Fáilte to the Website of the "Descendants of Mac Sweeney Doe". | home
Ranald MacDonald of Keppoch, Chief of the Name
(SUMMARY)
OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
heard by Lord MacFadyen and Lord Nimmo Smith
Delivered by Lord MacFadyen in appeal from the Court of Lord Lyon
In Petition and Objections of Ranald Alasdair MacDonald of Keppoch,
Chief of the Name and Arms of MacDonald of Keppoch
and of the Honourable Clan Ranald of Lochaber.
1986 Randal Alasdair MacDonald petitioned Lord Lyon Innes of Edingight for recognition as Chief of the Name and Arms of MacDonald of Keppoch.
1990 the Lord Lyon found that the petitioner was not entitled to be recognised.
1995 the petitioner presented further proof (a second proof) of his descent from The MacDonald of Keppoch. The second proof took place before Lord Lyon Blair and in December 2002 he pronounced “an interlocutor refusing the prayer of the petition”.
Points in contention:
(a) the trustworthiness of the sloinneadh - a traditional patronymic genealogy of the male line, handed down orally from generation to generation;
(b) a generation (that of Alexander of Inverroy Mor) missing from the sloinneadh;
(c) an amendment to the sloinneadh in the form of a handwritten note recorded by Mrs. Ann MacDonell;
(d) some uncertainty in Mrs. MacDonell's evidence about a Donald MacDonald mentioned in the sloinneadh;
(e) whether the sloinneadh had been kept in “in proper form without emendation”.
At the hearing of the second proof, before Lord Lyon Blair in 1995, the petitioner did not present further evidence (independent of the sloinneadh) in support of the controversial part of his pedigree but instead sought to prove that Lord Lyon Innes of Edingight had been wrong to regard the omission of Alexander of Inverroy Mor from the sloinneadh as ground for regarding it as unreliable. That line of argument was supported by the expert evidence of: (a) Professor William Gillies; (b) WDH Sellar, Bute Pursuivant of Arms.
Lord Lyon Blair recorded: “It was Professor Gillies' view that the sloinneadh in this case was perfectly credible and that the omission of one or more names would not prejudice the validity of the sloinneadh as recalled in evidence given by Mrs. Ann MacDonell. Lord Lyon Blain recorded WDH Sellar's opinion: “In his experience it was rare for a sloinneadh to run to more than eight or nine generations. Beyond that there would always be a contraction to keep within this length”. Lord Lyon Blair concluded: “The evidence which has been presented to me has focused on the question of whether a possible omission in a sloinneadh weakens its credibility. I am satisfied that omissions are commonly found and that an omission should not, of itself, invalidate or prejudice the accuracy of the sloinneadh as a whole.”
Notwithstanding his acceptance of the proposition that an omission of a person from a sloinneadh did not invalidate or prejudice its accuracy as a whole, Lord Lyon Blair concluded that before a sloinneadh could be relied upon it was necessary that there should be evidence that it had been kept in proper form without emendation. He decided that the MacDonald sloinneadh had not been kept in “proper form without emendation”.
Conclusion of the court of appeal re an emendation of the sloinneadh by Professor Gillies. “… it is in our view perfectly proper for an expert witness to review his opinion in the light of additional information ….. of which he been previously been unaware“. 
Re the relevance of a slionneadh. Sir Crispin Agnew of Locknaw, QC, Rothesay Herald of Arms, who appeared for the petitioner, quoted case papers from the Morrison of Ruchdi case in which the genealogy: “was in Highland manner and ceremony handed down in the line of Morrisons in Ruchdi ….. with three further generations not now certainly memorised….” Sir Crispin further submitted that the evidence of the keeping of the sloinneadh in the present case was of a quality similar to that available to the Morrison of Ruchdi case and was an example of an incomplete sloinneadh accepted by Lord Lyon Innes of Learney.
Conclusion of the appeal court re the relevance of a “sloinneadh“. “In our opinion a sloinneadh is relevant opinion of its content. Before the court can treat a sloinneadh as such evidence, there must be evidence identifying the material put forward as a sloinneadh as truly being a sloinneadh. In our opinion, the evidence of Mrs. Mac Donnell is sufficient for that purpose“.
Comment. In the case of the Mac Sweeneys of Doe, evidence put forward,1835, re the “sloinneadh” of Eamon Rua Mac Sweeney Doe was identified by, arguably, the greatest historian/ genealogist Ireland has ever known - Dr. John O Donovan. The “sloinneadh” of Daniel O Donovan (Chief of the Name of Clan Cathail) also depends on the scholarship of Dr. John O Donovan and was accepted as sufficient for that purpose by Dr. Edward Mac Lysaght, Chief Herald of Ireland, 1944. Furthermore, the line from which Fr. Hugh O Donnell, O.F.M. (Chief of the Name of O Domhnaill Thir Conaill) descends was identified by Dr. John O Donovan in 1860 and was accepted by Dr. Edward Mac Lysaght,1945, when recognition as Chief of the Name was granted to Fr. Hugh's father, John O Donnell.
Re seniority of line. The court of appeal recorded that a slionneadh is concerned simply with a line of descent and does not deal with the question of seniority, therefore, the petitioner relied on a presumption that a proven line is the senior one. In support of that presumption Sir Crispin quoted from Stair's Institutions of Law in Scotland, III, v, 35 - “Yea, any degree being presumed to be the nearest degree, unless a nearer degree be instructed”. Sir Crispin also relied on the presumption that those who do not appear to dispute a claim do not exist - Macnab of Macnab SL.T (Lyon Ct) 2, per Lord Lyon Innes of Learney.
Conclusion of the Appeal Court re seniority: “In our opinion these presumptions are sufficient to exclude, at least for aught to be seen, the existence of any better claim derived from other descendants of Alexander of Inverroy Mor…..”
Summary conclusions of the court of appeal. (1)That Lord Lyon Blair was right to regard the additional evidence submitted to him as showing that the omission of a generation from the sloinneadh did not invalidate it or render it unreliable; (2) that he misdirected himself in taking the view that the sloinneadh could only be relied upon if it was separately proved to have been kept in proper form; (3) that the sloinneadh can be relied upon as evidence of its content if there was additional evidence identifying it as a traditional oral genealogy kept by the family; (4) that the evidence of Mrs. MacDonnell did so identify the sloinneadh…..; (5) that the sloinneadh is therefore acceptable evidence ….. (6) that that line is presumed to have been the heirs of the chief of the MacDonalds of Keppoch…..
Decision of the Court. We shall accordingly (1) sustain the petitioner's first plea-in-law and grant the prayer of the petition, to the extent only of recognising the petitioner for aught yet seen in the name Ranald Alasdair MacDonald of Keppoch, Chief of the Name and Arms of Mac Donald of Keppoch and of the Honourable Clanranald of Keppoch…. (2) remit the process to the Lord Lyon to proceed as accords in respect of the petitioner's claim for confirmation of arms.
Comment re (4) above. In a footnote to his translation of the Annals of the Four Masters under the year 1603 Dr. John O Donovan, eminent historian/ genealogist, recorded that in 1835 all the Mac Sweeneys and O Donnells and every old Miliesian from Fanad to Ballyshannon confirmed the slionneadh of Eamon Rua Mac Sweeney and acknowledged him as Chief of the Mac Sweeneys of Doe and heir to Doe Castle.
January 5, 2005