Allowed tartans

[M. A. C. Newsome]

First, let me just say I am not trying to be argumentative or beligerant at all. I am looking at all of this in light of Scottish tradition and culture. But that culture has a tendency to be misrepresented fairly often, and the whole concept of a "cheif's own" tartan is part of that.

When James Logan illustrated the MacKintosh tartan in The Scottish Gael in 1831, he commented, "The Chief also wears a particular taran of a very showy pattern." (The chief of the MacKintosh clan is also the chief of Clan Chattan). So in 1850, the Smith brothers of Mauchline wrote in their book, The Authenticated Tartans of the Clans & Families of Scotland, "We have every reason to believe that this Tartan [the Chattan tartan] is the genuine set which has been worn by the Chiefs of this distinguished Clan, for many generations. Our reason for giving it, as well as some others which have similar claims to a place in our work, is that the Chief did, in some instances, wear a Tartan different from his Clan - which sets were also considered hereditary."

Now, this would seem to indicate that the Clan Chattan tartan was the cheif's tartan, to be worn only by The MacKintosh. However, to throw a monkey-wrench into things, there is also a version of the Chattan tartan with a white line that has been called the "Chattan, Cheif's" tartan. (Lord Lyon has this recorded as for the cheif's own use, presumably at the request of the cheif).

Ok. That's the background information. Now, to my knowledge, this is the only such tartan that any cheif of any clan has attempted to have reserved for his or his family's sole use. However, that statement by the Smiths in 1850, that "in some instances" the cheif wore a different tartan from the clan, has led many people to erroneously assume that any unusual or not-often-seen variation of the standard clan tartan is "the cheif's own" and therefore unsuitable for general use.

One such instance was the MacNab tartan. Here is the usual version:
http://www.tartansauthority.com/web/...txtTartan=0857

However, there also exists this version:
http://www.tartansauthority.com/web/...txtTartan=3401

This latter tartan is of an older date, and is not generally seen any more. But in 1850, the Smiths also included it in their book, and they said that they "recieved their sample direct from the manufacturer who made it for the Cheif." Now, this doesn't mean that it was reserved for the cheif. Only that they wove it for his order. But because of this it became the oft-repeated mantra that this was "the cheif's own" tartan and no one else could wear it. In fact, the cheif of the clan never said any such thing! (I saw someone wearing this tartan at the Grandfather Mountain Highland Games last weekend).

Another example is the MacNeil tartan. There is a version of this tartan with a red line that is usually called "Old MacNeil" (though I saw it in one mid-nineteenth century pattern book labelled "New MacNeil.") Again, common wisdom in the clan was that it was the restricted tartan of the cheif. This is because one of the cheifs in the 1930s did wear that tartan. it was just the one that he happened to like, and he never made any attempt to restrict it. But because he wore it, and because it was slightly different than the norm, people assumed it was the "cheif's own." And as I stated in a previous post, the present cheif has come out recently with a statement that not only is this not the "cheif's own" tartan, but that it has never actually been recognized as a clan tartan at all!

MacLachlan also has a "cheif's own" -- the yellow dress MacLachlan was recorded by D. W. Stewart in 1898 in Old & Rare Scottish Tartans and he commented that it was "in use at present by MacLachlan of MacLachlan" (the cheif of the clan). And because he simply said it was in use by the cheif, people began referring to it as the "Cheif's own tartan." Therefore it fell out of favor among the general clan. But the cheif never uttered one word on the tartan attempting to restrict it!

I hear similar stories all the time from people who come into our museum and claim that this or that variation of a tartan is the "cheif's own." They have heard that some clans have "cheif's tartans" and assume that every clan must. But as you can see, with the exception of the MacKintosh, there is not a clan I can think of that has a legitimate "cheif's tartan."

So that is why I said I would like to see more than a statement on the clan society's web page. Not everything on the clan society's site can be taken as gospel truth. In fact, for a long time the information available on the Clan MacGregor web site regarding their tartans was in error and the cheif actually wrote a letter correcting them!

