Talk:Clan MacLeod

Tormod and Norman
In an 1877 book I have called Scottish Highlands Clans and Regiments, it lists the two sons of Leod as Tormod and Torquil, whereas it has Norman and Torquil here. Does anyone know anything about this? Mezziekins 07:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Norman is the English version of Tormod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.160.109.159 (talk • contribs) 28 March 2006


 * Exactly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.61.36 (talk • contribs) 29 April 2006


 * As a native Gaelic-speaking Macleod from Lewis, I've tried to tidy up some of the Gaelic here, and also add in a little more about the background of the clan's name. Genetic studies carried out by the University of London now seem to show that Tormod and Torcuill were not actually brothers, but two chieftains, one of Celtic origin (Torcull?), and one of Scandinavian origin (Tormod?), who decided to form an alliance about 1000 years ago.  They would have invented the story of the founding of the clan by "Leod" to "prove" they were actually cousins, if not quite brothers.  More about this is available on various Clan MacLeod websites, and of course, as with so much else in history, how we interpret the evidence will largely be conditioned by what we want to believe!  Le gach deagh dhùrachd, C. Macleòid, 19th June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.98.248 (talk • contribs) 20 June 2006

Chieftans
Who is the next-in-line Chief of MacLeods?--Cheif 22:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Crests and Tartans
This article shows pictures of two tartans, identifying them as belonging to either the Harris or Lewis sides of the family. It's my impression that the blue-green one is actually the hunting tartan, and the yellow-black one is the dress tartan; I've always been told there is another tartan that is like the one I know as the hunting tartan, but more brown, and referred to as 'antiquated'. Does anyone else know more about this?

Cheers

Iain JoncomelatelyCome over 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick look around t'internet and found a few links suggesting that both names are in uasge, as well as a variety of others. Do people feel that the tartan bit should be modified slightly to promote the idea that any clansman can wear the majority of the tartans?


 * clan-macleod-scotland.org.uk
 * tartan shop


 * Iain JoncomelatelyCome over 18:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hold Fast"
FYI - the motto on the Harris crest is not, in fact, Norwegian or old norse. It's English, either middle or current vernacular. The idiom is still used in both construction and sailing, and the expression doesn't follow Norwegian linguistic norms. I'd suggest that this portion of the article be fact-checked, and maybe removed. I'd say the same about some of the other stuff that could use little more referencing, since it seems that there are a few statements here that aren't easily confirmed. Caspiankilkelly 17:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, info found on Wikipedia is only a good as its references/sources.. If you can find a reference proving it's Middle English, or whatever, put it in the article.--Celtus 05:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle in 1601
The version of events that I have been told is that Donald Gorm's wife had not become pregnant after a year of marriage and this was the reason for the divorce. The actual battle took place at Carinish in North Uist and is noted on some maps as the 'Battle of Carinish'. In the battle the MacLeod side were routed and the stream nearby ran red with blood and it was known as Clais Fuil (the ditch of blood).

I have also been told that this was the last battle, in Scotland, fought using traditional weaponry (no firearms). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macljotr (talk • contribs) 11:06, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Bogus Chiefs
Gaelic Chiefship follos the principle of agnatic seniority: the last legitimate chief was the 27th, Sir Reginald, KCB (1847-1935). His daughter couldn't succeed him, and nor could his great-grandson John MacLeod of MacLeod aka John Wolrige-Gordon (birth name). His son, Hugh Magnus MacLeod is not descended agnatically from the MacLeod Chiefs. This is a phenomenon well observed in recent times:
 * a chief dies and leave no male heirs
 * the daughter assumes the "chieftaincy" by virtue of possession of the family seat
 * the daughter marries another aristocrat or titled person (perhaps a military officer)
 * their son changes his surname -or is born bearing the mother's surname
 * the son becomes the Chief!

