Allowed tartans

[Don Patrick]

Indeed, follow your own rules.

On the issue of clans and chiefs, I am somewhat torn. I understand the sense of community one feels from a clan, but I dislike the idea of clan chiefs. Especially hereditary ones. Considering the way the clan system ended in both the Highlands of Scotland and in Ireland, I am surprised that anyone would feel kinship towards an office which more often than not, betrayed them (Scotland) or abandoned them (Ireland).

Instead, I think a clan association with an elected chief would be infinitely preferable.

I guess we can't all have our cake and eat it too. I suspect the tartan will continue to remain a domain of it's individual clan chief.

As a member of the Gray Clan I should be able to relate to your remarks.

[TheKiltedWonder]

I understand the Clan Chief is entitled to make the rules concerning their tartan. The Standing Chiefs of the Scottish Clans have stipulated that it is acceptable for those with matching family names to wear the like tartan. They go on to say the wearing of the tartan means that the wearer gives their allegiance to the chief. Allegiance is a duty of fidelity said to be owed by a subject or a citizen to his state or sovereign. In that sense it represents the feudal liege homage, which could be due only to one lord. So much for wearing more than one clan's tartan.

The Chiefs can make the rules about their tartans, insofar as they can say which tartans are official clan tartans. They can have it registered with the Lord Lyon. But they can't prevent anyone from wearing their tartan or demand allegiance from anyone (in case they're trying to lead a raid on a neighboring clan).
That said, just because you can do something does not mean you necessarily should. I can go out and wear any tartan I would like and behave any way I like in it. But I subscribe to the "respect" school of thought. I'll wear a tartan I don't have a "connection" to, but I will know the clan, the history of it, I'll behave myself (best as I can ), I won't pretend I'm something I'm not and I'll be willing to down a few beers with any clans members I run into

[Nighthawk]

My personal rules, for what it's worth, are very simple- I don't wear tartans with "royal" in the name. I don't wear tartans that I don't have some sort of family association with. I would wear Cameron since I had a great great grandfather who was in the New York 79th in the Civil War. They were Cameron Highlanders as I recall. I wear the Black Stewart and the Weathered MacKenzie because I had ancestors who fought in the 1745 uprising, and these were as far as I know military tartans developed for the regiments. I am trying to save up the funds to get my own family tartan and a Colorado state tartan kilt. I have no problem at all with universal tartans. For me, it's a matter of respect to not wear other clan tartans or ones with which I have no historical ties. On the other hand, the truth of the matter is that the clan tartan concept is a reletively modern one and very, very few have a pedigree older than the 1700's. No native born Scot that I have ever talked to has had an issue with non clan member wearing their tartans. In fact, I have read posts with titles like "Knock off this rediculous clan allegiance nonsense." So there you have it- rules that seem to me to be simple and sensible. However, those are my own personal rules and I see no reason to force them on anyone. If you're a Mertz and want to wear my family tartan, knock yourself out.

[ChromeScholar]

I follow the "wear whatever you like" tradition, since it is far older than the "clan tartan" tradition

[Don Patrick]

The Chiefs can make the rules about their tartans, insofar as they can say which tartans are official clan tartans. They can have it registered with the Lord Lyon. But they can't prevent anyone from wearing their tartan or demand allegiance from anyone (in case they're trying to lead a raid on a neighboring clan).
That said, just because you can do something does not mean you necessarily should. I can go out and wear any tartan I would like and behave any way I like in it. But I subscribe to the "respect" school of thought. I'll wear a tartan I don't have a "connection" to, but I will know the clan, the history of it, I'll behave myself (best as I can ), I won't pretend I'm something I'm not and I'll be willing to down a few beers with any clans members I run into

For some reason the clan chiefs and the Lord of Lyon seem to believe they have that right. After all that is part of the tradition of wearing the tartan. I believe people have the right to have their traditions respected. Any thing short of that might have be assumed to be some form of disrespect. At least for one, I've never been one to trample on another's tradition.

