Allowed tartans

[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

[macwilkin]

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,

Remember, the STA is not telling anyone which tartans to wear, only making suggestions. As Matt and I have explained before, the reason why some district tartans are "associated" with certain last names is because that particular area might be traditionally associated with that surname; for example, the Cummings are generally found in NE Scotland around Buchan, but a Cumming could also choose to wear the Badenoch tartan, since the Comyn land was originally centered there.

The folks at the STA are very nice and I can't ever imagine them telling anyone that they were "supposed" to wear one tartan and one tartan only. Besides that, they are a great resource for all things tartan.

Personally, I like to see more people wearing district tartans. They give folks more options, and the history behind them is very interesting. Choices are not a bad thing.

Regards,

Todd

[bubba]

That's the interesting part of all the Clan associations. If you have a blood connection to one chances are good that you have a connection to just about all of em one way or another, intermarriage, shifting territories, whatever. The surname never made any real difference since one could join any Clan by swearing allegiance to that Clans Chief and being accepted. There really aren't any clear lines.

[Schultz]

I've thought of that, too, Bubba. Clan doesn't always mean "blood tie", particularly in the case of the a "clan" confederation like Clan Chattan. If entire patrynomic and presumably blood-tied groups can seek the protection of the Mackintosh and become a member of Clan Chattan, then an individual can most assurely swear allegiance to any particular clan chief who will accept it and become a member of the Clan.

[MacWage]

I go back to sports associations:

Each team has "their" fans. Some fans are loyal to one team and one only. One guy I work with pulls only for New England Patriots (American Football) and Boston Red Sox (Baseball). Like some are members of one clan only and wear one tartan only. While others pull for several teams. I pull for Atlanta Falcons and then for Carolina Panthers (odd as their the Falcon's big rival), Green Bay Packers, and Washington Redskins. Each for different reasons. Likewise, I consider myself tied to several clans and feel a "right" to wear several tartans. I have different reasons for the tartans. Most are by blood (MacNeil, Wallace, Wilson/Gunn, Gordon/Todd) or residency (Georgia, Carolina, American), while others are out of historical respect (MacGregor-> Rob Roy), friends (Stewart, Campbell, etc), in-laws (Loud MacLeod/Lewis), or memberships (MacBubba/Culloden) to name a few. I have a reason to want to where a particular tartan, just as to pull for a certain sports team. To many, green and yellow stands for either Green Bay Packers or Oakland A's, though it is/was also the colors of Team Lotus and the livery colors of MacNeil of Barra.

One is "free" to wear what he or she wants, but these patterns have associations that virtually call for explanation. To wear these colors is tantamount to wearing a sports team colors in that one is associated with that team. If I wear Green Bay stuff, I respond that I have a lot of respect for a team that is from an area the size of "Greenville/Spartanburg" (approx. 100,000), but owns the franchise and is sold out for my lifetime, besides the great history and image of the team. In a sense, the Packers are Wisconson. Both clan tartans and sports teams have a sense of belonging that draws in "locals" and outsiders who want to share the "association" with the "insiders." The same is true of real football (soccor), baseball, racing (red and black in NASCAR->Dale Jr. and light blue and yellow in F1->Renault), and ANY other team sport.

No one wears tartan for no reason, unless it is a flannel shirt. To most, "I like the colors" is a laughable and idiotic answer. The clan would be offended at that. While a better answer is: "I am facinated by the life and the myths about Rob Roy MacGregor, especially how the myths diverge from reality, so I wear MacgGregor in respect for him, his clansmen, and their descendants." Few, but the most arrogant, MacGregors would look down at the second answer.

It is a mix of association and respect, except by the most idiotic of tartan wearers who have NO SENSE of what they are doing. (This does not apply to any I've met here, as far as I know. Interest in the history and a sense of respect is a large part of the reason most of us are here. Otherwise, none of us would have bothered.)

That is the "middle ground" and what ACTUALLY happens.

[Cawdorian]

I hate to add more confusion to this post, but----

The Campbells claim both the McTavish's and the Thompsons as septs of their clan.

The McTavish's claim both the Campbells and Thompsons as septs of their clan.

Who is right, your guess is as good as mine. :confused: But again, they may both be right.

[O'Cathain]

No one wears tartan for no reason, unless it is a flannel shirt. To most, "I like the colors" is a laughable and idiotic answer. The clan would be offended at that.

