Other people with some measure of recognition as chief
Four other people have been variously cited as chief of Clan Buchanan but none appears to have been formally recognized by the Court of the Lord Lyon (the heraldry court of Scotland). Before addressing the claims to chiefship it is necessary to establish how the office and title of Chief are passed to succeeding generations in Scotland.
Patrilineal Descent. Firstly, the office and title are usually passed patrilineally (from father to child) in descending order of male birth then descending order of female birth, hence the oldest surviving son is the heir presumptive. If the heir presumptive produces no heirs, then on the heir presumptive's death the office and title go to the next younger son, etc., then the eldest daughter, etc. The term ‘cadet’ is used to describe family groups that are descendants of younger sons, thus the oldest surviving son of each generation maintains the main or principal family line, and younger sons establish cadet lines. In the case of the chiefly line of Buchanan, the first recognised cadet was Buchanan of Auchneiven and the last was Buchanan of Auchmar. Cadets can have their own cadets, e.g. Buchanans of Drumpellier, Auchintorlie, Craigend and Hillington are cadets of Buchanan of Leny through Gartacharne.89 When chiefly line is extinguished, the most recent cadet line to branch off the chiefly line becomes the new chiefly line.
Maintenance of Surname. Secondly the office and title are implicitly linked to the surname, thus a McKay, a Cairns, etc. cannot be chief of Clan Buchanan. In some cases, where the heir is a daughter, arrangements have been made so that her husband and children assume her surname, and thus the office and title can be passed to her offspring. This practice has given rise to the use of compound (hyphenated or ‘double-barrelled’) names. The matter of principal names was established by the Lord Lyon Innes of Learney when in the case of Monro-Lucas-Tooth that he was a Tooth rather than a Monro or Lucas. It is now clearly established that it is the last name that decides the matter.90 Thus by the Court of the Lord Lyon, a Moodie-Buchanan is considered a Buchanan but a Buchanan-Moodie is considered a Moodie. Further, in the case of a chief as the representer of the family, the surname cannot be a compound surname.91, 92
1 – 1679 – Major George Buchanan (alias Major George Grant)
Neither Guthrie Smith nor Buchanan of Auchmar identify him as a chief (hence why John Buchanan is the last recognised chief); however, Buchanan of Auchmar advises that John Buchanan transferred "his estate to an old comrade of his, Major George Grant, Governor of Dumbarton Castle, with this provision, that the Major should marry his eldest daughter, and assume the name and arms of Buchanan; reserving his own life-rent and his lady's jointure, and settling the estate so as to return to Buchanan's heirs-male, and, failing heirs of Grant's own body, to Buchanan's heirs whatsoever."39 Despite George Grant never marrying the daughter of John Buchanan, National Archives of Scotland (NAS) records show the legal paperwork for this transfer occurred on 9 Apr 1679. NAS records show that by late 1679, George Grant had assumed the name George Buchanan and that by 28 Aug 1680 he was cited as being Major George Buchanan of that Ilk. (The use of the title, Buchanan of that Ilk, implies that George had taken over the chiefship but it might also imply that John Buchanan was deceased by 28 Aug 1680.) Major George Buchanan never married and by his death had "given up all Buchanan evidences, both the rights and the fortune."93
2 – 1723 – Buchanan of Auchmar claim
Alexander Nisbet in A System of Heraldry Vol 1, 1722, states that 'Buchannan of Lenie' is now the representor of 'Buchannan of that Ilk.'101 William Buchanan of Auchmar in his history of the clan, published in 1723, details a case that all cadet lines, except one, from George 15th of Buchanan to John Buchanan 19th of Buchanan had expired and on the death of the latter, the chiefship devolved to the cadet line most recently separated from the chiefly line, Buchanan of Auchmar, thus he, William Buchanan of Auchmar, is the chief of Clan Buchanan and that Nisbet is wrong in asserting that Buchanan of Leny is representer of the chiefly line.102 In Nisbet's (posthumously published) A System of Heraldry Vol 2, 1742, he recognises Buchanan of Auchmar as the successor of the chiefly line.103 In the 1826 claim for the chiefship by Dr Francis Buchanan-Hamilton, the extinction of both the main chiefly line and the Auchmar line are identified as preconditions to the claim.104 The later Clan historian, John Guthrie Smith, omits any reference to Buchanan of Auchmar's claim when he details the Buchanans of Auchmar.105
William Buchanan¹⁰⁶ of Auchmar married in 1696 Jean Buchanan and by her three sons (John and Bernard who died before their father, and Alexander his successor) and three daughters (Janet, Katherine and Helen) who survived infancy. William died in 1747.
