wearing other family tartan rather than your own

[kilted scholar]

The title of the thread, and the subject of the discussion in general makes no sense. The question is not whether it is acceptable to wear a tartan of another family. If that were so a woman should ask permission of a clan chief in order to wear a kilted skirt in that tartan, or it would be respectful to do the same so as to wear a tie or a scarf or a shirt in that tartan. Perhaps also the use of a blanket would come into this category, since spreading a piece of cloth on the ground in, say, the MacDonald tartan, so as to sit on it while having a picnic could well be considered disrespectful if one's name was Bloggs.

No, the question surrounds wearing a kilt in a particular tartan. This raises a raft of questions as to why is it respectful to ask a clan chief about wearing a kilt in a particular tartan while having no need to show such respect about wearing a tie or a jacket in the self-same tartan?

And. since that seems to be the nature of the question, is there not sexual discrimination at this point, since women seem to be exempt from the putative need to request permission? Is that not something unacceptable in the present cultural climate in the Western world?

[ThistleDown]

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.

Yes, certainly there are larger implications, but the basic point is that permission is not required, period. Not by someone "of the name or descent, or descended from an individual of the traditional territory of" the clan in question nor by anyone else simply because the clan tartan has no vested ownership. The whole issue of "permission" has no validity. No chief to my knowledge has ever demanded that permission be sought (and what a fool he would be if he tried).

There is a general assumption, though: the tartan you are wearing is that of your family, it has a particular significance to you in that it belongs to your regiment, your nation/city, your school, your association, or you have borrowed or hired it for the special occasion. Among the chiefs there are few who understand the reason for wearing a name that is not your own -- just because you happen to like the colours or the sett.

[McClef]

If "the whole issue of "permission" has no validity" then why should people feel the need or advocate the need to seek it?

Also as I have had no success in discovering Chiefs' views on the net, what is your source Rex for stating "Among the chiefs there are few who understand the reason for wearing a name that is not your own -- just because you happen to like the colours or the sett."?

If I were a Chief I would feel quite flattered that my ancestor had chosen tartans that so many people found attractive. There are some tartans that do not have that effect.

[ThistleDown]

All of the bold is mine.

If "the whole issue of "permission" has no validity" then why should people feel the need or advocate the need to seek it?

Why indeed! There is no requirement in Scots law for anyone to seek a clan chief's approval before wearing his clan tartan. 'Tis just a matter of courtesy and respect, and that's what we are on about in this thread, surely.

Also as I have had no success in discovering Chiefs' views on the net, what is your source Rex for stating "Among the chiefs there are few who understand the reason for wearing a name that is not your own -- just because you happen to like the colours or the sett."?

Will you accept "personal knowledge", Trefor? That's about as much answer as you will get to that question, I am afraid.

If I were a Chief I would feel quite flattered that my ancestor had chosen tartans that so many people found attractive. There are some tartans that do not have that effect.

[B]But you are not a chief, Trefor. Flattery may get you to your gate lodge, to initialling your haberdasher's bill, or even to your banker's desk, but not a step beyond. Many (I will not say "most") of the present Highland clan chiefs are privately more than a bit shy about their ancestors' life choices, including but not exclusive to the tartans selected for them by others. They may choose not to differ publicly with their ancestors, but if you demand that they do so you must understand that the demand belongs to you and they do not have to bow down and meet it.

[McClef]

True, I am not a Chief Rex which is why I used "if".

I am not aware that I have ever met and chatted with any Chief, whereas you may well have had that opportunity.

What is courteous and respectful continues to be interpreted differently, not just by you and me but by many others on each side of the discussion and I for one agree with kilted scholar that tartan and not just tartan in the form of the kilt should be considered as part of the whole discussion.

I have argued that in an age of communication that it is available for Chiefs to publicise their general principles upon this issue, if indeed they have them. This is different from their known and defined powers which, as we concur, do not cover this area. They may define which tartans are officially of their Clan but it is the case that many of their clans-folk may not always be aware one way or the other.

Take the case of the "MacMillan Black." This tartan was retailed by the Woollen Mill as such and I purchased one and did a review. I was then informed by MOR that this tartan had specifically been declared by the Chief of that Clan as NOT authorised by him as a MacMillan tartan.

