"Rules" for wearing family tartan

[M. A. C. Newsome]

While it will no doubt make little difference to the tartan anarchists, for what it is worth, I will quote a passage from Charles Mackinnon of Dunakin, who is himself a Hebridean chieftain, historian, and author on several books relating to tartan, Highland dress and Scottish clans:

"First of all, a word on the rules. The Lord Lyon is an excellent authority, and he points out that name alone is the index of clan membership. Anyone who does not bear a clan surname should wear a district tartan, if a suitable one exists, or else the Jacobite or Caledonia tartan. It is not correct to wear the tartan of one's mother's clan unless one assumes her name. Margaret O. MacDougall, F.S.A. Scot., editing Robert Bain's The Clans and Tartans of Scotland, agreed: "It has frequently been claimed that Scots who do not bear a clan or sept surname may wear the tartan of their mother's clan or sept providing she possessed a clan surname. Although this practice is widespread it is incorrect. Clan membership rests upon name and it follows that if no clan or sept surname is borne, there can be no claim to the tartan of any clan....." These rulings are perfectly correct so far as they go. It is a genealogical principle that a person can only belong to one family. People with double-barrelled surnames technically belong to no family. It is an odd fact that the double or triple surname should ever have been regarded as an indication of social superiority, for it is a sign of genealogical degeneracy and is looked on askance in the courts of chivalry, where it sometimes causes a great deal of trouble. No Highland chief's heir can be awarded the armorial bearings of the chef du nom, or be recognized officially as the head of a name, unless he adopts the chiefly surname alone.....In short, because clan tartans are basically clan cognisances, only the clansmen can possibly have a "right" to them.....If, for example, the grandson of a MacGregor clanswoman wants to wear that tartan, he is perfectly free to do so. He has, of course, no "rights." That does not mean he cannot wear it, but merely that he wears it for sentimental family reasons rather than as a member of clan MacGregor. What he cannot do is claim a "right" to grannie's tartan."

I have Mackinnon's book on my shelf, as well. I also have books on my shelf from people with equally impressive sounding nomikers who express opinions on wearing tartan that are at odds with Mackinnon's.

The Hon. Stuart Ruadri Erskine, writing in The Kilt and How to Wear It (1901), quotes correspondence from Campbell of Islay in 1882 stating that his tailor (also a Campbell) "knew nothing of clan tartans," neither did his piper, a Mure, and neither did he.

Erskine himself advocates for the use of generic, non-named tartans (what he calls "hill checks") for general wear, reserving clan tartans for those occasions where one wishes to represent the clan, such as Highland Games and the like.

Erskine had his opinion. Mackinnon had his. Neither represents the totality of the tartan tradition, and neither should dictate how we dress today.

I have also a book on tartan in which the author flatly states that if one is caught wearing a tartan in Scotland to which he is not "entitled" he is subject to a 25 pound fine! Of course this is entirely false!

One must look at how tartan was regarded over the course of history to get some context in which we can place these opinions. For example, Mackinnon makes reference to the Lord Lyon as "an excellent authority," which he is -- over heraldry. The problem is that tartan is not heraldic and has never fallen under the Lord Lyon's jurisdiction. Tartan is a textile, a fashion, not a regulated heraldic device.

Mackinnon's opinion that only one who has the surname has an "entitlement" to the tartan, while one without the surname is free to wear it but cannot claim "entitlement" in essence renders the whole idea meaningless. What on earth does it mean to claim some individuals have a special entitlement to a tartan, which he then admits that anyone else is free to wear? In effect it means that there is no such entitlement at all; the notion that there is serves only to "puff up" the man who actually bears the clan surname. It creates the illusion that he is somehow more "authentically Scottish" than the person with a sept name.

These kinds of opinions, which really have no basis on actual law or custom, only lead to confusion -- and we have far too much of that already when it comes to tartan. And so you have the author of the book alluded to above putting in print that visitors to Scotland who wear the "wrong" tartan will be subject to fine. I've seen a clan website that states only those bearing the clan surname are permitted to wear the clan tartan, while those bearing sept names are permitted to wear only the hunting tartan. I've heard of a kilt shop refuse to sell a client a kilt because he wanted his mother's tartan, not his father's (true story, the gentlemen ended up getting his kilt from us).

