Diluted tartan?

[MacBean]

I love that I know some folks here that I can predict their replies on this one! Here's my equally predictable reply.

Tartans, kilts might ideally be found in the Highlands, but they are not commonly seen. Americans might ideally have a common identity and culture, but they don't. In wearing a tartan or a kilt we seek to add meaning and a sense of identity (or some of us do); I see no harm in that, and certainly much that I like.

I have a brand new MacBean kilt that just arrived at home that I haven't seen yet. I'm pleased as punch! Rocky of USA Kilts has a MacBean kilt, and I have a photo of the two of us together. I love it; I like that he opted to dress that way (although he wears many different kilts). Few, if any, of us can claim to be the real McCoy, or if we are, the McCoyness has been diluted endlessly over the millenia. I can cite three centuries of MacBean or Bean patrilineage, conveniently ignoring the 200-300 other lineages that added equally over the same period; that's kind of weird.

Personally, I'd love to see the entire Highland Tradition look forwards instead of backwards. I'd love to see the kilt fashions move ahead and experiment more. I might still love and wear my old Harris Tweed jackets and traditional kilt, but unless we evolve, we fossilize. This is the 21st century; the culture is eclectic and likely to become more eclectic. Enjoy! Now I'll go home and open that MacBean kilt!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I love that I know some folks here that I can predict their replies on this one! Here's my equally predictable reply.

Tartans, kilts might ideally be found in the Highlands, but they are not commonly seen. Americans might ideally have a common identity and culture, but they don't. In wearing a tartan or a kilt we seek to add meaning and a sense of identity (or some of us do)...

I think the "lack of identity" that you mention does go a long way to explain why some in North America may feel it necessary to load up on every tartan they see. The root cause of their insecurity, and their need to be seen to "belonging" to everything is beyond the scope of discussion. Suffice it to say that most people of Scottish ancestry in North America, even those with multiple clan ancestries, tend to be secure enough in their own sense of self-identity to only identify with one clan or clan tartan.

I have a brand new MacBean kilt that just arrived at home that I haven't seen yet. I'm pleased as punch! Rocky of USA Kilts has a MacBean kilt, and I have a photo of the two of us together. I love it; I like that he opted to dress that way (although he wears many different kilts). Few if any of us can claim to be the real McCoy, or if we are, the McCoyness has been diluted endlessly over the millenia. I can cite three centuries of name patrilineage, conveniently ignoring the 200-300 other lineages that added equally over the same period; that's kind of weird.

No, it's not weird, it is a genealogical fact that a person can only belong to one family. True, one biologically inherits equally from both parents, but over the course of time the one thing that continues virtually unchanged is one's family name. As far as being "the real McCoy" is concerned (at least in the Highland sense) as long as one bears the patrilineal name, that's it. Now one can make all sorts of arguments to the contrary, but those arguments would only apply to specific cases, not to the general assumption that all who possess a common surname descend from the original ancestor to bear that name. The passage of time does not (in the genealogical sense) dilute one's McCoyness, although it may move one farther from the stem of the chiefly line. (Congratulations on your new kilt, by the way.)

Personally, I'd love to see the entire Highland Tradition look forwards instead of backwards. I'd love to see the kilt fashions move ahead and experiment more.

I am a bit confused by your last statement, as kilted fashions constantly move forward with the times, insofar as they mirror the current fashion in ordinary men's attire, albeit slightly modified for wear with the kilt as opposed to trousers. As far as I can tell the only time kilted fashion looks backwards is when someone insists on wearing a great kilt, or the out-sized bonnets of the 19th century; when that happens fashion becomes costume, in the same way the wearing of 19th century clothes would be regarded as "costume" if compared to the traditional pin stripe suit worn by many successful businessmen today.

I might still love and wear my old Harris Tweed jackets and traditional kilt, but unless we move evolve we fossilize. This is the 21st century; the culture is eclectic and likely to become more eclectic.

Two things here: First, change, merely for the sake of change, is rarely a good thing. Evolution in the style of clothes worn by men has hardly changed in 150 years. It has, however, refined itself. And that is a good thing, because it means that in Darwinian terms it no longer needs to evolve. Second, I think you have confused society, which is eclectic, with culture which, by it's very nature, is a smooth continuum of values passed on from one generation to the next.

Enjoy! Now I'll go home and open that MacBean kilt!

Absolutely... and post some photos while you are at it!

[Downunder Kilt]

Consider the following tartans:


Regent? I'll bet that one has a short shelf-life.

Wellington? Named after an Irish guy with an English dukedom.

Robin Hood? Named after a legendary figure. An English legendary figure.

Meg Merrilies? Named after a fictional character.


It may be getting "worse", but the dilution has existed since the beginning of named Scottish tartans. (And there was a time before tartans were named, and a time before they were Scottish as well.)

