wearing other family tartan rather than your own

[McClef]

If "the whole issue of "permission" has no validity" then why should people feel the need or advocate the need to seek it?

Also as I have had no success in discovering Chiefs' views on the net, what is your source Rex for stating "Among the chiefs there are few who understand the reason for wearing a name that is not your own -- just because you happen to like the colours or the sett."?

If I were a Chief I would feel quite flattered that my ancestor had chosen tartans that so many people found attractive. There are some tartans that do not have that effect.

[ThistleDown]

All of the bold is mine.

If "the whole issue of "permission" has no validity" then why should people feel the need or advocate the need to seek it?

Why indeed! There is no requirement in Scots law for anyone to seek a clan chief's approval before wearing his clan tartan. 'Tis just a matter of courtesy and respect, and that's what we are on about in this thread, surely.

Also as I have had no success in discovering Chiefs' views on the net, what is your source Rex for stating "Among the chiefs there are few who understand the reason for wearing a name that is not your own -- just because you happen to like the colours or the sett."?

Will you accept "personal knowledge", Trefor? That's about as much answer as you will get to that question, I am afraid.

If I were a Chief I would feel quite flattered that my ancestor had chosen tartans that so many people found attractive. There are some tartans that do not have that effect.

[B]But you are not a chief, Trefor. Flattery may get you to your gate lodge, to initialling your haberdasher's bill, or even to your banker's desk, but not a step beyond. Many (I will not say "most") of the present Highland clan chiefs are privately more than a bit shy about their ancestors' life choices, including but not exclusive to the tartans selected for them by others. They may choose not to differ publicly with their ancestors, but if you demand that they do so you must understand that the demand belongs to you and they do not have to bow down and meet it.

[McClef]

True, I am not a Chief Rex which is why I used "if".

I am not aware that I have ever met and chatted with any Chief, whereas you may well have had that opportunity.

What is courteous and respectful continues to be interpreted differently, not just by you and me but by many others on each side of the discussion and I for one agree with kilted scholar that tartan and not just tartan in the form of the kilt should be considered as part of the whole discussion.

I have argued that in an age of communication that it is available for Chiefs to publicise their general principles upon this issue, if indeed they have them. This is different from their known and defined powers which, as we concur, do not cover this area. They may define which tartans are officially of their Clan but it is the case that many of their clans-folk may not always be aware one way or the other.

Take the case of the "MacMillan Black." This tartan was retailed by the Woollen Mill as such and I purchased one and did a review. I was then informed by MOR that this tartan had specifically been declared by the Chief of that Clan as NOT authorised by him as a MacMillan tartan.

There could have been some people who had written to the Chief seeking permission, not being aware of this. It is possible they may not have received a reply and therefore decided not to wear the tartan. I have on more than one occasion been approached by MacMillans who genuinely thought it was theirs.

So communication and information can be haphazard. I would argue that many things could be solved by plain and easily accessible statements "from the horse's mouth." That way people who plan to wear a tartan that they have no relation to will know where they stand and act according to their consciences accordingly.

It would save having to interpret silence, or someone else's view of silence.

I think I have said enough for a while.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Take the case of the "MacMillan Black." This tartan was retailed by the Woollen Mill as such and I purchased one and did a review. I was then informed by MOR that this tartan had specifically been declared by the Chief of that Clan as NOT authorised by him as a MacMillan tartan.

Quite right. Not only is this tartan not a MacMillan tartan, its "white stripe" clearly marks it as a variation on Buchanan. It is a fashion tartan that was commercially launched without the knowledge, or approval, of the Chief of the MacMillans.

[ThistleDown]

True, I am not a Chief Rex which is why I used "if".

I am not aware that I have ever met and chatted with any Chief, whereas you may well have had that opportunity.

Yes, but only a dozen or two, Trefor

I have argued that in an age of communication that it is available for Chiefs to publicise their general principles upon this issue, if indeed they have them. This is different from their known and defined powers which, as we concur, do not cover this area. They may define which tartans are officially of their Clan but it is the case that many of their clans-folk may not always be aware one way or the other.

