wearing other family tartan rather than your own

[Downunder Kilt]

Hear hear Jock. As a person that has travelled to a lot of countries and experienced a lot of cultures and traditions, I wholeheartedly agree that if you want to join in those cultures/traditions, you play by their rules and accept their terms. If you don't agree and find it offensive with the way things are done, why in the hell do you want to join in.

[Moski]

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.

Sir it was not my assumption I was speaking of. I was referring to previous comments about persons not of a particular clan wearing the "clan tartan". As I have stated I will state clearly, the Duke of Argyll does not recognize Campbell of Argyll as a tartan of his clan as is his right to do.

I was addressing the idea that one needs the permission of the Chief of a Clan to wear "their Clan tartan", and absent that permission or some blood right recognized by "Highland Tradition" or other "unwritten rules" they may not wear the tartan without committing some level of offence.

My argument is that since most of the tartans began literally as fashion tartans (with exceptions), that the concept of wearing whatever you will is an older tradition than clan/tartan association and just as valid, if maybe not as romantic.

I am not trashing Highland Tradition, I'm merely asking questions. The original question asked about wearing a tartan other that that of your family. some have stated they would not feel right about that. Righteous. Some have gone with submitting a request as a courtesy. Righteous. Others wear what strikes your fancy always with respect to what the tartan represents to others (my stance). Righteous. Some have chosen the stance that it is a disrespect to tradition or the Chiefs/clans themselves to wear a tartan "not your own" and disrespectful to even hold a differing opinion if you are not from the Highlands of Scotland. Not Righteous, in my opinion.

[macwilkin]

Sir it was not my assumption I was speaking of. I was referring to previous comments about persons not of a particular clan wearing the "clan tartan". As I have stated I will state clearly, the Duke of Argyll does not recognize Campbell of Argyll as a tartan of his clan as is his right to do.

Point well taken, and my sincere apologies for my misunderstanding your comments.

I was addressing the idea that one needs the permission of the Chief of a Clan to wear "their Clan tartan", and absent that permission of some blood right recognized by "Highland Tradition" or other "unwritten rules" they may not wear the tartan without committing some level of offence.

My argument is that since most of the tartans began literally as fashion tartans (with exceptions), that the concept of wearing whatever you will is an older tradition than clan/tartan association and just as valid, if maybe not as romantic.

You'll get no disagreement from me on your last paragraph. My only point is that while clan tartans did not come from the "mists of antiquity" as some would have us believe, it has become a de facto tradition that the Chief of a Clan (if there is a chief) determines what are the officially recognised tartans. Some are quite specific, such as the MacGregor and the Duke of Argyll; others tend to follow the example of a Chief in 1815, who replied to the Highland Society of London when they queried him about his clan tartan (and I paraphrase):

"I'm not sure, but if you find "my" tartan, please send me a swatch."

So, again, my apologies, and I thank you for the spirited debate. :mrgreen:

T.

[Tobus]

The clan is a heritable object and when the Lyon Court recognizes the chief of a clan it invests him (on behalf of the sovereign) with the whole of the clan as well as the "heirships moveable"; that is to say it invests him with the undifferenced arms of the chief, as well as the name, style and patronymic of the chief of "Clan X", etc. That the tartan is one of those "heirships moveable" goes without saying as the court of the Lord Lyon has always allowed chiefs who wish to do so to register their clan tartan(s) in the same way that they might register a badge or standard, something the court could not do if the tartan was not the property of the chief in the first instance.

In other words a clan tartan has the same legal status as the strap and buckle badge worn by a clansman. A chief would be within his rights to object to someone using it and, if necessary, could take such steps as my be necessary to restrict or prevent its use.

Those of a haughty disposition may choose to dispute the rights of a chief to limit or restrict the cognizances of clan membership if they so choose, but it does nothing to alter the fact that those cognizances are the exclusive property of the chief even when allowed to be used without the chief's specific permission or objection.