The white-line Robertson has been around for a very long time, and as far as I can tell from what is known about the tartans, has never been regarded as restricted in any way. So, like I said, if the cheif has decided to make this tartan a restricted one, that is his perogatice. All I'm saying is that I'd like to see a direct statement from him on the matter. There is too much of a history of misinformation regarding the subject of "cheif's own" tartans to be able to take any statement not from the cheif himself at face value.

Aye,
Matt

[mddock58]

I regard you highly as a scholar in these matters Matt, I was just linking to the site and giving what little information they actually give about this specific tartan.

I also find it interesting that the STA lists the tartan by a different name.

[Streetcar]

James -
I believe I understand what you mean when you talk about conventions. I can see where someone claiming to be a member of a specific clan - when they really weren't - could be offensive. I think you used the term, "Rotter."

Let me ask then, what would the view be of an individual who wore a particular tartan, knew its history and the history of the associated clan - but did not claim to be a member of that clan? Would that still be considered rude in some circles?

Again, I ask with the utmost sincerity and respect.

[James]

An interesting point Streetcar.

On the one hand there is so much about that suggests to some innocent that they can wear what they like, and then there are the various societies seeking members who will encourage / endorse it. So to what extent can, or should I be rude to such a person?

All I can say is that it is something I could not do-it might appear odd but there is something ingrained in me that stops me even thinking about wearing a tartan that is outside my remit. I cannot cite this or that rule, or live in fear of the fictitious tartan police-rather it is a 'mother's milk' thing.

This is where there will always, sadly enough be a problem: for certainly people like Matt know far more than I do about tartans etc-but we are coming from two entirely different starting points.

Having said that, there are so many superb non family tartans about-district or such ones as Highland Granite, and for the Americans and many others their own tartans-so rather than be contentious: would it not be a good idea to leave the clan tartans to the clans-and pick one of the many excellent alternatives?

Of course there are many most attractive clan tartans about: in recent years wishing to extend my personal options-I added Loch Lomond for sentimental reasons, and Highland Granite, to my wardrobe: rather than wearing a tartan tow hich could see no right for me to wear.

However it all leads to something else-what is the point of paying respect to the heritage of the highlands, looking to the clans as an exemplar, even studying the various tartans: if then we seek to destroy the whole thing by throwing those links twixt the individual and their clan out of the window?

Obviously many will see my views as being petty, they will offer arguments about the clan/tartan nexus developing in recent times-having said that we are thinking about two hundred years, and a fairly solid link twixt name and tartan being established in that time. So why destroy that?

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I think what we need to realize is that there is a happy middle ground.

On one hand, this idea that people often have that clans have always had their proper tartans, ever since the glaciers receded, is patently false. For the first 200 years or so of kilt wearing in Scotland, tartans didn't have names and people wore what pattern they wished.

On the other hand, for the past 200 years or so of kilt wearing, tartans have acquired names, and specific named tartans are worn in order to show connection and/or allegiance to the clans, families, and places that those tartans represent.

On one hand, it is important to understand that there are no rules or laws about wearing tartans, as there are in heraldry. There is no "Lyon Court of Tartan." There is nothing, strictly speaking, to prevent you from wearing any tartan you want.

On the other hand, while there are no laws or rules, there is a tradition that has been fairly firmly set for over 100 years now. If you wear a particular tartan, it will be assumed that you have some connection to what it represents. You also need to be aware of that tradition.

What I mean by "happy middle ground" is that you need to be aware of all of this and take it into consideration. What I consider this to mean is that, while you can choose to wear whatever tartan you want, most people choose to wear a tartan that means something to them, that they have some connection to.

I occasionally encounter people who beleive that unless they bear the surname that is on the tartan label, they have to "right" to wear it. I still remember one young man whose name was MacIntyre, and whose mother's maiden name was Mackay. I noticed him looking longingly at a swatch of Mackay tartan, and he made the comment that he really liked it and wished he could wear it. But he was told in a kilt shop once that he was only "allowed" to wear his father's tartan. Nonsense, I told him! He was every bit as related to his mother as he was to his father, and if he wanted to honor her clan by wearing a Mackay kilt, he should do that!

People often fret that they need to be able to "prove" or document clan membership before wearing the tartan. You don't need to prove anything to anyone. If everyone who wanted to wear a kilt first had to pay a geneologist to document the last 500 years of their family history, there would be a lot fewer kilts out there!

