Census poll: What is your cultural / historical connection to the kilt?

[Dixiecat]

A marvellous and typically Canadian story; in this case about Scotland, but in all cases about what it is to be Canadian and trace your roots elsewhere. THIS is why it is normal and appropriate for us as "outlanders" to wear the kilt. Thank you Singlemalt! Thank you so very, very much for making the point so completely and articulately.

Bill+

Actually, I would say that this is more an illustration of 'unique culture' than anything else. It's hard to explain to Upper Canadians (I was one), how Scottish Nova Scotia is. Sure, NS was one of the original provinces of the new Dominion of Canada, but how carefully the people kept the traditions and families going. I would wager that the majority of the people here who claim Scottish heritage can trace their families directly to Scotland through unbroken lines of Scottish blood on both sides of their families. They may not be Scots due to place of birth, but neither are they 'outlanders'.

Back on topic, I have no Scottish connections that I have been able to glean through my sketchy research. English through my paternal grandparents who emigrated to Canada in 1903; English through my maternal line via Newfoundland out of Dorset.

It was the elegance of highland dance that got me into wearing a kilt and I'm proud to keep Scottish culture active by continuing to dance and helping in the highland community.

[glenlivet]

Father's side DNA goes back to Scandanavia - Viking Scot -

@ Riverkilt: Do you know your haplotype? R1a, and probably R1a1 here.

[warrior]

Actually, I would say that this is more an illustration of 'unique culture' than anything else. It's hard to explain to Upper Canadians (I was one), how Scottish Nova Scotia is. Sure, NS was one of the original provinces of the new Dominion of Canada, but how carefully the people kept the traditions and families going. I would wager that the majority of the people here who claim Scottish heritage can trace their families directly to Scotland through unbroken lines of Scottish blood on both sides of their families. They may not be Scots due to place of birth, but neither are they 'outlanders'.

Back on topic, I have no Scottish connections that I have been able to glean through my sketchy research. English through my paternal grandparents who emigrated to Canada in 1903; English through my maternal line via Newfoundland out of Dorset.

It was the elegance of highland dance that got me into wearing a kilt and I'm proud to keep Scottish culture active by continuing to dance and helping in the highland community.

The family ties and tradition is exactly what I take away from my heritage. I count myself blessed to be the recipient of a long and honorable legacy. I can stand in one spot in south Alabama and can literally count six generations of my "clan" and have heard from an early age just who and what they were. I honor their memory by living my life to best reflect upon what they strived to pass on to me. My life upon this earth is but a moment yet the family lives on. Someday when my time is done I hope to have earned the honor to rest among my kinsmen and my own progeny will feel as I do.

[fingertrouble]

I did direct connection, although I kind of feel I slip somewhere between that and tenuous. Partner is Scots born and partly bred, Lindsay with a side order of Grant from Glasgow/Strathaven ;-) - but we're not married (can't be, well not in the official sense, and don't want to anyway) but together nearly 15 years.

Mostly english, or thought I was completely but recently found out I do have Irish blood though (equally balanced between Catholic and Protestant too!), but not one I can work out has a tartan of it's own; seemingly not. Have probable Scottish blood on my mother's side through adoption (Wilson) but don't really get on with them. My mother's real mother sounds like she was irish or scottish judging by the name, although I cannot remember it exactly I remember thinking that when I read it.

I find it funny wearing a kilt getting all the 'are you Scottish?' questions as if wearing a non-tartan kilt (or a tartan kilt through partnership/marriage) means you're suddenly seen as Scottish...err...more than happy to be seen as Scottish (and with the long beard the usual jewish/muslim questions, doesn't bother me to be seen as those, more the opposite usually) but strange how even with utilikilts and fashion etc. it's still seen as a 'scottish' thing at large.

[fingertrouble]

In response to Dram, my reference to the border was merely a matter of placement. When people in what is now Scotland still spoke Brythonic, the borders that did exist were very different.
There was a kingdom of the Scots in Argyll, a kingdom of the Picts in the north, and the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria had not yet reached its peak – it reached well into Scotland before waning, and being replaced as the dominant state in the Anglo-Saxon commonwealth by Mercia. Before it waned, though, Northumbria made a good many northerners speak English, rather than Welsh or Pictish.
When the Scots eventually ruled the four kingdoms, they found that most of their subjects spoke English, which they initially called Inglis and acknowledged as a court language. Later they showed a patriotic streak and called it Scots (ironic, since the actual Scots were Gaels).
There was a Brythonic migration from a part of what later became Scotland to Wales – the aristocracy of one region left the country and were tasked by the Welsh with defending the northern parts of that country – but the common Britons of the north were absorbed into the Inglis/Scots-speaking population.
Incidentally, the English long referred to Cornwall as West Wales, and to (modern-day) Wales as North Wales.

