Wearing another clans Tartan?

[Nathan]

The evidence suggests that in this case the government use postdated the Campbells:
see http://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/tar...s.aspx?ref=502
and http://www.tartansauthority.com/tart.../campbell-clan

By the way, for those that are interested in this thread tangent, Matt Newsome's article on the subject is informative. Read it here:
http://www.albanach.org/articles.html#

[Tobus]

We do love beating this dead horse, don't we?

It's important to draw the distinction between labels such as Tommy Hilfiger (a fashion label, which is meant to be worn by anyone who likes it) and tartan (which is traditionally only worn by those who have an affiliation to its group). The two are not the same. Likewise, a sports team logo is meant to be worn by fans, and aggressively marketed for that purpose. A clan tartan, however, is not.

Father Bill is closer with his analogy on clerical dress, and we can extend that to any uniform of groups whose membership must be earned. These are items of distinction which signify that you belong to a group. And yes, there's a difference in that it is earned versus a clan tartan being something you're (usually) affiliated with by birth. But still, these symbols are much more meaningful than fashion labels and fan-based organisational logos. When wearing a clan tartan, you are representing yourself as being affiliated with that clan whether it's your intent or not. Which is why I stress that you should consider your audience. Will they know? Will they care? Base your decision on that. Etiquette has everything to do with context.

[creagdhubh]

We do love beating this dead horse, don't we?

It's important to draw the distinction between labels such as Tommy Hilfiger (a fashion label, which is meant to be worn by anyone who likes it) and tartan (which is traditionally only worn by those who have an affiliation to its group). The two are not the same. Likewise, a sports team logo is meant to be worn by fans, and aggressively marketed for that purpose. A clan tartan, however, is not.

Father Bill is closer with his analogy on clerical dress, and we can extend that to any uniform of groups whose membership must be earned. These are items of distinction which signify that you belong to a group. And yes, there's a difference in that it is earned versus a clan tartan being something you're (usually) affiliated with by birth. But still, these symbols are much more meaningful than fashion labels and fan-based organisational logos. When wearing a clan tartan, you are representing yourself as being affiliated with that clan whether it's your intent or not. Which is why I stress that you should consider your audience. Will they know? Will they care? Base your decision on that. Etiquette has everything to do with context.

Well said, Tobus. I couldn't agree more.

[TheOfficialBren]

Well said, Tobus. I couldn't agree more.

***

I agree. Well said, Tobus.

[Nathan]

Which is why I stress that you should consider your audience. Will they know? Will they care? Base your decision on that. Etiquette has everything to do with context.

Tobus,

I respect the articulate way you've addressed the subject and we mostly agree. However, the stress on considering your audience makes me a little uncomfortable. My mother likes to say, "character is what you are in the dark". To me the logic of "just don't wear MacOnion at a MacOnion gathering" amounts to, "It's ok to do it as long as you don't get caught."

I think the objective of good etiquette is founded in respect. It's not just to avoid the hassle of being accosted by someone you have offende. Rather, it's having the good taste and class not to behave offensively in the first place....

Also, keep in mind in today's day an age of cell phone cameras and facebook posts and YouTube videos, one's audience could be the whole world.

[Carlo]

We do love beating this dead horse, don't we?

I do believe that beating dead horses and making them into sporrans is a good idea.
Adding to that I believe it also is a good idea to come back to this topic from time to time since it is an important topic and sometimes I tend to write something not because it is 100% what I think but because I think that the answer to that statement might be interessting.

Father Bill is closer with his analogy on clerical dress, and we can extend that to any uniform of groups whose membership must be earned. These are items of distinction which signify that you belong to a group.

Clerical collars in Switzerland are only for catholic priests which confuses me to the point of who/what actually grants you the right to wear one (Not arguing Father Bill shouldn't wear one. I understand that there are some cultural and religious differencies that have historical reasons.)

To the uniform part a question I have. A uniform consists normally of diffrent parts. In my Studentenverbindung it is a cap and a 3cm broad "sash". The sash alone doesn't make the uniform and the cap alone doesn't make the uniform.
When it comes to highlandwear, at least with the regimental tartans, only capbadge and tartan mark you as clansman or someone from the regiment. Surely clanbadges are registered. Why aren't they only sold by the clan.
That way you would know who is or isn't a clanmember.

[RockyR]

Tobus,

I respect the articulate way you've addressed the subject and we mostly agree. However, the stress on considering your audience makes me a little uncomfortable. My mother likes to say, "character is what you are in the dark". To me the logic of "just don't wear MacOnion at a MacOnion gathering" amounts to, "It's ok to do it as long as you don't get caught."

