wearing other family tartan rather than your own

[macwilkin]

Where does the right to restrict it's use come from? And I was not referring to tartans that were designed by chiefs of clan members. I'm pretty much talking about pre-existing tartans.

Think of it this way: the Duke of Argyll does NOT recognise the "Campbell of Argyll" tartan as a bona fide Campbell tartan, yet many people the world over wear it. No restriction per se, but no recognition. It's the Duke's perogative as Chief to do so. The so-called "Black MacMillian" tartan is a similar tartan with no recognition from the Chief.

T.

[Moski]

Methinks I detect a bit of "reverse snobbery" here...again, you have to understand the concept of the Chief as "father" to his clan (which essentially means "children") -- since he is the head of the family, then he has the right to recognize which tartans are bona fide and which are not. There's nothing "haughty" about it.

(snip)
If my be so bold, why is the concept of "ownership" so important to you?

T.

Sir you have misunderstood me. I have acknowledged all traditional rights and priviledges of a Clan Chief as right and proper in previous posts. They may freely recognise those that they will. Priviledge not disputed.
The exception to that is the ability to tell someone they cannot use a tartan they have recognized for some purpose. This is because I question the right of that particular close control if the tartan pre-exists the Clan identification with that tartan, and that tartan was not produced, purchased, or surrendered to the sole use of that claiming entity. Not reverse snobbery, just asking for more than what amounts to "divine right". Several posters, closer to Clan chiefs than me, have pointed out a dearth of claims of such absolute claim by any identifiable Chief, even whithin their own forum. That I find more telling than any historical documents taking umbrage at someone daring to think to question the right of said Chief to do as he will.

Pre-existence of the tartans is where my question of ownership comes in. Maybe it is excessively Colonial of me but I do have somewhat of a problem with the ability of a person to simply claim a thing by simply declaring it to be so. Also, it has been previously stated that the Lord Lyon has stated that he excercises no authority over tartans since tartans are not Heraldric devices, except, to register the identification according to the Clan chief.

[macwilkin]

As a further example, here is an article by Sir Malcolm MacGregor which explains nicely which tartans are bona fide and the reasons why:

http://www.clangregor.org/article-ourtartans.html

T.

[Moski]

Think of it this way: the Duke of Argyll does NOT recognise the "Campbell of Argyll" tartan as a bona fide Campbell tartan, yet many people the world over wear it. No restriction per se, but no recognition. It's the Duke's perogative as Chief to do so. The so-called "Black MacMillian" tartan is a similar tartan with no recognition from the Chief.

T.

They have that right not to recognise those tartans. I'm not arguing that, it is their perogative to do so. My question pertains to those that are recognised and therefore assumed by some to be restriced by lack of permittion by the chief, unless, the person has some other right or grant to wear the tartan.

At what point did these previously public domain (or equivalent), or mill/weaver owned/produced tartans become become the property of the person of the Chief.

[tripleblessed]

With UTMOST respect to those knowledge and opinions I honestly value, we have revealed the vast abyss between the Norman view and the Celtic view.
cajunscot quotes Lord Aitchinson as saying the authority of the chief is derived from the people. People are not, in my humble opinion, heritable objects. I would submit for your consideration that it is a man of haughty disposition indeed who would attempt to make the case that they are. And yes, I address that remark to many of my very own ancestors. The Norman view
that the king has a God-given right to own and rule lands and people is anathema to those who hold the Celtic view of free men standing together
by blood and choice. I am no man's man. I will happily support the man who
stands FOR his clan, but will have no truck with the craven slime that would sell
their clan to be called earl or duke, or steal clan lands for sheep and money.

'Nuff said. Don't want to step over the line, and no desire to call mods out in the
middle of the night.

[Irish Jack O'Brian]

I am no man's man. I will happily support the man who stands FOR his clan, but will have no truck with the craven slime that would sell their clan to be called earl or duke, or steal clan lands for sheep and money.

Thank you sir, for speaking up. I have mentioned already once in this thread that as an American I owe no allegiance to a foreign aristocracy. So if this clan of my ancestors is "heritable," and in order for me to honor my ancestors by wearing the tartan of their long-ago clan, I am required to take a knee and kiss the ring of the scion of the filth that ran my people out, then I will not be able to do so. We colonials have always been a bit haughty.

