Attitudes To The Kilt.

[bear]

What a absolutely disappointing post from the Tartans "authority."

Really? http://albanach.org/oldtartans.html

I'd like to point out that you are ridiculing an "authority" and quoting him as an authority in the same post. Either Matt knows what he's talking about or he doesn't.

I think he knows a hell of a lot more than a clan website. I have no idea the qualifications of the webmaster for that clan's website but I know Matt to be well versed in the history of the kilt in a well rounded way.

I can search on the internet and find sites and quotes to back up any theory I care to espouse. Doesn't make them anything more than opinion.

[highlander_Daz]

Mac your just quoting from the Mackenzie website and thats their rules, many clan associations have different rules, several people have written to clan chiefs and got a respose along the lines of -you can wear our Tartan as long as you do so with pride and respect, Just because the MacKenzies dont want to do this, doesnt mean every Clan association does, I think your right in that there should be some kind of connection but many clan associations would be happy for people to wear "their" tartans maybe its economics but the macKenzie rules seem very strict and a complete contradiction one rule states
"no one should wear a tartan to which he is not by name or descent entitled." key word being "descent" then rule
"2. You have no real right to wear your mother's tartan unless you have taken her name." are we not descended from our mothers?
Ive just checked the mackenzie website
http://www.clan-mackenzie.org.uk/
and the president of the association is a Dr. Ian Blake -who of course using the Mackenzie rules would not be allowed to wear the Tartan of the association that he is president of!!! not being a Mackenzie or Blake not being a sept!!
very inconvenient!

[bubba]

Frankly, tartan patterns predate Scotland by a very long time. Celtic mummies were found in the desert of western China that are about 3,000 years old and some were wearing tartan type cloth. From Wikipedia:

For many centuries, the patterns were loosely associated with the weavers of a particular area, though it was common for highlanders to wear a number of different tartans at the same time. A 1587 charter granted to Hector Maclean of Duart requires feu duty on land paid as 60 ells of cloth of white, black and green colours. A witness of the 1689 Battle of Killiecrankie describes "McDonnell's men in their triple stripes". From 1725 the government force of the Highland Independent Companies introduced a standardised tartan chosen to avoid association with any particular clan and this was formalised when they became the Black Watch regiment in 1739.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartan

[Colin]

Well, I guess we should just all put away our tartan kilts then. There are probably few of us who can conform to the high standards of the Mackinzie clan.

The Mackinzie post contradicts itself. It first mentions someone of the name, or a descendant of someone of the name, can wear the clan tartan. Then, it says you have no right to wear the tartan of your mother. Well, everyone is a descendant of their mother, unless they are adopted.

Hey, some of us are not named MacKenzie, but are members of the Clan Society. Of course I can claim descent. We also have to remember that the MacKenzie tartan is also a regimental tartan and is worn by many. Let's not bash the MacKenzie site because it was used as an example. Having a proud history to hang on to is nice to have.

In terms of Mr. Blake being the president, let's not forget that it mentions descent not just the name or the septs. So unless someone here knows the family history of Mr. Blake, I would stop using him as a reference for inconsistancies.

[Mac Coinneach]

Well, I guess we should just all put away our tartan kilts then. There are probably few of us who can conform to the high standards of the Mackinzie clan.

The Mackinzie post contradicts itself. It first mentions someone of the name, or a descendant of someone of the name, can wear the clan tartan. Then, it says you have no right to wear the tartan of your mother. Well, everyone is a descendant of their mother, unless they are adopted.

First, it's MackEnzie, even thought Kinzie is a Sept, it's not the name you're looking for. The post doesn't contradict itself, it's talking about a woman that has divorced and taken back her maiden name - if the child bears the mother's maiden name, then that child is entitled to wear her tartan.

Hey, some of us are not named MacKenzie, but are members of the Clan Society. Of course I can claim descent. We also have to remember that the MacKenzie tartan is also aa regimental tartan and is worn by many.

Excellent point Colin. And I'd call someone that's served in the Seaforths (or any regiment that wears my tartan) a clansman any day - regardless of their last name.

[beerbecue]

snip.....

"Can I wear the Mackenzie Tartan? Which Set?"

Although there is no law preventing you from wearing whatever tartan you like, snip.........

By the way, they didn't spell 'sett' correctly, either....

And from this page, from Clan Murdoch

http://www.strathearn.com/clan-murdoch/mu_history6.html

"In fact there is no 'right' or 'entitlement' to wear any particular tartan. Unlike Heraldry, tartan is not strictly controlled or governed by any particular body, individual, rules or regulations."