I think the objective of good etiquette is founded in respect. It's not just to avoid the hassle of being accosted by someone you have offende. Rather, it's having the good taste and class not to behave offensively in the first place....

Also, keep in mind in today's day and age of cell phone cameras and facebook posts and YouTube videos, one's audience could be the whole world.

I agree, Nathan, but I would point out something: Not everyone who wears clan tartans that they have no affiliation with feel they ARE doing something wrong. It boils down to how the individual feels about it (which is where this conversation usually comes full circle). If you personally don't feel comfortable wearing another clan's tartan, don't. If you do, go ahead. You may be wise to understand there are 200 years of history surrounding the clan tartans (with the understanding that they were 'made up' by a mill to move cloth), but ultimately, the decision is up to the individual.

Where I tend to veer slightly off the path of the discussions laid out here is in the use of clan tartans in other articles of clothing. Not sure why someone would be uncomfortable wearing a Dress Godron kilt, but boxers or shirts are completely fine. If it b/c it's "accepted in society" to wear tartans as a shirt, but when you wear it as a kilt, it's a symbol of who you are? If so, then I would ask when that rule started? It's still Dress Gordon. The tartan and it's meaning don't change b/c one is a kilt and one is a shirt. People fiercely protect clan tartans in kilts, but let it slide in other articles of clothing.

It's the black / white mindset vs. the grey area. Individuals pick and choose what parts of the argument to pull into their beliefs... where on the "tartan enforcement agency" scale they want to fall between "wear any tartan at any time for any reason" all the way to "only ever wear your father's clan tartan, no matter what article of clothing, period". There's plenty of room in the middle of that scale for differing view points.

[Jock Scot]

-------- People fiercely protect clan tartans in kilts, but let it slide in other articles of clothing.

With the greatest of respect ,I am not at all sure that the Scots go along with that Rocky.

[Father Bill]

Clerical collars in Switzerland are only for catholic priests which confuses me to the point of who/what actually grants you the right to wear one (Not arguing Father Bill shouldn't wear one. I understand that there are some cultural and religious differencies that have historical reasons.)

Just for interest and clarification, a bit of information on that point of confusion, only provided so that you may have more detail and less confusion:

In most of continental Europe, clergy are either clearly Roman Catholic or clearly Protestant - usually Lutheran. In North America many protestant clergy (and there are many, many branches of protestantism here with different practices) wear collars, which is not the practice in much of Europe.

To confuse things further, I am Anglican - considered by many to be neither fish nor foul, neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant, something that is little experienced or understood in most of continental Europe. Anglican practices and theology are largely Roman Catholic; our ecclesiology less so. We have been called the via media the "middle way" for centuries. If we are confusing to many, I understand that, having had some wonderfully convoluted conversations with my wife's Lutheran and Roman Catholic family in Germany on the topic of "What on earth is an Anglican!"

Thus, the collar is not only Roman Catholic in most of the world, just in Europe... except for the British Isles where Anglicanism is more common. I'll leave it to our Scots who may wish to comment on prevalent practices in the Episcopal Church of Scotland - the Scottish "Anglican branch office."

Bottom line, I'm Anglican, I'm called a priest, not a minister or pastor (although I am those too!) I'm addressed as "Father" and my right to wear a collar is conferred by my bishop, consecrated in apostolic succession... but our bishops and archbishops do not report to Rome... or outside of England, do they report to Canterbury either!



All of this is offered only as points of information to allay confusion among those who have little or no experience with this branch of church life, and so that the comparison will make more sense in our discussion of tartans. I am not open to discussions of religion on this forum, only to discussions of church organization for the purpose of knowing the facts.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion on tartans... NOT collars (which incidentally look great with a Sheriffmuir jacket!)

Bill+

[RockyR]

With the greatest of respect ,I am not at all sure that the Scots go along with that Rocky.

Which is exactly my point in my last paragraph quoted below (can you quote yourself?!?). There are all manners of opinions running the gamut on this matter...

It's the black / white mindset vs. the grey area. Individuals pick and choose what parts of the argument to pull into their beliefs... where on the "tartan enforcement agency" scale they want to fall between "wear any tartan at any time for any reason" all the way to "only ever wear your father's clan tartan, no matter what article of clothing, period". There's plenty of room in the middle of that scale for differing view points.