wearing other family tartan rather than your own

[Jock Scot]

Aha "Official channels" sometimes don't necessarily exist in writing in matters such as these and it is a very British thing and causes confusion and misunderstandings to the unwary and particularly to the unwary foreigner! There are many unwritten conventions in UK society, even these days, that go under the headings of "its just not done", or conversely, "that is the way it is done" and confusing though it is, even though it is unwritten----anywhere----there is still the "propper way of doing things"! Do not rely on the fact that something is written down with British conventions and if it is not written down then it must be OK to do it,or not, as the case may be.That would be probably be a big mistake!

[BoldHighlander]

I like that Mike, I like that a lot. I like the fact that you asked and I like the fact that you had a satifactory reply AND I like the fact that you are "thrilled".

Hear! Hear!

Congratulations Mike!

[ThistleDown]

I like that Mike, I like that a lot. I like the fact that you asked and I like the fact that you had a satifactory reply AND I like the fact that you are "thrilled".

And a "well done" from here, too, Mike.

[Moski]

Question. Who OWNS the tartans. A much different matter than "recognizing" or claiming one as "official". Were these designed by a Clan Chief or by a mill/weaver and claimed by a Chief/Clan.

Unwritten rules are really worth the paper they're written on in most cases. Actual ownership, heck, even a somewhat legitimate claim of ownership would be an acceptable authority and end this discussion. Name association, for however long and however ingrained, still does not grant "ownership" and the rights that go with it.

[macwilkin]

Question. Who OWNS the tartans. A much different matter than "recognizing" or claiming one as "official". Were these designed by a Clan Chief or by a mill/weaver and claimed by a Chief/Clan.

Unwritten rules are really worth the paper they're written on in most cases. Actual ownership, heck, even a somewhat legitimate claim of ownership would be an acceptable authority and end this discussion. Name association, for however long and however ingrained, still does not grant "ownership" and the rights that go with it.

You fail to understand the concept of the Clan Chief, my friend. If the Chief recognizes the tartan, then it is a legitimate clan tartan. A quote from a member of the Court of Session, Lord Aitchinson, seems appropriate:

Historically the idea of a chief or chieftain submitting his dignity to the arbitrament of it Court of law is really grotesque. The chief was the law, and his authority was derived from his own people.

-- http://www.heraldica.org/topics/brit...cs.htm#Maclean of Ardgour

If you want to be pedantic, there are tartans that were designed by clan members and chiefs, as well as those that were named by mills and others for clans. But in Highland tradition, the Chief decides which tartan is a "bona fide" tartan.

T.

[Mike_Oettle]

Thank you Todd. Things were getting a little anarchistic there.
Regards,
Mike

[Moski]

You fail to understand the concept of the Clan Chief, my friend. If the Chief recognizes the tartan, then it is a legitimate clan tartan. A quote from a member of the Court of Session, Lord Aitchinson, seems appropriate:

Historically the idea of a chief or chieftain submitting his dignity to the arbitrament of it Court of law is really grotesque. The chief was the law, and his authority was derived from his own people.

-- http://www.heraldica.org/topics/brit...cs.htm#Maclean of Ardgour

If you want to be pedantic, there are tartans that were designed by clan members and chiefs, as well as those that were named by mills and others for clans. But in Highland tradition, the Chief decides which tartan is a "bona fide" tartan.

T.

But that was not my question. My question was of ownership. Not if the Chief could state "this tartan respresents my Clan or that tartan I do not recognise". And no I won't aknowledge haughty praise of the personage and priveiledge of a Chief as authoritative in-re the question of ownership it the particular rights thereof.

Yes the Chief decides what is a "bona fide" tartan of his clan. Where does the right to restrict it's use come from? And I was not referring to tartans that were designed by chiefs of clan members. I'm pretty much talking about pre-existing tartans.

Hey who has the right of control of the sutherland district tartan? How does it apply to a tie or trews.

[macwilkin]

But that was not my question. My question was of ownership. Not if the Chief could state "this tartan respresents my Clan or that tartan I do not recognise". And no I won't aknowledge haughty praise of the personage and priveiledge of a Chief as authoritative in-re the question of ownership it the particular rights thereof.

Yes the Chief decides what is a "bona fide" tartan of his clan. Where does the right to restrict it's use come from? And I was not referring to tartans that were designed by chiefs of clan members. I'm pretty much talking about pre-existing tartans.

Hey who has the right of control of the sutherland district tartan? How does it apply to a tie or trews.

Methinks I detect a bit of "reverse snobbery" here...again, you have to understand the concept of the Chief as "father" to his clan (which essentially means "children") -- since he is the head of the family, then he has the right to recognize which tartans are bona fide and which are not. There's nothing "haughty" about it.

Think of it this way: when an American state legislature recognizes a tartan, they are doing the same thing as a Chief -- nothing is ever mentioned about "ownership" per se. The legislature, representing the people of a state, recognize a tartan to symbolize their particular area -- other state and district tartans have not received such recognition, but people still wear those tartans.

If my be so bold, why is the concept of "ownership" so important to you?

T.

[Downunder Kilt]

Todd wrote (and Terry agreed): “If the Chief of the Clan recognizes them, then they are ‘genuine’, regardless of their origins.”

My sentiment, too. And, for those who might be interested, I received a letter this afternoon, with a stamp bearing the Queen’s head and posted from Colinsburgh, Fife, which read, in part:

“Thank you for your letter . . . in which you . . . ask . . . my permission for you to wear the Lindsay tartan. . . . it seems to me that anyone who is seriously proud of his Lindsay – or Fotheringham – ancestry should be able to wear the Lindsay tartan. In any case I am happy to give my permission.”

It is signed “Robin Crawford” – Robin clearly being a nickname and Crawford his primary title, since he is Robert Lindsay, Earl of Crawford and Balcarres.
So it’s official: even though I could have worn the tartan without permission, such permission has been asked (following proper form) and granted.
I am thrilled!
Regards,
Mike

Great to see Mike, I like the way you went about it and I like the fact that you now have a letter from the Chief that will undoubtedly go into your own family history and vault. Cheers

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

My question was of ownership (of the clan tartan). Where does the right to restrict it's use come from?

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.