Author Topic: MacTavish is ALREADY Anglicized - can't be "more Anglicized" to THOM(P)SON!  (Read 21756 times)


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 997
Clan MacTavish is using ever-more-shady methods of confusing and convincing Thom(p)sons that they are somehow connected to Clan MacTavish. It's the only way they can acquire enough clan members to be viable. We did not choose this fight but Thoms need to at least know the truth.

Let me make a few observations (and I can document mine!)

     1. MacTavishes did NOT change their names to Thom(p)son after Culloden. The Dunardry branch of MacTavish was not involved in the affair and had no reason to change their names! The Stratherrick branch was involved at Culloden along with the Frasers....and THEY didn't change their names either.

     2. Thom(p)son and MacTavish (as well as MacThomas and 27 other names) mean "Son of Thomas." That does not make them the SAME NAME. Thom(p)son was recognized 300 years earlier than MacTavish's first chief (1997). If anything, that makes MacTavish a cadet of Thom(p)son, the larger and older clan (see Are MacTavish Thomsons?)

     3. MacTavish is not listed in the Scottish Parliament Roll of the Clans 1587 - Thom(p)son and MacThomas are.

     4. The Chief's surname is that of his clan and a clan has only ONE name. Steven MacTavish is the chief of Clan MacTavish and that is the only name he may claim. There aren't enough MacTavish to build a viable clan, so his father invented the Thom(p)son is MacTavish myth in the 1990s by claiming to Anglicize the English name MacTavish to another English name, Thompson. Steven's continuing to claim Thom(p)son AS MacTavish is shameful. Robin Blair personally told Dugald he was only chief of one name (MacTavish) and that name cannot be added to or adulterated by using "/", "-", "=", "+",  or anything else by the laws of Scottish heraldry.

     5. MacTavish are in Argyll and Thom(p)sons were predominantly in the West March and around Edinburgh (both were on the borders in earlier years). The distance and topography makes it unreasonable. Also, Thom(p)sons in the Argyll area would have joined one of the might clans and that would be one of the Campbells or similar. There was no Clan MacTavish until it had a recognized chief - Dugald MacTavish in 1997.

     6. Steven MacTavish is not the 27th recognized chief in an "unbroken line." While claiming direct descent from Taus Coir, there are 3 missing generations in a row before one that actually has a name - Duncan McTamais CAMPBEL (per History of Clan Campbell). But his son is listed in the MacTavish genealogy as "unknown" so they cannot claim descent! The genealogy is hopelessly flawed. And , Dugald MacTavish was the first matriculated chief of Name and Arms MacTavish and that was in 1997. That makes Steven the 2nd. They are claiming every 'head of household' in their genealogy as if they were matriculated chiefs. NOT the same. They like to claim that Lachlan MacTavish was a chief but he was not. He held personal, not chiefly, arms and no MacTavish prior to him held any. The text of Lachlan's Grant of Arms is on the MacTavish website - very plainly personal arms. If they disappear from there, I have a copy.

     7. There are no Thom(p)sons in the MacTavish genealogy, so he also cannot make any claims to Thom(p)sons based on genealogy.

« Last Edit: September 07, 2013, 09:32:47 AM by Mary »


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 543
Re: MacTavish is ALREADY Anglicized - can't be "more Anglicized" to THOM(P)SON!
« Reply #1 on: September 01, 2013, 03:20:25 PM »
I agree with you Mary.  Also I can't find a connection of the Cash surname being the same as MacTavish as bad as Patricia Cash Adams wants it to be.  Members of my Cash family (which is my maternal line) have traced the Cash surname back to Strathmiglo, Fife, Scotland, far from MacTavish land.  My Cash ancestors land is still on the maps as Easter Cash and Wester Cash in that area.  I have pictures of the lands with the Cash name on signs that say "Easter Cash and Wester Cash" taken and sent to me by a native Scotsman who lives in the county of Fife and has been an email friend for 10 or 12 years.  My maiden name is Thomas and my paternal 3rd. great grandmother's maiden name is Thomasson which both mean "son of Tom" and I've traced her line back to the 1500's To Sudlow, England which is not that far from the Borders.  I have also seen my 8th great grandfather's name written as Thomasson and Thompson in the same paragraph!  He was rather famous. George Thomasson Jr. became famous for his collection of the English Civil War Tracts, now housed at the Library of London.  From all the history I've read on Thom(p)sons, THE MAJORITY ARE FROM THE BORDERS!  PERIOD!  I'm not a genealogist nor do I claim to be but do have some common sense and can read.  ;) 

"Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see." - Mark Twain

Thomas B. Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: MacTavish is ALREADY Anglicized - can't be "more Anglicized" to THOM(P)SON!
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2013, 08:13:08 AM »
Thanks for the info
I had a fourth cousin, a relative of one my grandfathers' sibings, who entertained
the idea that Thompsons were mctavish.
Unfortunately, he past away last year and I won't be able to share this info
with him.
I do have another cousin who callaborated with him on a detailed history of
my 7th greatgrandfather ( Wiiliam Thompson ) who migrated to Charles County
Maryland in 1685 from Edinburgh Scotland and his desentants that I have on a CD.
I will try to contact her to show this info as I believe that she migth be of the mind
set that my other cousin had so that she can know the truth.

Tom ( Indiana )

MICHAEL the Canadian

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 45
I do not know if you will read this Mary,but I am a THOMPSON first and I do not really want anything to do with MacTavish.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 997
Many of us feel that way - both because we have a documented history as our own clan and resent their cavalier claims that somehow we are part of their wee clan and because of the way they have slandered and lied to/about Thom(p)sons. If they had been content to build their clan on their own name (remember, a chief only has claim on those of his surname - MacTavish) no one would have cared. We all want to be proud of the Scottish clan system - our own and the other clans as well. But the constant attacks on us, the fabricated clan history, the trumped up claims on Thom(p)sons -- it's sad to see such desperation.