Can anyone wear any tartan?

[macwilkin]

The chiefs now, though, wish for us (clan members) to adopt whatever tartan that they have. And they also try to maintain an antiquated romantic form of what the Highlands use to be.

I can't help but [respectfully] see the irony of the content of this post, while the poster has as their avatar, a "clansman's badge", which denotes loyalty to a clan Chief.

Not all chiefs, by the way, feel so strongly on their clan's tartans.

Unfortunately, these romantic ideas of kilts in the highlands where McDonald's wore a specific tartan and Campbell's used a different, but specific tartan is hogwash. The only thing that the continued use of these ideas are good for, is to line the pocketbooks of the few that deal in the trades regarding Scottish "history." (I used McDonald and Campbell because of historic animosity, which has been romanticized to an effect.)

That being said, I do feel that there is something to be said for wearing the tartan of one's own family or clan, "it's how it's done NOW." But also, this shouldn't stop me from going out and purchasing a McDonald tartan just because I like the set. And personally, I don't feel that I am abandoning my chief because I don't like the tartan that he/she has decided to like. To base a person's "allegiance" on whether they buy a certain color cloth or not seems a little shaky.

Just my two cents, I will get down now
Peace and Harmony

I'll be the first one to say that the concept of clan tartans has no ancient pedigree -- that's pretty much a given.

But, I'm not so sure I agree that the concept of clan tartans should be dismissed so outright because of it. The simple fact of the matter is that the Clan Chief does have the authority to decide which tartans are "official" clan tartans. Obviously that won't stop anyone who doesn't give a fig what the clan chief says, but nevertheless, it has become a custom today, and I personally respect it. That doesn't mean others have to agree with me, and I do not expect them to. I think sometimes folks are a bit too "iconclastic" when it comes to clan tartans.

Respectfully,

Todd

[gilmore]

...
I'll be the first one to say that the concept of clan tartans has no ancient pedigree -- that's pretty much a given.

...

Granted clan tartans evolved after the clans' heydey, but does that mean they are not hoary? I think not. A few date from the mid-18th century, and many if not most are now close to 200 years old. That is certainly more ancient than most people can trace their own pedigrees.

[macwilkin]

Granted clan tartans evolved after the clans' heydey, but does that mean they are not hoary? I think not. A few date from the mid-18th century, and many if not most are now close to 200 years old. That is certainly more ancient than most people can trace their own pedigrees.

Exactly my point, Gil. You mistook the meaning of my post; you'll notice that I am defending the concept of clan tartans.

T.

[Geoff Withnell]

Granted clan tartans evolved after the clans' heydey, but does that mean they are not hoary? I think not. A few date from the mid-18th century, and many if not most are now close to 200 years old. That is certainly more ancient than most people can trace their own pedigrees.

Yes, the tartans are that old, but they were not in those days considered CLAN tartans, because the concept as we know it now did not exist. They were tartans in style of the Campbell's weavers, or the tartan worn in this or that area. In the turmoil of the mid-18th century, do you really think weavers didn't weave whatever they and their customers wanted (not to mention family weavers)? And who was going to stop someone from wearing whatever tartan cloth they wanted and could obtain? Just because a particular sett is 200+ years old, does not mean it has been a clan tartan for that time.

I really don't have a dog in this hunt, since I am not a member of any clan beyond the USMC, and at the moment I wear that tartan or a "universal" one because those are the kilts I have. But it seems silly to this Welshman that the Scots are defending a custom invented by the Sassanach

Geoff Withnell

[macwilkin]

But it seems silly to this Welshman that the Scots are defending a custom invented by the Sassanach

Geoff Withnell

I hardly think one can call Wilson's of Bannockburn, a Lowland weaving firm, "Sassenachs".

Todd

[Geoff Withnell]

I hardly think one can call Wilson's of Bannockburn, a Lowland weaving firm, "Sassenachs".

Todd

I would certainly agree, however that said, I do not believe the list of tartans they compiled was intended to establish certain tartans as "belonging" to certain clans. While some of the names of the tartans were clan names, some on the Wilson's list were not, or had only numbers. I have seen nothing that convinces me that tartans belong to a particular clan in any sort of quasi-heraldic sense was wide spread prior to English Monarchs in the 19th century pushing their romantic notions of Highland life.

