In a message dated 9/13/2006 6:57:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, irl-clare-request@rootsweb.com Mike O'Brien writes: <At this time, The Clans of Ireland, Ltd is the only authority that recognizes Irish Clans. They certainly can recognize the "existence" of clan groupings as long as they don't regulate or re-organize them. <They do not recognize Irish Chiefs. Because finally they have realized they cannot legally do so. <The mission statement of The Clans of Ireland, Ltd follows: <To promote and develop the concept and organization of Irish Clans on the island of Ireland and abroad. <To represent Irish Clans at home or abroad, and to unite them into a cohesive movement. <To advance education by promoting Irish historical research, values and culture. <To encourage people with the Irish Clans to trace their family history. Those are all commendable goals which I support. <It is not a social club nor an agency of the Irish government. They are a registered charity with the Irish government supporting the Irish clans. There has been a lot of legal maneuvering in the last few years, prior to which the IGO and Office of the Chief Herald have always been agencies of the Irish government - under the National Library, as I recall. I am not a lawyer, and ought not get into whether or not a charity registered with the Irish government constitutes an agency relationship. It does not really matter. Neither a successor government nor any private entity has any authority to regulate or rule upon the validity of an ancient Irish chiefship which constituted the nobility of the Nation long prior to the existence of any current government in Ireland. <That function of Chief of Name recognition resided with the Chief Heralds Office (no connection to the Irish Genealogical Office) until 2001. They shared the same address and whatever the internal or legal relationship may have been is irrelevant. <The Chiefs of Name recognized by MacLysaght in the 1940s are still recognized. The point is these actions were improper and clearly so under international and <peerage law. They could have acknowledged their "existence" - similar to their "confirmation" of existing noble coats-of-arms, as opposed to "grants" of new arms which remain honorary but not nobiliary. Instead they ventured into the sole prerogative of the individual chiefly families, even going so far as to alter the mode of succession from tanistry to primogeniture, thereby CREATING a new nobility which is expressly forbidden under the Constitution of the Irish Republic! Curiously, I understand that those Chiefs retaining Irish "recognition" are those holding English titles held under primogeniture. <The Chiefs of Name recognized by the Chief Heralds Office between 1989 and 1992 have been suspended pending a review by that office. At this <time, the Chief Heralds Office has not reviewed any of these Chiefs. Any Chief who would consent to such a "review" would be very unwise indeed. I don't think we need worry about it happening. <The Chief Herald's Office was never a legal office in regards to Chief recognition. That's exactly what I'm saying. But they certainly acted as if they were. I hope they don't continue to try to do so through legalistic maneuvering. <They did perform genealogical research to verify Chiefs that were male bloodline descendents from their last de facto Chief and therefore authorized <to use the position designation 'THE' before their surname. Again, since they had no authority, they could not "authorize" or "verify". A Chief does have to be a documented male-line descendant of a Chiefly 'derbhfine', but not necessarily of the last Chief especially if his line is extinct or untraceable. Primogeniture demands would eliminate a large percentage of all current Chiefs! Competent genealogists certainly could have been, and should be, retained by the families themselves, but the CH or IGO could not put a stamp of approval or disapproval on the results. <'THE' is not a title but a designation for the person in charge of the senior branch of their family. The Chief Heralds Office does not designate <a Chief of Name. In the past, they only verified what someone had claimed. 'THE' is a fairly recent terminology which may or may not be used at the discretion of the Chief. Normally the Gaelic surname alone was sufficuient, but nowadays it means nothing to most people. If they verified what someone had claimed then they passed judgment on it, which was improper. <The current Genealogy and Heraldry Bill 2006 before the Irish Senate will make the Chief Heralds Office a government agency with government <employees. At that time they will be able to officially recognize Irish Chiefs of Name. I have read the Bill and can't wait for it's approval. It would <legitimize the Chief of Name position. I've seen the bill and am uncertain of its interpretation. We may well get into the same semantic nonsense. If they "recognize" an existing fact of chiefship that might help, but if they reserve any right to say who is and who is not a Chief they will be in the same old quagmire. Moreover they cannot "legitimize" something that already is legitimate. If there were a question of suitability of a documented descendant to hold a chiefship the duty to remove him would rest with his 'derbhfine', possibly with the assistance of a council of chiefs. Where does the Council of Irish Chiefs & Chieftains stand on this? <The question of elected Chiefs by derbhfine is also acceptable. Unfortunately, there were no records of these elections and therefore cannot <be verified. Unfortunate as that may be, that is all we have to work with. There is no record of pre-English application of primogeniture either. There has been the later appearance of primogeniture in some families, but that does not mean that tanistry was not employed, as when property had to be inherited by primogeniture (entailed) under English law and the chosen tanistic heir was thus the eldest son so the property and chiefship could be inherited together. "Elected Chiefs by derbhfine" sounds like the C of I Honorary chiefs who, in my opinion, after the tradfitional three generations of noble standing and suitability, could establish a genuine hereditary chiefly line. I'm all for that. See my website as for how it could work. <One further note: 'HON', as in Honorary, is the proper title for a Chief that is elected from his derbhfine. 'HON' as in Honorable, is the proper <title for those with titles received from the British Government. (Sir Conor O'Brien, 18th Baron Inchiquin is addressed as Rt Honorable Conor <O'Brien or Lord Inchiquin) Agreed, though there seems some confusion how an Irish Chief (bloodline) should be addressed aside from "The XXX" in an address or simply "Dear XXX" (surname alone) in written salutation, never "Mr." The Irish title used in that context would supercede any foreign titles which could be omitted without any offense. In direct conversation "Sir" is the easiest solution, and is acceptable for monarchs so should suffice for even the non-ruiling princely/royal Irish Chiefs as well. The O'Cahan