This is news to me. Everything I've read, especially by Lord Lyon, suggests that the clan chief's ability to determine the official tartan for his clan is a power that has no enforcement aspect. In other words, while a clan chief can determine his clan's official tartan, he cannot force anyone to wear it or prevent anyone from wearing it.

Do you have a source that you could point me to which says he does have enforcement powers over tartans?

[Mike_Oettle]

Interesting point, Tobus. I would be most interested to hear further regarding the rights of clan chiefs with regard to tartan.
But certainly the bonnet badge, when it bears an armorial crest, is subject to Scottish heraldic law (within that land).
The crest is an integral part of an armorial grant or matriculation, and is therefore the property of the owner of that coat of arms.
I believe the Lord Lyon would be within his rights to confiscate a clan crest badge worn without authority (within Scotland), and that a chief would be within his rights to report such misuse to Lyon Court.
Precisely how such authority might be granted or denied is a matter that other members would need to clarify for me.
Regards,
Mike

[Tobus]

Yes, of course, any heraldic emblem does indeed have enforcement powers associated with it (inside that jurisdiction only). But I've never seen any official declaration that this extends to tartans. Rather the opposite, in fact.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

This is news to me. Everything I've read, especially by Lord Lyon, suggests that the clan chief's ability to determine the official tartan for his clan is a power that has no enforcement aspect. In other words, while a clan chief can determine his clan's official tartan, he cannot force anyone to wear it or prevent anyone from wearing it.

The same could be said of a "clan badge"-- a chief, short of going to court, has no real means of preventing someone from purchasing and wearing a clan badge, regardless of that person's surname or "clan" affiliation. The same applies to tartans-- short of court proceedings there is nothing a chief can do to exercise his authority and, frankly, most chiefs really don't care if Mr. Lashinsky makes, sells, or wears their tartan, as long as it is commercially available to their clanfolk.

Do you have a source that you could point me to which says he does have enforcement powers over tartans?

The definitive answer to that question is, at present, working its way through the legal system. Watch this space.

[SlackerDrummer]

Tartans, on the whole, are NOT the same as clan badges. A clan badge is simply the crest of the chief surrounded by a strap and buckle. The fact that said crest is part of the chief's achievement of arms brings it under the jurisdiction of Lord Lyon King of Arms. Lyon has some tartans registered, but not all, and certainly not most - I dare say only a handful - and unless a tartan is registered with Lyon there is NO legal status accorded to it.

[Mike_Oettle]

SlackerDrummer wrote: “. . . unless a tartan is registered with Lyon there is NO legal status accorded to it”.

Well, not quite. Registration with Lyon Court accords a tartan legal status of one kind. Registration with the Scottish Register of Tartans also accords legal status, according to an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
Precisely what value that status has, however, is something we are still trying to determine.
Regards,
Mike

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Tartans, on the whole, are NOT the same as clan badges. A clan badge is simply the crest of the chief surrounded by a strap and buckle. The fact that said crest is part of the chief's achievement of arms brings it under the jurisdiction of Lord Lyon King of Arms. Lyon has some tartans registered, but not all, and certainly not most - I dare say only a handful - and unless a tartan is registered with Lyon there is NO legal status accorded to it.

Two points here: First, both a clan badge and a clan tartan are recognized as signs or symbols of belonging to a specific family or clan, hence both are known by their clan or family name. So, in that regard, they may be argued as being the same. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that people on this forum (and in the broader public arena as well) could more readily identify a tartan than a clan badge. Second, I accept the argument that if a chief hasn't bothered to register his clan's tartan it may be more difficult for him to assert his authority as regards its use. Indeed, it is this second point that is now about to come before the law, and will in due course be settled one way or another-- regardless of the opinions of those outside of Scotland as to who does, or does not, "own" a particular tartan.

As to the suggestion that "...unless a tartan is registered with the Lyon there is NO legal status accorded to it," I would suggest that one could take the view that an unregistered tartan is no different than an unregistered motorcar. A lack of registration does not, in itself, necessarily imply a lack of ownership.