexander Chisolm of Cromer c.1350.Ian Macken (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Well you had better get started on editing the article then. I think what you have in mind is pretty good. So just go ahead and see what you can do. If you have problems with formatting the references then I can always help out with that. I have already removed the bit about the pagan god Cernunnos. Cheers.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Quintus. I think I got it right (eventually), but would appreciate you checking.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clan Mackenzie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.clan-mackenzie.org.uk/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.clan-mackenzie.org.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100524114215/http://clan-mackenzie.org.nz/ to http://www.clan-mackenzie.org.nz/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721010259/http://forum.mackenziefrance.fr/ to http://forum.mackenziefrance.fr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

... Doune Castle was selected due to its ease of location. This may be surprising to viewers who know Castle Leod as the seat of the Clan Mackenzie and accurately represents the historical period which Diana Gabaldon seeks to portray.

Grammatically, the only possible subject of represents is This, at the beginning of the sentence. So the sentence is saying that the selection of Doune Castle accurately represents the historical period. I'm pretty sure this isn't what's intended, but I can't tell what is intended. Koro Neil (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)