Talk:Clan Kirkpatrick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Clans of Scotland (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by the Clans of Scotland WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Scottish clans and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Clan Kirkpatrick, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hello, my name is John Kirkpatrick and I find that this discussion to be of interest, in that I am an amateur Kirkpatrick Family researcher and genealogist. I for a long time, believed that the Kirkpatrick Family was a Sept of the Colquhoun Clan since, as has been noted here, the Earl of Lennox's grant of the lands of Colquhoun. But then I had problems with that, and that came from the fact that the family seat for the Kirkpatrick Family has been in the Dumfries and Nithsdale regions of Scotland. While it is true that there is a 'connection' of Kirkpatrick with Colquhoun, it was not in the Kirkpatrick Family being derived from or 'protected' (as a sept would be) by the Colquhoun Clan. Where the real connection comes for the Kirkpatrick Family is that they are not a Clan in and of themselves, but a Landed Family. This does not lessen the importance of the Kirkpatrick Family, since they are closely related to the Brus/Bruce family and played an important part in the Scottish Borders region. The sept arrangement or attachment that, in my humble opinion, relates to the Kirkpatrick Family is with the Douglas Clan. The Douglas Clan was the major clan of the Scottish Borders, and a very powerful clan in their relationship with The Bruce, and Landed Families and Knighted Gentry such as the Kirkpatrick Family would be aligned or associated with the major clan. The fact that the Kirkpatrick Family held a position of power and respect, though not an officially noted Clan, shows in the many taskings of the family for men of arms to support the Douglas Clan and the King of Scotland. Maj. General Charles Kirkpatrick's Book Records of the Closeburn Kirkpatrick's (1953)is a really good book, and while it was privately published for select members of the family, it has since been republished for purchase (available through General Charles Kirkpatrick outlines the standing of the family and never indicates that the family was an officially recognized "Clan" but a very important borders region family; and he should have known! Again, pardon me for poking my nose into your conversation, but wanted to put my "tuppence" on the table...JPKirkpatrick (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

