Strathearn?

[Benning Boy]

Thanks for the comments. I would like to know more. I said above B&S listed Strathearn Ancient on the sale list. I apparently had ancient on my mind, as I was just looking at it before making that post. Clearly it's Strathearn Modern on the sale list.

[figheadair]

Wilsons' reference to "Earl of Strathearn. Tartan worn by the Royals by order of the Duke of Kent" is intriguing but needs to be viewed in the context of the time. The concept of clan/family tartans was in it's infancy in the early 1800s. The 1822 Levee gave it a focus that really moved the whole concept from being a Highland to a Scottish family symbol. The Royal Family had no particular affiliation for tartan before then and even then it was very much a passing whim. It did not become regularised until the Victorian era.

Wilsons' comment did not refer to a Royal tartan but to a tartan for the Royals, probably the Royal Scots of which the Earl of Strathearn was Colonel in Chief. His death in 1820 there helps date the Strathearn tartan to c1800-20 but what is not clear is why Wilsons called it Earl of Strathearn but my view is that it was probably designed by them following a commission by the D of E and K intended 'for his regiment'. One might therefore more logically call this a Military sett as opposed to a Royal one although it was never formally adopted as such by the Army.

Today it is generally worn as a District tartan although I know of a least one family of the name that wear it as a family tartan - for obvious reasons. As to which version, as with most things that were Wilsons', it looks best in their shades. Modern colours are too harsh in my opinion but it does look attractive in Muted colours which as nearer Wilsons' but not as nice.

[Domehead]

Wilsons' comment did not refer to a Royal tartan but to a tartan for the Royals, probably the Royal Scots of which the Earl of Strathearn was Colonel in Chief. His death in 1820 there helps date the Strathearn tartan to c1800-20 but what is not clear is why Wilsons called it Earl of Strathearn but my view is that it was probably designed by them following a commission by the D of E and K intended 'for his regiment'. One might therefore more logically call this a Military sett as opposed to a Royal one although it was never formally adopted as such by the Army.

With respect to the OP:
I'm going to hijack the thread by asking a question directly related to the original post in response to Mr. MacDonald's explanation - in the interest of education.

Figheadair,
Obviously, you are correct.
The William & Andrew Smith work, 1850, include "Strathearn: once 1st Royals" at the bottom of the plate.

Accompanying the Strathearn entry in the H. Whyte / W. & A.K. Johnston Library Edition, 1906, they specifically articulate a commission on the part of the Duke of Earl & Kent for the "Gallant Corps" - presumably the "1st Royals".

However, even if we all agree this a military sett which, in and of themselves have some limits of decorum, do you draw a distinction between those Units associated with the whole of Scotland and those at the behest of Peerage, e.g.

The Royal Company of Archers - tartan directly linked with the Pr. Ch. Ed setts
The Gallant Corps
The Atholl Highlanders - as of the '90s, the Duke of Atholl had no problem with the tartan being a District sett?

or,

Because the reality of "Wear what you want" needs be balanced against two-hundred years of "Clan, District, Regiment Tartan", does each individual sett depend entirely on its origin, to the best available information, e.g.

Campbell of Cawdor - No. 230
The Mar - which revisionism links with the Family Mar, the Family Skene & subsequently Donnachaidh through Skene?

Ryan

[figheadair]

Ryan,

Apologies but I do fully understand your post.

[COLOR=#008000][I]
However, even if we all agree this a military sett which, in and of themselves have some limits of decorum, do you draw a distinction between those Units associated with the whole of Scotland and those at the behest of Peerage, e.g.

Yes I do. To my mind a true military tartan is one that is/was officially sanctioned in Army Clothing Regulations or the equivalent 'authority'. The use of others tartans in a non-official context I would classify as quasi-military.

I'm not sure that I completely follow your questions but see my comments in bold.

The Royal Company of Archers - tartan directly linked with the Pr. Ch. Ed setts. The RCA were never a military organisation per se and contrary to some earlier views, they never wore the PCE tartan - see my paper for an examination of their original tartan.
The Gallant Corps The use of the Strathearn, if indeed the Royals ever actually did, was unofficial and would most likely have been hidden as a lining and/or in some form of 'Undress' uniform.
The Atholl Highlanders - as of the '90s, the Duke of Atholl had no problem with the tartan being a District sett? I'm confused by this comment. I regard the Atholl tartan as a military one and know of no evidence to support its use as a district sett before its use by the 77th and possible 42nd.

Because the reality of "Wear what you want" needs be balanced against two-hundred years of "Clan, District, Regiment Tartan", does each individual sett depend entirely on its origin, to the best available information, e.g.