As an old man, I am done with little secret societies that have secret handshakes and wear funny little secret hats and have the power to blackball others from their company. My motto these days is "Radical Inclusivity." Yes, it is anarchic, but I find it feels closer to the truth than the gated community of the elect.

[macwilkin]

They have that right not to recognise those tartans. I'm not arguing that, it is their perogative to do so. My question pertains to those that are recognised and therefore assumed by some to be restriced by lack of permittion by the chief, unless, the person has some other right or grant to wear the tartan.

At what point did these previously public domain (or equivalent), or mill/weaver owned/produced tartans become become the property of the person of the Chief.

And you're assuming wrong. You are free to wear the Campbell of Argyll all you want, but the fact remains that the Duke of Argyll doesn't recognize it as a bona fide Campbell tartan. I don't ever recall any of the Dukes using kilted clansmen to forcibly stop a weaver at bayonet or broadsword point from weaving it.

T.

[Mike_Oettle]

Irish Jack wrote: “. . . as an American I owe no allegiance to a foreign aristocracy.”

And you are entitled to just that. But at times Americans can get as silly about this as the Afrikaners did when they were in charge of South Africa.
In 1924 they barred “foreign titles”, a parliamentary decision aimed not at titles from France, Germany or Italy, but those awarded by King George V, their own sovereign.
And in South Africa today things are even weirder, since the aristocracy of the native peoples of this country are now being acknowledged, albeit in an entirely haphazard fashion that is skewing things ridiculously.
The former paramount chiefs of the various tribes have now all been acknowledged as “kings”, despite the fact that in most cases their rank ought to be no higher than that of a duke, and often just an earl or count.
They have provincial Houses of Traditional Leaders, funded at great expense from the public purse, where they discuss matters of tribal culture, but are highly ineffective at making real changes in peoples’ lives.
In the Eastern Cape we have no fewer than half a dozen “kings” whose chief function (as far as the tax-paying white man in the street is concerned) is to tell the Health Department it has no authority to interfere in the ritual circumcision of teenage boys as it is a cultural matter.
Yet its members wash their hands in innocence every year in the circumcision season (there is one in midwinter, another at midsummer) at the numerous deaths and maimings that result from this ritual.
Drunken circumcisers (traditionally using a spear) fail to clean the cutting instrument, and sometimes remove more than they are supposed to.
Incompetent nurses fail to change dressings, which results in infections (or, worse, gangrene), almost invariably followed by surgical amputations. Every season at least a dozen boys die.
Is it any wonder that people like me have more respect for our tribal chiefs in Scotland rather than these costly charlatans?
(Actually, one Scottish chief, the Duke of Atholl, is a native-born South African and lives in a country town in Limpopo.)
Regards,
Mike

[Jock Scot]

I say this with the greatest of respect to all, but I have some Americans in mind here.

If you live outwith the UK in general and Scotland in particular then you have every right to think the way that you do when it is to do with your own country's affairs. You have the Declaration of Independence and your ancestors may well have fought to have the Aristocracy removed and the "all men are created equal" train of thought was created and there is much to commend that way of thinking. In passing I note that they do have military ranks and Presidents etc and of course in a democracy those positions are given on some sort of ability and merit. Nevertheless there is a "pecking order".

All of the above is fine as far as I am concerned as long as those from other nations with that point of view don't try to impose their views on others from other countries.That they have no right so to do. Rubbishing traditions, conventions, and courtesies of other nations can cause at the very least, a sharp intake of breath! In truth most of us from anywhere in the world, on the whole, are too busy getting on with day to day life to bump into this situation.

However in this case we are talking about two cultures, the UK one and in this case mainly the USA because we are involved in discussing a mutual interest------the kilt, part of the Scots culture to be precise. For my part whilst I think I understand ( I try to at least) other points of view from outwith the UK's borders I do feel that on occasion this is not reciprocated by some. I always find that a shame and sometimes I find that insulting and arrogant.

Some people really ought to try to be a little more thoughtful, courteous and respectful when discussing other nation's cultures. That goes for me and that goes for everyone else in this world.

[BoldHighlander]

Some people really ought to try to be a little more thoughtful, courteous and respectful when discussing other nation's cultures. That goes for me and that goes for everyone else in this world.

Hear! Hear!