JP - You're tuppences are much appreciated. I have General Charles Kirkpatrick's book, but haven't had the time to read it through yet. I agree with the sentiment though. It would appear that the Kirkpatricks fall into that middle ground of being too small to be a clan, but too large to have loyalty to any single clan. On that point, I also agree with the Douglas connection. In fact, I recall reading someone who suggested a Black Douglas connection. Both Sir James Douglas and Roger Kirkpatrick were early comrades of Robert the Bruce. It also makes sense geographically, as Colquhoun is a highland clan and the Kirkpatrick family resided in lowland Closeburn (closer to the Douglas and Bruce families). That being said, I wear the Colquhoun tartan (too bad no one ever registered a Kirkpatrick tartan) and I notice Kirkpatrick is not listed as a sept by the Douglas Clan (though Kilpatrick is). Would it be fruitful to expound on this connection? Kirkpatrick (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could believe. But, see my comments here: Castle Comments. At the very least, this does not comport with Scottish Clans and one of these needs to be changed. Kirkpatrick (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: The following comment is copied from Talk:Closeburn_Castle.
Notwithstanding the wiki page that you created, I have never seen Kirkpatrick listed as its own clan. See Scottish Clans,, and This comports with every book I've ever read on the matter. We do not even have our own tartan. (See Tartan Search Result for Kirkpatrick). There is one site that lists Kirkpatrick as an officially registered clan (ElectricScotland), however I'm not able to find conformation for the lsiting. This is in contrast to the many many sites that list Kirkpatrick, not as a clan but as a sept under Colquhoun. Now, I'd love for the Clan Kirkpatrick to exist and would gladly give up my Colquhoun tartan kilt for a Kirkpatrick tartan. But unless Kirkpatrick is registered with and recognized by the Court of the Lord Lyon as a chiefless clan, there is not enough evidence to demonstrate the existence of a Kirkpatrick Clan, as much as I wish it were the case. Kirkpatrick (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you are putting way too much faith into crap websites. Scotclans,, and ElectricScotland by themselves are not authoritative. Scotclans is a web-shop. Also, all the mentioned websites list clans which do not exist. ElectricScotland lets anyone add any information to their clan, or even upload their own 'clan' (case in point the infamous Clan Akins). You should be made aware than many clans list sept names which are in fact clans in their own right, or that are claimed as septs by other clans. A quick example is Clan Macleod of Lewis which lists Macaulay, McCorquodale, and Maccallum as septs (all three are clans in their own right). I think you are confused as to what the Tartan Authority and Tartan Society actually are. They are bodies which record and index tartan, nothing else. They have no say in legitimising tartan. Anyone can create a tartan and name it any name and register it. The only time a 'clan tartan' becomes official is when the chief says so. To think that a clan 'can't be a clan' because it doesn't a tartan named after it, is pretty naive to say the least. Clan Kirkpatrick is a clan, whether you own a Colquhoun tartan or not. The clan is listed on the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs website, a body which represents most clan chiefs, and a "definitive and authoritative body for information on the Scottish Clan System". It is also listed, as you said at [1], citing George Way of Plean (Procurator Fiscal to Lyon Court) and Romilly Squire.--Celtus (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, maybe your library has this book: Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia or Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia, by the two men listed above. Clan Kirkpatrick should be listed in there, along with info to add to the article. I'd be interested in learning the motto and blazon of the crest within the crest badge, so it could be listed here: List of crest badges used by Scottish clan members.--Celtus (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you've added Kirkpatrick to the Armigerous Clan list. At least there is now consistency within Wikipedia. My faith was not being placed in “crap websites”. Rather I relied upon, among others, the following:
“The Clans and Tartans of Scotland”, Bain
“Scots Kith and Kin”, Osborne
“Scottish Clans and Tartans”, Grant
“Clans and Families of Scotland”, Fulton
“Highlanders: A History of the Scottish Clan”, MacLeon
"The Clans, Septs and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands", Adams
When the Kirkpatrick family is mentioned in each of the above, it is always in connection with the Clan Colquhoun, or in some cases the Clan Douglas. In none of the above is Kirkpatrick mentioned as a spereate clan in its own right. Most notably, the last book, by Frank Adams, was edited by Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, Lord Lyon King of Arms from 1945 to 1969 (see [2]).
I note that the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs website has an entry for Clan Kirkpatrick. But the absence of our badge and the inclusion of a tartan pattern in contridiction with the fact that Kirkpatricks have no registered pattern (a fact recognised by the site itself), makes me read the entry with jaundice eye. At the end of the day, the only authoritative list is the Court of the Lord Lyon, which unfortunately does not publish a list online. Given the above books, I'm not convinced that Kirkpatrick is listed as a chiefless clan on this list. However, if all fo the above books are mistaken and the Court deems Kirkpatrick a clan, then I gladly accept that the matter as closed.
Per your recommendation, I have ordered the book "Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia”, which in turn lead me to a paperback copy of “Records of the Closeburn Kirkpatricks.” I look forward to reading both and expanding my knowledge of the family’s history.
With regard to the tartan issue, the lack of a tartan speaks volumes. I don’t claim that the absence is dispositive, but as you note, anyone can register a tartan pattern. The fact that the Clan Kirkpatrick has failed to register such a pattern during the 193 years since patterns were registered is at the very least curious. One would think that some Kirkpatrick at some point during the last 200 years would have taken the bother to register a pattern -- unless of course they were a sept and used the pattern of another clan. Moreover, the lack of a registered pattern creates practical problems. If I want a kilt, I have to borrow the tartan of another clan. If I wish to commission a clan banner for display at the local Scottish Society, I once again come to a similar problem. Again, this is NOT dispositive of the issue, but worth serious note and deserving of an explanation for the absence (hopefully Collins will have something regarding this).
In sum, I hope that all of the previous lists that I have seen over the years were incomplete and that the family is a clan recognized by the Court of the Lord Lyon . We would be a chiefless, tartanless clan without even control over our castle, but a clan nevertheless. At this point, I'm not convinced. Perhaps this will change when I get the Collins book you mentioned. Kirkpatrick (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If a member of the Court of the Lord Lyon has it down as a clan, i think you can rest assured that it is indeed considered a clan. I too wish that the Court of the Lord Lyon listed recognised names on it's website. It would be so simple for them to do and would at least solve this. I understand what you are trying to get at about the tartan. I wonder that if there has never been, (or still isn't), a Kirkpatrick society or movement, then that might explain why a tartan has never been created. It is curious, like you say. Though in the end, tartan really has nothing to do with a clan's standing. It is about the Court of the Lord Lyon, nothing else. About the Standing Council website, you'll notice that it is missing images of crest badges of a couple clans which even have chiefs (like Clan Broun, Clan MacDonald of Keppoch, there might be some more).
Here's an interesting website about surnames you should look at [3]. Search for Kirkpatrick and look at the map for 1881. You'll notice they are centred in their historic clan lands in Dumfries/Galloway. Search for Colquhoun, and you'll notice they are centred right up in their traditional clan lands near Loch Lommond. This would seem to be a serious blow to the notion that Kirkpatricks should consider themselves (or their ancestors) as a followers of the Colquhouns. Hard to image any of those in Galloway could ever have been followers, let alone tenants, of Colquhoun. I too would like to see what the Collins book has to say, i'm unlucky in that the library here doesn't have it!--Celtus (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I have a print of an old map that places the Kirkpatrick family in the Dumfries region, which is why I always thought we were closer aligned to the Douglas family than the Colquhoun family. Last time I was in Scotland, I visited Closeburn, just north of Dumfries on A76. As you know, this is the location of Closeburn Castle. But near the castle was an old church ruin on which the Kirkpatrick crest was emblazoned. Many Kirkpatricks were buried in the cemetery near by and at least one Kirkpatrick farm survives in the area. The connection with the Colquhoun family is undeniable, since the Earl of Lennox granted the lands of Colquhoun to Humphry de Kilpatrick. Later, Sir Robert Kilpatrick of Colquhoun, married the daughter of the laird of Luss, and since then the chief has been described as of Colquhoun and Luss.[4] Nevertheless, as you suggest, that does not mean that the Closeburn Kirkpatricks were tenants of Colquhoun or that Clan Kirkpatrick did not exist.
Whether the Kirkpatricks have their own recognized clan or not, we have a motto, a crest, and a stong tradition. When I'm able (and if I remember), I'll add our crest and coat of arms to the Clan Kirkpatrick page. When I receive the Collins book, I'll update here. Best regards. Kirkpatrick (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Kirkpatrick crest.png
Ok, cool that'll be interesting. If you end up deciding to upload images you have to be sure of the copyright status of them. See: Wikipedia:Uploading images. That's why pretty much all the images of arms or crest badges are made by wiki-users. If you took a photo of the arms which you found on the church, you could easily upload that because you own the copyright.
Someone has made a Kirkpatrick crest badge (pictured right), though he never listed a reference from which he based it on. This [5] archived version of a website no longer around gives the blazon of the arms of Kirkpatrick of Closeburn, and the blazon of the crest (it matches the image), and the motto.--Celtus (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally got around to uploading pictures of the crest. They're not the best out there, but they are the only ones I took myself (and therefore own the copyright). Hopefully a better vector graphic can be made of the crest.Kirkpatrick (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

