Would you ever wear a feather in your cap, particularly in the U.S.?

[Zardoz]

Here's a question for the 'experts' that popped into my mind, and it's more or less related the original topic of this thread!;

We have been talking about Scottish armigers, and how the feather is one of their traditional identifying symbols, displays etc..
Suppose somebody is not of Scots heritage, and/or holds arms granted from someplace outside of Scotland, say the College of Arms in England, the Chief Herald in Ireland, or South Africa etc..
And suppose this fellow wanted to sport Highland dress? Theoretically, what sorts of display(s) would be appropriate or not? and would it depend on where he was?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Here's a question for the 'experts' that popped into my mind, and it's more or less related the original topic of this thread!;

We have been talking about Scottish armigers, and how the feather is one of their traditional identifying symbols, displays etc..
Suppose somebody is not of Scots heritage, and/or holds arms granted from someplace outside of Scotland, say the College of Arms in England, the Chief Herald in Ireland, or South Africa etc..
And suppose this fellow wanted to sport Highland dress? Theoretically, what sorts of display(s) would be appropriate or not? and would it depend on where he was?

Actually, this is maybe one of the best ever questions asked on this subject.

In the broadest sense feathers have nothing to do with coats of arms, and everything to do with belonging to a specific clan. So---

1) An armiger, not of Scots heritage, no matter how attired, has no entitlement to the wearing of feathers, which are exclusively indicative of status within a clan. Now if this same armiger allies himself with the chief of a recognized clan by bond of manrent then he becomes a member of that clan, and would follow the Scottish custom of wearing feathers as a duine uasail of that clan.

2) Not all armigerous Scots have arms granted by the Lord Lyon. That said, any clan member, anywhere in the world, with substantive arms would still be a duine uasail and would be accorded the right to feathers the same as any other duine uasail.

I think when dealing with the matter of feathers one needs to divorce them from the idea that they are solely indicative of the possession of a coat of arms. Today this is largely-- one might even go so far as to say exclusively-- the case, but it was not always so. They are, and always have been, indicative of three things:

1) a following
2) territorial responsibility
3) headship of a major family

In other words the feathers indicated the military, social, and tribal status of an individual (and let's not forget that Highland society was a tribal society). The people who comprised the feather-wearing segment of Highland society were the duine uasail, or gentlemen of the clan.

So, an armiger, not a member of any clan, would display his crest in a circlet, not a buckle and strap, and without any feathers. If he was adopted into a clan, then he would be entitled to a feather, not because of his armigerous status, but because he would be recognized as a duine uasil, within that clan.

[beloitpiper]

Zardoz, thank you for asking that and MoR, thank you for answering. That was an amazing thoughtful question and very insightful answer!

[ThistleDown]

I agree with Rathdown, Zardos; a very important question.

I might add to his answer that the existence of Highland armigers (other than chiefs and chieftains who are armigers themselves) is recent and is not synonymous with duine uasail.

These latter were generally speaking the tacksmen or senior tenants of the chiefs and chieftains and were rarely armigers.

As middlemen their role in times of war was to act as lieutenants; it was around them that the sub-tenants and cotters assembled and it is now thought that the tall feather was an identifier. These bands under the tacksmen gathered to the chief and chieftains and they, likewise, were identified by tall feathers.

Certainly the tallest feathers were wing feathers of eagles, but pheasant and some hawk and capercaillie feathers might have been used, as well. It is highly unlikely that common clansmen wore any plumage whatsoever simply because of the rallying significance of feathers.

In form the duine uasail still exist in some clans where the chiefs are resident on their Highland estates, but the system of feathers has evolved and the duine uasail who are not armigers generally speaking refrain from wearing them today.

Rex

[Moski]

1) An armiger, not of Scots heritage, no matter how attired, has no entitlement to the wearing of feathers, which are exclusively indicative of status within a clan.

Am I to take this to mean that someone not a Scot, not an Armiger, not Scottish, has no right to wear a feather of any type anywhere in the world? It sounds that the Scots tradition overides any other tradition, esp. "no matter how attired". I personally have a problen with the constantly vague "feathers" (all inclusive) when it's ony certain feathers that actually apply to the tradition, apparently the long wing feathers, not the smaller bits of plumage. It kinda sounds like "I get a feather and you rabble cant have any because someone who doesn't know better might mistake you for someone important".

[artificer]

Am I to take this to mean that someone not a Scot, not an Armiger, not Scottish, has no right to wear a feather of any type anywhere in the world? It sounds that the Scots tradition overides any other tradition, esp. "no matter how attired". I personally have a problen with the constantly vague "feathers" (all inclusive) when it's ony certain feathers that actually apply to the tradition, apparently the long wing feathers, not the smaller bits of plumage. It kinda sounds like "I get a feather and you rabble cant have any because someone who doesn't know better might mistake you for someone important".

We're talking exclusively in relation to Highland attire and events here. Many countries of the world have a tradition of various feathers in their respective headwear. My grandfather had a Tirolean cap with a green mallard 'hackle' in it... I don't recall him ever being accosted as a 'pretend armiger'

[macwilkin]

We're talking exclusively in relation to Highland attire and events here. Many countries of the world have a tradition of various feathers in their respective headwear. My grandfather had a Tirolean cap with a green mallard 'hackle' in it... I don't recall him ever being accosted as a 'pretend armiger'

Trachten hats from Austria and Bavaria traditionally will have a gamsbart, made from the lower neck hair of a chamois.

T.

[artificer]

Trachten hats from Austria and Bavaria traditionally will have a gamsbart, made from the lower neck hair of a chamois.

T.

His was, if I recall correctly, custom made by a local milliner now long out of business. It was a charcoal grey felted wool, very thick, with small fan of trimmed green feathers. It also had a flattened braided silk cord around the crown in the same colour as the body of the hat, and was worn lower on the head than the typical Tyrolean.

He used to wear it when 'dressed' in the winter time.

[Cygnus]

We're talking exclusively in relation to Highland attire and events here. Many countries of the world have a tradition of various feathers in their respective headwear. My grandfather had a Tirolean cap with a green mallard 'hackle' in it... I don't recall him ever being accosted as a 'pretend armiger'

Scott did say "no matter how attired" - but I believe the context was entirely within the historic and modern clan systems and wasn't intended to be an all encompassing statement of everyone in the world.

[ThistleDown]

Am I to take this to mean that someone not a Scot, not an Armiger, not Scottish, has no right to wear a feather of any type anywhere in the world? It sounds that the Scots tradition overides any other tradition, esp. "no matter how attired". I personally have a problen with the constantly vague "feathers" (all inclusive) when it's ony certain feathers that actually apply to the tradition, apparently the long wing feathers, not the smaller bits of plumage. It kinda sounds like "I get a feather and you rabble cant have any because someone who doesn't know better might mistake you for someone important".

No, that is not what is being said here (or anywhere else that I know of). What is being discussed is the wearing of feathers (any feathers, actually, not just eagle feathers) with Highland dress.

More importantly, the issue is not one of being important or exclusive and getting your feather, or being just a plebe so you don't nya nya. The feathers are traditional in our culture as a sign of responsible position within the clan to which you belong. The question being asked is whether, regardless of that, you would just go ahead and wear feathers with Highland dress even when that opposes Highland tradition.

One illustration given was a European-origin person wearing a feather head-dress to a pow-wow, and it was pointed out that no-one except a licensed native Indian may wear an eagle feather in America.

That's where we are in this discussion.