Can I wear my wife's family too?

[Newfoundlander]

I am very sorry, but, no they are not. They are American/Australian/French/Russian/Canadian/English/whatevers with Scots roots.

I say this with the greatest of respect to all and mean absolutely no offence whatsoever.

I couldn't agree more. Though I am proud of my Scot and Irish roots, and I think it good to be aware and connected to a persons "deeper roots" shall we say, I definitely don't understand when someone of a given nationality claims to be another. I'm a Newfoundlander, born and bred, from heart to bones. Some branches of my family have been there for nearly half a millennia. I'd never trade that away or try and undermine it for the world.

Now, does that really have much bearing on if I'd wear my wife's tartan? Not really. I must agree I'm in Jock's camp here. I personally wouldn't wear my wife's tartan (Anderson), even thought she wears mine occasionally (Forrester or MacDonald, different family sides). She also wears her Anderson and Stewart tartans as well for her family sides, which she also looks quite becoming in.

Since there's no real "rules" about who can wear what tartan, and if your wife and her family wouldn't be upset by you wearing it, than I say go ahead.

[davidlpope]

This is going a LONG way around the bend to say, I'll wear what I wear, sir...with my own reasons and most likely not give a fig what another might see as "proper".

My observation is that this type of sentiment is what most strongly identifies us as Americans. Any Scottish/Irish/Italian/German/etc. ancestry that we might tout is a far distant second when it comes to what actually informs our sensibilities.

I think, though, that there is a trend to "Americanize" the motivations and actions of Scots long-dead (Bruce, Wallace, Charles Edward Stuart) in order to assert that in some way "Scottish-Americans" hold the "true legacy" of those they descend from. "Wrong but Wromantic," as Messrs. Sellar and Yeatman would say...

I also think that most Americans tend to hold views very strongly, regardless of the level of analysis, or lack thereof, that went into forming them. I can only shake my head when recent transplants to the South (one from Hawaii, no less) start affixing confederate flag license plates to their automobiles. I think that indignation stemming from clan feuds falls into the same category. It's almost as if folks try to "legitimize themselves" by adopting the supposed "moral outrage" of the group they desperately want to be part of. Paradoxically, though, this is the very sort of sentiment that marks one as "out-group".

[Detroitpete]

[QUOTE=davidlpope;986527]My observation is that this type of sentiment is what most strongly identifies us as Americans. Any Scottish/Irish/Italian/German/etc. ancestry that we might tout is a far distant second when it comes to what actually informs our sensibilities.

I also think that most Americans tend to hold views very strongly, regardless of the level of analysis, or lack thereof, that went into forming them. QUOTE]

Interesting generalizations here. What most strongly identifies me as an American is most likely the fact that I was born here and speak an Americanized form of the English language. Perhaps, what might furthermore identfy me or more accurately define me as an American is my military service for said country. The ancestry, and the family names I was touting is a simple fact, and in no way comes in distant second concerning my Scottish roots. My statement was made to explain how I would (Yes--for me only, as stated in my post) make my decision.

However, this has always been based on a comprehensive analysis of my genealogical background, which thanks to better technology and access, I've been able to dig into more deeply. My statement about not giving a fig--is based mostly on the fact that I am well satisfied with my research.

Perhaps we're not all knee-jerk, dim witted cowboys who hold to views strongly regardless of how informed or uninformed they are.

I think we have an interesting continuum of opinions here regarding, what for me is an interpretation of the concept of 'proper'.

[Burly Brute]

Ya know gentlemen, a simple "no" or "yes" would have sufficed! haha. Jk. I like reading the discussions you all have.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Hmmmm....Perhaps the issues regarding the MacLarens and MacGregors with respect to "Rob Roy's" grave have been settled then?

In a very real sense, yes, the matter is settled, although that will have little bearing on the emotions that fuel a minority interest in arguing the facts.

If one is of Scottish ancestry then how could they possibly be considered as attempting to be "more Scottish than the Scots"? Aren't they just as Scot as the 'Scots'?

As Jock pointed out, those living/born in Scotland define themselves as Scots, and that's how I chose to use the word, in the same way that when I was a wee lad someone born in the far-flung reaches of the Empire was "British", regardless of where his parents were born.

I have an 'equal' ancestral link to both MacLaren and Bruce. Should I flip a coin?

Lots of us have equal Scottish ancestral links-- my Mother is a McBain-- however, the common practice is to adopt the clan-- and tartan-- of the nearest ancestral connection, with preference generally being given to the male line of descent.

Now that being the case, at least amongst the Scots, I can appreciate the fact that those who are Scottish tend to often feel the need to be inclusive of all their ancestors, which is fine. There is probably not a Scot drawing breath who can not tell you to whom he is related, often going back centuries to find the appropriate ancestor to "shine up" if the occasion demands it. He is, however, none-the-less bemused by the fact that those of Scottish descent sometimes exhibit this same familial pride by wearing a plethora of different tartans. Something a Scot just wouldn't do.

Yep--I must just be foolish. (I actually think if they want to end all the bikkering over Rob, they should dig the lad up and do the DNA test)

It'll never happen. Scots enjoy arguing waaaay too much to ever resolve the argument!

[Detroitpete]

In a very real sense, yes, the matter is settled, although that will have little bearing on the emotions that fuel a minority interest in arguing the facts.

It'll never happen. Scots enjoy arguing waaaay too much to ever resolve the argument!

Thanks for the chuckle MoR.

[creagdhubh]

Thanks for the chuckle MoR.

Precisely!

[kc8ufv]

It'll never happen. Scots enjoy arguing waaaay too much to ever resolve the argument!

That's why when I see McSomething on a divorce file at work I leave extra space on the shelf.

[Danaidh]

I'm an American with geneology documentation that includes Dunbar, Hastings, and even to King David of Scotland. I spent months trying to figure out which clan I could approach to offically belong to, which tartan then should I choose, etc. It was all too much and I discovered I didn't need any of it. That there's so many great tartan choices, I could've and did just pick one I liked. I guess as an American I can get away with that, but my point is: us Americans owe so much to the Scots that it's okay to wear almost any tartan. To me, it's all about the kilt itself. It's not like I'm able to recognize every clan by their tartan. Now, if they wore patches on their back like some motorcycle clubs do, I might learn to recognize them.

[tripleblessed]

'latch on to a lot of romantic-- if that's the word-- misconceptions....... I have this to say: Grow Up!"

I, too, have noticed a lot of romantic misconceptions over the years. You'll find this hard to believe, but I actually have known people so naive as to believe that the ability to quote chapter and verse of the "official" version of any war means they actually know what really happened. Facts may be available, but that's frequently a different thing than what happened. My gg- grandfather,who died at James Island in the "Late Unpleasantness", was the grandson of a Revolutionary War veteran who was the 6th generation in North America. I think I might have valid insight into whether or not there is discussion and strong feeling on that most UN-civil war mentioned. Fuss is made, just not with anyone who arrived in the last 125 years. That's pointless.

I, too, had relatives on both sides at Drummossie, though direct ancestors is unlikely, and certainly not proven. I will only say about that day that I respect all who stand up for what they believe. I find it exceeding sad that both sides on that field were there because they believed they had the right/duty to decide for other human individuals how they should be allowed to feel, to believe, to dress. To that situation , I return to the quote from a hero of mine on a forum I visit.


"But stop all this stuff, okay?

'Cause it really makes you look foolish.

MoR
(whose ancestor survived at Drumossie Moor, and whose Godfather's ancestor led Pearson's Horse at the same battle)"

Next, someone will be trying to convince me that Columbus discovered America, or that a Sinclair was the first European to visit same.