"Rules" for wearing family tartan

[M. A. C. Newsome]

If one chooses a tartan based on no other criteria than "because I like the way it looks" - that is a personal whim.

Those who wear a clan tartan because it is an identifying symbol of the clan that they belong to and are a member of are not choosing the tartan based on personal whim, but out of longstanding tradition that is a part of their heritage.

Clan tartan (unlike denim) is not a generic fabric, it is a very specific tribal symbol of identity and kinship, having been designed and produced for that purpose - to distinguish the members of the clan to which the sett pertains.

I don't have any problem with anything you have stated here. It is all very true, tartan is a very special fabric, rich with traditions and customs that in many cases go back generations.

However, that does not all add up to mean that any such thing as an "entitlement" or a "right" to a tartan exists.

My maternal grandmother's maiden name was Armstrong. Therefore I wear the Armstrong tartan in honor of my blood connections with that family.

There are those who would not consider wearing the Armstrong tartan unless they were decended from that clan on the male line. Fine.

There are those who would not consider wearing the Armstrong tartan unless they actually bore the surname "Armstrong." Fine.

Each of the above hypothetical gentlemen are entitled to their opinion, and I respect that. But we are talking about my kilt, here, and my choice of what tartan to wear in my kilt, and if I want to wear a tartan to honor my grandmother and her family, so be it!

And, truth be told, if I wanted to wear the Armstrong tartan, and yet had absolutely no ties to that clan, I would be free to do so. Who is going to stop me?

Which brings me to the point which I have been attempting to make all along. There is no such thing as a "right" or an "entitlement" to wear a tartan. Except in those .01% of cases that I have mentioned, no one is going to ask for any kind of proof whatsoever that you have a justified reason for wearing your tartan. Your reason is up to you.

Most people will feel compelled to select a tartan to which they feel some tie, which they feel represents them or their ancestry in some fashion. This is the tradition that has developed -- of wearing tartan in a symbolic fashion.

But to suggest that one must have an entitlement to wear a tartan implies that one cannot wear any tartan to which one is not entitled, and this leads to much unnecessary worry and hand wringing; and really it is a concept rather foreign to tartan tradition.

[xman]

To conclude the equivocation;
If one takes 'entitlement' or 'right' to mean a sole authority over others who might wish to share the same freedom then, NO there is no entitlement to wearing most tartans. If one takes 'entitlement' or 'right' to mean a simple freedom for anyone to wear most any tartan at all then, YES we are entitled to do so. [/quibble]

Find a tartan that you like and that has meaning for you and wear it with pride. I'm looking at some matrilineal tartans now for consideration.

X

[MacLowlife]

If I might just interject this attempt at unifying our voices, please consider the following.

Entitlement, right, privilege, what you may call it, the notion that you can do something without fear of contradiction or sanction ( e.g., a size 12 in the aft area) really only matters when you are faced with someone who wishes to question your entitlement, or right, etc. That is, if you never marched a day in your life, you can still walk into one of a dozen stores and purchase an Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders regimental striped necktie. And you may wear it with pride, impunity, or even a striped shirt. The proof of this is the number of such ties sold and the number of places selling them- all in the United States, where an A&SH reunion could be held in a jury room. Nobody much questions it, even if they do know the name of the regiment.
But wander into just about any corner of the UK wearing a tie of blue and red stripes and you'd better be prepared to discuss when and where you served in The Guards ( Sorry, Jock, please supply the correct formal name) or why you are wearing their tie otherwise.

Similarly, I can wear my Buchanan kilt which I bought on spec on eBay and haven't yet sold again, or my Ancient Campbell one, or my Dress Gordon one all day long here on the wrong side of the tracks. Should I encounter a Buchanan or an ancient Campbell, or even a Weathered Stewart, I am prepared to talk with him about the relative beauty of the tartan and maybe even about my claims, real or fancied, to a shared heritage, respect, or affiliation.

BUT MARK THE RUSTIC, oops, I mean, but should I wander into the drawing room of the Duke of Argyll, or the chief of just about any clan, I would count on either wearing something other than his clan tartan, or having a pretty strong case for the actual unquestioned affiliation between myself and my host. ( I would point out that I don't think many of those Ladies and Gentlemen would be so rude as to upbraid me or criticize my dress, but I would imagine there would be some headshaking on the chiefly pillow later that night.)

