Allowed tartans

[James]

Maybe there are not rules, but there are conventions: and the convention hallowed by a good two hundred years, and more if one thinks about local weaves: in that a tartan is worn honestly because an individual likes the pattern/colours, and makes no other claim.

Or because they have a direct claim to that particular tartan, through a clear lineage-in other words they are not false flagging, pretending to be something they are not. So the nebulous claim through say the wife's family, is no claim: nor that it belonged to some distant aunt, that too is no claim, I could go on.

A point here is that the clan tartans evolved over several hundred years into the identifier of a particular highland clan, [I'm ignoring septs etc at this time], and as such they are worn with pride by those so entitled.

It has however long been accepted that dancers and the like may breach convention for reasons of cost availability. However that is no precedent when set against the convention.

So when people say there are no rules they are in one sense correct: but in another sense they are only showing their abysmal igorance. Too I'd remind people that they should not confuse good manners with acceptance.

So either wear the tartan to which you have a genuine entitlement, or because you like the pretty colours-but be honest about it.

If in doubt there are plenty of district and other tartans such as The Highland Granite to choose from.

I'm sorry if the above appears harsh, but on occasion there is some very questionable information offered on this board.

James

[AckZel]

When I get married I will design, get weaved and made to a kilt my own family tartan though there is no scots in my family tree that I know of. Until then I wear that pretty looking Douglas Modern and as a big mr. Connery fan that MacLean Hunting Ancient I got

[Don Patrick]

Maybe there are not rules, but there are conventions

I'm speaking from memory and will probably put my foot in my mouth, but...

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.

I note that this thread got really hot. I for one believe that the wearing of the tartan should be merited in some form or factor. ...but I also believe that if someone wanted to wear a tartan bad enough - more power to them.

Understand I'm a novice at all of this as well. I've yet to wear my first tartan. Only eight more weeks to go though.

[bjproc]

Hi, new here & i've just read this thread from start to finish, good reading & a lot of information

what got me to join was the association of the black watch and the southerland highlanders?, was this when they first came about ?

for me, the black watch is associated with perthshire.

any further info on this wold be appreciated.

i'm also amazed how much people, not from scotland are into there tartan/clans (not that i'm saying it should only be for scottish folk, i may add )

[Monkey@Arms]

Hi, new here & i've just read this thread from start to finish, good reading & a lot of information

what got me to join was the association of the black watch and the southerland highlanders?, was this when they first came about ?

for me, the black watch is associated with perthshire.

any further info on this wold be appreciated.

i'm also amazed how much people, not from scotland are into there tartan/clans (not that i'm saying it should only be for scottish folk, i may add )

Hi bjproc, welcome to X-Marks. In regards to the Black Watch and The Sutherlands, there was recently a discussion about the two in this thread.

Hmmm, Forfar bridies.

Best regards,

Jake

[bjproc]

Hi bjproc, welcome to X-Marks. In regards to the Black Watch and The Sutherlands, there was recently a discussion about the two in this thread.

Hmmm, Forfar bridies.



Best regards,

Jake

thanks for the welcome Jake

aye, threir good, but give you heartburn

[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

[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.

[TheKiltedWonder]

For some reason the clan chiefs and the Lord of Lyon seem to believe they have that right.

I'm sorry I brought the Lord Lyon into this discussion. His area of concern is heraldic matters. He does't busy himself with tartans, aside from recording official clan tartans at the wishes of the clan chiefs, as far as I know.
In addition, I was saying that the Clan Chiefs have no right to control tartans. They have authority to do so, but it is by the authority of the clan they represent that they might do this. They do not have the authority of the government, for example. If a Clan Chief says that a certain tartan should not be worn by clan members, then this surely extends to those who view him as an authority figure, namely clan members among others. The Chiefs can not actually prevent those outside their authority from donning the tartan.

As for allegiance, I was trying to point out that the fealty mentioned in the original post was a little outdated. Indeed pledging alliegance as you described it might leave one open to charges of treason. This is not to say that people putting on a tartan are not signifying a certain closeness with the Clan Chief and acknowledging him through their tartan. But no one can expect feudal allegiance any more.

I never said we should bear no regard for tradition. Indeed, I appealed to good taste at the end of it. I believe that being mindful of others traditions is important and it shouldn't be disregarded. If a clan chief wishes to have a certain tartan reserved for himself and his family (a rare occurance), then one should bear that in mind. But I don't feel completely bound by everything a Chief says either. Different horses, if you will...

Anyway hope that cleared up what I was trying to say.

[macwilkin]

I'm sorry I brought the Lord Lyon into this discussion. His area of concern is heraldic matters. He does't busy himself with tartans, aside from recording official clan tartans at the wishes of the clan chiefs, as far as I know.
In addition, I was saying that the Clan Chiefs have no right to control tartans. They have authority to do so, but it is by the authority of the clan they represent that they might do this. They do not have the authority of the government, for example. If a Clan Chief says that a certain tartan should not be worn by clan members, then this surely extends to those who view him as an authority figure, namely clan members among others. The Chiefs can not actually prevent those outside their authority from donning the tartan.

As for allegiance, I was trying to point out that the fealty mentioned in the original post was a little outdated. Indeed pledging alliegance as you described it might leave one open to charges of treason. This is not to say that people putting on a tartan are not signifying a certain closeness with the Clan Chief and acknowledging him through their tartan. But no one can expect feudal allegiance any more.

I never said we should bear no regard for tradition. Indeed, I appealed to good taste at the end of it. I believe that being mindful of others traditions is important and it shouldn't be disregarded. If a clan chief wishes to have a certain tartan reserved for himself and his family (a rare occurance), then one should bear that in mind. But I don't feel completely bound by everything a Chief says either. Different horses, if you will...

Anyway hope that cleared up what I was trying to say.

thekiltedwonder is quite correct in his statements about the Lord Lyon; the Lyon Court really has nothing to do with tartan. Lord Lyon deals with heraldry.

However, I disagree with your comments about treason. I don't know of any chief that requires modern-day clansmen to swear fealty to them.

I certainly don't copy everything my chief does, but I do look to him for guidance concerning matters involving my clan.

Regards,

Todd