Quote Originally Posted by M. A. C. Newsome
Todd beat me to the punch with a link to my article. I was going to post the same thing. Read it -- it pretty much tells it as it is.



Ah, but the Lady is most certainly not reflecting the customs from 1780. At this time there were but a very small handfull of named tartans -- if any at all -- and these would have been mostly "fashion" names. In other words, no one at the time would have seriously considered the tartans the property of, or even symbols of, the families or places whose names they bore. The only people wearing regulated tartans at this time would have been the military regiments.

....snip....

But my main point is this -- no one in 1780 would have recognized this Lady's attitude as anything indiginous to their culture.

Aye,
Matt
thanks, that was sort of my point. I used my historical shorthand and I should be more careful. In my context 1780 is the point that the kilt becomes an English fashion statement and from that concept/time evolves nearly all the modern rules kilt wearers are supposed to follow. I think we're saying similar things: pre-1745 - no rules (great scotch, ha ha); 1745 - 1780 - primarily military; post-1780 - English heriditary/promogeniture (how do you spell that?) rules. Those are general statements and don't even begin to take into consideration rebel versus loyalist traditions.