X Marks the Scot - An on-line community of kilt wearers.
-
12th February 09, 09:46 AM
#1
Although some military tartans are now used as clan tartans, MacKenzie (ie: Seaforth) was certainly a military tartan before it was accepted as a "clan" tartan. The bulk of historical evidence points to the fact that prior to 1778 (the date of the raising of the Seaforth Highlanders) MacKenzie tartan was red, not green. That over the years the Seaforth Highlanders tartan came to be adopted by M'Kenzies as their own is not in dispute; but to suggest that Seaforth is a variant of MacKenzie is really putting the cart before the horse!
The same could be said of Gordon tartan which is a military tartan adopted as a clan tartan, but which is nothing like earlier specimens of the "clan" Gordon tartan.
As far as the green waistband is concerned, I rather doubt many civilian kilts (in any tartan) were supplied to customers with a built-in "army surplus" look. While an ex-serviceman would have no objection to wearing the kilt he was de-mobbed in, a civilian would probably insist on something less MODish.
Based on the photograph the gentleman either bought a kilt at the Leith Army Stores for a fiver, or served in the Seaforths and continued to wear his kilt after leaving the army.
-
-
12th February 09, 11:48 AM
#2
 Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown
... but to suggest that Seaforth is a variant of MacKenzie is really putting the cart before the horse!...
...Based on the photograph the gentleman either bought a kilt at the Leith Army Stores for a fiver, or served in the Seaforths and continued to wear his kilt after leaving the army...

I agree with all of that. I don't suggest the Seaforth Sett has always been a variant; but that it is now. The Regiment no longer exists so there is no horse, only the cart remains. The sett continues through the claim the Mackenzies have on it. It was Seaforth Highlanders without dispute but it's now Mackenzie Modern Seaforth Sett. It's developed.
As to how the gentleman aquired the kilt. Yes either of those two reasons are plausible!
Anyway. I'm only 'avvin' a bit laugh and a dangle here and I'm probably out of my depth. What do I know, I'm English ... I'll creep back in the corner now and shut-up.
-
-
12th February 09, 01:46 PM
#3
 Originally Posted by English Bloke
I agree with all of that. I don't suggest the Seaforth Sett has always been a variant; but that it is now. The Regiment no longer exists so there is no horse, only the cart remains. The sett continues through the claim the Mackenzies have on it. It was Seaforth Highlanders without dispute but it's now Mackenzie Modern Seaforth Sett. It's developed.
As to how the gentleman aquired the kilt. Yes either of those two reasons are plausible!
Anyway. I'm only 'avvin' a bit laugh and a dangle here and I'm probably out of my depth. What do I know, I'm English ... I'll creep back in the corner now and shut-up. 
As long as an "auld Seaforth" lives, then the regiment will live on. The tartan will always be Mackenzie of Seaforth.
T.
-
Similar Threads
-
By emeraldfalconoflight in forum General Kilt Talk
Replies: 9
Last Post: 26th January 07, 06:29 AM
-
By wolfgang in forum Kilt Advice
Replies: 10
Last Post: 27th February 05, 06:41 AM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks