Quote Originally Posted by The Scotsman View Post
While it will no doubt make little difference to the tartan anarchists, for what it is worth, I will quote a passage from Charles Mackinnon of Dunakin, who is himself a Hebridean chieftain, historian, and author on several books relating to tartan, Highland dress and Scottish clans:

"First of all, a word on the rules. The Lord Lyon is an excellent authority, and he points out that name alone is the index of clan membership. Anyone who does not bear a clan surname should wear a district tartan, if a suitable one exists, or else the Jacobite or Caledonia tartan. It is not correct to wear the tartan of one's mother's clan unless one assumes her name. Margaret O. MacDougall, F.S.A. Scot., editing Robert Bain's The Clans and Tartans of Scotland, agreed: "It has frequently been claimed that Scots who do not bear a clan or sept surname may wear the tartan of their mother's clan or sept providing she possessed a clan surname. Although this practice is widespread it is incorrect. Clan membership rests upon name and it follows that if no clan or sept surname is borne, there can be no claim to the tartan of any clan....." These rulings are perfectly correct so far as they go. It is a genealogical principle that a person can only belong to one family. People with double-barrelled surnames technically belong to no family. It is an odd fact that the double or triple surname should ever have been regarded as an indication of social superiority, for it is a sign of genealogical degeneracy and is looked on askance in the courts of chivalry, where it sometimes causes a great deal of trouble. No Highland chief's heir can be awarded the armorial bearings of the chef du nom, or be recognized officially as the head of a name, unless he adopts the chiefly surname alone.....In short, because clan tartans are basically clan cognisances, only the clansmen can possibly have a "right" to them.....If, for example, the grandson of a MacGregor clanswoman wants to wear that tartan, he is perfectly free to do so. He has, of course, no "rights." That does not mean he cannot wear it, but merely that he wears it for sentimental family reasons rather than as a member of clan MacGregor. What he cannot do is claim a "right" to grannie's tartan."
I have Mackinnon's book on my shelf, as well. I also have books on my shelf from people with equally impressive sounding nomikers who express opinions on wearing tartan that are at odds with Mackinnon's.

The Hon. Stuart Ruadri Erskine, writing in The Kilt and How to Wear It (1901), quotes correspondence from Campbell of Islay in 1882 stating that his tailor (also a Campbell) "knew nothing of clan tartans," neither did his piper, a Mure, and neither did he.

Erskine himself advocates for the use of generic, non-named tartans (what he calls "hill checks") for general wear, reserving clan tartans for those occasions where one wishes to represent the clan, such as Highland Games and the like.

Erskine had his opinion. Mackinnon had his. Neither represents the totality of the tartan tradition, and neither should dictate how we dress today.

I have also a book on tartan in which the author flatly states that if one is caught wearing a tartan in Scotland to which he is not "entitled" he is subject to a 25 pound fine! Of course this is entirely false!

One must look at how tartan was regarded over the course of history to get some context in which we can place these opinions. For example, Mackinnon makes reference to the Lord Lyon as "an excellent authority," which he is -- over heraldry. The problem is that tartan is not heraldic and has never fallen under the Lord Lyon's jurisdiction. Tartan is a textile, a fashion, not a regulated heraldic device.

Mackinnon's opinion that only one who has the surname has an "entitlement" to the tartan, while one without the surname is free to wear it but cannot claim "entitlement" in essence renders the whole idea meaningless. What on earth does it mean to claim some individuals have a special entitlement to a tartan, which he then admits that anyone else is free to wear? In effect it means that there is no such entitlement at all; the notion that there is serves only to "puff up" the man who actually bears the clan surname. It creates the illusion that he is somehow more "authentically Scottish" than the person with a sept name.

These kinds of opinions, which really have no basis on actual law or custom, only lead to confusion -- and we have far too much of that already when it comes to tartan. And so you have the author of the book alluded to above putting in print that visitors to Scotland who wear the "wrong" tartan will be subject to fine. I've seen a clan website that states only those bearing the clan surname are permitted to wear the clan tartan, while those bearing sept names are permitted to wear only the hunting tartan. I've heard of a kilt shop refuse to sell a client a kilt because he wanted his mother's tartan, not his father's (true story, the gentlemen ended up getting his kilt from us).

You can see how it easily gets out of hand. So I will readily admit that you can find authoritative sounding sources which speak of having the "right" to a tartan. But I maintain that in the overall history of tartan tradition, this has been the opinion of a rather vocal minority and has never had the support of law behind it.