This is obviously bogus...the legitimate chief would be the nearest male relative to the 27th Chief or one descended agnatically from him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.2.120 (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * From what i've read, in the Gaelic system the children belong to their father's fine not the mother's, right. But this isn't about Gaelic chiefship, it is about Scottish Heraldry where women can inherit their father's coats of arms and choose their own heraldic successors. --Celtus (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Genetics
This piece contains this statement: "A DNA project studying the Y-DNA of males bearing surnames associated with Clan MacLeod found that the vast majority of the men tested had a Haplogroup of R1b, which is the most common Haplogroup in the British Isles and considered to be 'Celtic.'" This is interesting, and I know there is a so-called MacLeod haplotype which has emerged from the clan's Y-DNA study. I'm just curious, though, about how the Clan accounts for the members of other haplogroups in the study, including I1 and R1a1, which often indicate Scandinavian origin? Are these 'outliers' considered members of a Clan MacLeod sept? Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I quote from the wikipedia piece on the Clan Morrison: "In the 16th century, Hutcheon Morrison confessed on his deathbed to being the biological father of Torquil MacLeod who had been assumed to be the son of the MacLeod chief. As a result, Torquil was disinherited and the office of chief of the MacLeods passed to another. Torquil, having been raised a MacLeod his whole life, viewed himself as the legitimate chief and made an alliance with the previously peaceful Morrisons and the more aggressive Clan MacKenzie. However, after defeating the MacLeods, Torquil declared himself a MacLeod and turned on the Morrisons and MacKenzies, forcing them from their lands and possessions. The Morrisons later returned to settle in Ness but, remaining enemies of the MacLeods, never achieved any status or power." It is clear from studying Y-dna signatures of Clan Morrison that they, not surprisingly for Norsemen, seem to be mostly haplogroup R1a1. It is also clear that there is a substantial R1a1 population amongst the Clan MacLeod. Does this have anything to do with the non-paternity event, as the euphemism has it, with parentage of some MacLeods now traced to a member of Clan Morrison? I was just curious about this. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Morrison DNA project is interesting; it lets you see how it folds out. I think Sykes described what he considered the MacLeod founding lineage as 'Celtic' when he compared it to what he considered the 'Norse' founding lineage of the MacDonalds. You said that 'Clan Morrison' "seem to be mostly haplogroup R1a1", but that doesn't seem to be the case from looking at the project. The groups which have supposed connections with Lewis are: Group G (4 with I1); Group J (15 with R1b1); Group K (19 with R1b1b2); Group T (8 with R1a1); Group AF (2 [+1] with R1b1). The project also shows which group the current Morrison chiefly line supposedly belongs to; this is in the same group as a member who supposedly descends from the last Morrison brieve of Lewis. This is Group J, the second largest group with supposed Lewis connections, and which is R1b1. So Group T, consisting of only 8 people, is in the clear minority, and are not related to the lineage which at least claims descent from the line of brieves. Though, it is interesting that the project states that Group T is closely related to a number of MacLeods from Skye.
 * I think this kind of family history stuff is all supposed anyways; what someone thinks, or claims, isn't always the truth (the whole point of DNA projects i guess). The numbers on DNA tests can also be skewed. If one lineage has more closely related individuals tested and contributing to the project, then it throws things out of wack compared to lineages with fewer people participating. For example a group may have a big chunk of participants with paper trails linking up in relatively recent times; and another smaller group may have participants with paper trails linking at much earlier times. It may make it seem like the lineage with the most people tested was the most numerous at certain point in history - which may not have actually been the case. Anyways, i think these projects are pretty cool when they actually show the different lineages using a common surname.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with all your points, and you have done a good job of elucidating them. Thank you. Is this the Morrison DNA project to which you were referring? I hadn't seen it and wanted to have a look. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the one. 'Discussion of Results' has a blurb about Group T and the group of Skye MacLeods.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a most interesting project. I notice it says in August 2005 that results were pending for the match at 37 markers between Group T and the Skye MacLeods. I can't find further reference to them. Do you know the outcome? Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that an 'open' project like that would tend to attract more volunteers than a more 'closed' one like the MacLeod project. The only information i've seen for Group T is dated "3 Aug 2005" and "12 Apr 2006" on that discussion page and then the main result page here.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, completely agree on the 'open' project attracting more folks. A better idea, in my book. Returning to the results, and your point about T's relationship to the MacLeods of Skye, it would seem from extrapolating that the T line must be that of Hutcheon Morrison, who confessed to fathering Torquil MacLeod, which would lead one to believe that it is actually the T line of the Morrisons that is the haplotype of the original Clan Morrison founding lineage. Just supposition, but the results would seem to support that. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Though i don't think one can just assume that Hutcheon is the common ancestor when several Morrisons and MacLeods link up. That kind of non-paternity event thing could have happened for any number of reasons at any point in history. I don't think it should be surprising that a few of the Lewis Morrison groups link up with MacLeods or other Lewis surnames. For instance, Group AF (one Morrison is traced back to the parish of Uig) is linked to a group of MacAulays from Uig. If families are living side by side within the same parishes for hundreds of years, i think that kind of thing is likely to happen. Maybe in time someone will be able to roughly gauge when the common ancestor of those MacLeods and the Ts lived. If there is truth to the belief that one of the members of Group J is a descendant of the last brieve, then i think there could be reason to believe that Hutcheon may have been of that group. And it is kind of interesting that current chiefly line also is within Group J.


