Can I wear my wife's family too?

[xman]

Sorry for the repeat a post but this was addressed to Xman. A good member.

To say what you did say would indicate to me that you did not take the time to type your answer to an honest question. You have the right to think this but I surprised you say it in print. Sorry but I do not agree with your statement.
I answer with your own saying.

"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher ... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot."

I assume you were having a wee Dram and would hope you did NOT think out your answer.
A wee dram is always good to show the true man...

Kindest regards
Seven oaks.

I guess a formal apology is in order for not being quite clear enough. Please review my former answer here: http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...tml#post985625

[Tobus]

I hope that answers your questions...

It has taken me a day or so to process all of that information, but yes, I believe it does. Thank you very much for the explanation!

This leads to a couple more questions, if I may.

Are such clan affiliations still followed to the letter in modern-day Scotland? I would think that the present social standards which lead to a lot of relocating, intermarriage, etc., would cause such a system to be virtually impossible to keep track of. For example, a husband joining his wife's clan and fathering children with his name, leading to a 'new sept' within the clan.

If this is truly the case, then why is there still such a general attitude, even amongst Scots, that one can only wear the tartan associated with their surname?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

It has taken me a day or so to process all of that information, but yes, I believe it does. Thank you very much for the explanation!

This leads to a couple more questions, if I may.

Are such clan affiliations still followed to the letter in modern-day Scotland? I would think that the present social standards which lead to a lot of relocating, intermarriage, etc., would cause such a system to be virtually impossible to keep track of. For example, a husband joining his wife's clan and fathering children with his name, leading to a 'new sept' within the clan.

I think the best answer to this is that those Scots who are active in their clan tend to follow traditional forms, whereas those who have little or no interest in their clan don't. Another aspect of this is that some chiefs are very strict in defining who is, or is not, a member of their clan, while others take little or no interest in it at all. It really is a matter of individual cases, and no broad statement on the subject can be made.

That said, the one thing Scots seem to enjoy as much as bickering is the keeping of records, and most, if not all, clan chiefs maintain some sort of record of clan members. That being the case if someone applies to be "adopted" into a clan he/she will be duly enrolled in the records and, thus, fairly easy to keep track of, should the need arise.

As far as the establishment of a new sept is concerned, this could certainly happen. Generally speaking it would probably take four generations, and would require five distinct branches of the family all descended in the male line from the original ancestor (the fella that married into the clan; Lars Larson in my other post ) to form a recognizable "gilfine" or sub-branch of the family (ie: a sept). Depending on the mood of the time the clan chief or Lyon might extend the "requirement" to nine distinct branches of the family (the classic derbhfine) before a family would be officially recognized as a distinct sept of a clan.

If this is truly the case, then why is there still such a general attitude, even amongst Scots, that one can only wear the tartan associated with their surname?

Pure ignorance, would be my guess; more charitably I would chalk it up to the fact that very few people outside of the Lyon court actually understand how these things work. On the other side of the coin, many people have a very proprietary attitude when it comes to their name and are naturally wary when they perceive an interloper trespassing on their birthright.

Of course, what they overlook is that once someone (Lars Larson) is properly received into "their" clan the clan tartan is indelibly associated with his surname just as much as it is with someone who bears the general clan surname from birth.

[Jock Scot]

I suspect it is also a combination of "its the way its always been done", after all if you are a MacLeod, for example, why on earth would you want to wear another tartan? Don't forget that Scotland is full of MacSomethings so there has always been a family/Clan "tartan police" present, lurking quietly in the back ground! Peer pressure in other words.

And cost, traditional kilts(don't forget there were no other choices until recently and most present day Scots are still unaware of these choices) are not and never have been a cheap purchase and often well beyond what many a Scot could afford.Which, perhaps, also explains why the "one kilt attitude" prevails and I think may also explain why the wearing the kilt for "special occasions syndrome" holds sway in Scotland.

[Tobus]

Excellent, thank you both.

[Spartan Tartan]

And cost, traditional kilts(don't forget there were no other choices until recently and most present day Scots are still unaware of these choices) are not and never have been a cheap purchase and often well beyond what many a Scot could afford.Which, perhaps, also explains why the "one kilt attitude" prevails and I think may also explain why the wearing the kilt for "special occasions syndrome" holds sway in Scotland.

Well said Jock. I am most certainly NOT from Scotland, but I couldn't afford multiple kilts and certainly like to keep mine very nice for special occasions.

[Burly Brute]

I blame the Dress Act of 1746 as to why more of the world is not kilted. On the other hand, repeal of said act did generate a revival, correct? Or am I wrong? ....Oh gosh, I can feel even further derailment already! *cringe*

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I blame the Dress Act of 1746 as to why more of the world is not kilted. On the other hand, repeal of said act did generate a revival, correct? Or am I wrong? ....Oh gosh, I can feel even further derailment already! *cringe*

Actually, the defeat of the Jacobites probably preserved the kilt.

Suppose Bonnie Prince Charlie had won. Suppose this return of the Stuart dynasty had ushered in an era of unimaginable prosperity for Scotland. What would have happened to the kilt? Do you think the Highlanders would have clung to their tartan rags, or would they have embraced the latest of European ideals and fashions?

Human nature being what it is, I suspect the kilt would have been consigned to the dust bin of sartorial history in the rush to bring Scotland into the 18th century.

The "revival" of the kilt had very little to do with the repeal of the Act of Proscription, and everything to do with Sir Walter Scott making a romantic vision of the Highlands popular, and Queen Victoria making all things Scottish suddenly fashionable.

[Dale Seago]

Suppose Bonnie Prince Charlie had won. Suppose this return of the Stuart dynasty had ushered in an era of unimaginable prosperity for Scotland.

Suppose monkeys might fly out of. . .

. . .Well, never mind that.

I've always been sentimentally and romantically attracted to the idea of the Restoration of the Rightful King and the Stuart line. "Will Ye No Come Back Again?" is one of my favorite songs. A fond dream.

But with the benefit of hindsight, alas, it appears to me on waking up in the morning that had Tearlach won the throne after all it would have been at least as much of a short-term disaster to Scotland and her people as what actually occurred.

Given the choice of Hanoverians or Stuarts, Scotland was well and truly over a barrel.

The "revival" of the kilt had very little to do with the repeal of the Act of Proscription, and everything to do with Sir Walter Scott making a romantic vision of the Highlands popular, and Queen Victoria making all things Scottish suddenly fashionable.

Yep.

[Burly Brute]

[QUOTE=MacMillan of Rathdown;987908]
The "revival" of the kilt had very little to do with the repeal of the Act of Proscription, and everything to do with Sir Walter Scott making a romantic vision of the Highlands popular, and Queen Victoria making all things Scottish suddenly fashionable.[/QUOTE]


But let's say it wasn't repealed, then who would have been able to partake! ;-)