Diluted tartan?

[Ryan Ross]

I could have worded my statement/question better. It wasnt directed at people so much as the makers of all these tartans. The city of Amarillo, TX. has a tartan for goodness sakes. It started as a Scottish thing but now everybody/everything has its own tartan. There is even a German heritage tartan(not to offend any German kilt wearers)! I wonder if its lost it meaning. I still caint see myself wearing anything but a Maccormick or Maclaine tartan.

The original point of tartan was for fashion (with the added possibility of camouflage, in some cases?), and tartan was seen as an art form. Tartans had no grander meaning above what they looked like, and often times, a weaver would make up a unique tartan pattern every time they would wind the warp afresh.

So in a way, all of these new patterns are really going back to the origins of tartan as an art form- creativity. Yes, people tend to give names to their new setts now, but that does not detract from the fact that folks are designing tartans based on asthetics again, rather than always going back to stock designs.

On a personal note, I didn't design a tartan for myself to seem or feel "special", neither because I wanted to be "cool" or different. I did it because I wanted a tartan with a certain color scheme and sett, and there was not already a tartan that suited my fancy. Also, at the time my tartan was registered, it really did not cost me any extra to do so, so I had nothing to lose.

That's my take on the whole tartan business, for what it's worth.

[kc8ufv]

Heck, I want to see a Martian tartan!

Look at my avi. I know it's not registered (will STA even register such a simple pattern?), but my UK Original is in the Martian tartan

[Mike_Oettle]

While the traditional tartans are great for those who feel entitled to wear them (yes, there is a clan tartan I can wear), I started designing them to make up for the dearth of tartans suitable for South Africa.
So far I have turned out 120 designs.
If I get the green light for one I have based on our national flag, I plan to see about getting it woven.
At least it ought to sell, unlike the ones I have designed for my own family, which will have to be limited runs.
Regards,
Mike

[Morris at Heathfield]

Consider the following tartans:


Regent? I'll bet that one has a short shelf-life.

Wellington? Named after an Irish guy with an English dukedom.

Robin Hood? Named after a legendary figure. An English legendary figure.

Meg Merrilies? Named after a fictional character.


It may be getting "worse", but the dilution has existed since the beginning of named Scottish tartans. (And there was a time before tartans were named, and a time before they were Scottish as well.)

[Mike_Oettle]

Well, Heathfield, bear in mind that these names were all given by a Lowland mill to tartans that sometimes had different names when sold in Scotland.
Robin Hood is a colour variation on Rob Roy.
Meg Merrilees certainly was a fictional character. But the tartan is nowadays often worn by people with that surname.
Wellington was a popular character during his long life. In fact, there is a part of the city I live in that bears the name Walmer, in honour of Walmer Castle, in Kent, the home Wellington occupied when in office as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports.
Irish/English or not, he commanded Scots, and was held in high regard in Scotland.
The Durham tartan had another (Scottish) name when sold in Scotland.
Regards,
Mike

[Slowburn]

The greatest sign of respect is duplication, or something to that effect. I think the history is dubious enough but ultimately good for wool producers and the future of tartan production as a whole.

[seanachie]

Hello,
I just feel that tartan is a Scottish thing and wearing one other than your family's colors is disrespectful.? Anybody else think like this? I would never discourage anyone from doing as they wish, this is a personal idea.

I have no Scottish ancestry, but still have family in the west of Ireland. I also like wearing the kilt and for quite awhile stuck to wearing solid color kilts. I was actually encouraged by other kilt enthusiasts to try some of the tartans. I have largely stuck to universal, such as the Isle of Skye (which I really like) and the Caledonia. I recently acquired a kilt in MacPherson, and it was happenstance. I wished to order MacBeth, which has strong association to faith, and the kilt maker could not obtain the tartan in time for an upcoming vacation due to stock at the mill. I ordered the MacPherson because it was available and I really like the tartan. Now if someone feels I have shown disrespect, I'm sorry. What they can be assured of is that I would never show overt disrespect by being drunk and acting the fool wearing it. Nor would I wear it in some inappropriate manner or do anything I think would have a negative reaction. I also try to be a "kilt advocate" when people comment on it. And so taking off from another comment, I am comfortable and happy wearing it.

[Slowburn]

You can think of it as buying a real expensive travel our team fan shirt. You buy one when you visit disneyland why nothing the isle of skye out the isle of man.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Hello,
I have been looking at a lot of different tartans and have about decided that the whole meaning of it has been watered down...

Hmm. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say "watered down", given that not all tartans have a clan significance even though they may be synonymous with a specific "corporate group", ie: Leatherneck Tartan. But I would agree if you said misinterpreted. Tartan, in the Highland sense, has come to signify allegiance to a specific group-- one's clan, or regiment, for example. Along with the Highland interpretation of the significance of tartan comes certain cultural "rules" which the Highlander understands and follows.