Alexander Buchanan¹⁰⁶ of Auchmar married Christine Campbell and by her two sons (William his successor and James who succeeded his brother).
William Buchanan¹⁰⁶ of Auchmar sold his estate, reserving a right for redemption, he married in 1796 Sarah Bartlet. He died at sea off America the following year.
James Buchanan¹⁰⁷ sold the right of redemption for the estate of Auchmar. He died without an heir in 1816. This line is now recognised as extinguished.¹⁰⁸
3 – 1746 – Francis Buchanan of Arnprior
Sir Walter Scott in 1830, cites Francis Buchanan of Arnpryor (alternate spelling: Arnprior), who was executed at Carlisle on 18 Oct 1746 for high treason for his role in the Jacobite uprising, as being the chief of the family Buchanan. Jesse (1846), Fillan (1849), The Scottish Antiquary (1890)⁹⁷ and a history of Clan MacNab (1899) cites Francis Buchanan of Arnprior as being the Chief of Clan Buchanan. ⁹⁴ ⁹⁵ ⁹⁶ ⁹⁸
Francis Buchanan of Arnprior was the grandson of the John Buchanan of Arnprior, who was the manager of the estate of John Buchanan of Buchanan (the last recognised Clan Chief who died c1681) ⁹⁹. Prior to the Chief's second marriage (1677), he had arranged for Elizabeth, the only child of his first marriage, to wed Robert Buchanan, son of John Buchanan of Arnprior, and in due course inherit the Buchanan estate and chiefship – a bond of Tailzie. This marriage did not take place and the arrangement was cancelled.³⁹, ¹⁰⁰
Francis Buchanan of Arnprior married Elizabeth Buchanan, who was the daughter of Janet Buchanan, who was the second daughter of John Buchanan of Buchanan, i.e. Elizabeth was the granddaughter of John Buchanan of Buchanan (the only child of the Chief's second marriage).
The Clan historian, William Buchanan of Auchmar, a contemporary of Francis Buchanan of Arnprior, notes that Francis Buchanan owned part of the old Buchanan lands ⁹⁹ but makes no reference to the supposed chiefship and, if anything, alludes to treachery to John Buchanan of Buchanan by John Buchanan of Arnprior (Francis Buchanan's grandfather) ³⁹. William Buchanan of Auchmar also makes no mention of Francis Buchanan having married the last chief's granddaughter. It is possible that Scott, a historical novelist, simply embellished the facts for literary purposes. Nevertheless, assuming that Scott, et al. are right and the chiefship had passed to Francis Buchanan (possibly via marriage to the heir of the last chief), then Buchanan of Auchmar may have misrepresented the Buchanans of Arnprior to bolster his own claim to the chiefship.
The Framing of Francis Buchanan of Arnprior
for the Murder of Capt. Alexander Stewart, 10th of Glenbuckie
Captain Alexander Stewart, 10th of Glenbuckie, was the short-lived commander of the Stewarts of Balquhidder Company intended to serve Prince Charles Edward Stuart (“Bonnie Prince Charlie”) in the Jacobite Rising of 1745. Tragically, Captain Alexander Stewart of Glenbuckie, either committed suicide, or was more likely murdered in his sleep.
Two people were accused of his murder: James Mor MacGregor (son of Rob Roy MacGregor) and Francis Buchanan of Arnprior. Francis was arrested for the crime.
Whilst arrested and imprisoned in Stirling Castle, the Commanding Officer looking upon the evidence against Arnprior to be very thin, and not imagining Arnprior to be in any danger at all, allowed him the full liberty of the Castle, to walk up and down as he pleased, without keeping a strict eye over him. Francis was apparently afforded several opportunities to escape, but declined to do so as he was so confident that the charges would be overturned.
A group of prisoners were transferred to Carlisle castle, and when the prisoners arrived at Carlisle, Arnprior, much to his own surprise and that of the foresaid officers, was immediately ordered into a dungeon and clapped into irons.
One sympathetic Captain appealed for clemancy on Francis’s behalf and went directly to the Solicitor General for him to consider and allow the gentleman a more easy and comfortable confinement. The Solicitor General replied by saying, “Pray, Sir, give yourself no more trouble about that gentleman. I shall take care of him. I have particular orders about him, for he must suffer.”
