wearing other family tartan rather than your own

[JerseyLawyer]

Yes i admit i was rambleing. I think im having some sort of (mid-life) Identity crisis. Didn't mean to come off as whiney as i did. Just want to work all this out ya know?

Don't worry about it. Just didn't want to answer the wrong question.

My point, though, was that you have options, and it's really up to you what you want to do.

[ThistleDown]

An interesting resource for general (including contact information) is:

http://www.clanchiefs.org/ The Standing Council of Clan Chiefs.

I can't find any education on the site regarding any requirements to obtain permissions to wear Clan tartans however. If it was such a biggie surely there would be some reference on the site?

That is correct. With very few exceptions (and those being "corporate" and/or "personal" tartans), members of the Standing Council do not require permission requests. Some and not all of the chiefs have stated over the years the setts they prefer; these may be changed by a future chief. For those who claim membership in a clan by dint of name or descendancy, it is certainly not required that you request the right to wear a tartan registered with your name.

That's about understanding and respect.

IMHO you may choose to wear any tartan you wish, even though it belongs by name or right to someone else. You are being disrespectful in doing so, but that, too, is your right.

DavidPope hit the nail squarely: if you wish to wear someone else's tartan, out of courtesy ask for permission; if you gain agreement then you may. If you do not gain agreement, you may not. If you fail to get a reply at all that discourtesy doesn't alter your courtesy, and you may not.

There are literally hundreds of tartans to which all are entitled: two from the Stewart line itself, the government tartan, regional/national/provincial/state/city tartans, tartans of clubs or regiments to which we belong, even some corporate tartans. And a massive range of "fashion" tartans.

Given all of those, I can't understand why anyone would want to abscond with a name tartan to which they have no right whatsoever. The excuses-for-answers such as "because I can" and "because clan tartans are only 200 years old", I am afraid have no validity for me.

[Lord Fnord]

IMHO you may choose to wear any tartan you wish, even though it belongs by name or right to someone else. You are being disrespectful in doing so, but that, too, is your right.

There are literally hundreds of tartans to which all are entitled: two from the Stewart line itself, the government tartan, regional/national/provincial/state/city tartans, tartans of clubs or regiments to which we belong, even some corporate tartans. And a massive range of "fashion" tartans.

Given all of those, I can't understand why anyone would want to abscond with a name tartan to which they have no right whatsoever. The excuses-for-answers such as "because I can" and "because clan tartans are only 200 years old", I am afraid have no validity for me.

I have no wish to be disrespectfull (or at least purchase an expensive garment that would be defacto disrespectfull to wear.) Where can I get a good list of "Universal" tartans with pictures then so I can shop around? The sites i find, you have to type the name in to get a picture.

[ThistleDown]

I have no wish to be disrespectfull (or at least purchase an expensive garment that would be defacto disrespectfull to wear.) Where can I get a good list of "Universal" tartans with pictures then so I can shop around? The sites i find, you have to type the name in to get a picture.

Drop in on the Scottish Tartans Authority and make use of their Tartan Ferret to start with http://www.tartansauthority.com/tartan-ferret. Ask for universal and see what the wee beastie comes up with.

[Lord Fnord]

Thanks. I found that site before and couldnt find the search feature. This is way better than the Scottish register of tartans site.

[McClef]

It would be a much easier thing if each Chief could make a blanket public statement of their preferences then those for whom approval is important would know immediately.

They could give a universal permission or lay out the conditions for their approval or require individual application etc etc.

There would still be the problem of those Clans who have no recognised Chief but then there can be no recognised source of authority to make such a statement and it is ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the Lord Lyon or of a Clan Society.

As to the argument that if you do not get a reply that this should be taken as a "no". Not all Chiefs are rich or have support staff or can be bothered.

There is the principle of qui tacet consentire videtur - "he who is silent seems to consent." So, if people feel that they must out of courtesy apply for permission, why not give them a reasonable time scale for a reply and if it is not forthcoming, apply that principle?

[ThistleDown]

It would be a much easier thing if each Chief could make a blanket public statement of their preferences then those for whom approval is important would know immediately.

They could give a universal permission or lay out the conditions for their approval or require individual application etc etc.

There would still be the problem of those Clans who have no recognised Chief but then there can be no recognised source of authority to make such a statement and it is ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the Lord Lyon or of a Clan Society.

