Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
Celtic Radio Community > Gathering of the Clans > Clan Baird |
Posted by: Lyra Luminara 17-Apr-2005, 03:42 PM |
Just wondering if anyone has any information on this clan....from what I've seen they were a pretty big clan. I'm quite interested with them because my last name, beard, is a variant spelling. |
Posted by: MissDaisy 15-Oct-2005, 08:08 PM |
I would also like some info on this clan. My Family name is Laird and according to the COSCA, we are a Sept of Baird. |
Posted by: Mailagnas maqqas Dunaidonas 17-Oct-2005, 06:40 AM | ||
A google search for "Clan Baird" should lead you to a good deal of information about Clan Baird. For example,
http://www.highlandtraveller.com/clans/baird.html |
Posted by: subhuman 31-Oct-2005, 10:04 PM |
Both Baird and Laird are definitely Scottish in origin, but varied in their locales. Both are more of a job description than a heriditary name- Baird translates to "bard" and Laird to "landowner." For reference, see the text at this link: http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/names.htm Miss Daisy, Lord Lyon does not, at this time recognize the Lairds as being associated with any particular clan. However the origin of the name is definitely Scottish- so you may look upon yourself as having equal claim to ALL clans. However, don't be disappointed by my statements- it's well know that records weren't always accurately kept and that maintaining an accurate list of names is an ongoing task. Just because Laird isn't officially recognized today doesn't mean that it will never be recognized., If you can provide anything, however tenuous to show a connection, you could possibly be responsible for paving the way for all Lairds! Even without Lord Lyon's recognition of a name group in a clan, they can be admitted by the Chief of that Clan. In fact, if you look at Scottish law, anyone who claims allegience to a clan, be it by word, deed or wearing of clan colors (the tartan) is considered to be a member of that clan unless the cheif has specificly excluded them. The problem with the Bairds is this: they don't currently have a clan chief that is recognized by the Scottish Peerage. I'm not sure where the precendence lies- would a Laird be considered a member because they cannot be excluded by a person who doesn't exist (the clan chief), or are they not officially a member since the chief doesn't exist and cannot therefore acept them into the clan???? All in all, it's probably a moot point- if the Bairds say that Lairds are welcome members, who cares about official recognition? The name is definitely Scottish, and if a clan says that you're a welcome member, then I would consider myself a member of that clan if I were in your position and official standing be damned! |
Posted by: MissDaisy 06-Nov-2005, 05:45 PM |
Thank you for your response Subhuman. I really appreciate it. I was wondering if you would take a look at these two links for me and give me your opinion. http://www.laird.org.uk/Laird/1888_Letter.htm http://www.laird.org.uk/Laird/Arms.htm Thanks for your time. |
Posted by: subhuman 07-Nov-2005, 03:26 PM | ||||
I did look at both links, and will gladly give my opinion. However bear in mind that what I'm writing is just that- my opinion, which in no way reflects an official stand of any group or organization. The first link does support what I read before and mentioned in the first post. The letter there mentions the origin of the Lairds being from the Count Hlawford in Saxons who was blown off course at sea and landed in Aberdour along with 4,000 retainers. This occurred around year 1010 or 1015- was Aberdour an older name or a Saxony term for what is now known as Aberdeen??? Anyway, it is mentioned that the locals referred to Hlawford as the Laird- or "lord of the manor." Being a title or description of a person it becomes difficult to say that there's only one origin of a name. How many other places in Scotland did someone or some family spend generations referred to as "The Laird" before they adapted it as a surname? The responce from the College of Arms in London at the end of that link backs up what Electric Scotland has on their website- that there's no official record of a Laird coat of arms. As far as I know, they should be contacting Lord Lyon in Scotland instead of the English equivalent regarding a Scottish coat of arms- they might have better luck there. This could explain the comment at the end about "There is no such position, or anything like it, as a "commissioner in the National Heraldic Office""- it is possible that the first correspondence was with Lord Lyon, and possibly there was such a position in 1888. This is just a guess on my part, so I'm listing it as a possiblility. On the second link, the persn seems to be making progress- it's a letter from Lyon Court, and shows a record of a Laird crest. The last paragraph of the letter from the Lyon Court is completely accurate under Scottish law. A crest is a personal item and in many cases is heriditary, just as often it is changed. Here's a link and a quote: http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/clans_families_septs.htm The article is from 2001 and shows the Lyon Court's position on crests: (paragraph 2 quoted)
I interpret this to mean two things: first, the seal of arms is referred to as the Chief's seal of arms. His, not the clan's seal of arms. Secondly, without a recognized chief who is a nobleman, it's not a clan- but rather classed as a "name group." However I'll also stand by what I stated earlier- even if the Lairds are unable to gain official recognition separately they can consider themselves of any clan who accepts them. Here's paragraph from the same link:
