Can anyone wear any tartan?

[macwilkin]

But it seems silly to this Welshman that the Scots are defending a custom invented by the Sassanach

Geoff Withnell

I hardly think one can call Wilson's of Bannockburn, a Lowland weaving firm, "Sassenachs".

Todd

[Mair of the Tribe of Mar]

I can't help but [respectfully] see the irony of the content of this post, while the poster has as their avatar, a "clansman's badge", which denotes loyalty to a clan Chief.

Respectfully, of course, my avatar is the "clansman's badge" from the Tribe of Mar. I belong to the organization and am very active in sponsoring it and games, functions, and what not. I have a lot of fun, with the organization. But, in my activity, it has helped me see the irony of the clans. Hopefully you can make it through this!!

In Scotland there are two areas that have a high rate, relative to the rest of the country, of Mair's. The two areas are Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire. Now, these groups are related, but at about 1200 A.D. And according to some, they were Normans that came to Scotland with David. They would have started in Ayr and moved up. Now, the Tribe of Mar, and the lands of Mar are located near and in Aberdeenshire. My family though, comes from Mauchline in Ayrshire, and are not associated with their kin to north. Yet, because a Mair from aberdeen pledged his loyalty to the Countess of Mar, all Mairs from thenceforth will be associated with the Tribe of Mar.

As I said before, I am proud of the organization and do a lot with it. But, other than modern day romanticism, I am not connected to the clan through any ancient legalities. I would imagine that there are a lot that fall into this category. How many Donalds do we think there were in Scotland whose son's took and continued to pass on the name MacDonald? Just one? Yet, somehow they get associatted with one of the many families of MacDonalds.

Peace and Harmony,
Jason

[macwilkin]

Jason,

My point was that the clansman's badge is more of a symbol of the clan system than clan tartans; heraldry and its customs have been in Scotland far longer than tartans.

Apologies for the confusion,

Todd

Respectfully, of course, my avatar is the "clansman's badge" from the Tribe of Mar. I belong to the organization and am very active in sponsoring it and games, functions, and what not. I have a lot of fun, with the organization. But, in my activity, it has helped me see the irony of the clans. Hopefully you can make it through this!!

In Scotland there are two areas that have a high rate, relative to the rest of the country, of Mair's. The two areas are Ayrshire and Aberdeenshire. Now, these groups are related, but at about 1200 A.D. And according to some, they were Normans that came to Scotland with David. They would have started in Ayr and moved up. Now, the Tribe of Mar, and the lands of Mar are located near and in Aberdeenshire. My family though, comes from Mauchline in Ayrshire, and are not associated with their kin to north. Yet, because a Mair from aberdeen pledged his loyalty to the Countess of Mar, all Mairs from thenceforth will be associated with the Tribe of Mar.

As I said before, I am proud of the organization and do a lot with it. But, other than modern day romanticism, I am not connected to the clan through any ancient legalities. I would imagine that there are a lot that fall into this category. How many Donalds do we think there were in Scotland whose son's took and continued to pass on the name MacDonald? Just one? Yet, somehow they get associatted with one of the many families of MacDonalds.

Peace and Harmony,
Jason

[Geoff Withnell]

I hardly think one can call Wilson's of Bannockburn, a Lowland weaving firm, "Sassenachs".

Todd

I would certainly agree, however that said, I do not believe the list of tartans they compiled was intended to establish certain tartans as "belonging" to certain clans. While some of the names of the tartans were clan names, some on the Wilson's list were not, or had only numbers. I have seen nothing that convinces me that tartans belong to a particular clan in any sort of quasi-heraldic sense was wide spread prior to English Monarchs in the 19th century pushing their romantic notions of Highland life.

Geoff Withnell

[macwilkin]

I would certainly agree, however that said, I do not believe the list of tartans they compiled was intended to establish certain tartans as "belonging" to certain clans. While some of the names of the tartans were clan names, some on the Wilson's list were not, or had only numbers. I have seen nothing that convinces me that tartans belong to a particular clan in any sort of quasi-heraldic sense was wide spread prior to English Monarchs in the 19th century pushing their romantic notions of Highland life.

Geoff Withnell

To be fair, though, it wasn't just an English monarch, it was a British monarch. Remember, James I was James VI of Scotland first, and the Act of Union had been in place since 1707. Many Highland chiefs were embracing the myth just as enthusiastically as the "English" monarchs.

The point that some seem to be missing is (save Gil) is that the tradition of tartans being associated with clans has been around for some time now. As Matt notes, regardless of the history -- Wilson's, the Sobeski Brothers, George VI's 1822 visit, etc. -- a tradition has been established that certain tartans are associated and recognised with certain clans.

Matt's article on the sources of tartan explains it far better than I can, though:

http://www.albanach.org/sources.htm

Of course the sept lists are suspect -- almost all of the noted tartan scholars agree -- but why cut our nose off to spite our face? The real story of clan tartans does not diminish, in my opinion, the symbolism they have developed since the early 19th century.

Does that mean you can wear "my" clan's tartan? By all means, be my guest. Our society supports a pipe band in Scotland that does, and I doubt the members are all Cummings. Personally, I only wear tartans I have a personal connection to, be it a clan/district/state, etc. But that's just me. If kilts are about "freedom", as many espouse here, then one freedom which must be respected is the freedom to follow custom and tradition.

Regards,

Todd

[Geoff Withnell]

To be fair, though, it wasn't just an English monarch, it was a British monarch. Remember, James I was James VI of Scotland first, and the Act of Union had been in place since 1707. Many Highland chiefs were embracing the myth just as enthusiastically as the "English" monarchs.

