A tartan conundrum.

[Bob C]

No worries, Todd. I did, indeed ask for opinions and I appreciate all of them.

Contacting Baron Boughtmytitle at this point would be moot. Matt told me in a PM that the tartan is registered with the STA. It's too late for my concerns to have any effect. He has already taken the offensive action.

If you guys don't understand why I'm angry about this, I guess I've failed to make myself clear. I'm not sure how to explain it any better, though.

[jordanjm]

I know that you are upset, because this tartan that has your last name does not reflect your family. I think that when you are calmer that if you contact him and tell him how you feel and why then a solution can be reached regarding this. It may never have occurred to him that how he went about this would offend anyone. If you speak with him about it he may request a new name for the tartan. Such as ______ of ______ insead of just _____.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Yes, the STA has recorded the C___ tartan. The STA, it should be known, are not the "tartan police." Having a tartan recorded in their International Tartan Index does not convey any rank or status on the tartan itself. It simply creates a public record of that tartan.

For what it's worth, the STA also record the Hutcheson tartan, designed by Colin Hutcheson in the year 2000. Colin worked in the Scottish textile industry for 46 years and decided it was time for his family to have a tartan. The colors were selected from those popular with Johnstones of Elgin.

The STA also record the Bryson tartan, designed in 1988 by D. MacArthur of Darvel, Scotland. It was apparantly named for Harry Bryson, their workshop manager.

The STA records the MacAvoy tartan. This tartan was designed in 1975 for the Berwickshire Pipes & Drums but they decided not to use it. James McAvoy had already had a kilt made in the tartan, however, and so later decided to adopt it as the MacAvoy tartan.

The STA records the Martin tartan. Around 1976 kiltmaker Bob Martin was just getting started making kilts, and so tried his hand with some fabric he bought from a local Greenville, SC, fabric store. Someone asked what tartan he was wearing. He smartly replied, "The Martin tartan!" It got written down, and now it's in the record books.

The STA also records the MacPherson tartan. This tartan was originally names No. 43 by weavers Wilsons of Bannockburn, then later named Kidd after one of their clients who bought the tartan. When a James MacPherson bought the cloth to outfit the slaves on his plantation in the West Indies, it was renamed for him. Only later did the cheif of the MacPherson clan adopt this tartan as his own.

They record the Traill tartan, designed in 2002 by American Scottish merchant Cynthia Balfour-Traill (who used to post here quite often) for "anyone tracing their anscestry to the Scottish Traills."

They record the MacLaren tartan, which prior to 1820 was called "Regent" but after that date became adopted by the MacLaren clan.

They record the Shaw tartan, which was created as the result of an artistic misrepresentation of the Black Watch and has never been considered a proper clan tartan by the cheif. Despite there being two officially sanctioned Shaw tartans, this one remains the most popular. Oh, and by the way, they also record the two "official" Shaw of Tordarroch tartans, as well.

My point is that the STA records all kinds of tartans, old and new, that have been and are still being designed, woven, and worn by people interested in their heritage. Some tartans have great histories and rationales. Others don't. Their being included in the ITI doesn't mean "case closed" on anything. Records are changed and updated all the time.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this. Either you like the tartan and you want to wear it, or you don't like the tartan, and you don't wear it.

[keepoffgrass]

I really dont see what the problem is here. It sounds to me like the man was perfectly in his right to do what he did. If he wanted to make a tartan for his clan because they didnt have one, then great. More power to him. If someone else would have shown the motovation to do so in the past, then I suspect he wouldnt have done this now. If you dont want to wear the tartan than dont. If you like it wear it. But dont cut the man down for not only showing pride in his heritage, but showing so much pride that he took it appon hisself, shouldering a large finacial expence, to create a meaningful symble of his clan that can and should be enjoied and respected by all the member of his clan. Not only that, but seeing as how he was the one who showed the motovation to do this in the first place, he should have to the right to the "official" clan tartan. Seems only fair to me.

[Mike1]

I have gone through this thread and edited out any reference to Bob C's surname. Bob, I have to wonder how difficult it would have been to have simply asked Matt et al to edit their posts via PM, but your complaint has been noted and acted upon.

Hopefully the exposure of your identity has been minimal.

[ozone]

Cajunscot,

I meant the 80 year's war. The war for Dutch independence from Spain of all places.

[Scott Gilmore]

.... I did, indeed ask for opinions and I appreciate all of them.

I'd like to note right up front that my comments below are meant respectfully.

Contacting Baron Boughtmytitle at this point would be moot. Matt told me in a PM that the tartan is registered with the STA. It's too late for my concerns to have any effect. He has already taken the offensive action.

If you guys don't understand why I'm angry about this, I guess I've failed to make myself clear. I'm not sure how to explain it any better, though.

