Ethics and courtesies of branching into other tartans?

[tripleblessed]

It's the timing most of all that makes that story sound implausible to me.

In 1829 Sir Thomas Dick Lauder wrote:

"...the most uncouth coats of many colours are every day invented, manufactured, christened after particular names and worn as genuine...some of the Clans are at this moment ignorantly disputing for the right to the same tartans which in fact belong to none of them..."

I think such a court case, if it indeed existed, would post-date the Royal visit and the Allen brother's introducing their Clan tartans to the Chiefs.

It is my hope when I awaken each day that I will learn something new. Which is why, OC , I gain so much enjoyment from your posts. You constantly
amaze us with your findings. Your interest in and skill at finding such is beyond my own. I do, however, have experience of my own at digging in other
areas. The post above reflects many hundreds of hours digging in Scots, Irish, Welsh, English, French, and German official records looking to piece together paper trails to folk in my lines. Court cases and military records, for instance, can eliminate confusions of same name, similar geographic area, common ancestors , and such. In the process of those searches I went through the minutes of the meetings of serious folk interested in the events that produced the Scotland they knew. The meeting referenced was indeed in the time period cited, and I think 1825 is actually a few years late, though not many. The case was brought to the group by a member who clearly thought there would interest in it. It was carefully laid out in the meeting and duly recorded in the minutes. Having always been told there is/was very little to no law on these matters, I read it carefully. I did not make notes, as I did not expect ever to need to go there again. I do recall there was no law cited. merely that the judge made the ruling noted. I was not at the meeting, I am fairly sure it was not my family involved. I will say these men did not appear to spend time on issues that happened within the memories of themselves and/or their fathers, so the events predate the meeting by a noticeable period of time. Which is precisely why it is so interesting.

The collision of our education and belief with uncomfortable facts can be disconcerting. Noting the Lauder quote above, I rap my knuckles on my desk and
say, "Hear, hear.". He was unquestionably correct. It does not, however, address what did or did not exist before Sir Walter invited the king, resulting
in the well documented scramble to find the "clan tartan". And it brings us to another quote, a favorite of mine, from about a hundred years later: "Facts
do not cease to exist because they are ignored.". Aldous Huxley, as you most likely recall.

Again, I do not know if there was a law the ruling was based on, merely present that the case was cited by those with closer knowledge of the time than we. I was probably no less surprised than others here, which is why I offer it. We are not bound by said ruling, as we live in different times and states
with different laws. We are, however, able to let it inform our thinking. FWIW, and anyone's mileage may vary without a quibble from me.