The point that some seem to be missing is (save Gil) is that the tradition of tartans being associated with clans has been around for some time now. As Matt notes, regardless of the history -- Wilson's, the Sobeski Brothers, George VI's 1822 visit, etc. -- a tradition has been established that certain tartans are associated and recognised with certain clans.

Matt's article on the sources of tartan explains it far better than I can, though:

http://www.albanach.org/sources.htm

Of course the sept lists are suspect -- almost all of the noted tartan scholars agree -- but why cut our nose off to spite our face? The real story of clan tartans does not diminish, in my opinion, the symbolism they have developed since the early 19th century.

Does that mean you can wear "my" clan's tartan? By all means, be my guest. Our society supports a pipe band in Scotland that does, and I doubt the members are all Cummings. Personally, I only wear tartans I have a personal connection to, be it a clan/district/state, etc. But that's just me. If kilts are about "freedom", as many espouse here, then one freedom which must be respected is the freedom to follow custom and tradition.

Regards,

Todd

Ah, I believe we are actually in fairly close agreement. I recognize and honor the association, of whatever length, recent or ancient, of some tartans and some clans/families. As I said in my original reply, and have said elsewhere, the Marine Corps is my clan, and I wear the USMC tartan proudly. Can a non-Marine wear it? Certainly, if done with respect. But tartans are not heraldry. I would not dream of wearing someone's coat of arms. And I would be upset at someone not a Marine wearing an Eagle Globe and Anchor. But a tartan that was woven and sold to all and sundry for many years is not a coat of arms, and can't have that kind of exclusive status. We don't need to claim great antiquity for the concept. Scotland can hardly encourage the mills to produce and sell tartans throughout the world, and then not expect folks to wear them! And certainly the Monarchs are "British". But George VI and Victoria were far more English than Scottish, by all accounts I have read.

I am giving serious thought to buying a Gordon tartan kilt. I am Jewish, and many Scottish Jews are named Gordon, and many who are not have worn the Gordon tartan (usually the Dress tartan). This seems like a close enough association to me, but i would not want to be upbraided for wearing a tartan I "don't have the right to".

Again, I respect the clans association with a tartan, and realize haw strong the feeling can be, however recent. But to say that there is something wrong, or unmannerly, or disrespectful in wearing a tartan of a clan one is not a part of is just not justified, given the history.

Geoff Withnell

[gilmore]

...
I am giving serious thought to buying a Gordon tartan kilt. I am Jewish, and many Scottish Jews are named Gordon, and many who are not have worn the Gordon tartan (usually the Dress tartan). This seems like a close enough association to me, but i would not want to be upbraided for wearing a tartan I "don't have the right to".

...

There is more to it than many Scottish Jews' being named Gordon that established Gordon as the tartan associated with Jews. This has been discussed rather thoroughly in two somewhat lengthy threads of a year ago or more. I am sure if you searched you could find them both. It's a custom that has arisen organically over several decades, if not a century or more.

I am not what most would call a Jew, or probably even Jewish, but have Jewish ancestry and have been thinking of wearing a Gordon tartan also.

[Bugbear]

I have ancestors from a sept of the House of Gordon starting three generations back, but it is through the female sides of the family; the MacMillan and another clan are a little closer.
I've thought about wearing the Gordon tartan, but decided to stick with non-clan tartans because things are not so clear for me right now on this issue of wearing multiple clan tartans. In other words, wear no clan tartan to avoid the conflicting tartan issue...

I wonder if the British General Charles Gordon "Gordon of Khartoum" had ties to the Gordon clan...

[macwilkin]

Ah, I believe we are actually in fairly close agreement. I recognize and honor the association, of whatever length, recent or ancient, of some tartans and some clans/families. As I said in my original reply, and have said elsewhere, the Marine Corps is my clan, and I wear the USMC tartan proudly. Can a non-Marine wear it? Certainly, if done with respect. But tartans are not heraldry. I would not dream of wearing someone's coat of arms. And I would be upset at someone not a Marine wearing an Eagle Globe and Anchor. But a tartan that was woven and sold to all and sundry for many years is not a coat of arms, and can't have that kind of exclusive status. We don't need to claim great antiquity for the concept. Scotland can hardly encourage the mills to produce and sell tartans throughout the world, and then not expect folks to wear them! And certainly the Monarchs are "British". But George VI and Victoria were far more English than Scottish, by all accounts I have read.

I am giving serious thought to buying a Gordon tartan kilt. I am Jewish, and many Scottish Jews are named Gordon, and many who are not have worn the Gordon tartan (usually the Dress tartan). This seems like a close enough association to me, but i would not want to be upbraided for wearing a tartan I "don't have the right to".

Again, I respect the clans association with a tartan, and realize haw strong the feeling can be, however recent. But to say that there is something wrong, or unmannerly, or disrespectful in wearing a tartan of a clan one is not a part of is just not justified, given the history.

Geoff Withnell

Agreed, Geoff. Tartans are not heraldry. Though I doubt Victoria might disagree with your comments about being more English than Scottish, given her love of the Highlands.

Let me just say: I do not believe that it is wrong for someone to wear a tartan that they are not justified to wear, only that it is wrong for me to do so. My sense of honour won't allow me to do it. My sense of honour would also never permit me to tell someone else that they were wrong. It's simply a personal choice.

As far as the Gordon tartan goes, as Gil mentioned, there is a long-standing association between the Gordon tartan and Scottish Jews, so why not?

So, yes, we are in fairly close agreement.

Todd

[MLLamble]

You can theoretically wear any tartan, yes. Some don't even have a clan attached (my kilt was labeled "Gray Granite" at the shop)