Even this Scottish web site pokes fun at the idea of exclusive tartans and clan entitlement:

http://www.flyinghaggis.co.uk/scotland/index.htm
http://www.flyinghaggis.co.uk/scotland/clans.htm

[M. A. C. Newsome]

What a absolutely disappointing post from the Tartans "authority."

Dissapointing because I didn't reaffirm your opinions? Sorry, but there is truth to uphold.

You'd better believe there IS such a thing as a tartan you're "entitled" to. The Scottish Clan system sets the standard. I quote from the Clan Mackenzie website:

Who wrote that article on the MacKenzie site? How do we know his information is accurate? Just because an article appears on an official clan site doesn't mean the information it contains is accurate.

He writes:

Although there is no law preventing you from wearing whatever tartan you like, there are rules of the Scottish Clan System.

He is correct - there are no laws preventing you from wearing whatever tartan you want. Then he goes to quote from the "rules of the Scottish Clan System." What I want to know is where are these rules? I've never in my life seen or even heard of a document entitled "The Rules of the Scottish Clan System." Not to say that such a document does not exist. But if it does exist, who wrote it? What kind of authority does it have? Is there any binding force behind it?

Part of the "rules" that he quotes are:

Excepting the "district", "Caledonia" and "Jacobite" tartans, no one should wear a tartan to which he is not by name or descent entitled.

Are these the only tartans people may wear if they are not "entitled" to a clan tartan? What about the Flower of Scotland tartan? Or the Hunting Stewart? Or any of the other myriad "universal" tartans out there? And why does a person not need to be entitled to wear a district tartan. If I have to be descended from a MacKenzie to wear the MacKenzie tartan, why do I not have to be from Aberdeen to wear the Aberdeen tartan?

What if I am in the Seaforth Regiment, whose tartan is the MacKenzie. I am neither entitled by name or descent to wear this tartan. Is the regiment guilty of breaking the "Rules of the Scottish Clan System"?

You "belong" to the clan of which you bear the name or sept name.

Really? Why is this? What clan one belonged to in Scotland 400 years ago had absolutely nothing to do with one's surname, for the very good reason that most Gaelic people had no inherited surname. A Mac Coinneach was the son of a man named Cionneach. What clan he belonged to had to do with whose land he resided on and what chief he was loyal to.

I gave the example of a MacDonald before. Donald was a popular name in the Highlands. Let's say there was a Donald, son of Ian, who was a loyal member of the Clan Campbell. His son was named Robert, son of Donald (I'm Anglicizing all these names here for simplicity). So Robert is Robert MacDonald. Now Robert moves down to Glasgow to find work, where they speak English and use inherited surnames. So he names his kid William, and as they are now in an English speaking society, William keeps the name MacDonald. Williams' son Edward MacDonald migrates to the United States, where now three generations later his descendant Donald MacDonald wears a MacDonald tartan kilt, and is a card carrying member of the Clan Donald Society and hates the Campbells with a passion!

All this goes to show is that what clan you belogn to has nothing to do with your surname, outside of those "sept" lists you see at the Games. Not that the clan system of 400 years ago survives any longer.

You have no real right to wear your mother's tartan unless you have taken her name.

Really? Since when did the tartan you wear become bound up with the surname you have? Am I not related to my mother?

Adherents (cliathe) of non-clan names are, as followers, sometimes allowed to wear the tartan (usually a hunting sett if any) and to become members of a clan society.

I have never once even had it suggested to me, in all my years of studyng tartans, kilts and their history, that the hunting setts are for non-clan name bearing members of the clan. Who came up with this rule? And what about clans (like MacKenzie) who do not even have a hunting sett?

Yes, many of the so-called "traditions" of Highland Dress developed in the nineteenth century -- not all by Englishmen, but many by Scotsmen equally ignorant of their own history. Luckily for us serious research was also done. Read any reference by these men:
James Scarlett, John T. Dunbar, D. C. Stewart, Bob Martin, Peter MacDonald, et al.

You'll get a clearer history of "tradition."

P. S. Sorry to sound so curt, but I didn't want to disspoint anyone. :-)

Matt

[highlander_Daz]

No disrespect intended to the MacKenzie clan but rules are rules Dr. Blake isn't called McKenzie nor is Blake a sept, the rules are there in Black(e) and white -the clan president can't wear the tartan !!
I think we need to reflect on this and realise that what ever happend in the past is done with. lets move on and at the same time uphold the traditions but in like a 21st century kind of way, grown men squabbling about what tartan they are entitled to wear is a bit silly, and does nothing to promote kilt wearing as a serious and acceptable alternative to trews.
I have looked at Matt Newsomes website and its stunning in its detail and he is recognised as an "authority" on Highland wear, its great that Matt is keeping the Highland torch burning across the pond and I think that deserves a modicum of respect, when many people still see Scots as Haggis eating drunks that live in draughty castles and sit about playing bagpipes, well I certainly dont live in a castle !!!

