Quote Originally Posted by M. A. C. Newsome
I make the same point about the Royal Stewart, when I get people telling me it is "reserved for the Royal Family." I say, "then tell me why I can get a bathrobe and boxer shorts in it at Target?"
Good answer, Matt! I wore a Royal Stewart sash to a dinner this past weekend, because I was wearing an evening dress and silk sashes are only available in a small number of tartans. As a direct descendant of all the Stewart kings of Scotland through James V, I guess I could feel 'entitled' to wear it, and that's why I picked that tartan rather than one of the 59 others I could get in silk -- but I would tell any customer of mine that Royal Stewart is OK for anyone to wear. It has, in effect, become a 'generic Scottish' tartan today, even though technically I suppose it 'belongs' to the Royal Family. The Queen never seems to complain about it!

This idea that tartans are the sacrosanct property of a particular personage or clan is made far too much of an issue by some people. Tartans are not the equivalent of armorial bearings. Most of the so-called clan tartans we know today have only been around in any recorded form since the mid-1800s, at the earliest. Many were set down either by a weaving house that was producing the tartan (notably Wilsons of Bannockburn), or by the Sobieski Stuarts, in their spurious Vestiarium Scoticum. To wit:

John Telfer Dunbar in History of Highland Dress [1961] quotes from a manuscript entitled Clan Tartans [1871] written by Campbell of Islay, a Gaelic scholar who lived in the Highlands and had a great knowledge of Highland dress:

"Campbell [author of Tales of the West Highlands] refers to his ‘old friend John Sobieski Stuart, Count d’Albanie who first caused me to be arrayed in Highland Costume in 1825’. In this volume he wrote, ‘I do not believe that the distinctions which are now made as to Clan Tartans ever prevailed at all, till Tartan became an important manufacture in Scotland in the reign of George the 4th.’ (http://www.electricscotland.com/cana...er/stuarts.htm)

I could go on and on about this subject of the historical accuracy of tartans, but I know I'd just be preaching to the choir here!

There are some tartans that are copyrighted, as Matt pointed out, and there are some that are registered as being 'restricted' to use by an individual or those of a particular surname, family, or clan. I think those designations should be respected, but otherwise, there's nothing to say that someone is not entitled to wear a certain tartan, especially one that is in general production!

Most people want to wear a tartan that has some connection to their personal history, if one exists. When one has hundreds of years of Scottish forebears, this can include quite a few tartans with a family association! One can choose to affiliate with a clan, and if it's a clan with a current chief, then by formally joining the clan, one is pledging loyalty to that chief and that clan and wearing the tartan has a deeper meaning. Clan Cameron are a good example of this. They have a recently-elevated chief, Donald Angus Cameron of Lochiel, XXVII Chief of Clan Cameron, and I think he deserves the loyalty of his clan members wherever they may be found. As highlander_Daz said, Lochiel and his clan are very gracious and welcoming to all who want to honour their name by wearing the Cameron tartan. But for many clans, there is no standing chief. Does this mean no one should wear the tartan associated with such a clan? Of course not!

Wear a tartan if you like it. If it has a family or district association for you, so much the better. But don't lose sleep over the question of whether you are 'entitled' to wear such-and-such a tartan! And be content in the knowledge that people who give you a hard time about it are just demonstrating their own ignorance!