There could have been some people who had written to the Chief seeking permission, not being aware of this. It is possible they may not have received a reply and therefore decided not to wear the tartan. I have on more than one occasion been approached by MacMillans who genuinely thought it was theirs.

So communication and information can be haphazard. I would argue that many things could be solved by plain and easily accessible statements "from the horse's mouth." That way people who plan to wear a tartan that they have no relation to will know where they stand and act according to their consciences accordingly.

It would save having to interpret silence, or someone else's view of silence.

I think I have said enough for a while.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Take the case of the "MacMillan Black." This tartan was retailed by the Woollen Mill as such and I purchased one and did a review. I was then informed by MOR that this tartan had specifically been declared by the Chief of that Clan as NOT authorised by him as a MacMillan tartan.

Quite right. Not only is this tartan not a MacMillan tartan, its "white stripe" clearly marks it as a variation on Buchanan. It is a fashion tartan that was commercially launched without the knowledge, or approval, of the Chief of the MacMillans.

[ThistleDown]

True, I am not a Chief Rex which is why I used "if".

I am not aware that I have ever met and chatted with any Chief, whereas you may well have had that opportunity.

Yes, but only a dozen or two, Trefor

I have argued that in an age of communication that it is available for Chiefs to publicise their general principles upon this issue, if indeed they have them. This is different from their known and defined powers which, as we concur, do not cover this area. They may define which tartans are officially of their Clan but it is the case that many of their clans-folk may not always be aware one way or the other.

I understand, but if you are thinking that the Standing Council should assemble those general principles, that is not the role of the Council. If you think individual chiefs should do so, then I must go back to my earlier statement: some give enormously of themselves, some do not and that is their individual right.

Take the case of the "MacMillan Black." This tartan was retailed by the woollen mill as such and I purchased one and did a review. I was then informed by MOR that this tartan had specifically been declared by the Chief of that Clan as NOT authorised by him as a MacMillan tartan.

Yes, the black version is not an accepted MacMillan tartan and so I suppose Marton Mills sold you a bill of goods called a fashion tartan. That is not the responsibility of the chief, surely. The recognised Clan MacMillan society lists those tartans that are accepted as MacMillans.

There could have been some people who had written to the Chief seeking permission, not being aware of this. It is possible they may not have received a reply and therefore decided not to wear the tartan. I have on more than one occasion been approached by MacMillans who genuinely thought it was theirs.

In the case of the MacMillans, the clan's hereditary chief is still active even though now in his eighties, I believe. I think that had you written to him he might well have passed your enquiry on to the association that has been formed from the clan. That is true for many chiefs and clans, but for even more there is no structure for them to fall back on even if they want to.

The Tartan Registry categorises tartans as clan/family, fashion, corporate, etc. Perhaps that's where tartans should be researched to discover their authenticity and/or acceptance.

[BCAC]

During the battle of the Imjin River in the Korean War the British Gloucestershire Regiment(Glorious Glosters)comprising of some 600 men were surrounded by 60,000 irate Chinese and after fending off the attacking forces for many hours the American General in command of the whole area asked over the radio the very British Colonel(Colonel Carne VC)how things were going? "....well sir things are a bit tricky...." replied the Colonel. In this case the understanding of a common language completely failed! No one's fault and I stress that, but an important position and lives was needlessly lost.

Jock, a bit off topic here but well...... Wasn't that when the Glorious Glosters fought so well and had to fight back to back to ward off the enemy? As they did this so well they where awarded the right to wear two cap badges (one in the front and one in the back) to recognise their great back to back fighting skills.

[Jock Scot]

Jock, a bit off topic here but well...... Wasn't that when the Glorious Glosters fought so well and had to fight back to back to ward off the enemy? As they did this so well they where awarded the right to wear two cap badges (one in the front and one in the back) to recognise their great back to back fighting skills.

No, they won the honour of wearing a back badge(a Sphinx) at the Battle of Alexandria in 1801.

[Spartan Tartan]

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?

This has been a tremendously insightful thread! Just my two cents...

I did, infact, have to get permission to have the tartan weaved for my kilt. In essence, I had to "prove my entitlement" and then pass that to the kilt maker who then had to send that to the mill. Mind you, it was the mill that required the proof. Just an interesting point in response to the quote above.