Tartan-wearing conventions among Scots

[O'Callaghan]

There may also be wishful American Davidsons whose Davis ancestors originated in Wales, moved to Scotland and then came to America.

There's a limit to how exhaustive you can expect people to be, though. For most people, if your forebear had the clan name and came from Scotland that's close enough. I suppose for some if they had the name and you don't know WTH they came from that might be close enough too, but personally I wouldn't go that far unless the name were clearly Gaelic in origin, which Davidson isn't.

I doubt that very many people, here or elsewhere, have their family tree so clearly mapped out that they can trace back to an ancestor who lived in the right county, at least if they have to go very far back. As it happens, I can trace back to Callaghans who actually lived in County Cork, Ireland, certainly to when they left Ireland in the 19th century, and tentatively another century before that. Very little of that was my own work, but it is a lot of work, and not many people either have the inclination or perhaps even all the data they need to do it.

[Nick the DSM]

"The tartan is based on a sett which was first found in 1935, when an old Morrison family bible was uncovered in a Black House which was to be demolished on Lewis. The piece of tartan was wrapped around the bible, and inside a note referencing the sett was dated 1745."

Since the existence of the sett preceded the writing of the note, the tartan itself is of course likely older than that. But let's be modest.

The battle of Culloden occured in 1746

Thanks, I got my dates messed up then.

[gilmore]

Doesn't actually seem to stop them, though, does it?

Yes, it does. It likely stops the chiefs, chieftans and other well-informed, responsible persons from claiming surnames as their septs that are clearly not associated with their clan. What it doesn't stop is tartan merchants, armchair genealogists, and people bound and determined to be descended from Scots no matter what, from coming up with all sorts of spurious claims.

[BoldHighlander]

Yes, it does. It likely stops the chiefs, chieftans and other well-informed, responsible persons from claiming surnames as their septs that are clearly not associated with their clan. What it doesn't stop is tartan merchants, armchair genealogists, and people bound and determined to be descended from Scots no matter what, from coming up with all sorts of spurious claims.

And yet both the Campbells & the Gordons claim the Muirs (More / Moore / Mure) as septs. However one source states they are no longer officially septs of the House of Gordon, & yet their website still lists them as such. Go figure


from the Campbells website:
The inclusion of the name Mure, Muir, or Moore among Campbell septs is perhaps rather optimistic since the family have a perfectly good Chief of their own in the person of Mure of Rowallan, in Ayrshire, one of Scotland’s oldest and most historic families.

[BoldHighlander]

Not accurate. There are a few tartans that were associated with specific clans before Culloden. E.g., Red Morrison/Gilmore.

You beat me to it

[Jock Scot]

As a rather cynical local, I have put much of this clan sept thing, to name but one example, down to cleaver marketing of the tourist industry and associated trades and their biscuit tin version of Scots history and the wishful thinking of the visitors that are willing to part with their hard earned cash to buy into the Scots myth.

Before I get my head shot off(nicely, of course)there are obviously many family names connected to a particular clan and that is not in doubt. What I am saying is that with the myth and mis-information that the tourist trade has bandied about for the last 100 years or so,the "chickens are now coming home to roost". No more are people necessarily going to accept what is written on a whisky tin, they want to delve into the truth, and why not, the trouble is, this can and often does, cause confusion, disappointment, and not a little anger when the truth appears and shatters long held beliefs. I see it all the time here on this website,I am afraid.

[Edinburghkiltie]

And what about those that do but wouldn't be seen dead in that tartan. There are 4 types of Scots that I can think of off-hand:-
1. Those that won't wear a kilt, not ever, in no circumstances
2. Those that hire a kilt for weddings etc. - they will wear anything the hire company has on offer
3. Those that buy a cheap kilt because they can't justify spending a lot of money - once again they will wear anything they can get at the right price
4. And finally those who want to look good and pay top price for a full 8 yard kilt, probably in a tartan connected to their father's surname or, failing that like me, their mother's.

I agree with the above comments - I think that reflects the reality of the situation. I'd add a further two categories:
5. Once you have a number of kilts (and you might have your clan tartan in ancient, modern and/or weathered versions) you might for the sake of variety simply own a kilt in a tartan that you particularly like the look of. My clan is Farquharson (see pic) and I have the kilt in ancient , modern and weathered versions but I also have kilts in Gunn, Spirit of Scotland, Edinburgh Military Tattoo, Black Douglas, Black Watch, Lady Borrowdale's Gift, Highland Granite, Isle of Skye & Ramsay.
6. Some people don't have a clan tartan to fall back on eg Scots of Irish descent so they tend to pic a neutral tartan (eg district or spirit or pride of scotland) or simply one they like.
Richard
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotos_b...ay/2766126005/

[O'Callaghan]

This thread is educational. I have read in other threads that one should choose a district tartan before going with remote relatives, but it has become evident that nearly all Scots do quite the reverse, and regards district tartans as the tartans of last resort. Also, it seems that some Scots are not above simply wearing a tartan they like and can get for the right price, whereas the 'kilt police' would tell you that only Americans do that. I think the message is that Scots show common sense. Not a Scot or an American here, so no axe to grind.

[Jock Scot]

This thread is educational. I have read in other threads that one should choose a district tartan before going with remote relatives, but it has become evident that nearly all Scots do quite the reverse, and regards district tartans as the tartans of last resort. Also, it seems that some Scots are not above simply wearing a tartan they like and can get for the right price, whereas the 'kilt police' would tell you that only Americans do that. I think the message is that Scots show common sense. Not a Scot or an American here, so no axe to grind.

I think,with respect, you mis-understand how the Scots View(or not) district tartans. The fact is, that most of us don't even know they exist, so they don't come into our thoughts at all. They can't be a last resort as we,on the whole, don't know about them!

Yes indeed there are Scots that do wear many tartans, I would venture to suggest that they are not the norm though, but it is a free world after all and we are lucky to have the choice of how, where and why we wear the kilt.

Are you saying that the Scots should change their national dress to fit in with the rest of the world's version of what they see as how we Scots should dress? I hope not.That would be impertinence and arrogance,beyond belief! Maybe I am misreading things when you say that the "Scots show common sense"?

[Phil]

I would never have thought of a district tartan but would have chosen one from an associated clan as being a "proper" tartan not one of those modern made up ones. That is just a personal opinion, of course, but I think pretty general over here. If I have to be honest I don't think most Scots really know one tartan from another (apart from the one they are wearing possibly). Whenever I am kilted I quite often get asked what tartan I am wearing and, no, never THE QUESTION. It just does not happen here, not to me anyway.