There seems to be some misconceptions amongst members of the Clan Napier, and amongst others who are not Napiers that the Napiers should really be called Scotts or should be considered a sept of the Clan Scott. Let me try to explain how this is not so. It really all boils down to the laws of inheritance and the passing of titles through the female members of the family.

This passing of a title through the female line is not uncommon, nor is the changing of names on inheriting a title. It has applied to the royal families of Scotland, England, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and many European countries, for centuries.  As can be seen from the genealogical table below, only one male title-holder who had descendants, had to change his name, from Scott to Napier. That was Francis Scott/Napier. The sixth Lord Napier (i.e. the sixth holder of the title), who inherited the title from his grandmother.

Since the sixth Lord Napier the title has always passed to direct heirs-male of the body of the titleholder, and will do so for at least the two generations following the present Lord Napier, the fourteenth. So, at the end of day, only one man changed his name from Scott to Napier, and this was a legal requirement in order to inherit the peerage.

Although Francis, sixth Lord Napier, took his father’s surname of Scott at birth, he still had Napier blood in his veins, from his grandmother who was born a Napier, and changed his name to Napier when he inherited the title. I think that it is this change of name that has caused Scotts to think that Napiers should really be part of Clan Scott.

The whole problem only arises because of the custom in Scotland, and most of the western world, of children taking the surname of their father. Surnames are a relatively modern convention, having started in Scotland only about the 12th century, and probably about the same time in other countries. The word surname really means additional (sur from the Latin word super) name (or noun), and was a word which gave an added description to the given/personal name of a person. It was often related to the job a person did, or where he/she came from, and sometimes how they looked. In small communities personal names were sufficient and patronymics were generally all that were required in addition. In many parts of the world, even today, surnames are a rarity. Iceland is a good example, where the telephone directories show given names. In patriarchal societies, inheritance is through the male line, whereas in matriarchal societies, inheritance is through the female line. One could argue that one way is as good as another, or have both methods.  In the end, does it really matter?