Military tartans

[KiltedCodeWarrior]

OK, there have been some threads recently about a person's right or ability to wear any of the military tartans, USAF, RCMP, Black Watch, Polaris, etc. without having served, or had a relative who served and was being honored, in that particular service/branch of service. It got me to wondering why the same arguent does not apply to people wearing camouflage type clothing? Aren't the differnent camo patterns specifically identified with particular military branches or branches of service?

Is there any real reason for somebody not to wear a military tartan? Especially if they show respect for the tartan and what it represents and have some basic knowledge of that tartan? Isn't that what we say about every other tartan?

And please, I am looking for thoughtful answers on this to further my own understanding. Don't reply if you have nothing meaningful to add other than "I would never do that", tell me why you would not.

[Tattoo Bradley]

I actually don't see anything wrong with ANYONE wearing one of the military tartans. I personally will only wear the USAF (served four years active duty) or the US Army (I served in the Army National Guard for a year.) But, the way I see it, if someone's wearing the tartan of said branch, they're showing respect for what it represents.

[Panache]

Sport Kilt offers the Navy tartan and I think it's gorgeous. My Grandfather and most of my Great Uncles who served in World War II were sailors. I think that as long as I knew the history and wore it respectfully it would be fine.

Cheers

[cavscout]

I think it's not exactly apples to apples to compare military tartan to camoflage. Camoflage is so androginous and non-specific that it's not presumptuous (sp) to wear it and be seen in it. So much so that it has become a staple of male wardrobe. THere are so many fashion camo's and designer camo's for specific terrains and foliage. The indicator of a person having served in the military based on camoflage is how they wear it. Legs neatly bloused, Cargo pockets ironed smooth and crisp, sleeves rolled and positioned correcetly. The average wearer is going to look like they slept in the camo. A dead give away.

Tartans on the other hand are more analogus to a dress uniform or a class 'A'. While you will see people who have gone to a surplus store and picked up an old Dress Blue Blouse and wear it as a fashion, everyone knows they did not serve or they would not be wearing the uniform in that way.

I'm of the school that says "wear it with respect.". Respect for the meaning and respect for self. One should be prepared for the question "Did you serve". And be prepared for the few who will find it improper. If I ran into someone wearing a USMC tartan I would absolutely ask if they were a Marine. If they were not, I'd be very interested to hear the reason for the wearing. I'd hope that it is a reason of respect and honor, not just a fashion choice. Though at $400+, a military tartan kilt is not for the faint of heart anyway

[Manu]

And thats exactly what my reply was gonne be. Camo is just too universal, not even digital camo is exclusive to Marines anymore, so not a good comparison. Now, a military tartan is not a uniform, therefore I dont think its such a horrible thing to wear it (except brittish militay tartans), but wear it right, wear it proud.

[macwilkin]

Thread moved. Once again, please post all tartan-related threads in the heraldry & tartans sub-section under "Kilt Accessories":

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/f...play.php?f=135

This is why that area was created!

I'll try to post a reply to your question later.

Thanks,

Todd

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Once again, I want to begin by first saying that it's a bit silly to couch these discussions in terms of having the "right" to wear a particular tartan. There are all kinds of things that people can have a right to -- free speech, freedom of worship, and the like. Compared to that, tartans just seem trivial to speak of in terms of "rights."

The long and short of it is that in the vast majority of cases, there is absolutely no legal restriction placed on wearing any tartan design, so yes, anyone at all can wear it. However, if someone wanted to copyright a new design (which usually only restricts the production of the design, not the use thereof) or otherwise take legal actions to restrict its use, and that person tells you that you do not have the "right" to wear his tartan, then you don't.

Keep in mind that with all of the US military tartans, the only one that I know of that is actually officially sanctioned by the military is the Coast Guard tartan. All of the other ones are fashion tartans. That means that someone designed them with that particular branch of military in mind, with the intent of honoring and representing that military branch, but the tartans themselves have no official standing with the military whatsoever.

Since the US Army tartan (to use an example) is only the US Army tartan because the woolen mill in Scotland that designed it (Strathmore) decided to call it the US Army tartan, then I suppose a non-Army type has just as much "right" to wear it as anyone else.

HOWEVER, practically speaking, if you are wearing a tartan called US Army, you can expect that people will assume that you are in, or have been in, the Army. Either they will recognize the tartan, or if not, they will ask you what it is. Any kilt wearer will tell you they get asked that all the time. "Hey, nice kilt! What tartan is that?"

So, the question to ask yourself is, are you comfortable with people mistaking you for someone who has served? I'm not, and the reason for that is that people tend to treat those who have given military service with a degree of respect and honor -- I know this from people I know and work with that have served in the military. I have not ever served in the military, and to me it would not do to give the impression that I had.