This is why I'm questioning the official recognition of Lairds being part of the Bairds- the first sentence states that the Chief can add to his clan. The Lyon Court currently shows no chief of Clan Baird, so can they add to the clan? On the other hand, down lower it states that a person can join a clan at will unless the cheif has excluded them. With no cheif, they also can't be excluded! I think the confusion stems from the difference between a clan and a name group. The two are often interchanged, and for most circumstances this is fine. However they are not the same thing under Scottish law, as can be seen by the above. I will restate what I said before- in my opinion, if the Bairds accept the Lairds as "one of their own" I would consider them to be so. The name is definitely Scottish, so they're part of the same big family that all of us of Scots descent belong to! If an individual Laird can trace their origins to a particular region, they would be fully justified in contacting whatever clan was in that region at that time. I don't think that anyone would have a problem with this either. In my opinion, any clan that only accepts certain name(s) is being elitist, short-sighted and not sticking with the tradition of what clanship means! I also wouldn't see a problem with a Laird society. There's nothing preventing the Lairds from forming such a group. I don't think that the main reason for people joining a recognized clan or calling themselves a member of it is in order to gain recognition of the Lyon Court. |
Posted by: subhuman 07-Nov-2005, 03:47 PM | ||
One point I mentioned in my first post but forgot to reinforce in the second. Older records are lacking. Just because some exist from centuries past should not be interpreted to mean that all exist from centuries past. Controlled environments for preservation of paper is a relatively recent technology. If you also look at how many have been lost due to natural causes (decay or water damage) or fire we can conclude that few actually survive. An existing document should, in most cases, be looked upon as the exception isntead of the rule. For much of recorded history the Church was a keeper of records, and in many cases this saved them since churches are less likley to be torched compared to a Lord's manor, there are still many occasions where churches have been intentionally burned. Many times it was a more practical matter- how many familes fled when they were on the losing side of a battle? I know that if that were my situation, taking a copy of Great Grandpa's will would not be my highest priority! Here's another possibility:
On the losing end of a fued with certain Campbells, the Lamonts mentioned above changed their name in order to escape alive. Under these circumstances they probably wouldn't want a single item on them that identified them as a Lamont instead of the name that they assumed. |
Posted by: Baird Clan 02-Jan-2007, 09:14 PM |
Hey, I belong to the Bairds on my mothers side. I can go back 3 generations of Bairds. The oldest was Anna Baird, born Jan 1842 or 1843. Every one but her was born in the United States. I never could get past the states to trace. If you know what I can do let me know. Thanks Linda |
Posted by: neo71665 13-Mar-2007, 10:27 PM |
I'm a Baird (beard) too to see there are more of us out there. We really need to find somebody that can claim to be our chief and get rolling. |
Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 25-Feb-2008, 05:17 PM |
Hi, This has been a very interesting thread. Subhuman, great info and I'm sure your time and consideration is greatly appreciated by more than just me. The Bairds, Beards, Bard, etc, since names spelling many times was a "close counts" situation, are a very historic name in New England settlement and settlement and developement of this US of A. I will be staying at Bairds Tavern in Massachusetts this spring. It is a tavern dateing back to the mid 1700s and of signifcance in Massachusetts history and I am sure my ancestors raised a glass or 2 there. More info can be found in a book called "Taverns and Turnpikes of Blandford, 1733 - 1833" by Sumner Gilbert Wood. Another book is "Ulster Scots and Blandford Scouts" same author. These are antiquarian books of cultural significance. You could find them in libraries if your lucky. We have a InterLibrary Loan System in Connecticut and I was able to get them thru this service at my local town library. |
Posted by: scotborn 02-Mar-2008, 02:19 PM |
I think it should be pointed out that the clan system is lng dead. What people consider a clan nowdays is nothing more than a social club for people who share a similer last name. |
Posted by: gwenlee 03-Mar-2008, 08:11 AM | ||
True the old clan system is gone. But the "social club" is also a group of people interested in preserving history. I can't tell you how many solicitations I get from varies organization in Scotland that ask for donation to help maintain different historical sites. The big one being Culloden. History is very important and I am glad there are organizations on both sides of the pond that are intent on preserving history for future generations. And the powers to be seem to realize the great interest world wide people have in their Scottish root because the buzz is all about The Gathering of 2009. |
Posted by: UlsterScotNutt 05-Mar-2008, 02:02 PM |
Clans in their original historical context in Scotland are long gone. We no longer pay homage to a chief, swear allegiance to the clan, gather for physical protection of self and property, war against others for dominance of power via land and goods. Tribal life of clans evolved into nations through forces in time. Time now gives us a new function of clan, a shadow of the past in dominance, because needs have changed. Society is not static. People will always need to be connected. What forms these connection take , who knows. Just look at the past 20 years of the internet. Clans exist, people make it so. my penny and a half |