 * I don't think the current chiefly line (Morrison of Ruchdi) has claimed to descend from any of the Lewis brieves. Quoting Moncreiffe of that Ilk The Highland Clans (1967):


 * Quoting Frank The clans, septs and regiments of the Scottish Highlands (1970):


 * Quoting Innes of Learney The Tartans and Clans of the Families of Scotland (1971):


 * The Clan Morrison webpage says this:


 * The traditions would seem to give lots of room for different DNA groups: like possibly a 'MacDonald' and a 'MacLeod/Morrison' group. Or maybe the traditions are full of it, or have been garbled too much. I think it would be interesting to see how the group, considered by the MacLeod project to represent the MacLeod founding lineage, connects (if at all) with the various Morrison groups.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable material
I've had a good hunt round and although it seems to have rippled out through the Internet, I can find no basis in paper sources for the following, so I've removed it :
 * "In 1380 the Clan MacLeod along with Clan MacLean and Clan MacKinnon were defeated in battle by MacDonald, Lord of the Isles, who vindicated his right as Lord of the Isles. The MacLeods then submitted and became firm supporters of the Lord of the Isles and Clan Donald, only to become enemies again in the late 15th century. "

Le Deluge (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Magnus MacLeod of MacLeod as Clan chief of Clan MacLeod
User:DinDraithou keeps changing the chief to: two claimants to chiefship . I am not disputing his/her reference dated 2007, but there is a legion of very good references that give (and notably one dated 2010): Hugh Magnus MacLeod of MacLeod  The 30th Chief of the Name and Arms of MacLeod    . I accept that User:DinDraithou's information should be given, and it is at Chiefs of Clan MacLeod. My thinking is that all references give Hugh as Chief, so Hugh is Chief. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also accept that the existence of a rival claimant to the chiefship is something that is reasonably included in an article on the Chiefs of Clan Macleod. Neither that article nor this one should seek to ignore the established nature of Hugh Magnus Macleod's position and it would be regrettable if either article became unbalanced by an inappropriately lengthy disquisition on his rival's claims. Subject to those observations, I agree with Czar Brodie.
 * 45ossington (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Czar Brodie, you have genuinely annoyed me with your legion. None of these "very good references" mention any concession or even Guy MacLeod at all. But if you google around you will find he is a real person and that at least some MacLeods out there in the world recognize him, either as the legitimate chief or as the senior cadet. Guy would appear to be his middle name and I am confused as to whether his first is Evan or Donald. One may be a father, son, or brother. DinDraithou (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Czar Brodie. All I've seen published the recent Talisker claim is that one article, and honestly, it is really him tooting his own horn. So lets not blow it out of proportion. I think we are giving him more than a fair deal by mentioning his claim in the article specifically on the chiefs.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Again it simply doesn't work that way. He has the pedigree and therefore the historical title. To say that Hugh Magnus actually is a claimant is generous because he is certainly not a MacLeod. Talisker was the chief before even making his right public, and remains so. His family has been the chiefly one since the death of Flora or possibly her father. DinDraithou (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" see Verifiability. We have good reliable references that say Hugh is chief, so Hugh is chief. I don't think editors of Wiki are qualified to decide who is chief or to disagree with the British media. We also have one article that notes "A builder from the Australian outback has claimed that he is the rightful chief of the Clan MacLeod". There is no indication at this stage that his claim is anything other than a claim. As to DinDraithou "concession", I am not sure what he means, but if he thinks the article can only be changed if we have a Consensus, I agree, so would he kindly stop editing two claimants to chiefship over the original Hugh Magnus MacLeod of MacLeod, The 30th Chief of the Name and Arms of MacLeod, until we have a Consensus. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Earls of Caithness
