Allowed tartans

[bubba]

I should have said King of Britain but I typed in haste. Sorry bout that.

[Moose McLennan]

...I personally believe that one should wear only his own tartan (clan's tartan) or an acceptable common tartan (national tartans).

Respectfully, that would mean a lot of orphaned kilts. I wear Cameron of Erracht but have no connection to the regiment that I know of (I don't know what regiments my grandfathers served in in WWII, they rarely talked about the war and were not military minded).

I like the practical and subdued colours, and the baroque swing. The kilt seems indestructible (i.e. thornproof) and fits well. It is heavy enough not to need a kilt pin or ever need ironing. No fringes, belt loops or any other bells and whistles to catch anywhere. It keeps the rain off. Dirt just brushes off, and is rarely visible anyway. It looks like new despite being over thirty years old. It's mine, I wear it a lot and I'm extremely proud of it.

The alternatives (lower-end lightweight casual kilt for the same price, save up and pay eight times that amount for my 'own' name, or do without a kilt completely) are not really alternatives to my mind. Army surplus (and note the word 'surplus') is a way I'd recommend to anyone.

M.

[AllenJ]

I used to be of the "your clan only" party. But have since switched sides once I learned that originally there was no such thing as a clan tartan. Wear what you like, just like any other article of clothing!

[James]

Firstly I'm sorry for I should have picked this up before:

Hamish cited Balmoral as being the only tartan that is 'reserved', this is wrong for there are others-here I would cite my own clan where there is a reserved tartan for the chief and their immediate family.

However as mentioned in my earlier post, there are conventions rather than rules. Sadly people are looking for rules-specific rules: not realising that here in Britain and to be more specific in the actual clans-such conventions are oft stronger than any rules.

So whilst allowances are made for ignorance-and such people as dancers-scouts and the like: the convention is that an individual wearing a tartan to which they do not have a link under the convention concept is a bit of a rotter. Probably nothing would be said-but people would know.

So the right thing to do is to wear either a tartan to which one has a genuine claim-or look to one of the many excellent district tartans and the like.

This in turn leads to something else, oft on this board one reads about the 'highland heritage' which gave birth to the kilt and tartan as we know them today-that in turn leads to the clans. Looking to the clans-I appreciate the arguments about the evolution of clan tartans-now that evolution of linked tartans goes back to at least the raising of the Black Watch, and was later reinforced by the infamous royal visit-so we are looking at at least 200-250 years: long enough for a tradition to become a genuine tradition*. [Think here on a time span the USMC-do they not claim traditions!]

So rather than looking to rules, or a lack of rules, and ignoring convention: it might be better to make every effort to support that heritage, and if that means being selective as to which tartan to wear-so be it. For if we do not support that heritage-it will be lost.

So please do look to the genuine link twixt tartan and clan before getting a kilt-you will be supporting our shared heritage.

*My personal 'guess' is that clan tartans evolved from local weaves and colouration-so the actual clan tartans we see today are the product of evolution. Though I accept that some were lost, and as a consequence created at a later date.

In an earlier post I claimed the role of curmudgeon to this board-quite right: but in justification please remember that instead of coming to the kilt at a later age, I've worn it since infancy-and am now seventy. My sources for tartans and how to wear the kilt etc, come not from books/rules or this or that society: rather from the words of parents and clan elders-and looking to their example both as to how I should dress, and think.

James

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Hamish cited Balmoral as being the only tartan that is 'reserved', this is wrong for there are others-here I would cite my own clan where there is a reserved tartan for the chief and their immediate family.

James,

Which clan is that? I'm asking out of curiosity for I know of a few clans that supposedly have "cheif's tartans" but in reality the cheifs have never said any such thing.

Aye,
Matt

[James]

Donnachaidhu-think Red with a white added stripe.

I've actually seen it being worn by our chief-so it is not a question of theory: I've never noticed it in any of the weavers lists.