I tell people that the choice of what tartan to wear is up to them -- they should have a reason for wearing that tartan, but that reason is entirely theirs. If they feel more comfortable in a kilt honoring their father's clan, or mother's clan, or a district tartan, etc., then that's fine. And those who are wearing a kilt just for the looks usually pick a tartan that is non-clan specific. Hardly anyone I know of picks a clan tartan simply because they like the colors. But I have known some to do that, and in my experience this has never been taken as anything but flattering by members of the clan.

What it boils down to is that neither myself nor anyone else is going to approach you and ask for documentation for your "right" to wear the tartan that you wear. So long as you feel you have a reason to wear it, do so proudly!

Aye,
Matt

[flairball]

Maybe all this nonsense about who has a right to wear which tartan is the reason more people aren't wearing kilts. For many people it'll be difficult enough without having to worry about explaining your connection.
Perhaps if we stop passing judgement on, and beating up on other kilt wearers more people will feel comfortable joining us. After all, a kilt is a garment first and foremost.

[arrogcow]

Then what happens when no one can agree on what the clan tartan is?

I have a tank in the Montgomery tartan, and it is listed as the "Clan" tartan on several websites (these colors are much darker than the tartan is in person)


Yet one tartan site says this is the clan tartan


and while on the official Clan Montgomery site they do not actually define their tartan, one can buy a similar tartan (the purple seems wider than in the first pic to me) from the clan (at a fairly reasonable price I might add).

But then I have found the same sett but with more defined colors (Red and green instead of pink and dark green)


So I guess my tank isn't really a Clan tartan. But then I find these other Montgomery's (same colors as mine, diferent sett).



And this doesn't even include Montgomery of_________, which I have found several.

But wait the Scottish Tartan Authority says Montgomery surname is supposed to wear Aberdeen district tartan!?!

That means that there are 3-4 setts (I can’t tell is the last two are the same or not) and at least 2 color variations of the same sett (three if you also count the Montgomery Modern I found which is blue instead of purple).

So am I insulting the clan by wearing a tartan that may not be the clan tartan, but has the clan name? Or maybe I qualify for the clan since their database of geneology contains lots of Wilsons and Robersons (I gotta have a connection somewhere - maybe I should take their DNA test). But wait, they don't seem to have a clan chief anymore, so are they still a clan. And they were a lowland clan in the first place, what are they doing with a tartan?

Then there is the last name thing. My mother is a Thompson, can I wear the Thompson tartan? Even though my Thompson ancestors were Welsh? And then which one (there are 6-8 different Thompson tartans), but Thompsons aren't their own clan, but a sept of MacTavish, so is it still insulting for anyone to wear any of their tartans? Thompson BTW are supposed to wear the Campbell, Galloway District or MacTavish tartans if you believe the Scottish Tartan Authority.

Adam

[Macman]

My dad's last name is McIntosh. When my mom married him, she changed her name from Oliphant to McIntosh. I am a McIntosh with lots of Oliphant (and other clans going back) blood in him. Personally, the only clan tartans I will wear are McIntosh tartans, because that's the only clan of which I feel a member. The only reason I can give for this is that it seems to be "hard-wired" in me, going back through family and how I was brought up.

I would also admit to the same feelings as Matt's MacIntyre customer - because I really like the Oliphant/Melville tartan, but would not feel comfortable wearing it. Maybe I will some day.

Still, I can understand the connections that many on the board have with various tartans and I take no issue with anyone who feels differently about this. I would certainly not try to dictate what tartans anyone else can or should wear. I think it's great that there are so many people out there who want to wear tartan at all. And MacWage, your team analogy makes total sense to me!

[Streetcar]

Obviously many will see my views as being petty, they will offer arguments about the clan/tartan nexus developing in recent times-having said that we are thinking about two hundred years, and a fairly solid link twixt name and tartan being established in that time. So why destroy that?

On the contrary, James. I don't see that view as "petty." I'll admit, I've not really understood it, but that was why I asked. You've done an admirable job of explaining that position. I agree, two hundred years is tradition. And traditions - no matter how they came about - are a hard thing to buck.

Thank you again for the insight!