District and royal tartan oddities

[imrichmond]

While looking for a misplaced key this afternoon, I came across a small publication that I have had since the late 1950s but thought had been lost in one of my too-numerous moves back and forth across Canada. It is a 12-page pamphlet titled "Highland Dress in Modern Styles for All Occasions" published by the erstwhile firm of Stewart, Christie & Co., Tailors and Kilt Makers, of 86 George Street, Edinburgh. Upon perusing this pamphlet I came across a couple of things that puzzled me.

1) Under "District Tartans", the author(s) says "District Tartans are said to be of older origin than Clan Tartans and may be worn by people who reside in one of the Districts, or whose family originated therein, always provided they are entitled to wear a Clan Tartan" [My italics]. This latter statement certainly runs counter to present-day thinking about district tartans. I wonder if there is a "not" missing in the sentence, which may have been intended to read "provided they are not entitled to wear a Clan Tartan." This would make more sense. Even that restriction, however, seems to have disappeared over the past 50 years. Any comments?

2) Under "Royal Tartans", the pamphlet says, "The only registered Royal Tartans are the Balmoral Tartan and the Earl of St. Andrews' Tartan. These may only be used by members of the Royal Family and their use for any other purpose is forbidden." No problem for the Balmoral tartan, but the Earl of St. Andrews I have seen offered in Scotland as a rental-kilt tartan and it is generally listed as being one of the "universal" tartans. I'm not personally interested in it, but I just wondered if any of our tartan historians might be able to offer some enlightenment regarding this apparent contradiction. Presumably, Stewart, Christie and Co. would have had some idea of what they were talking about. If they are correct, when and why did the Earl of St. Andrews cease to be a restricted royal tartan?

[Downunder Kilt]

A vey brief history of the tartan from the Lochcarron site
http://www.lochcarron.com/history/ea...t_andrews.html

[imrichmond]

A vey brief history of the tartan from yje Lochcarron site
http://www.lochcarron.com/history/ea...t_andrews.html

Rather too brief a history, I'm afraid. It doesn't help resolve the question raised by the claim that the Earl of St. Andrews was a restricted tartan. Is there any truth to the claim?

[Carlo]

Rather too brief a history, I'm afraid. It doesn't help resolve the question raised by the claim that the Earl of St. Andrews was a restricted tartan. Is there any truth to the claim?

I've read this before. About here.

[Downunder Kilt]

Only other reference I can find is on the STA site under Royal tartans that say it is still used by the Earl of St Andrews, nothing about it ever being restricted however

[Carlo]

Only other reference I can find is on the STA site under Royal tartans that say it is still used by the Earl of St Andrews, nothing about it ever being restricted however

The STR on the other side talks about the restriction.

[Downunder Kilt]

Good one Carlo, tried to search there but was searching under Earl of ......... but nought came up. Those notes kind of say it all.