"Rules" for wearing family tartan

[M. A. C. Newsome]

By that logic one would conclude that no one has a "right" or "entitlement" to bear the surname of their family; which of course is ridiculous. We are all entitled to the right to bear the surname that our parents used. Others may adopt the same surname (even though they may be of no blood relation) out of mere whim; but those born to a surname by right of blood are entitled to it. It works the same way for tartans. If my surname is Gunn then I am entitled to the right of wearing that tartan by "pretence of blood". On the other hand, if my surname is Higginbotham, I can decide to wear the Gunn tartan out of whimsey, but I can claim no right or entitlement to it any more than I can claim right or entitlement to bear the Gunn surname.

Not at all. The question of whether someone has the right to use the surname he was given at birth has no bearing at all on the matter of whether one has the "right" to wear a tartan.

I think that any time we talk about tartan, the terms "right" and "entitlement" are grossly misapplied.

"Entitlement" means a guarantee or a right to certain benefits (often supported by law or contract).

Historically, the concept of "rights" was also bound to the concept of obligations. One has the right to something in order to fulfill a necessary obligation.

To give an example of what I mean, if I, as an American citizen, have an obligation to participate in the government of my country, then by necessity I have the right to vote in an election, so that I may fulfill that obligation.

Another example: if I have the moral obligation to provide for myself and my family, then I have the right to a certain minimum wage from my employer that would allow me to fulfill that obligation.

We have, in many respects, gotten away from this association of rights with obligations in our modern concept of "rights," and more is the pity. But that's not really germane to the topic at hand.

My point here is that in no way do the terms "right" or "entitlement" apply to what pattern of cloth you choose to wrap around your hips -- no matter the symbolic significance of that cloth.

If you have a reason for choosing to wear a particular tartan pattern, that should be good enough for anyone who asks. People are free to agree or disagree with your reasoning. But you are the one wearing the kilt, not them.

Only in very rare circumstances (and, as I have mentioned twice already, this will not be of general concern to the average person), will a kilt maker ask for proof that a given person is "entitled" to wear a certain tartan. I can think of exactly two occasions in my career thus far where it has been an issue. And those were very specific circumstances.

But 99.99% of the time, the concept of entitlement just does not apply to tartan.

[Lallans]

Having been flamed for suggesting something similar once before, I'm a little shy about saying this, but perhaps there are slightly different standards on different sides of the various oceans, and America, whose very existence was founded on defiance of or at least variation from British norms, has a different way of looking at this issue than people on the British side of the Atlantic. And we Canadians play the role of onlookers who pick and choose different sides at different times. But I do think that what is being seen is that there are two slightly different sets of rules in play here and I do have the idea that clan tartans are a little more I-don't-know-the-word in Britain than some other places. Correct me if I'm wrong...

[MacBean]

Since membership in a clan is generally determined by the surname that one bears (i.e. "pretence of blood"), then that has a very definite bearing on the right to wear that clan's tartan.

Stepping into the fray a bit late here. I'm not sure I see a 1:1 connection between "pretence of blood" and surname because that discounts all the maternal blood lines. Let me give a nice example.

Dougal Dall, 7th Chief of Clan Chattan gave his daughter and heir, Eva, in marriage to Angus MackIntosh, the 6th Chief of Clan MackIntosh in 1291. A Bean Macdhomhil Mor came with Eva as part of her retinue. When the Mackintosh granted him land, he became clan chief.

The story seems to have it all: occasional matrilineal succession, membership by association, chiefdom and land ownership, and succession disputes (MacPherson - MacKintosh). I think my conclusion is that belonging to a clan was a two-way exchange, not always strictly patrilineal, sometimes open, and sometimes not, but often debated.