I'm not sure I understand the question but...

Campbell of Cawdor - No. 230 This was a Wilsons' sett and has/had no official military use.
The Mar - which revisionism links with the Family Mar, the Family Skene & subsequently Donnachaidh through Skene? I do not understand the point you're trying to make here.

[Domehead]

Mr. MacDonald,
Initially, no apology is necessary.
Secondly, based on my own understanding and intent, you've answered my questions wonderfully. You may not comprehend my "fuzzy brain", but I get your points.

Please allow me to restate your teachings in my own words to clarify my understanding...

Re: Part 1 of my question
The RCA & The Gallant Corps - regardless of any evidence supporting actual historic use of setts linked directly with these Units, the quasi-nature of their raising renders the "named" setts themselves, unworthy of the status normally reserved for those setts officially recognized in Governing Regulations.

The Atholl Highlanders - G. Teal of Teallach & Philip D. Smith, Jr., District Tartans, 1992, claimed, as of publishing,
"The present Duke of Atholl, Ian Murray, President of the Scottish Tartan Society, has stated that he is very happy for the Murtray of Attholl tartan to be regarded as the Atholl District tartan" p32
Interestingly, it is the only source from the traditional canon (Wilson's pattern Books through 1906) where the "Atholl" or "Murray" is referred to as a district sett, echoing your sentiments. As a private Army, the only of its kind remaining, I believe you'd categorize it in the same vain as The RCA & the Gallant Corps...quasi.

Re: part 2 of my question
Historically, one wore what they liked from what was available. Today, one wants to belong to Clan, District, Regiment, etc. - Personally, I have no issue with either position. I choose a good faith balance of both. I try to deduce the origin, based on credible evidence available, of a particular sett before I decide to wear it. The OP asked about the "Strathearn", specifically "where it fit?" Though I deferred to others expertise, I raised the point that, while we frequently engage in fervent discussions about the appropriateness of donning a tartan to which one is not affiliated, rarely are those courtesies extended to setts which may have origin in peerage. I'm well aware of my Socio-political history of Scotland, and that "peerage" as a term, is not banal.

So, specifically:
Campbell of Cawdor - My point was...
to the best of my knowledge, this sett originated as a numbered pattern (No.230) and, based your research and that of James D. Scarlett, it acquired a "name" associated with the area of usage. It was only after that, it became associated with a Campbell branch. However, knowing this information and acting on it are different things. Personally, considering the culturally imbued, Victorian-Tartan-affiliation craze, I would suggest to a potential suitor, unless you are affiliated with that branch or an alum of the Duchess of Argyll's school, you should probably stay away. Such is the guidance of the Current Duke of Argyll, himself.

The Mar - My point was...
G. Teal of Teallach & Philip D. Smith, Jr. go to great length to suggest two origins for the "Mar" sett:
1. Based on Frank Adam's work, having obtained a sample called "Skene" from the Duke of Fife. However, Adam also provided a complex "Skene", thus the distinction. The territory was historically Donnachaidh based on the legend of a Robertson defending said area with two sgian dubh, hence the name Clan Donnachaidh Mhairr.
2. Based on a misinterpretation of the R.R. McIan rendering, 1845 - that of a Skene kilt preserved in the Castle of Skene.

Whether any of this history can be corroborated, despite the quality of scholarship owing to it, the Countess of Mar saw fit to let it be,
"known and recognized as the proper tartan of the Tribe of Mar" p100
that a subtle thread count variant must be registered with the Lord Lyon (1978).
Again, to me this became a personal issue to The Countess and her family. I'd advise, unless one is of the "Tribe of Mar", one had better understand what count the weaver is threading. Each claim to know what they're doing. The reality is many of them, including my two favorites, err in this regard (I have a specific example from just ten days ago I'd be happy to share).

I hope you've read this. You are an invaluable asset for me. I keep all of your papers in a folder as an integral piece of my tartanological library. I do appreciate your contributions here and throughout the ether. Thanks for your time.

Ryan M. Liddell

[figheadair]

I don't put much, if any, stock in the Teall & Smith book - neither understood the technicalities of historic tartan specimens or history.

Re: Part 1 of my question
The RCA & The Gallant Corps - regardless of any evidence supporting actual historic use of setts linked directly with these Units, the quasi-nature of their raising renders the "named" setts themselves, unworthy of the status normally reserved for those setts officially recognized in Governing Regulations.