I cannot broaden this in respect of tartans, but I know that military tailors would hold special weaves of khaki that would only be released to officers of a particular regiment-and so details would never be available to the general public-the wider military market. So I'd not be amazed if there were not similar arrangements in respect of some tartans.

To put this another way, If all of a sudden I got rich and decided to have a personal tartan-I'd arrange with the weavers that firstly it would not be listed, and second it could only be released for making up on my say so.

I think this well illustrates the minefield-for there is public/written information: then there is much that is by convention-handed down-which is not in the public domain. So only bobs up when someone trips over it.

James

[M. A. C. Newsome]

That's the white-line Robertson. It's simply an old variation of the standard red Robertson. It's never, to my knowledge, been reserved for the chief's use only.

The tartan first appears in print in 1850 in The Clans of the Highlands of Scotland, by T. Smibert. They got the samples of tartan for their book from the weaving firm Wilsons of Bannockburn.

This same tartan was used in the suit at the Kinguisse museum in Scotland c. 1820, showing the so-called "Kinguisse pleat" (named such because this museum housed the only such kilt pleated that way before modern times):
Here is a picture:
http://www.cuillinn.com/Kingussie3.jpg

We have a peice of this self-same tartan in our museum gallery. The hand written note attached indicates this was from a mid-eighteenth century plaid. I cannot attest to the accuracy of that date, but the cloth certainly seems to be mid-eighteenth century to early nineteenth at the latest.

Nothing in the tartan's history indicates that it was ever reserved in use. However, on the Clan Donnachaidh Society (UK) web site, it does state that this tartan is for the cheif's use only. It says, "This is the Chief's own tartan, worn by members of his immediate family."

Now, if the chief in modern times has made this decision and proclaimed this tartan to be reserved to himself, then that's fine. It is the cheif's perogative to do that. However, I'd want to see a more direct statement than simply a mention on the clan society's page.

I say this because it has happened in the past when a clan society has said a certain tartan is the "cheif's own" and then the cheif of the clan has later come out and said that the tartan is anything but. A good recent example is the so-called "red line MacNeil" tartan. It used to be common wisdom in the Clan MacNeil society that this tartan was for the cheif's personal use. However, when the cheif of the clan recently came out with a statement about what he considers to be the official clan tartans, he recognized only two -- the MacNeil of Bara and the MacNeil of Colonsay. Of the red-line MacNeil, he said that it wasn't even a proper clan tartan! It was worn by one of the cheifs in the 1930s but his decision to wear it hardly made it a "reserved tartan" and in fact no cheif had ever formally recognized it!

The Clan MacNab had a similar thing happen, with one of the older MacNab tartans being called the "cheif's tartan" simply due to the fact that one of the cheifs had his portrait painted wearing it.

So, if the Cheif of Clan Donnachaidh indeed has decided to reserve this tartan for himself, that's one thing. But unless he has, I'd say this tartan remains open for general wear.

[James]

There was a chat about it at the tie, and I'm quite sure about what I said--variants, maybe.

James

[James]

I went back after my last mail-what is called The White Line Tartan' is apparently reserved for the chief and his immediate family.

I'd never heard it called that-it was just The Chief's' in my hearing.

Sorry if I added to any confusion: however it does point up the fact that anyone who wore that tartan-unless they were the chief or his immediate family would be guilty of the most incredible faux pas. Which brings me back to my original point, that the idea that anyone can wear any tartan is questionable: for whilst there is no such thing as the 'tartan police', there conventions.

James

[M. A. C. Newsome]

James,

But my question about this has still not been answered. Has the chief of Clan Donnachaidh actually proclaimed this tartan for his family's own personal use, or is this just a myth or rumor?

As I said, actual "chief's tartans" are very rare. And we know that in the nineteenth century this was apparantly being produced and sold simply as a Robertson tartan, with no reservations at all.

I would like to see something from the chief himself to verify is all, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post.

Aye,
Matt