Scots outraged over restricted tartan

[robert_law]

So, am I missing something? When I search the Scottish Register of Tartans (https://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/index.aspx), neither of these tartans is in the Register. Ditto the "Batman tartan" Closest thing alphabetically is the Badminton World Federation. "Superman Tartan" isn't in the Register, either.

That's probibily because he has not registered these tartans the Batman and Superman tartan is a bit of fun and he would need to get permission from DC comics if he was going to produce them .

I don’t think the Apollo 12 Tartan is registered either but consulting the surviving astronauts Dick Gordon and Al Bean it has elements of there tartans in it also the Aberdeen tartan where Dick Gordon had ancestors .

[ThistleDown]

Only the arms of certain families are restricted by law. Such families may or may not also be clan chiefs in law. Tartans are not regulated in who may wear them in law, including Balmoral. The latter restriction is one of convention rather than law. There was an article in The Times of London the other week on this very subject. A link is attached to the syndicated story from The Australian newspaper.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...5b93ab4dd1d649

Michael A, hang about this forum and read the contributions of some of the the world's most knowledgeable tartan and Scottish heraldry historians. To get a head start, use the search feature and read what they have already written here over more than a decade. I've no idea who the writer of The Times article is, or what his qualifications, so I'll leave it to others to comment. It is not correct, however, to say that 'only the arms of certain families are restricted by law'. In Scottish law every coat of arms registered with the Lyon Court is restricted for use by the individual to whom it is registered, just as the use of a copyrighted corporate logo is restricted in Australia. And there are some tartans that are copyrighted, too. Such is not the case with the Balmoral, but there is not a weaver in the UK (or in most of the Commonwealth) who would disallow the Queen's exclusive right to its use.

[Michael A]

Michael A, hang about this forum and read the contributions of some of the the world's most knowledgeable tartan and Scottish heraldry historians. To get a head start, use the search feature and read what they have already written here over more than a decade. I've no idea who the writer of The Times article is, or what his qualifications, so I'll leave it to others to comment. It is not correct, however, to say that 'only the arms of certain families are restricted by law'. In Scottish law every coat of arms registered with the Lyon Court is restricted for use by the individual to whom it is registered, just as the use of a copyrighted corporate logo is restricted in Australia. And there are some tartans that are copyrighted, too. Such is not the case with the Balmoral, but there is not a weaver in the UK (or in most of the Commonwealth) who would disallow the Queen's exclusive right to its use.

Hello, yes I meant those recognised by the Court of Lyon when I wrote "certain families". It was clumsily put by me. I don't agree with the tone of the Times/Australian article, especially his comment that because it's a convention it's there to be broken - that sounds a bit childish of that author to me. I just posted it there as part of the discussion.