Allowed tartans

[MacWage]

While I was LOOKING for picts of these portraits in question, and Matt's articles to see if he posted something to link here, He posted over here WITH the picts!

The 1704 letter has been oft-cited as "proof" that clan tartans eixsted prior to the generally accepted date. In reality, all this letter tells us that the cheif of the Grants expected his men to turn out in "red and green" tartan on the field. It does not specify a particular sett or design. In fact, if it proves anything, it proves that clan tartans were not in use, for if they were, all the cheif would have had to have done is to instruct them to wear "the proper Grant tartan" and no more would have been neccesary.

The VERY point I was going to make: There is a GOOD probablility that the modern "Grant tartan" was created/picked TO FIT that letter!

As for the Richard Waitt protraits of 1714, here they are:



Yes, these two figures are wearing similar tartans. But again, what does that tell us about "clan tartans?" All we can deduce from this is that two men in the same household were wear clothing seemingly made from the same cloth. Is this all that unusual? Does this mean it was a "clan Grant" tartan? No. In fact, if it proves anything, it proves too much, for this tartan is nothing like the Clan Grant tartans of today.

Actually, according to Ian Grimble's "Clans and Chiefs: Celtic Tribalism in Scotland" (original by Blond & Briggs, 1980; reprint Edinburgh: Birlinn Limited, 2000-> I also have a hardbound version from Barnes & Noble with the same page numbers):
"Before the Jacobite uprising of 1715 (which the Grants opposed, thus earning their place in the Mackenzie rant of Cabarfiedh), Sir Ludovick Grant of Grant ordered all his dependents to wear a particular pattern of tartan described as consisting of "red and greed dyce." Yet nearly a dozen family portraits of the time of Ludovick's son prove that his attempt to introduce a standard sett for his clan was largely ignored even by his closest relatives. They simply picked the patterns they fancied.. But this ruling was respected in a later century when the present Grant tartan was composed." (p. 220)

I THINK the portraits shown above are related DIRECTLY to Grant's proclamation.

What they together shown is that "clan tartans" DID NOT EXIST in the pre-Jacobite period. Grant's attempt to MAKE ONE in the early 1700s failed miserably. So, one cannot argue that those associations are OLD.
Good article (By Newsome) on some "older" tartans:
http://albanach.org/oldtartans.html

However, to wear the "Grant" tartan TODAY bears the association WITH Clan Grant!!! To me, that association bears weight on what I want to buy and wear as a kilt. I go back to the sports-analogy from page 1 of this thread:
You CAN wear whatever you like, BUT each has associations, most VERY strong. So, bear in MIND the associations.

This whole last portion of the thread has been a GREAT example of the history, concerns/feelings, and practical applications of those associations, in the form of "Black Watch" (and its various manifestations) and Grant's various tartans.

[Quaich Maker]

"Before the Jacobite uprising of 1715 (which the Grants opposed, thus earning their place in the Mackenzie rant of Cabarfiedh), Sir Ludovick Grant of Grant ordered all his dependents to wear a particular pattern of tartan described as consisting of "red and greed dyce." .

Check you facts before you post .