To wear a kilt at the G8 Summit.

[James]

This again must be contentious!

There has been some lighthearted comments in the British Press about the idea of President Bush wearing a kilt to the summit at Gleneagles: and his stating that he would not be wearing one.

In today's Times there is a letter from Lady Bowman, who states:

>With respect Mr Bush has no choice. The right to wear a kilt belongs to men who have a hereditary right to wear the tartan from which the kilt is made [exceptionally, some regimental kilts are made of plain tweed]. As far as I know, Mr Bush has no right to a tartan.<

I well appreciate that this is a view that will not be shared by many members of this forum, and which contradicts many pundits and books on the subject.

However it substantiates what I've mentioned before: that despite everything to the contrary be it written or stated with authority, or even what might be said to an individual's face: there are many who do take the right to wear a named tartan very seriously indeed.

This suggests that for those without such a right, it might be better to look to say an area or one of the many other tartans which are not associated with a particular clan name. If only in the interest of not one day being faced with an embarrassing, humiliating even, situation.

To turn the whole matter on it's head-when I recently bought a new kilt, I browsed through many tartans-and was greatly tempted by the appearance of the Confederate one: but not having the slightest claim to it-I turned instead to my own family tartan. So this goes both ways, too I know my views are shared by many.

James

[Scotus]

It means no such thing. Lady Bowman is simply wrong. No one should be at all concerned about facing a "embarrassing, humiliating" situation, as a person can wear what tartan they like.

[macwilkin]

Brian Wilton of the Scottish Tartans Authority recently designed a tartan especially for the G8 summit at Gleneagles:

http://www.tartansauthority.com/Web/Site/General/G8.asp

http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?p...=1109175114600

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4646129.stm

Cheers,

Todd

[Doc Hudson]

James,

As an Unreconstructed Confederate, and a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, I hereby formally permit and encourage your wearing of the Confederate Memorial Tartan.

Whether or not you know it, the Confederate States of America had much support from the Scottish and English peoples, and the government came close to recognizing the CSA government. But Lord Palmerston saw which side was winning and declined to back a loosing horse.

So, if you like the Confederate Memorial Tartan, wear it with pride, explain it honors the gallant men who gave their lives for a Lost Cause, and you can also tell folks, "The South is rising again."

[KMacT]

...Lady Bowman, who states: With respect Mr Bush has no choice. The right to wear a kilt belongs to men who have a hereditary right to wear the tartan from which the kilt is made [exceptionally, some regimental kilts are made of plain tweed]. As far as I know, Mr Bush has no right to a tartan.

Leaving aside whether this strict view of entitlement is correct or not, I'm confident that President Bush certainly could claim the right to wear several tartans. The USMC tartan would be one that comes to mind. He is after all, the commander-in-chief.

Kevin

[macwilkin]

Leaving aside whether this strict view of entitlement is correct or not, I'm confident that President Bush certainly could claim the right to wear several tartans. The USMC tartan would be one that comes to mind. He is after all, the commander-in-chief.

Kevin

Not to mention the two "American" tartans, the US-St. Andrew's and the American tartan, both red, white and blue! :mrgreen:

He could also wear the Texas Bluebonnet tartan.

Cheers,

Todd

[bubba]

I'd think President Bush is more entitled to wear an orange jumpsuit.

[Dreadbelly]

I'd think President Bush is more entitled to wear an orange jumpsuit.

I agree.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

If you look closely at Lady Bowman's letter, she is saying that President Bush has no right to wear a kilt because he is not entitled to a tartan . This makes several fasle assumptions.

First, even if she is correct that one must have a right or entitlement to wear a tartan (she is not), that does not equate to the right to wear a kilt. She already informed us of some regiments that wear solid color tweed kilts (she must be thinking of the London Scottish). So would she begrudge Bush wearing a kilt made from a Harris Tweed pattern? Or a solid color wool twill?

Secondly, she is making some rather gross assumptions on President Bush's own heritage. Has she done a genealogical search on his family? How does she know that he does not have Scottish anscestors, giving him a "right" to wear a clan or family tartan?

Thirdly, as many here have already pointed out, there are several tartans that Buch can claim a "right" to. The new G8 tartan... the US St. Andrews tartan... the Texas Bluebonnet tartan... etc.

But lastly, and most importantly, she is simply wrong. The fact that she has "Lady" before her name or was born in Scotland does not mean that she is an expert on such matters. I could site other people bearing the same qualifications (such as the Hon. Stuart Ruariadh Erskine, author of The Kilt and How to Wear It) who would disagree with her vehemently. Someone with false ideas should not set the standard for the rest of us.

Aye,
Matt

[MACKAY]

Secondly, she is making some rather gross assumptions on President Bush's own heritage. Has she done a genealogical search on his family? How does she know that he does not have Scottish anscestors, giving him a "right" to wear a clan or family tartan?

I seem to remember hearing that Bush is related to the Windsor family, and thus a distant relation of the current Queen, who is monarch of the United Kingdom.

Brian Mackay