I just feel that tartan is a Scottish thing and wearing one other than your family's colors is disrespectful.

Since, as Lord Lyon Sir Thomas Innes of Learney pointed out, it is a genealogical fact that one can not belong to more than one family, a Highlander will inevitably wear the tartan associated with his surname to the virtual exclusion of the tartan of any other clan to which he may be related. This, however, is not always the case in North America where, say, a Mr. Olson's Scottish ancestry is likely to rest on the claim to distant McAncestors, some of whom may have been dead for centuries. Based on this tenuous relationship, and the lack of a sympathetic understanding of Highland cultural traditions (the rules, if you will) Mr. Olson exerts his "right" to as many tartans as he has McAncestors. Meanwhile, a Highlander with as many-- if not more-- McAncestors contents himself with the tartan related to his surname, and no other.

I suppose there is nothing really wrong with Mr. Olson's intent, as he is merely trying to celebrate his ancestry, although I fail to understand why someone with a Scandinavian surname would feel compelled to embrace a "foreign" culture. It's rather as if I were to discover that great-great-great aunt Olivia had run off to Constantinople and become the third wife of Osmond Pasha. As deliciously interesting as I might find this bit of 1840's family scandal, I somehow rather doubt I would be moved to the wearing of a fez and the smoking of a hooka to memorialize their alliance.

No, I rather feel that if one is Scottish, or is claiming--even tenuously--to be Scottish, then one needs to follow the cultural rules of the Highlander and stick to a single tartan. Is it disrespectful to do otherwise? That's hard to say-- But if the ultimate reason given for wearing a tartan, other than that which is associated with one's surname, is "I'm an American and I'll wear what I want", well then I think the answer is certainly boorish, if not downright disrespectful.

[davidlpope]

My thoughts on this subject have slowly evolved. I think that an understanding of "tradition" as a fluid thing is an important part of consideration of this topic. What I mean by that is that what is considered firmly "traditional" now may not have started out that way and may not be "historical".

For example, history shows that the earliest tartans were "fashion" designs, did not specify any "clan" association, and were worn almost exclusively by Highlanders, not Scots in general. After the publication of the Vestiarium Scotium, King George IV's visit to Edinburgh in 1822, and Queen Victoria's interest in all things Scottish, things changed. Tartans became "imbued with meaning" leading to the well-accepted "tradition" of each clan having a specific tartan (or tartans, i.e. hunting, dress, etc.). This extended to Lowland and Borders families who probably wouldn't have been caught dead in a kilt a hundred years prior!

The notion of clan membership, likewise, experienced a cultural change. Originally, members of a clan were those people who looked towards a particular clan chief for leadership and protection, lived on his lands, followed him in war, etc., regardless of the surname they bore. This is really a practical issue: if everyone on the Isle of Harris bore the surname "MacLeod", then there would be no purpose in having a surname in the first place. The tendency would then be to determine alternate surnames to distinguish one person from another- Calum Mor (big Malcolm) from Calum Beag (little Malcolm) from Calum Dubh (dark-haired Malcolm) from Calum Gobhain (Malcolm the Smith). So, Malcolm Smith's ggg-grandson and Malcolm Little's ggg-grandson may have no clue that they are actually "MacLeods", unless they can trace their lineage back to MacLeod lands.

Now "clan membership" is generally determined by bearing a particular surname, or being descended on the maternal side [e.g. the Earl of Errol is chief of his clan through descent from his mother, although he took her surname] from one who bore a "clan surname". Ultimately, the determiner of who is a "clansman" is the Chief of the particular Clan.

All that to say this- my digging around has convinced me that the current and most widely accepted "tradition" in the Highlands is that one allies oneself with one particular clan [usually, but not always, as a result of family connection, most usually connected to the surname one bears], and sticks with that one clan's tartans. Failing a clan connection, one usually wears the tartan of one's regiment (if you served in a kilted regiment) or a district tartan one has a connection to. Failing that, one might wear a generic tartan (Hunting Stewart, Caledonia, etc.) or a fashion tartan.

As an American, I think it's reasonable and proper for us to have our own district (i.e. state) tartans for those who don't have a clan connection. Likewise, I think that it is reasonable for our branches of the military to each have a tartan. If wearing a clan tartan is a means of professing allegience to a particular clan and clan chief, though, it doesn't seem genuine to wear the tartan of multiple clans, despite genealogical ties to those clans. Of course, not everyone accepts the supposition that wearing a clan tartan is a means of professing allegience. Ultimately for me it's a bit of a theoretical exercise, since it seems very rude to take a man to task for his choice of clothes/kilt, despite my internal feelings of disapproval.

Cordially,

David