Allowed tartans

**Pour1Malt** · 5th July 06, 04:15 AM

ai'm reminded o' the auld sayin'

"ai hae nay tolerance fur intolerance"

**James** · 5th July 06, 04:49 AM

Maybe there are not rules, but there are conventions: and the convention hallowed by a good two hundred years, and more if one thinks about local weaves: in that a tartan is worn honestly because an individual likes the pattern/colours, and makes no other claim.

Or because they have a direct claim to that particular tartan, through a clear lineage-in other words they are not false flagging, pretending to be something they are not. So the nebulous claim through say the wife's family, is no claim: nor that it belonged to some distant aunt, that too is no claim, I could go on.

A point here is that the clan tartans evolved over several hundred years into the identifier of a particular highland clan, [I'm ignoring septs etc at this time], and as such they are worn with pride by those so entitled.

It has however long been accepted that dancers and the like may breach convention for reasons of cost availability. However that is no precedent when set against the convention.

So when people say there are no rules they are in one sense correct: but in another sense they are only showing their abysmal igorance. Too I'd remind people that they should not confuse good manners with acceptance.

So either wear the tartan to which you have a genuine entitlement, or because you like the pretty colours-but be honest about it.

If in doubt there are plenty of district and other tartans such as The Highland Granite to choose from.

I'm sorry if the above appears harsh, but on occasion there is some very questionable information offered on this board.

James

**AckZel** · 5th July 06, 05:06 AM

When I get married I will design, get weaved and made to a kilt my own family tartan though there is no scots in my family tree that I know of. Until then I wear that pretty looking Douglas Modern and as a big mr. Connery fan that MacLean Hunting Ancient I got

**Hugh** · 5th July 06, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by M. A. C. Newsome

"Those here .............

So take it all with a grain of salt, and try not to get too uptight about it. If all else fails wear solid colors!"

Well said MAC. I think that puts end to the discussion.

**RockyR** · 5th July 06, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by M. A. C. Newsome

Those here who ...

So take it all with a grain of salt, and try not to get too uptight about it. If all else fails wear solid colors!

Here, Here.

**MacWage** · 5th July 06, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Hugh

Well said MAC. I think that puts end to the discussion.

I Second that motion!

**Blu (Ontario)** · 5th July 06, 08:08 PM

I have to agree with James' approach. Be honest with yourself and others.

I lean to the traditionalist ranks for the most part. While there are many very nice tartans available, I wouldn't be inclined to wear them because they have no significance for me. On the other hand, I'm not anal about it... I think there are more important things in life than scrutinizing someones entitlement to a certain tartan.

I've been questioned about the tartans I've worn but never challenged. And only where the kilt was concerned... never for a tie or scarf. I wore a clan tartan tie for several years with absolutely no comments whatsoever. Same with a wool scarf. The only time I was ever asked about tartan was in kilt form. What does that say?

.

**David Dalglish** · 6th July 06, 02:23 AM

I am a Scot, & if going by your rules, I should be offended by an American wearing a kilt at all, but I am not , As I have stated in the past I think its great that people from all over the world want to wear the kilt. Wear what you like, but wear it with pride.

**kiltedjaz** · 6th July 06, 02:46 AM

[QUOTE=bubba]The whole idea of Clan tartans began with Sir Walter Scott and the King of England. [QUOTE]

Not quite sure waht you mean here Bubba by the King of England. There have been no Monarchs of England since 1603. Sir Walter Scott lived from 1771 to 1832 and therefor did not live under an English Monarch. He was born when George 111 was on the throne and died in Victorias reign.

James

**M. A. C. Newsome** · 6th July 06, 04:19 AM

Not quite sure waht you mean here Bubba by the King of England. There have been no Monarchs of England since 1603.

Technically, that should be 1707, with the Union of the Parliaments. The Union of the Crowns in 1603 was due to the same person, James, occupying both the thrones of Scotland and England. Hence he is James VI of Scotland and James I of England. For a century you had the odd arrangement of two separate kingdoms being ruled by one monarch. It was the Act of Union in 1707 that really made the two one country.

Aye,
Matt