Could you explain what you mean about the short shelf life of the Regent tartan as according to the Scottish Register of Tartans and the STA, it has been around since 1819, designed by Wilsons of Bannockburn for George IV, the Prince Regent

[figheadair]

Could you explain what you mean about the short shelf life of the Regent tartan as according to the Scottish Register of Tartans and the STA, it has been around since 1819, designed by Wilsons of Bannockburn for George IV, the Prince Regent

Not quite true. The sett was one of the Wilsons' Numbered Patterns, in this case No232, which they sold as Regent during the popular Regency era. That ended in 1820 when the Prince Regent became George IV. The tartan was recycled by Wilsons and became MacLaren by which name it is still known. Further details are in my little book on Wilsons' 1819 Key Pattern Book.

[Downunder Kilt]

Not quite true. The sett was one of the Wilsons' Numbered Patterns, in this case No232, which they sold as Regent during the popular Regency era. That ended in 1820 when the Prince Regent became George IV. The tartan was recycled by Wilsons and became MacLaren by which name it is still known. Further details are in my little book on Wilsons' 1819 Key Pattern Book.

I have no doubt that what you say is true as I have read many versions of the same. I don't know if you have read the STA and STR entries which seem to imply that it was originally taken from another tartan. I have also seen the purple based tartan referred to as the MacLaren 1819 Variant.

[figheadair]

I have no doubt that what you say is true as I have read many versions of the same. I don't know if you have read the STA and STR entries which seem to imply that it was originally taken from another tartan. I have also seen the purple based tartan referred to as the MacLaren 1819 Variant.

I'm familiar with both databases. Their inference is that the sett was previously called Regent rather than being taken from another pattern.

In essance blue and purple were interchangeable shades of blue. Wilsons of Bannockburn often used their purple (a very dark blue similar to French Blue) in their early dark patterns as opposed to using a pure indigo blue which was more expensive and which they used to call Officers' Blue. Wilsons worked with several shades of blue from purple, the darkest to sextian or light blue, the lightest. Their use of purple as their default blue shade for such designs ceased around 1830 by which time a straight indigo blue was the norm.

[Downunder Kilt]

I'm familiar with both databases. Their inference is that the sett was previously called Regent rather than being taken from another pattern.

In essance blue and purple were interchangeable shades of blue. Wilsons of Bannockburn often used their purple (a very dark blue similar to French Blue) in their early dark patterns as opposed to using a pure indigo blue which was more expensive and which they used to call Officers' Blue. Wilsons worked with several shades of blue from purple, the darkest to sextian or light blue, the lightest. Their use of purple as their default blue shade for such designs ceased around 1830 by which time a straight indigo blue was the norm.

Thanks for all that information, that's why this place is so great, you can learn new things everdayday, much obliged to you figheadair. Apologies to the OP if I highjacked the thread a bit.

[Morris at Heathfield]

Could you explain what you mean about the short shelf life of the Regent tartan as according to the Scottish Register of Tartans and the STA, it has been around since 1819, designed by Wilsons of Bannockburn for George IV, the Prince Regent

All I meant was that, once the regent becomes king, demand for a tartan named "Regent" will undoubtedly drop. Of course, as noted by Mike Oettle and Peter MacDonald, some of these tartans have been repurposed. The Regent tartan became the MacLaren clan tartan. The Robin Hood tartan is perhaps better known these days as the Rob Roy Hunting tartan. And the Meg Merrilies tartan has been adopted by the Merrilees family as their tartan. The Wellington tartan, on the other hand, seems to have dropped out of use.

I think my point is that what a tartan "means" has long been decided by the tartan manufacturers, as they're the ones who started giving them names to keep them straight, and from the beginning they didn't limit themselves to peculiarly Scottish names.

[figheadair]

I think my point is that what a tartan "means" has long been decided by the tartan manufacturers, as they're the ones who started giving them names to keep them straight, and from the beginning they didn't limit themselves to peculiarly Scottish names.

I supposed where things have changed (got out of hand?) is the sheer volume of new tartans which has grown exponentially since the very recent availability of computer, and latterly, on-line design software.

The process really got going at the end of the C18th when Wilsons of Bannockburn began to name tartans as a marketing ploy to help them sell better. Many of these early setts were named after towns and regions, and occasionally after individual's with whom they traded. Later they began to add names that were popular at the time in order to capture the public's desire to be seen to be trendy and thus they named setts after national heroes, events or characters from popular novels etc; Wellington, Waterloo, Rob Roy, Meg Merrilies etc.

The concept of clan tartans began around the same time and was part of the Highland Revival and in particular the efforts of the Highland Society of London to record and preserve the old clan tartans. This very concept was flawed but started the love affair with family identification that was built upon by Sir Walter Scott for the 1822 Levee and later broadened to a pan-Scottish symbol by the Sobieski Stuarts and later Victorians.

The casualty of the process that continues apace today were the truly old Highland tartans. A few survived as clan tartans but most fell into disuse. Those that have survived commercially have often been altered by the manufacturers to fit the needs of standard sett sizes and colours. Much of my research is concerned with finding, recording, and where possible, promoting the used of these original tartans.