For the same reason I wouldn't wear the Clergy tartan if I were not a member of the clergy.

Now I don't necessarily have the same qualms about wearing another clan tartan. After all, the history of the clans themselves is one of wearing lots of different tartans. The modern day clan tartans were mostly selected in a fairly arbitrary way, anyway. And frankly, it just doesn't bother me to think that someone might mistakenly assume I'm descended from Clan MacGregor or Clan Sutherland, that to assume that I'm a veteran, or a minister. I suppose that it's because the former have to do with supposed anscestral connections centuries in the past, whereas the latter have to do with personal commitments, achievements, and duties.

Aye,
Matt

[MacWage]

Once again, I want to begin by first saying that it's a bit silly to couch these discussions in terms of having the "right" to wear a particular tartan. There are all kinds of things that people can have a right to -- free speech, freedom of worship, and the like. Compared to that, tartans just seem trivial to speak of in terms of "rights."

The long and short of it is that in the vast majority of cases, there is absolutely no legal restriction placed on wearing any tartan design, so yes, anyone at all can wear it. However, if someone wanted to copyright a new design (which usually only restricts the production of the design, not the use thereof) or otherwise take legal actions to restrict its use, and that person tells you that you do not have the "right" to wear his tartan, then you don't.

Keep in mind that with all of the US military tartans, the only one that I know of that is actually officially sanctioned by the military is the Coast Guard tartan. All of the other ones are fashion tartans. That means that someone designed them with that particular branch of military in mind, with the intent of honoring and representing that military branch, but the tartans themselves have no official standing with the military whatsoever.

Since the US Army tartan (to use an example) is only the US Army tartan because the woolen mill in Scotland that designed it (Strathmore) decided to call it the US Army tartan, then I suppose a non-Army type has just as much "right" to wear it as anyone else.

HOWEVER, practically speaking, if you are wearing a tartan called US Army, you can expect that people will assume that you are in, or have been in, the Army. Either they will recognize the tartan, or if not, they will ask you what it is. Any kilt wearer will tell you they get asked that all the time. "Hey, nice kilt! What tartan is that?"

So, the question to ask yourself is, are you comfortable with people mistaking you for someone who has served? I'm not, and the reason for that is that people tend to treat those who have given military service with a degree of respect and honor -- I know this from people I know and work with that have served in the military. I have not ever served in the military, and to me it would not do to give the impression that I had.

For the same reason I wouldn't wear the Clergy tartan if I were not a member of the clergy.

Now I don't necessarily have the same qualms about wearing another clan tartan. After all, the history of the clans themselves is one of wearing lots of different tartans. The modern day clan tartans were mostly selected in a fairly arbitrary way, anyway. And frankly, it just doesn't bother me to think that someone might mistakenly assume I'm descended from Clan MacGregor or Clan Sutherland, that to assume that I'm a veteran, or a minister. I suppose that it's because the former have to do with supposed anscestral connections centuries in the past, whereas the latter have to do with personal commitments, achievements, and duties.

Aye,
Matt

Here, Here!!!!
Couldn't have said it better myself.

The only confusion is the Clergy/ Clark thing. The tartan is essentionally the same, though more modern mills try to differenciate them by the colors used. The meaning is QUITE different, as would the assumptions of those who see it-> That a nice clan tartan vs. That man must be a minister/pastor/preist/preacher (term varies by denominational affiliation).
Military has that same affiliation, as does wearing a Marine or Army shirt around, only more so.

[davedove]

I'm of the school that says "wear it with respect.". Respect for the meaning and respect for self. One should be prepared for the question "Did you serve". And be prepared for the few who will find it improper. If I ran into someone wearing a USMC tartan I would absolutely ask if they were a Marine. If they were not, I'd be very interested to hear the reason for the wearing. I'd hope that it is a reason of respect and honor, not just a fashion choice.

This is basically my point of view on the subject. Personally, I have the US Army tartan, because I've served with the Army as both military and civilian for over twenty years now. Also, My father and uncle both served in the Army, and my brother is currently serving in the Army.

I plan to get the US Air Force tartan someday because of my new affiliation with the Civil Air Patrol, the US Air Force Auxiliary. The only military tartan I might wear that I never served with would be the US Navy tartan. That would be to honor the service of some of my relatives, including both grandfathers, who served in the Navy during WWI.

But, I'm basically that way with all tartans. I like to have some connection to what the tartan represents.

[macwilkin]

Matt,

Based on my current research, it would appear that the US Air Force Reserve tartan has some "official" status, given the fact that the USAFR Pipes & Drums, part of the US Air Force Reserve Band, wears it as part of their uniform. Hopefully my contacts with the Air Force will be able to resolve this question.

Cheers,

Todd