It would appear that the 16th Earl of Caithness married one the Taliskers just a century and a half ago,. Follow the links. She would appear to have a mess of descendants in the genuine aristocracy. Janet MacLeod, great-granddaughter of the 3rd Talisker [recte, 6th], is the great-grandmother of the current Earl, Malcolm Sinclair, 20th Earl of Caithness, PC, and Chief of Clan Sinclair. I wonder if they actually know what has gone on. In any case the 3rd/6th of Talisker's 3rd son appears to be the ancestor of the current ones. He and others of the family died in Tasmania. Follow the links and you will eventually find the current rightful chief as he claims, Evan Guy, eldest surviving son of Donald Ian Guy, 12th of Talisker. It looks like there are lots of these nobles down there in Australia, or down under, and they won't forget their dismissal by the "Associated Clan MacLeod Societies", I don't think. DinDraithou (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dindraithou: imagine my astonishment to discover that there is a pseudo-aristocratic, soi-disant noble family occupying the British throne, who have no right to be there at all. Apparently they base their spurious claim on some act of parliament in 1689 or something - as if a collection of base-born members of parliament could have any say in the matter. Their so called queen Elizabeth II, who is really just the leader of a modern heritage corporation, has apparently always known the existence of Franz, Duke of Bavaria, the rightful Jacobbite heir, and is trying to bury him. Some people may think she is royal, but I assure you she is not - ask any immemorial noble. I see that King Franz is a German - maybe I will write to Angela Merkel to let her know what is going on. What about taking up King Franz's cause and putting Talisker on the back burner for a while, since Elizabeth's conduct seems even more reprehensible than Hugh Magnus Macleod's?
 * 45ossington (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point 45ossington, and very amusing too. So DinDraithou no doubt you will be taking up the cause of the Jacobite succession. Quel scandale, to think that Elizabeth II is but from a line, passed by the Act of Settlement 1701; An elected monarch!. But I have found a fabulous cause, not quite an Ozy builder, but close: An Ozy Rice farmer from down under and the rightful king of England, Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun. So Franz should be king of Scotland and Michael king of England, yet I see that the wiki articles Scotland and England fail to mention this. Bizar. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Watching people ape what they imagine to be aristocracy is pretty amusing. I see putting on airs. But Scotland has never been known for its culture. DinDraithou (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * lighten up DinDraithou, we are just pocking a little good natured fun; and pointing out that, when it comes to hereditary lines and inheritance, things are not always black and white. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Status of Dispute
Does anyone know the status of the dispute? I assume this would involve a case before the Lord Lyon, or has Guy MacLeod simply stated his claim, and not taken any action? anyway, since it seems that Hugh seems to be recognized as chief by every organization that could claim a right to do so, I listed him as chief. This does not mean that Hugh's claim is more legitimate, but rather he currently occupies the position. Of course this situation is not unique to the MacLeods. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no dispute. Clan Chiefs are not titles of nobility.  According to Gaelic traditions, it was perfectly acceptable for Dame Flora to name her daughter’s son John as her heir, and for him to succeed her as Chief despite him not having descended in the male-line from previous Clan Chiefs.  Most importantly, the position of Clan Chief is in no way subject to judgment or approval by the Lord Lyon, whose jurisdiction is heraldic.  The only consent that a Clan Chief needs is from his or her clansmen – which John had, and which Hugh Magnus has, completely.


 * If we were talking about a peerage title, like “Earl MacLeod”, then Guy MacLeod of Talisker would be correct in his claims, since he has been recognized as the heir of the senior male-line branch. This, however, has no bearing on being Chief of his Clan.  If he is eager for acknowledgement, he could dust off the Jacobite titles granted by “The Old Pretender” (the would-be King James VIII of Scotland) to the 22nd Chief of Clan MacLeod – those being “Lord MacLeod” (created 8 Dec 1716) and “Baronet MacLeod of MacLeod” (created 5 Sep 1723) – to which he would be the undisputed heir.