The National Geographic article is most interesting. Previously it has been stated quite firmly that the Neanderthals left no descendants.
DNA research has already, in its short existence, revealed connections (and absence of connections) in the strangest places.
Early mitochondrial DNA research showed that the Polynesians were about 99% related to the aborigines of Taiwan, and had migrated to the islands by way of the Philippines. But it also showed that a tiny proportion of the population was descended from (at least one) Melanesian ancestor, possibly just one woman.
Regards,
Mike

It might be mitochrondrial but I found it interesting that apparently a lot of people in the UK still have ancient briton DNA in them...thus confounding the idea of dilution by each of the British invasions (which is silly if you think about it, they'd have to bring over a lot more people than was here, and would make the invasion a little pointless, you need people to build stuff and order around! )...intermarriage tends to dilute the DNA of the invading force unless they marry only their own kind...again unlikely since unless they brought all their extended family along, it's going to be intermarriage with the existing population...

On a personal level as a Brit I love the idea that it doesn't matter how many sets of hoity-toity people come over every few hundred years and order people around, start wars, build things, then go away again or get subsumed into the population...the essential nature of the locals didn't really change that much... ;-)

[Bugbear]

I did direct connection, although I kind of feel I slip somewhere between that and tenuous. Partner is Scots born and partly bred, Lindsay with a side order of Grant from Glasgow/Strathaven ;-) - but we're not married (can't be, well not in the official sense, and don't want to anyway) but together nearly 15 years. ...

Congratulations on fifteen years.

That's an interesting concept: extending one's cultural heritage, in part, to one's domestic partner as part of the relationship. I've seen others express this notion, including Sushi.

[fingertrouble]

Congratulations on fifteen years.

Thanks! Although strictly we are 3 months shy of that...in my head it's always '15' LOL.

That's an interesting concept: extending one's cultural heritage, in part, to one's domestic partner as part of the relationship. I've seen others express this notion, including Sushi.

Well unless I misunderstood I thought if you married a Scot then that entitles you to wear their tartan (usually patrilineal? or does it work both ways?) - so given that familial/marriage right, I see no vast difference between that and longterm partners - especially when you can't get officially married (civil partnership yes, but that is not completely the same for various reasons including cultural, legal and religious).

Even if I could, I don't think I'd marry him just so I could wear his tartan, although it's tempting, and about the only reason...;-) But I think partnership is enough - since there is another of 'clansman' which I think used to be people who worked with or joined the clan without other affiliations could wear the tartan...but sounds loose enough to work here too?

Although this is partly moot, not got the confidence up (or the kilt yet) to wear my partner's tartan when I'm on my own even though I've probably got more direct 'familial' (??) right to wear it than most rather than some distant great-great-great etc. Together yes we have worn it, then it seems totally appropriate. Certainly be interesting when/if I do wear his tartan what the purists say about this if I get challenged...

As an aside, was in Durban for his mother's 100th (yes it's those scottish genes! Scottish mothers go on for ever...) and she lambasted him for wearing a Lindsay kilt, saying he should've worn her kilt, the Grant! Even though he's a Lindsay...she considers him a Grant, LOL.

[Bugbear]

Thanks! Although strictly we are 3 months shy of that...in my head it's always '15' LOL.



Well unless I misunderstood I thought if you married a Scot then that entitles you to wear their tartan (usually patrilineal? or does it work both ways?) - so given that familial/marriage right, I see no vast difference between that and longterm partners - especially when you can't get officially married (civil partnership yes, but that is not completely the same for various reasons including cultural, legal and religious).

Even if I could, I don't think I'd marry him just so I could wear his tartan, although it's tempting, and about the only reason...;-) But I think partnership is enough - since there is another of 'clansman' which I think used to be people who worked with or joined the clan without other affiliations could wear the tartan...but sounds loose enough to work here too?

Although this is partly moot, not got the confidence up (or the kilt yet) to wear my partner's tartan when I'm on my own even though I've probably got more direct 'familial' (??) right to wear it than most rather than some distant great-great-great etc. Together yes we have worn it, then it seems totally appropriate. Certainly be interesting when/if I do wear his tartan what the purists say about this if I get challenged...

As an aside, was in Durban for his mother's 100th (yes it's those scottish genes! Scottish mothers go on for ever...) and she lambasted him for wearing a Lindsay kilt, saying he should've worn her kilt, the Grant! Even though he's a Lindsay...she considers him a Grant, LOL.

Actually that sounds kind of fun, both wearing the same tartan.
We don't have the civil unions or anything like that here.
Good luck.

[David Dubh]

I'm Scottish by virtue of having been made in Bishop Briggs but delivered in North York (Toronto) My mum was three months pregnant with me when they emmigrated.

[BCAC]

Fingertrouble,

It seems to me like you're desperately trying to justify your wearing of your partners tartan. You don't have to, you know.

Even if you have no direct Scottish link, you can wear the tartan just because you want to and because you have YOUR reasons.