Bob, with all due respect, perhaps you've failed to make yourself understood because your initial reaction was emotional, not rational, and based on what we now know is a misunderstanding of the facts. Is it possible that you are now defending that position for emotional rather than logical reasons as well?

Again, no offense intended, Bob. It's just that you certainly strike me as a bright, articulate and intelligent person--not at all ineloquent. If you are unable to convince others in a friendly and sympathetic environment (this forum), perhaps you should take stock and reconsider your opinion.

Thank you for your sincerity and openness in engaging in this dialog. When the discussion is over, I hope this will be perceived positively; I certainly do.

__________________
With respect,
Scott Gilmore

[macwilkin]

Cajunscot,

I meant the 80 year's war. The war for Dutch independence from Spain of all places.

The 30 Year's War coincided with the last 30 years of the 80 Year's War. <confusing, isn't it?>

T.

[Chef]

If you guys don't understand why I'm angry about this, I guess I've failed to make myself clear. I'm not sure how to explain it any better, though.

Bob, I think you are understood just fine. Whether the man claims to be the "head of the family" or not you feel it is presumptuous of him to create a tartan and claim it is the tartan for the Cxxxxxxxxx Family.

While I am someone who feels that one should not wear a tartan they are not entitled to wear, I do know how many of these tartans came to be. Certainly there were clans/families where the chief chose or had a tartan designed for the clan, but for many they were just a mill pattern that was eventually assigned to a certain name and there are also many just like this instance, where someone with the name did just what Mr. Cxxx, has done and included personal touches that may not represent the whole family. Truthfully the tartan created here is as legitimate as most. If you like it wear it, or if your personal feelings won't let you then don't. One thing I can guarantee you though is there will be many who have your last name who will be thrilled that there is a tartan they can call theirs.

[gilmore]

Bob, I think you are understood just fine. Whether the man claims to be the "head of the family" or not you feel it is presumptuous of him to create a tartan and claim it is the tartan for the Cxxxxxxxxx Family.

While I am someone who feels that one should not wear a tartan they are not entitled to wear, I do know how many of these tartans came to be. Certainly there were clans/families where the chief chose or had a tartan designed for the clan, but for many they were just a mill pattern that was eventually assigned to a certain name and there are also many just like this instance, where someone with the name did just what Mr. Cxxx, has done and included personal touches that may not represent the whole family.

Well, no. Not quite.

Regardless of who created the tartan, be it a 21st century mill or a crone at her loom 300 years ago in the chief's castle, if the chief of the clan or chieftan of the sept does not approve of it, acquiese to it or name it as the clan or sept tartan, then it simply is not the clan or sept tartan. It is what has come to be called a fashion tartan. This is not a rule of law, but of custom. However, it is fairly well adherred to in the nomenclature of tartans.

Let's review:

The clan system flourish in Scotland long before feudalism came. A clan is a group of people, clan being from the Gaelic for children, meaning descendant from some progenitor of the clan. The cheifship was inherited, father to son, or to daughter, or to other, similar to but not the same as the rules of primogeniture.

The clan system was/is based on family, on people, unlike the feudal system, which was based on land. A feudal baron was some one who held land from a superior. These are two different things. Of course, some clan chiefs held land and were lairds, or feudal barons, but being a feudal baron NEVER carried with it the chiefship of a clan or the chieftanship of a sept.

If there is no chief, there is no clan. It is known as a broken clan. In former times, the clan members could ally themselves with other clans. There are 2 ways to ressurect or recreate or establish or re-establish a clan, but we need not go into them here, since that is not the issue in this case. (See the link my post above for the 2 ways to do this.)

The C___s were formerly a clan, but, having no chief, are not now. Therefore, there can be no clan tartan until and unless the clan is reconstituted, and a chief is recognized. This is done by the Lyon Court, the Crown's court on heraldic matters in Scotland.

So, it really doesn't matter in this regard whether some one is an esquire, laird/feudal baron, baron in the or in a peerage, earl, marquess, duke, prince, tsar, general, admiral, pope, president, prime minister, CEO of Microsoft, rock star, Christ returned to earth, or chairman of the PTA. Any of these worthy people can create a tartan, copyright it, AS WELL AS REGISTER IT WITH SCOTTISH TARTAN AUTHORITY, but it will not be a clan tartan, as defined by custom.


[/QUOTE]Truthfully the tartan created here is as legitimate as most. If you like it wear it, or if your personal feelings won't let you then don't. One thing I can guarantee you though is there will be many who have your last name who will be thrilled that there is a tartan they can call theirs.[/QUOTE]
...as well as many who are disappointed that the only tartan associated with their name was promulgated by some one whom they regard as a parvenu if not as a poseur who bought his feudal barony.