 * References in the main article about there being a rival claimant to Chief of Clan MacLeod are unnecessarily confusing, and should be removed, since no one in the Clan recognizes the Australian’s claim.
 * (Sg647112c (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC))

The above is incorrect and verging on nonsense, Clan Chiefs are obviously Gaelic Nobility. Furthermore, the Clan Society, is not the Clan, there are many, many MacLeods all over the world who are not members of the Society and who DO recognise Talisker’s claim. Dame Flora MacLeod was of course perfectly entitled to name her grandson as the inheritor of her estate but that’s it. The Chieftainship of the clan is not automatically bound up with the ownership of Dunvegan Castle and associated lands. The Gaelic tradition referred to above is Tanistry, the Wikipedia article on Tanistry says the following: “The tanist was chosen from among the heads of the roydammna or "righdamhna" (literally, those of kingly material) or, alternatively, among all males of the sept, and elected by them in full assembly. The eligibility was based on patrilineal relationship, which meant the electing body and the eligibles were agnates with each other. The composition and the governance of the clan were built upon male-line descent from a similar ancestor.”

The Wikipedia article on Agnates says the following: “Patrilineality, also known as the male line, the spear side or agnatic kinship, is a common kinship system in which an individual's family membership derives from and is recorded through their father's lineage. It generally involves the inheritance of property, rights, names or titles by persons related through male kin. A patriline ("father line") is a person's father, and additional ancestors, as traced only through males.“ “ Patrilineal or agnatic succession gives priority to or restricts inheritance of a throne or fief to heirs, male or female, descended from the original title holder through males only.”

So, Dame Flora MacLeod, given that she succeeded her father Sir Reginald MacLeod, was indeed a perfectly legitimate Chief of the Clan but her successor, her grandson John Wolridge Gordon, later John MacLeod, father of the current chief Hugh Magnus, was not legitimate according to Gaelic tradition because he was not descended from the MacLeods through males only. The senior candidate descended from males only would be the representative of the MacLeod of Talisker line, descended from Sir Roderick MacLeod, second son of the 17th century Chief Sir Rory Mór MacLeod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.157.166 (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Lewis writer John MacLeod summed it up best in his article “Return to Seize the Cuillin”, when he said “the chiefdom rests on a cosy deal struck between his(John Wolridge Gordon’s) fluffy grandmother, Dame Flora MacLeod - as Mrs Walters preferred to style herself - and the bedazzled twits of the Clan MacLeod Society, who cared more for the majesties of Dunvegan staying en famille than for the honour of the MacLeod name itself.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.144.166 (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Translation of Ljótr
I'm curious about the translation of Ljótr as "ugly". Most Norwegian sources on the etymology of the name claim that it could indeed mean "ugly" in Old Norse, but when used as an element in names, such as Arnljot or Bergljot, it's usually translated as "bright" or "shining" (basically equivalent to Irish Finn/Fionn). If Leod/Ljótr was originally a nickname it seems reasonable that the meaning of ugly may have been intended, but if it was his given name, I would imagine bright/shining to be the more likely meaning. Can anyone elaborate on why "ugly" has been chosen as the most likely/only translation here? Maitreya (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Maitreya. It is absolutely certain that the article writer is wrong in stating that "Ljótur" means "ugly". Of course no baby is given such a name, but the idea is kinda funny, and it may be popular for that reason. As it happens, "ljótur" (or "ljótr" in older spelling), and "ljót" in the feminine form, is also an adjective meaning "ugly". "Ljós" is also a noun and an adjective, meaning "light" (and the adjective form means "bright" or "shining"). This double meaning of the word, "ugly" and "shining", is is merely a coincidence, and the word is, in both senses, formed in a manner regular and natural to the language it belongs to (be it Old Norse or modern Icelandic). The meaning is just like "Birte" in Danish, "Lucia" or "Lucius" in Latin, or "Svetlana" in Russian.

157.157.36.56 (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Togifex157.157.36.56 (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this is what brought me to this talk section, to make a comment on this. I am an Icelander and this immediately caught my attention, as I've been taught that the name Ljótur means 'bright', 'light' or something equivalent. (Sorry, I'm not a regular contributor and don't know the etiquette to follow when commenting here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.215.189 (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is any doubt about the above you only have to look at the crest, arms and mottoes of the Macleods of Lewis. A sun in splendour, a flaming rock or mountain and “Luceo non Uro” meaning “Shine not Burn” or alternatively “I Burn while I See”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GJMM78 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Spelling: MacLeod or Macleod
I see that this page uses MacLeod the vast majority of times. However, it also uses Macleod in several instances. What is the proper spelling for the name of the clan?

