Scots outraged over restricted tartan

[imrichmond]

It appears that The Scotsman newspaper has just learned, 80 years after the fact, that the wearing of the Balmoral tartan is restricted to members of the royal family and the queen's piper: http://www.scotsman.com/news/royals-...rtan-1-4203624 The article has inspired a number of outraged comments.

[ThistleDown]

Hmm, 'outraged' is a fairly strong word. 'Surprised' may be a better one. Until The Scotsman informed them, I doubt most Scots knew the Balmoral was a 'restricted' tartan and wouldn't care much in any case. Generally speaking, Scots wear their own family's tartan or, on hire occasions, the tartans of the hire companies (currently Black Watch, Black Isle, Grey Granite and the like) and wouldn't think of wearing the Balmoral. On the other hand, Scottish Field has an article in its current issue entitled 'Tartan terrors', with a sub 'Unless we call a halt to the riot of garish new designs threatening our national dress -- such as the luminous Incredible Hulk tartan -- we risk losing the collective pride in our national plaid'.

[Royboy]

the luminous Incredible Hulk tartan --

I had no idea that was even a thing. . .but apparently it is....

[Roadkill]

it gets worse. There are more that just the Hulk...
http://www.scotlandnow.dailyrecord.c...heroes-6690166



Actually, the Batman tartan is not too bad

[figheadair]

The writer of the article you reference should do some fact checking. The Act of Proscription of 1747, did not ban tartan, but highland dress including kilts. It was repealed on July 1, 1782 not 1822 as stated in the article. And I don't think anyone should be disturbed that they cannot wear something that someone else has restricted. Sometimes newspapers are trying to manufacture the news, not report it.

I've just made the same points in the Comments.

[Jock Scot]

Scots outraged over a restricted tartan? A few perhaps. Most Scots, I venture to suggest, know little about the finer points of tartan and care even less. News must be short at the moment and accurate news is as always, in even shorter supply.

If anyone is interested, I started a thread on the Balmoral tartan etc., some time ago. Use the search function and look for the thread title of," Balmoral tartan at Balmoral."

[OC Richard]

it gets worse

All those designs are weak, overly splayed-out and diffuse IMHO.

[Michael A]

Only the arms of certain families are restricted by law. Such families may or may not also be clan chiefs in law. Tartans are not regulated in who may wear them in law, including Balmoral. The latter restriction is one of convention rather than law. There was an article in The Times of London the other week on this very subject. A link is attached to the syndicated story from The Australian newspaper.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...5b93ab4dd1d649

[Liam]

It appears that The Scotsman newspaper has just learned, 80 years after the fact, that the wearing of the Balmoral tartan is restricted to members of the royal family and the queen's piper: http://www.scotsman.com/news/royals-...rtan-1-4203624 The article has inspired a number of outraged comments.

The writer of the article you reference should do some fact checking. The Act of Proscription of 1747, did not ban tartan, but highland dress including kilts. It was repealed on July 1, 1782 not 1822 as stated in the article. And I don't think anyone should be disturbed that they cannot wear something that someone else has restricted. Sometimes newspapers are trying to manufacture the news, not report it.