I believe the expression is "not on", which is one of those ideas that are both stronger than law and absolutely unenforceable. Going to a man's party wearing his monogram, or standing in front of him and calling yourself by his name would hardly be illegal, or punishable by the law, but it would not be very polite, now, would it?

[Chas]

As far as names are concerned, there is no requirement in the UK, at marriage, for a man or his wife to take his surname or hers or any combination of both. They are free to take whatever name they choose.

Regards

Chas

[Pleater]

I happen to have some ancient Armstrong tartan, and should my wearing of it ever be cause for comment the enquirer will discover my interest in Sir William Armstrong, - owner of the first house in the world to be illuminated by electric light, from hydro electric power.

Once the eyes glaze over it is fairly certain that the original question will have been forgotten....

I seem to remember that Golly MacKenzie - in Monarch of the Glen, had a quality kilt in a MacDonald tartan, which I thought was perfectly natural, him being Hector's man and thereby showing that allegiance.

Would that not be right?

Anne the Pleater :ootd:

[davidlpope]

I seem to remember that Golly MacKenzie - in Monarch of the Glen, had a quality kilt in a MacDonald tartan, which I thought was perfectly natural, him being Hector's man and thereby showing that allegiance.

Would that not be right?

Anne the Pleater :ootd:

Golly's kilt was Cameron of Erracht, his old regimental kilt.

[macwilkin]

Golly's kilt was Cameron of Erracht, his old regimental kilt.

I'm not so sure about that; I seem to remember him wearing a MacDonald tartan kilt in several episodes. Later he did wear a Mackenzie of Seaforth.

T.

[Macman]

The Scotsman, thank you for quoting Dunakin. I was going to get my copy of his little book out tonight.
I subscribe to his point of view, for the most part (I wear my clan's tartans and some district tartans). This is how I was brought up to think of clan tartans, and I think there are a lot of Scots who still think the same way. My copy of Dunakin's book is from 1960, and you can see from what he was saying that they were having the same issues then that we do now.
Dunakin was also pretty clear further on in the section that anyone could wear any tartan they wanted to, just that there was no "entitlement" (there's that word again) if, for example, one wore a tartan for sentimental reasons (in Dunakin's example, if Granny was a MacGregor before she married).
Yes, there are some who think that you are not allowed to wear another clan's tartan, but I think most of us on this board believe in the freedom to wear whatever you want, even though some of us choose to follow different sets of guidelines for ourselves. We all have different standards that we choose to follow. I often read on XMTS how members will only wear a tartan to which they have a connection, and they define "connection" in their own personal way. That's fine. I guess I'm just agreeing with The Scotsman (I think) that there was (and is, for some) a time when the "rules" as spelled out by Dunakin were followed by most kilt-wearers.

[ForresterModern]

To return to the OP question with another option, if your family name does not have either its own clan tartan, or is a sept of another clan and therefore "entitled" to wear that clan's tartan (let us not quibble about my use of the word entitled), beside choosing a tartan of one of the other scottish ancestors name, or wearing a universal or district tartan, or choosing a tartan that appeals to you simply on appearence, or finding one that may be somehow related to your club membership/profession/military association, you could always start a new tradition for YOUR clan by designing, registering, and having made up into a kilt your own tartan, by using any of the several tartan generators out there on the web, thereby insuring that you get something that visually appeals to you, includes the colors you prefer, and by naming it after your own last name, begin a new patrilineal heritage for your family and offspring to enjoy in future generations. No reason you can't have your own tartan designed and named by and after yourself.

Takes all issue of rights and entitlement out of it, and would be easy to explain its origin, and I doubt you would ever find someone outside your own family who might recognize it on the street. Start your own tradition. And wear it with pride. And well.


jeff

[MacLowlife]

But what if it is ugly?




I am sorry not to be sufficiently reverent on this topic. I do agree, designing ones own is a fine idea and, as discussed elsewhere, is probably not much more expensive than having any other non-stock tartan woven by certain mills. To my stereotypically thrifty Scots mind ( Sandy McThrift brand foods, Scrooge McDuck, etc) it would be better to wear the Gubmint tartan and keep going.