ICE77 (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There being no right or wrong answer to this question, I suspect that any significant attempt to achieve uniformity will result only in heated controversy. Even the Dunvegan Castle web-site uses the two different forms in the same sentence in its page on the history of the clan! 45ossington (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As 45ossington points out the concept of a single 'proper' spelling is not really valid. That being said, it is pretty standard practice on Wikipedia to delineate common alternative spellings in the first sentence of the lede, and then throughout the remainder of the article to consistently use the same spelling (however arbitrarily selected) as has been used for the page name.  The exception with surnames is that recent/living individuals who themselves used a different spelling should be represented in that way. Agricolae (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I agree: best to use the style adopted in the article title.45ossington (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that if there was a Leod then it makes sense to write MacLeod. The link to the Dunvegan Castle uses MacLeod all the time, except for chief Macleod of The Lewes (the only instance of Macleod in the entire page).

ICE77 (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I wrote the following yesterday on the Talk page for Macleod of Lewis, so maybe it's worth adding here too:
 * For anyone who might come across these comments in the future, it's probably worth pointing out that nowadays hardly any Lewis people use capital letters in their "Mac" surnames in English. It's one of the minor differences between Lewis folk and those from the other Gaelic-speaking islands. Macdonald is another example. People from Skye, Harris, etc. would use MacLeod, MacDonald, and so on. The capital letter is always used in Gaelic though, so technically it's more correct - and I write that as a Lewis Macleod (and native Gaelic-speaker). As is pointed out in other places in the article, "Mac" is the Gaelic for "son". The feminine form is "Nic", a variation of the word for daughter, and this is always used in Gaelic, e.g. NicLeòid. The form "MhicLeoid" (sic) referred to above is the genitive and means literally "of the son of Leod". (There might be some confusion because the clan's name in Gaelic is "Clann MhicLeòid", which means "(The) Children of the son of Leòd".) The correct ordinary nominative form in Gaelic is "MacLeòid", with the accent. Unlike in the Irish language, the space between the Mac and the Leòid seems to have become optional in Scottish Gaelic when it's used as a surname. Of course if you were translating "Leod's son" into Gaelic, you would say "Mac Leòid" Cailean99 (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The above is not strictly true, I have Maccaskill, Macgregor, Macdonald and Macleod relatives from the Dunvegan and Waternish districts in Skye who all insist upon the above spellings with no internal capitalisation.

Unofficial tartan colors
I regularly exchange messages with Peter Eslea MacDonald who is the expert on tartans in Scotland (if not around the world). From a previous exchange I recalled that, as much as I would like tartans to be defined by specific color codes and names, setts just call out the sett with a letter like K for black or B for blue but there is no specific way to indicate that colors, in this case black or blue, are light or dark. Therefore, Peter Eslea MacDonald told me that the color codes and names listed in this article under the "Clan tartan" section are not officially adopted by the Scottish Tartans Authority (STA) which he leads. Unless somebody has a source for the colors, the number and the names should be removed, including the reference to the STA since it's inappropriate.

ICE77 (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

MacLeod of Skye tartan
This article should also list, show and discuss the MacLeod of Skye tartan since it's related and very similar to the MacLeod of Harris tartan for historical reasons. The tartan can be found here: http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret/display/263/macleod-of-skye-clan.

ICE77 (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

25th chief
I am puzzled as to why Norman MacLeod of MacLeod (1812–1895) is ignored in the history section - he is only mentioned for having a son. The notable thing about the 25th clan chief is his actions in providing famine relief at the time of the Highland Potato Famine. He was felt by government relief officers to be the most benevolent of the landlords in the famine-struck regions. Unfortunately this ended in bankruptcy, but to put the needs of his tenants above his own financial security makes him outstanding - especially compared with some of his contemporaries whose actions were totally reprehensible.

He ended up having to find work in London after the sale of all the unentailed parts of the estate. He later described (to the Napier Commission) that his efforts to feed his tenants left him "utterly ruined" - at this the time, bankruptcy was, though common, a matter of deep disgrace. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)