You can see how it easily gets out of hand. So I will readily admit that you can find authoritative sounding sources which speak of having the "right" to a tartan. But I maintain that in the overall history of tartan tradition, this has been the opinion of a rather vocal minority and has never had the support of law behind it.

[Brian K]

Mackinnon's opinion that only one who has the surname has an "entitlement" to the tartan, while one without the surname is free to wear it but cannot claim "entitlement" in essence renders the whole idea meaningless. What on earth does it mean to claim some individuals have a special entitlement to a tartan, which he then admits that anyone else is free to wear? In effect it means that there is no such entitlement at all; the notion that there is serves only to "puff up" the man who actually bears the clan surname. It creates the illusion that he is somehow more "authentically Scottish" than the person with a sept name.

Hmmm...there ought to be a prize. Mackinnon seems to have solved the age old dilemma about how one can eat one's cake and have it, too!

Seriously, I have to agree with Matt. I am not a scholar, but to say that only certain people have an entitlement or a right to a particular tartan but that anyone can wear it, but without the entitlement or right, is sophistry of the worst and most transparent kind. If both statements are indeed true then the entitlement is meaningless.

As for me, my Scottish lineage comes to me through my mother. Her father was a McConnell and her mother an Anderson. I would not hesitate to wear either tartan. I may not have either of the names but I have some of the blood of each. If that doesn't "entitle" me....oh well

Regards,

Brian

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Your position brings to mind the image of an American sports fan, dressed in a jersey of his favorite team. The sports fan isn't actually a member of the team - in most cases he has never even attended the college that the team plays for, but he likes to wear the jersey because (for whatever reason) he feels some sense of identity with that particular ball team, even though he isn't an actual member.

This is actually a more appropriate analogy than you might realize. There is evidence to support the theory that "named tartans" first arose among the Highland regiments. It makes a lot of sense -- the military being dressed in uniforms, which by definition must be uniform (all the same). So the soldiers would be outfitted in the same tartan, which would be the named regimental tartan. Many of the earliest references we have to regulated and named tartan designs are for military regiments.

Now, many of these regiments were closely affiliated with one or more clans. Think of the Black Watch's association with the Campbells, Grants and Munros. Think of the Seaforth's association with clan MacKenzie. The Gordon Highlanders have an obvious association with the Gordon clan.

And the "clan tartans" for each of the above named examples just so happen to have originally been designed for military use by the respective regiments (or, in the case of the Grants and Munros, the hunting tartan for the clan).

My theory is that these tartans came to be regarded as "clan tartans" because they were being worn by people in the clan outside of the military, most likely in a show of support and solidarity for their boys in uniform.

In other words, much like a sports fan may wear the colors of his favorite team, even though he is not actually on the roster.

[BoldHighlander]

My theory is that these tartans came to be regarded as "clan tartans" because they were being worn by people in the clan outside of the military, most likely in a show of support and solidarity for their boys in uniform.

In other words, much like a sports fan may wear the colors of his favorite team, even though he is not actually on the roster.

And Matt, I would add to this theory returning veterans who wore their old regimental kilts as everyday wear out of pride of service & the prestige that came with having served.

One such example is Gregor MacGregor of Balquihidder, Perthshire (below), aged 84, a veteran of the 42nd Highlanders & "habitual kilt wearer" painted about 1812 (though I'll admit, in his case he's wearing a tartan other than Black Watch).

[creagdhubh]

And Matt, I would add to this theory returning veterans who wore their old regimental kilts as everyday wear out of pride of service & the prestige that came with having served.

One such example is Gregor MacGregor of Balquihidder, Perthshire (below), aged 84, a veteran of the 42nd Highlanders & "habitual kilt wearer" painted about 1812 (though I'll admit, in his case he's wearing a tartan other than Black Watch).

What an odd illustration. Kind of creeping me out to be honest!

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I am in complete agreement with you on how the notion of named clan tartans first came about, as my own research on the matter has led me to draw the same conclusion. In addition to the Gordon, Campbell and MacKenzie tartans arising from regimental setts, I believe that the tartans worn by the Fraser Highlanders, the Atholl Highlanders, and the MacLeod Highlanders also led to their being worn by the clans Fraser, Murray and MacLeod. John Mackenzie Lord MacLeod may be responsible for the MacKenzies and the MacLeods wearing what was originally the same tartan - the Government sett with buff and red overstripes, worn by the 78th (Seaforth) Highlanders. The tartan worn as hunting Roberston seems to be based on this sett as well.