I understand, but if you are thinking that the Standing Council should assemble those general principles, that is not the role of the Council. If you think individual chiefs should do so, then I must go back to my earlier statement: some give enormously of themselves, some do not and that is their individual right.

Take the case of the "MacMillan Black." This tartan was retailed by the woollen mill as such and I purchased one and did a review. I was then informed by MOR that this tartan had specifically been declared by the Chief of that Clan as NOT authorised by him as a MacMillan tartan.

Yes, the black version is not an accepted MacMillan tartan and so I suppose Marton Mills sold you a bill of goods called a fashion tartan. That is not the responsibility of the chief, surely. The recognised Clan MacMillan society lists those tartans that are accepted as MacMillans.

There could have been some people who had written to the Chief seeking permission, not being aware of this. It is possible they may not have received a reply and therefore decided not to wear the tartan. I have on more than one occasion been approached by MacMillans who genuinely thought it was theirs.

In the case of the MacMillans, the clan's hereditary chief is still active even though now in his eighties, I believe. I think that had you written to him he might well have passed your enquiry on to the association that has been formed from the clan. That is true for many chiefs and clans, but for even more there is no structure for them to fall back on even if they want to.

The Tartan Registry categorises tartans as clan/family, fashion, corporate, etc. Perhaps that's where tartans should be researched to discover their authenticity and/or acceptance.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

In the case of the MacMillans, the clan's hereditary chief is still active even though now in his eighties, I believe. I think that had you written to him he might well have passed your enquiry on to the association that has been formed from the clan. That is true for many chiefs and clans, but for even more there is no structure for them to fall back on even if they want to.

Those writing to my chief, George Macmillan of Macmillan and Knap, will almost always receive a reply from him. Although nudging 80 (perhaps from the other side!) he is still very much a "hands on" leader of our clan.

[Moski]

Lets see if i can coagulate some of this.
The supermajority of the "Clan Tartans" started out as pretty much fashion tartans, meaning that people generally wore whatever tartans the local weavers produced as it struck their fancy. And kilts were common clothing, not fancy dress costume with "Rules" attached.

At one point in history people started writing books about the Clan Tartans, naming tartans, inventing tartans (and even connections) and beginning to associate certain tartans with Non-Millitary uses. Clan Chiefs did not own these for the greater part, as they do not now. And People still wore kilts as clothing, not fancy dress costume with "Rules" attached.

Over the years certain names have been associated with particular tartans, Some approved as official by chiefs, some not. Neither were owned by those Chiefs (mostly), they were only expressing what they accepted as an emblem of their Clan, not ever declaring ownership. Which may explain why, with the very rare exception, no one can find where a Chief has restricted wear to members only. (requests to refrain not withstanding). And People still wore kilts as clothing, not fancy dress costume with "Rules" attached

The idea of respecting Scottish heritage is in all things admirable. The idea of another invention of governing rules to cover something the Primus has not addressed and calling into question the reason, respect, and ethics(?) of a person who does not follow this made up rule is itselt unreasonable.

If you are not comfortable wearing a clan you are not associated with then I suggest you don't. Extending the Clan Chief the courtesy of asking his blessing, not permission, to wear "his" clans tartan and, recieving no reply, you proceed to do so is not an offense. He had no authority to deny you in the first place. YOU were just being very nice and polite. You have fulfilled your end of the social contract.

As an American with, excluding the whole slavery thing, a convoluted family history at best, family associations will be multiple and tenuous. I also have a problem with the idea that my daughter must needs ignore that her great grandmother was McGowan, 1st gen American, since it's not her fathers line. Or the Millers, Parks, Colemans, and Mahatthies(Mahaddie)... gets interesting. Most of us don't come from such close lines as they did over there.

Be respectful of the culture, understanding that, as with many things, we are going to keep it alive, which means growth and some change. I would suggest that tartan use may be coming full circle. With the modern understanding of it's origins were seeing a bit of "whatever the 'local weaver/kiltmaker' produced and struck the wearers fancy".

And guess what? People still wore kilts as clothing, not fancy dress costume with "Rules" attached