As to the argument that if you do not get a reply that this should be taken as a "no". Not all Chiefs are rich or have support staff or can be bothered.

There is the principle of qui tacet consentire videtur - "he who is silent seems to consent." So, if people feel that they must out of courtesy apply for permission, why not give them a reasonable time scale for a reply and if it is not forthcoming, apply that principle?

Yes, but all of that can only take place within a structure quite different than that in place within the Standing Council. In fact there are very, very few chiefs who have support staff and all have an increasing public demand on them. Although they seem to be huge tourist attractions (when they are taken from the closet, dusted off and given a bit of a polish) they are not permitted to expense against income any of the funds they put forth when they are.

So if you receive a response then you have a chief who is devoted to his hereditary role.

If you do not then you may have a chief who is too old/too infirm/too young, one who is absent for an extended period of time, one who is just too busy surviving to find the time -- or one who just lacks common courtesy.

The point is that he is being asked to give you permission to do something. If he fails to respond for whatever reason you quite simply have not been given the permission you requested. I suppose you could be discourteous yourself and tell him in your request that if he doesn't reply you will assume consent .

[ThistleDown]

Thanks. I found that site before and couldnt find the search feature. This is way better than the Scottish register of tartans site.

Yes, quite different purposes of course.

[BoldHighlander]

According to George Way of Plean SSC in the chapter "Law of the Clan" (from Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia*):

"...it should be remembered that membership of a clan is not an automatic right. Any chief may refuse membership or outlaw an existing member from the clan, thus depriving him of the privileges of that status."

I think this is where some confusion exists over the idea of the chief's banning certain individuals from wearing their clan tartans. NO WHERE have I found that to be the case. As has been mentioned earlier, some chief's have recognized certain tartans as their own, and by the same token declared other tartans as not recognized by their clan (a very good example can be found on the Clan Campbell website: OFFICIAL POSITION ON CLAN CAMPBELL TARTANS).

I hope this helps.

(*Collins Scottish Clan & Family Encyclopedia by George Way of Plean & Romilly Squire was written with the imprimatur of the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs.)

[McClef]

Yes, but all of that can only take place within a structure quite different than that in place within the Standing Council. In fact there are very, very few chiefs who have support staff and all have an increasing public demand on them. Although they seem to be huge tourist attractions (when they are taken from the closet, dusted off and given a bit of a polish) they are not permitted to expense against income any of the funds they put forth when they are.

So if you receive a response then you have a chief who is devoted to his hereditary role.

If you do not then you may have a chief who is too old/too infirm/too young, one who is absent for an extended period of time, one who is just too busy surviving to find the time -- or one who just lacks common courtesy.

The point is that he is being asked to give you permission to do something. If he fails to respond for whatever reason you quite simply have not been given the permission you requested. I suppose you could be discourteous yourself and tell him in your request that if he doesn't reply you will assume consent .

In this age of the Internet there are plenty of possibilities for a Chief to indicate their policy. Of course it's not something the Standing Council could deal with and as I said, not all Chiefs are members in any case.

"So if you receive a response then you have a chief who is devoted to his hereditary role."

One could use the same logic and infer that if you do not then they are not so devoted.

We agree that there can be all kind of reasons but it turns things into a lottery when one will respond and one will not. If they simply state their viewpoint on a public forum then it takes all the guesswork out of it and also spares, both them and those applying, a lot of work and effort. A Chief could potentially get hundreds of such requests per week in his (or her) mailbox. Would you like to have to pay for all the stamps required for a reply, or have the time to reply yourself or pay for staff to process the request?

Clearly we differ upon what is discourteous. I can think of analogies where a time limit for a reply has been given but ignored from past history and nobody has accused the one giving the time limit as being discourteous.

Ultimately it is the individual who has to decide for themselves whether to apply in the first place and if they do, how to deal with a none forthcoming response.

Does a mill seek permission to weave a Clan tartan I wonder? Just imagine if a mill could obtain exclusive weaving rights for the tartans of a Clan that is large or popular or if a Chief could get a royalty for every yard woven. Does a kilt maker seek proof that the person ordering is "entitled"? Do we hear of a Chief asking that they do? Did the Chiefs assembled at the Gathering look at everyone wearing their Clan tartans and wonder if they were automatically entitled or if they had sought permission otherwise?

I'm simply trying to point out that there are larger implications than the simple question (or rather not so simple! ) question at hand.