[Mac Coinneach]

By the way, they didn't spell 'sett' correctly, either....

And from this page, from Clan Murdoch

http://www.strathearn.com/clan-murdoch/mu_history6.html

"[font=arial,helvetica][size=2]In fact there is no 'right' or 'entitlement' to wear any particular tartan. Unlike Heraldry, tartan is not strictly controlled or governed by any particular body, individual, rules or regulations."

There's plenty of clans that have done their utmost to increase membership (perhaps by ignoring the rules?). The "Boll of Meal" Frasers come to mind.

Even this Scottish web site pokes fun at the idea of exclusive tartans and clan entitlement:

I wouldn't put too much store in information you find on a "Scottish" website that doesn't know what a dirk is:

"An experienced tour guide is essential if you really want to be sure that you won't be shot or chased round the hills by great hairy men in kilts waving their dirks - I said DIRKS! (a short knife kept in the sock).

http://www.flyinghaggis.co.uk/scotland/clans.htm

[Mac Coinneach]

Dissapointing because I didn't reaffirm your opinions? Sorry, but there is truth to uphold.

And that would be your truth? A self-affirmed North American Englishman that is the spokesman for the Scottish Tartans Authority? Gieusabreak lad.

Are these the only tartans people may wear if they are not "entitled" to a clan tartan? What about the Flower of Scotland tartan? Or the Hunting Stewart? Or any of the other myriad "universal" tartans out there? And why does a person not need to be entitled to wear a district tartan. If I have to be descended from a MacKenzie to wear the MacKenzie tartan, why do I not have to be from Aberdeen to wear the Aberdeen tartan?

Perhaps you'd be better off asking the kilt manufacturers, they'd be the ones that will happily sell any of the myriad of new tartans.

What if I am in the Seaforth Regiment, whose tartan is the MacKenzie. I am neither entitled by name or descent to wear this tartan. Is the regiment guilty of breaking the "Rules of the Scottish Clan System"?

You don't get it do you? If one fights in a Scottish regiment they become a clansman to that clan. That is the way it has always been, back before there were Highland regiments.

Really? Why is this? What clan one belonged to in Scotland 400 years ago had absolutely nothing to do with one's surname, for the very good reason that most Gaelic people had no inherited surname. A Mac Coinneach was the son of a man named Cionneach. What clan he belonged to had to do with whose land he resided on and what chief he was loyal to.

Yes, and that is where clan affiliations came from. And septs too I believe?

I gave the example of a MacDonald before. Donald was a popular name in the Highlands. Let's say there was a Donald, son of Ian, who was a loyal member of the Clan Campbell. His son was named Robert, son of Donald (I'm Anglicizing all these names here for simplicity). So Robert is Robert MacDonald. Now Robert moves down to Glasgow to find work, where they speak English and use inherited surnames. So he names his kid William, and as they are now in an English speaking society, William keeps the name MacDonald. Williams' son Edward MacDonald migrates to the United States, where now three generations later his descendant Donald MacDonald wears a MacDonald tartan kilt, and is a card carrying member of the Clan Donald Society and hates the Campbells with a passion!

There's a far better example of this that most people are aware of - MacIan of Glen Coe was a Macdonald.

Really? Since when did the tartan you wear become bound up with the surname you have? Am I not related to my mother?

I've already responded to this.

I have never once even had it suggested to me, in all my years of studyng tartans, kilts and their history, that the hunting setts are for non-clan name bearing members of the clan. Who came up with this rule? And what about clans (like MacKenzie) who do not even have a hunting sett?

Mackenzie does have a hunting sett (I think they refer to it as "muted"), check the website I linked to.

Yes, many of the so-called "traditions" of Highland Dress developed in the nineteenth century -- not all by Englishmen, but many by Scotsmen equally ignorant of their own history. Luckily for us serious research was also done. Read any reference by these men:
James Scarlett, John T. Dunbar, D. C. Stewart, Bob Martin, Peter MacDonald, et al.

You'll get a clearer history of "tradition."

I think what I'm saying here is that tradition (whenever it started) is something that deserves a little respect. And I'm sorry, when it comes to Highland garb, that tradition is not set in the Americas.