Geoff Withnell

[macwilkin]

I would certainly agree, however that said, I do not believe the list of tartans they compiled was intended to establish certain tartans as "belonging" to certain clans. While some of the names of the tartans were clan names, some on the Wilson's list were not, or had only numbers. I have seen nothing that convinces me that tartans belong to a particular clan in any sort of quasi-heraldic sense was wide spread prior to English Monarchs in the 19th century pushing their romantic notions of Highland life.

Geoff Withnell

To be fair, though, it wasn't just an English monarch, it was a British monarch. Remember, James I was James VI of Scotland first, and the Act of Union had been in place since 1707. Many Highland chiefs were embracing the myth just as enthusiastically as the "English" monarchs.

The point that some seem to be missing is (save Gil) is that the tradition of tartans being associated with clans has been around for some time now. As Matt notes, regardless of the history -- Wilson's, the Sobeski Brothers, George VI's 1822 visit, etc. -- a tradition has been established that certain tartans are associated and recognised with certain clans.

Matt's article on the sources of tartan explains it far better than I can, though:

http://www.albanach.org/sources.htm

Of course the sept lists are suspect -- almost all of the noted tartan scholars agree -- but why cut our nose off to spite our face? The real story of clan tartans does not diminish, in my opinion, the symbolism they have developed since the early 19th century.

Does that mean you can wear "my" clan's tartan? By all means, be my guest. Our society supports a pipe band in Scotland that does, and I doubt the members are all Cummings. Personally, I only wear tartans I have a personal connection to, be it a clan/district/state, etc. But that's just me. If kilts are about "freedom", as many espouse here, then one freedom which must be respected is the freedom to follow custom and tradition.

Regards,

Todd

[Geoff Withnell]

To be fair, though, it wasn't just an English monarch, it was a British monarch. Remember, James I was James VI of Scotland first, and the Act of Union had been in place since 1707. Many Highland chiefs were embracing the myth just as enthusiastically as the "English" monarchs.

The point that some seem to be missing is (save Gil) is that the tradition of tartans being associated with clans has been around for some time now. As Matt notes, regardless of the history -- Wilson's, the Sobeski Brothers, George VI's 1822 visit, etc. -- a tradition has been established that certain tartans are associated and recognised with certain clans.

Matt's article on the sources of tartan explains it far better than I can, though:

http://www.albanach.org/sources.htm

Of course the sept lists are suspect -- almost all of the noted tartan scholars agree -- but why cut our nose off to spite our face? The real story of clan tartans does not diminish, in my opinion, the symbolism they have developed since the early 19th century.

Does that mean you can wear "my" clan's tartan? By all means, be my guest. Our society supports a pipe band in Scotland that does, and I doubt the members are all Cummings. Personally, I only wear tartans I have a personal connection to, be it a clan/district/state, etc. But that's just me. If kilts are about "freedom", as many espouse here, then one freedom which must be respected is the freedom to follow custom and tradition.

Regards,

Todd

Ah, I believe we are actually in fairly close agreement. I recognize and honor the association, of whatever length, recent or ancient, of some tartans and some clans/families. As I said in my original reply, and have said elsewhere, the Marine Corps is my clan, and I wear the USMC tartan proudly. Can a non-Marine wear it? Certainly, if done with respect. But tartans are not heraldry. I would not dream of wearing someone's coat of arms. And I would be upset at someone not a Marine wearing an Eagle Globe and Anchor. But a tartan that was woven and sold to all and sundry for many years is not a coat of arms, and can't have that kind of exclusive status. We don't need to claim great antiquity for the concept. Scotland can hardly encourage the mills to produce and sell tartans throughout the world, and then not expect folks to wear them! And certainly the Monarchs are "British". But George VI and Victoria were far more English than Scottish, by all accounts I have read.

I am giving serious thought to buying a Gordon tartan kilt. I am Jewish, and many Scottish Jews are named Gordon, and many who are not have worn the Gordon tartan (usually the Dress tartan). This seems like a close enough association to me, but i would not want to be upbraided for wearing a tartan I "don't have the right to".

Again, I respect the clans association with a tartan, and realize haw strong the feeling can be, however recent. But to say that there is something wrong, or unmannerly, or disrespectful in wearing a tartan of a clan one is not a part of is just not justified, given the history.

Geoff Withnell