When Arnprior was brought to trial, not a single overt act was proved against him. An unsubscribed letter was produced in the court which had been intercepted in going to the Highland Army.
In fact, in his final speech, Francis declaired his freindship to Glenbuckie:
“Now I take this opportunity to declare publicly, to you and my fellow prisoners that Glenbuckie and I lived many years in close friendship together, and altho’ he was found dead in my house, yet, upon the word of a dying man, I declare, I myself had no hand in his death, nor do I know any other person that had”.
Source: www.stewartsofbalquhidder.com as researched: The Lyon in Mourning by The Rev. Robert Forbes, A.M., Bishop of Ross and Caithness, 1746-1775.
4 – 1826 – Buchanan-Hamilton claim
With the expiration of the Auchmar cadet line and in the absence of other contenders, it is claimed that in 1828 that Dr. Francis Buchanan-Hamilton of Spittal, Bardowie, and Leny established his claim as Chief of Clan Buchanan¹⁰⁴, ¹⁰⁷, ¹⁰⁹. Francis was the son of Thomas Buchanan of Spittal and Leny (the Leny estate and title were inherited from Thomas’ first wife), and Elizabeth Hamilton of Bardowie. In 1815 Francis inherited his mother's estate and adopted the additional surname of Hamilton. His claim to Clan Buchanan chiefship comes through the Buchanan of Spittal cadet line from the fourth son of Walter 14th of Buchanan. Similar to the Buchanan of Auchmar claim, this implies that any cadet lines from Walter 14th of Buchanan through to John 19th of Buchanan are extinguished¹⁰⁸. Adams cites the successor to Buchanan of Auchmar as being Buchanan of Leny; however, the term Leny here should be read as a territorial designation and not an indication of the cadet line¹¹⁰.
Dr. Francis Buchanan-Hamilton¹¹¹ (1762–1829) married Anne Brock and by her a son (John).
John Buchanan-Hamilton¹¹¹ (1822–1903) married (1845) Margaret Seton and had three sons (Francis (1853–1893) who died unmarried and without heir, George (1856–1886) who died unmarried and without heir, and John his successor) and three daughters (Margaret, Ann and Katherine).
John Hamilton Buchanan¹¹¹ (1861–1919) married in 1884 Phoebe Elizabeth Brock but appears to have left no heir. This line is now recognised as extinguished.[108] It is noteworthy that John was named John Hamilton Buchanan, thus the Hamilton name adopted by his grandfather became John's middle name. This brought his name in line with the subsequent Lord Lyon ruling on compound names.
Click to read “A statement of the Claim of the Family of Buchanan of Spittal, to be considered the CHIEF of the Name” of 1826
Click to read 1828 amended version of the Dr Francis claim. It doesn’t differ much except it now refers to Dr Francis as Dr Francis not Dr Francis Buchanan as was stated on the 1826 Claim.
Just two years after the publication of his first claim, Dr Hamilton published an amended claim for the Clan Chiefship. While the majority of the text was identical, this document differed from the previous one, mainly with respect to some of the names. In the initial claim document of 1826, Dr Francis Hamilton's name was written in three places as "Francis Hamilton Buchanan of Spittel" This was on the front title page, on page 16 where his link to his father was shown and lastly on the genealogy chart on the last page. However in the amended document there was no mention of any surname he was currently using, or claiming to have, or will be using in the future.
It also changed on the title page from;
"Claim of Dr Francis Hamilton Buchanan of Spittel as Chief of the family of Buchanan of Buchanan"
to
"An amended statement of the Claim of the head of the family of Buchanan of Spittel to be considered the Chief of the name as male representative of the family of Buchanan of Buchanan"
Then on page 16, the listing changed from:
"XI-Francis Hamilton Buchanan of Spittel, the claimant, is son and heir of the preceding Thomas, (Section X.) and heir-male and representative of Walter the first of Spittel...."
to
"X- Francis, the Claimant, is son and heir of the preceding Thomas, (Section X.) And heir-male and representative of Walter the first of Spittel..." (n.b. the error in having X rather than XI was his mistake in not checking it properly)
Lastly, but most interestingly on the Genealogical chart it was initially written as follows:
".....
