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?