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.