I usually don't put in my 2 cents, but after reading through this post and coming to this statement, I felt I had to. Most people who are not of Scottish origins choose the tartan they wear by color first and then the symbolism, honour or history behind it. How many people go to a website and look at the tartan colors and then the clan assosiated with it. For instance I like the Buchanan Tartan colors and decide to purchase a kilt. I have no Scottish ancestory, that I know of, but I lived in Pennsylvania at one time and our 15th President, James Buchanan was from PA. I also dated a girl who's mother was a Buchanan. But you know, I live in New Mexico now and I no longer date that girl. BUT I LIKE THE BUCHANAN TARTAN! So I'm buying it because I like the colors. Of course, I research the tartan after I've decided on the tartan, learn about the clan and it's history, but in the end I like the colors and that's why I decided on that tartan.

How many people would wear an ugly tartan, not that there is any, and be confident and proud? Who's to say what anyone can or can't wear a tartan JUST because they like the colors? To alot of us non-Scots, it's about the freedom to be able to wear what we want to wear.

[Peter C.]

I go back to sports associations:

Each team has "their" fans. Some fans are loyal to one team and one only. One guy I work with pulls only for New England Patriots (American Football) and Boston Red Sox (Baseball). Like some are members of one clan only and wear one tartan only. While others pull for several teams. I pull for Atlanta Falcons and then for Carolina Panthers (odd as their the Falcon's big rival), Green Bay Packers, and Washington Redskins. Each for different reasons. Likewise, I consider myself tied to several clans and feel a "right" to wear several tartans. I have different reasons for the tartans. Most are by blood (MacNeil, Wallace, Wilson/Gunn, Gordon/Todd) or residency (Georgia, Carolina, American), while others are out of historical respect (MacGregor-> Rob Roy), friends (Stewart, Campbell, etc), in-laws (Loud MacLeod/Lewis), or memberships (MacBubba/Culloden) to name a few. I have a reason to want to where a particular tartan, just as to pull for a certain sports team. To many, green and yellow stands for either Green Bay Packers or Oakland A's, though it is/was also the colors of Team Lotus and the livery colors of MacNeil of Barra.

One is "free" to wear what he or she wants, but these patterns have associations that virtually call for explanation. To wear these colors is tantamount to wearing a sports team colors in that one is associated with that team. If I wear Green Bay stuff, I respond that I have a lot of respect for a team that is from an area the size of "Greenville/Spartanburg" (approx. 100,000), but owns the franchise and is sold out for my lifetime, besides the great history and image of the team. In a sense, the Packers are Wisconson. Both clan tartans and sports teams have a sense of belonging that draws in "locals" and outsiders who want to share the "association" with the "insiders." The same is true of real football (soccor), baseball, racing (red and black in NASCAR->Dale Jr. and light blue and yellow in F1->Renault), and ANY other team sport.

No one wears tartan for no reason, unless it is a flannel shirt. To most, "I like the colors" is a laughable and idiotic answer. The clan would be offended at that. While a better answer is: "I am facinated by the life and the myths about Rob Roy MacGregor, especially how the myths diverge from reality, so I wear MacgGregor in respect for him, his clansmen, and their descendants." Few, but the most arrogant, MacGregors would look down at the second answer.

It is a mix of association and respect, except by the most idiotic of tartan wearers who have NO SENSE of what they are doing. (This does not apply to any I've met here, as far as I know. Interest in the history and a sense of respect is a large part of the reason most of us are here. Otherwise, none of us would have bothered.)

That is the "middle ground" and what ACTUALLY happens.

This is an interesting thread so I decided to read it from the start. I couldn't believe what I read.

McWage, my next kilt coincidentally is going to be a MacGregor. I must say it's not because I like the colours. It's certainly not because I am facinated by the myths of Rob Roy Macgregor. It's actually because Fraser and Kirkbright were selling it cheap as a remnant and I could afford it. I'm not going to interupt my history studies to study the Clan MacGregor just because that is the tartan F and K were selling as a remnant. Maybe I should study the history of the other clothes that I wear. If I was wearing my clothes as a costume I would want to know it's history, is that what you are doing?

Does this make me one of the most idiotic of tartan wearers who have no sense of what they are doing? These are very strong words as there are actually no rules. Do we have to bide by YOUR rules? Are YOU the tartan police?

I am English without any Scottish blood that I know of but I haven't searched for any. They say my name entitles me to wear lamont but my name is definately English. I was raised in England and Scotland. My best ever friend was Scottish (he didn't wear a kilt, I did). The indiginous Scots are lovely people and love it when visitors wear kilts. No one in Scotland or England has ever asked why I am wearing a particular tartan.

As stated by Phil earlier in this thread. Quote:"I find it interesting that it is mainly non-Scottish members who have strong views on this matter".

The last Scottish wedding I played the pipes at, only the grooms grandfather had a kilt in the family tartan, they were mcCullochs, their tartan was not available to hire so all the men in the grooms family chose kilts that they thought would look good on them from what was available. There were lots of different tartans, all chosen because they liked the colours. If it is good enough for the Scots it is good enough for me.

peter