Most everything we do or honor in life is interwined in some form of tradition. Certainly if they wanted to to pursue the matter they might be able to invoke 'copyright'. Unfortunately, a copyright law does not transcend a nation's borders. International copyright law is merely a matter of each country's gentleman's agreement. Different countries agreeing to respect another's copyright law.

Even local US law is in not fail safe in this regard. It has always been against the US Public Law to wear the buttons of the military dress uniform (outside of those in the military). But I doubt you'd find that the FBI is interested in dragging someone in for doing so. So... I guess we are left with tradition and any concern we might have about the feelings of others in these matters.

[slohairt]

You're making unfair generalizations. Not every chief betrayed their clansmen, although I'm not denying some did. And as a historian, one of the first rules I learned was not to judge either people in the past by modern standards, or modern-day persons because of the actions of their ancestors.

And as far as Irish Chiefs go, well, that's a bit of a "sticky wicket" after the MacCarthy Mor Hoax back in the late '90s:

http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/

Todd

I agree, some didn't betray their folk. That's why I said more or less. But I'm not judging them by modern standards either. Those in the past who betrayed their clan turned their back on a centuries-old system. I suspect in their day they were judged quite harshly by their clansmen. Later, once their responsibilities were gone, they festooned themselves in Highland finery, concocted some romantic fantasies, and almost mocked the system they themselves had in hand in destroying.

As for the modern chiefs, it's the hereditary office I dislike, not the individuals themselves. They certainly can't be judged by the actions of their ancestors anymore than the rest of us could. I just think elected chiefs would be closer to the original system of Tanistry.

As for Irish chiefs, well, I think you'll find there is little regard for them among many in Ireland.

[Don Patrick]

I agree, some didn't betray their folk. That's why I said more or less. But I'm not judging them by modern standards either. Those in the past who betrayed their clan turned their back on a centuries-old system. I suspect in their day they were judged quite harshly by their clansmen. Later, once their responsibilities were gone, they festooned themselves in Highland finery, concocted some romantic fantasies, and almost mocked the system they themselves had in hand in destroying.

As for the modern chiefs, it's the hereditary office I dislike, not the individuals themselves. They certainly can't be judged by the actions of their ancestors anymore than the rest of us could. I just think elected chiefs would be closer to the original system of Tanistry.

As for Irish chiefs, well, I think you'll find there is little regard for them among many in Ireland.

Pretty harsh words. I don't understand your feelings in the matter.

[slohairt]

I guess they were harsh. I was simply trying to put myself in the position of someone in that time period. I can't even begin to imagine how betrayed they felt. Though I am Irish by birth and blood, I do have a Scottish-born grandmother who is a Graham, so I am a Graham clansman and am proud of the achievements of that family. However when I think of Montrose I can only think of John Hurt!

Concerning the Irish chiefs, I won't comment too much more on that except to say this: The flight of the Irish aristocracy in the 17th Century paved the way for certain events which still affect Irish politics to this very day. But that would be a political discussion, and I certainly don't want to get into that here!

[Don Patrick]

I guess they were harsh. I was simply trying to put myself in the position of someone in that time period. I can't even begin to imagine how betrayed they felt. Though I am Irish by birth and blood, I do have a Scottish-born grandmother who is a Graham, so I am a Graham clansman and am proud of the achievements of that family. However when I think of Montrose I can only think of John Hurt!

Concerning the Irish chiefs, I won't comment too much more on that except to say this: The flight of the Irish aristocracy in the 17th Century paved the way for certain events which still affect Irish politics to this very day. But that would be a political discussion, and I certainly don't want to get into that here!

Understand. I would remind you that the Scotti were (and are) Irish.

[slohairt]

Indeed they were! I learned that in my unfinished Celtic Studies degree!
However, notwithstanding unsubstantiated Greumach the Caledonian myths, much Anglo-Saxon and Norman blood in in the Graham clan.