will work on a vector graphic, note that the arms are the private arms of the Kirkpatricks of Closeburn, this raises an interesting point, as the Closeburns seem to have been the chiefs of old and as the Closeburn branch seems alive and well to this day (see Kirkpatrick Baronets), why are they not listed as chiefs of Kirkpatrick? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


I am curious as to WHO and WHY the additions to the Clan Branches were removed. Auchinleck, Bridburgh, Kirkmichael, Torthorwald, and Ross are legitimate branches of the family. Knock might also be added. Hweha(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe they can be re added providing that you have a source to verify them with.QuintusPetillius (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ramage, Craufurd Tait. Drumlanrig Castle and the Douglases, with the Early History and Ancient Remains of Durisdeer, Closeburn, and Morton. Dumfries: J. Anderson & Son, 1876. Print. Ramage discusses several of the Kirkpatrick family branches: Closeburn, Kirkmichael, Ross, Torthorwald, and Alisland all existing in the 12th - 16th centuries. See pages 189-211; also the Appendix pp 384-393 for documentation of the Kirkpatrick branches. [PDF version of book:] Hweha (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone had DNA testing done? I had my great uncles DNA tested with, tested the haplogroup Y-DNA37. He is a Kirkpatrick born in Ohio. He has numerous dna matches with people with the surnames of Calhoun, Cohoon, Cahoon and Colquhoun. This seems interesting to me with the connection of the clans. LebaDavis (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


I believe there needs to be a section regarding who the heir to the chief seat of Kirkpatrick might be. The side graphic states (in 'Branches') that the Closeburn Kirkpatricks were the historic chiefs. Sir Ivone Elliott Kirkpatrick, 11th Baronet Kirkpatrick of Closeburn (Wikipedia: 'Kirkpatrick Baronets': has the name and undifferenced arms of Kirkpatrick making him the most likely candidate. Sir Ivone also appears to be the senior member of the name in direct lineage from the last lord of Closeburn. 2601:300:4002:284B:60B5:538B:8F26:37B1 (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC) Hweha

Hi, you are welcome to do that but any info you add must have a verifiable source. Wikipedia is about reflecting what the sources say and any info added without a source can be removed. Therefore to keep the article to a good standard any new info must be sourced.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)