-
John Buchanan of Spittel
-
Thomas Buchanan of Spittel.
Married 1. Katherine Buchanan; 2. Elizabeth Hamilton.
-
Francis Hamilton of Buchanan of Spittel,
CLAIMENT"
to
"....
-
John Buchanan of Spittel
-
Robert Buchanan of Spittel. - Peter Buchanan - Thomas Buchanan of Spittel,
Married, 1 Katherine Buchanan: - 2. Elizabeth Hamilton.
-
John Buchanan of Spittel, assumed the designation of Hamilton of Bardowie. - Robert - FRANCIS,
the CLAIMENT.- Peter"
The wording of the last statement is interesting as while it is factually correct, it is misleading. Not only, as stated, did John Buchanan of Spittel claim the designation of Hamilton of Bardowie, but his brother Robert, who has no surname mentioned above was actually Robert Hamilton.
What's more, at the time of publication, "Francis the claimant" had actually legally been Francis Hamilton of Bardowie for approximately 10 years, following the death of John Hamilton of Bardowie, his older brother. In the second amended claim, he appeared to have introduced the names of his dead siblings to give -or in some of them not give- names, titles and designations, possibly in order to take away attention from the recent removal of his surname and designation from the claim document. The absence of Francis's Hamilton of Bardowie surname, designation and arms may be viewed as a mis-statement, since it would seem to anyone reading it that it was John who had the Hamilton of Bardowie estate and not Francis and that Francis may be still using the Buchanan surname designation and arms. It was also not clear that John had died 10 years previously, resulting in Francis legally adopting the Hamilton name and arms to gain the Bardowie estate. Also there is no indication of the arms he was using and which ones he was going to use.
It may also be said that Francis abandoned his name twice. The first time was when he inherited the name, arms and designation of Buchanan of Spittel in 1790. After possessing them for 28 years he then legally resigned them in 1818 (for the name arms and designation of Hamilton of Bardowie). Then in the first claim document (1926) he falsely used the name and title again despite legally still being a Hamilton and possessing the 'of Bardowie' destination and arms. Then two years later, he effectively resigned and rejected his Buchanan of Spittel name and titles a second time, by removing them very publically from his name in the amended claim.
Legal viability of the claim?
A possible lack of legal viability of Dr Hamilton's 'claim' may also explain why it was never subsequently made formal in the form of a petition, to the Lord Lyon court either during Dr Francis's life, nor after he died, either by Dr Hamilton's son John Hamilton (51) nor indeed any of his grandchildren. This was despite Riddel (deemed the best legal geneologist of that era) living for decades afterwards.
One needs to have the actual name of the clan as a surname to claim the chiefship. Resigning this name legally, will not only nulify any claim he may have had, it would also nulify it for his line. Riddel got very angry for Dr Francis's misstatements in his other House of Hamilton publications, as there was a full out war on this!! Riddel could possibly not comment publically on the Buchanan claim as Riddel was employed by Dr Francis at that time and so had to maintain confidentiality. Riddel let rip on areas in which he had not been employed for though.
External evidence of historic claims
Edinburgh and London Gazettes. An on-line search of the historic Edinburgh Gazette¹¹² and London Gazette¹¹³ for notices pertaining to ‘laird of buchanan’, ‘buchanan of that ilk’ or ‘buchanan of buchanan’ and the alternate spelling of ‘Buchanan’ reveal no supporting evidence for either the Buchanan of Auchmar or Buchanan-Hamilton claims.
The Buchanan Society. The Buchanan Society maintains and publishes a list of all past and current members by year of joining and membership number, and if provided, the relationship between its members, i.e. daughter of, great-grandson of, etc. The Buchanan Society Handbook 2004¹¹⁴ lists
Francis Buchanan of Arnprior as joining (1727, #63). Estate is cited but no special status in the Clan.
William Buchanan of Auchmar as joining twice (1726, #48 and 1730, #123), and his grandson William Buchanan of Auchmar joining once (1794, #256). Both cited their estate but neither cited any special status in the Clan.
Francis Hamilton-Buchanan of Spittal, Bardowie and Leny (1771, #213); his son, John Buchanan-Hamilton of Spittal, Leny and Bardowie (1852, #410); and his grandson, John Hamilton Buchanan (Leny) Chartered Accountant (1882, #480) are likewise members of the Buchanan Society. Again estate and or occupation is listed but nothing to indicate any special status in the Clan.