Yes, I only named but a few of the more prominent examples. The ones you mentioned are other good examples. The tartan known today as Robertson Hunting was originally designed for the Loyal Clan Donnachaidh Volunteers when they were raised in 1803.

In 1816 the chief of the clan regarded this sett as the true clan tartan and submitted it as such to the Highland Society of London for their collection.

[Brian K]

Your position brings to mind the image of an American sports fan, dressed in a jersey of his favorite team. The sports fan isn't actually a member of the team - in most cases he has never even attended the college that the team plays for, but he likes to wear the jersey because (for whatever reason) he feels some sense of identity with that particular ball team, even though he isn't an actual member.

Well, I think your analogy is inexact or inapt at best. As a Yankee fan I have worn various articles of clothing with a Yankees logo on them for years, but I have never worn a jersey because that's something you wear if you're playing the game. I might change my mind at sometime, at least I might wear a reproduction of a vintage jersey (if I could afford one!).

With a tartan I feel a bit differently. In the post you referenced I mentioned the ancestry of my maternal grandparents. I think that is different. I do not wear Yankee apparel trying to pose as anything other than what I am - a fan.
I don't do it because Grandpa or Nana played for the team or because I am trying to look like a player. Grandpa and Nana were, however a McConnell and an Anderson and their blood runs in my veins. I think makes it acceptable for me to wear the MacConnell tartan (a very recent one) or one of the general Anderson clan tartans (from the early 19th century) whether or not I have what you feel is a proper "entitlement" or "right." Both of them, along with my great-grandfather Anderson (the finest gentleman I've ever known), were powerful influences in my life and I would do it to honor the three of them.

I would probably not wear a tartan of some other family or clan (but I have absolutely no problem with someone who wears a tartan just because they like it as long as they are not trying to commit some sort of fraud), so if I wanted something different from one of those two I would probably wear one of my own designs (a couple hundred or so at Scotweb) as I have seen few "universal" tartans I feel a connection to or that I like very much. Perhaps one of the few Masonic tartans that exist, but I'm not entirely thrilled by the ones I've seen.

I still think you're trying to have it both ways. If there is a genuine right or entitlement it means nothing of you can't prevent the unentitled from trespassing on your rights.

[robthehiker]

It is a common problem in venues other than tartan. In heraldry, for instance, coats of arms are borne by individuals, not entire families as is sometimes misunderstood. The rightful heir to a coat of arms is the direct senior male in the line of descent. Say that grandfather was an armiger, having been granted arms. His eldest son would be the one to inherit them exactly as grandfather bore them, and then his eldest son after him. Other brothers would have to have arms matriculated that bore some difference, such as a distinguishing border or a mark of cadence; so no one, except the direct senior heir male line has a right or entitlement to bear the undifferenced ancestral arms. Yet, it is often the case that unscrupulous bucket shops will sell coats of arms printed out on certificates or painted on plaques to unsuspecting individuals based on nothing more than similarity of name. These individuals, not knowing any better, will often proudly display what they think to be "their" ancestral arms. They may have them engraved on a gold ring, wear them as a blazer badge, have them printed on their personal stationary or calling cards. For the most part there is nothing that anyone can do about it. In Scotland one would, if they hired a lawyer, have legal recourse by taking a case before Lyon Court, but for most of the rest of the world, there is nothing anyone can do to stop these unentitled individuals from bearing coats of arms that do not properly belong to them.

Now I am not suggesting that tartans should be legally protected so as to prevent unentitled individuals from wearing them. Tartans (unlike coats of arms) are usually intended to be worn by more than one individual at a time, most being intended for entire clans or names; yet the situation of entitlement vs. capability is almost identical. Anyone is capable of assuming a coat of arms, but not all those who assume a particular coat of arms are actually entitled to bear them.

I completely misunderstood coats of arms before I came to XMarks. Luckily I was always too cheap to buy one of those "family" versions!

The Scotsman, are you by any chance an armiger? (I hope it's not rude to ask?)

[robthehiker]

In a manner of speaking. My paternal line of ancestry is armigerous going back several hundreds of years, although the arms were never recorded in Lyon Register, so the arms have no official recognition from a heraldic authority, though they exist as a longstanding tradition.

Thanks for sharing. As an aside, you've reminded me that I've been putting off researching my family tree!