Agreed

The Atholl Highlanders - G. Teal of Teallach & Philip D. Smith, Jr., District Tartans, 1992, claimed, as of publishing, "The present Duke of Atholl, Ian Murray, President of the Scottish Tartan Society, has stated that he is very happy for the Murtray of Attholl tartan to be regarded as the Atholl District tartan" p32
Interestingly, it is the only source from the traditional canon (Wilson's pattern Books through 1906) where the "Atholl" or "Murray" is referred to as a district sett, echoing your sentiments. As a private Army, the only of its kind remaining, I believe you'd categorize it in the same vain as The RCA & the Gallant Corps...quasi.

Whatever the then chief said is interesting but as it wasn't his sett to pronounce on (it being originally a military sett) it's not historically relevant to the origins of the sett.

I would not regard the original use of the sett as quasi-military because the Atholl Highlanders were originally the 77th of Foot and so far as I know, wore this sett as their official tartan.

Re: part 2 of my question
[B][FONT=Verdana]The OP asked about the "Strathearn", specifically "where it fit?" Though I deferred to others expertise, I raised the point that, while we frequently engage in fervent discussions about the appropriateness of donning a tartan to which one is not affiliated, rarely are those courtesies extended to setts which may have origin in peerage.

I understand your argument but if we step back and view these setts historically then the only truly Royal one i.e. that we know they initiated, is the Balmoral and by convention that is restricted, although it was sold commercially in the 1930s.

Campbell of Cawdor - My point was...
to the best of my knowledge, this sett originated as a numbered pattern (No.230) and, based your research and that of James D. Scarlett, it acquired a "name" associated with the area of usage. It was only after that, it became associated with a Campbell branch. However, knowing this information and acting on it are different things. Personally, considering the culturally imbued, Victorian-Tartan-affiliation craze, I would suggest to a potential suitor, unless you are affiliated with that branch or an alum of the Duchess of Argyll's school, you should probably stay away. Such is the guidance of the Current Duke of Argyll, himself.

The Campbell connection for this sett is purely a Wilsons' one. they name a number of their 'fancy patterns' after areas or personalities (historical and contemporary) in order to improve sales. The chief can pronounce on how Campbells should wear the sett but as it pre-dates their adoption he cannot exclude someone wearing No230.

The MarG. Teal of Teallach & Philip D. Smith, Jr. go to great length to suggest two origins for the "Mar" sett:
1. Based on Frank Adam's work, having obtained a sample called "Skene" from the Duke of Fife. However, Adam also provided a complex "Skene", thus the distinction. The territory was historically Donnachaidh based on the legend of a Robertson defending said area with two sgian dubh, hence the name Clan Donnachaidh Mhairr.
2. Based on a misinterpretation of the R.R. McIan rendering, 1845 - that of a Skene kilt preserved in the Castle of Skene.

The origins of the Mar (Tribe of) as well researched and can be squarely laid at the door of the McIan/Logan book. I've no idea where Teall & Smith can up with their 'other theory' but there's no basis to it and they clearly did not know that Adam's scales were in fact taken directly from Logan's earlier work and his subsequent counts supplied to McIntyre North for his Book of the Club of the True Highlanders.

The Countess of Mar saw fit to let it be, "known and recognized as the proper tartan of the Tribe of Mar" Again, to me this became a personal issue to The Countess and her family.

You're correct. The Countess asks that anyone not immediately connected with the family/name seek her permission (as a courtesy) before wearing the Tribe of Mar. Several weavers are more concerned with profit and offer this tartan without reference to Her.

[Domehead]

Sir,
Thank you very much for your considered response. You have helped me understand and deconstruct District Tartans. I agree with your sentiments re: Dr. Smith. By deconstructive methodology, the disproportional usage of non-declarative terms & phrases establish a disconcerting trace lacking in authority:
"evidence to suggest" p22
"origin is unknown & unclear" p24
"apparently been" p26
"may well have been" p28
"may be & apparently wore" p32
"It is thought" p36
"it appears to have been" p38, etc...

I don't have access to the actual sample collections as you do. Therefore, I am bound by text-based research. The context you provide is imperative. Dr. Smith, although highly educated, often regurgitates informational errors in the same manner as tartan illustrators, and weavers, regurgitated interpretive & production errors during the C19th. We know how that turned out.

Re: Tartan For Me, I find the instructional essays in the beginning of the book interesting, particularly that concerning Gaelic & Recondite Grammar (English, Irish, Scottish use of the term Sept, in conjunction with Gaelic phonemic rules, resulting in derivative spellings of the same name or patronymic). However, taken as a whole, Dr. Smith's instructions on how to use his list are but a giant disclaimer.

Anyway, thank you very much.
The free education is not lost on me.
I do appreciate it.

Ryan M. Liddell
Domehead