Allowed tartans

[Quaich Maker]

I understood that the government banned the wearing of kilts before clan tartans came into being, and rescinded the law so that the new regiments could wear kilts as part of their uniform in order to improve recruitment figures. This would indicate that regimental tartans came first.

This is a bit like the chicken and egg argument, except it is:-"It was my tartan before it was your tartan!"

Scottish history is so full of myth and legend, it is often difficult to pin down the facts, and most of us haven't studied the subject broadly enough to be authorities. I would tend to go along with Matt N as he seems to be the most knowledgable guy on xmarks and does produce logical argument and as many facts as possible to get to the truth, without an agenda of his own.

So many people dogmatically argue the facts the way they would like them to be rather than looking at all available evidence and accepting things the way they are.

Peter

Quite so Peter ,
evidence such as this

'' Clearly the periodic muster of fencible men stiffened loyalty and dependency in a period
when both were frequently tested in the Highlands. Entries for 1704 in the Regality Court Books
of the Laird of Grant record the calling out, on 48 hours' notice, of the 'fencible men' of Badenoch
and Strathspey for the Laird's 'hosting or hunteing'; each man was to be dressed in 'Heighland
coates, trewes, and short hoes of tartane of red and greine sett broad springed and also with gun,
sword, pistoll and durk ... And the Master to outrig the servantes in the saids coates, trewes, and
hose out of there fies' .''

Stewart 1893, 27-8

and this

'' A sense of kinship and identity must have been strengthened when Ludovick Grant of
Freuchie made a settlement of his estates on his eldest son, Colonel Alexander Grant of Grant, in
1710; at a formal and elaborate ceremony the old laird resigned the leadership of the clan to his
heir. This selection of the heir to the estate before the witness of the clan is reminiscent of the
'tanistry' of the early Irish law tracts by which the successor designate or heir presumptive, an
tanaiste, was chosen within the ruler's lifetime.
[The Laird of Grant] made all the gentlemen and commons of his name wear whiskers, and make all
their plaids and tartan of red and green, and commanded them all to appear before him at Ballintome,
the ordinary place of rendezvous, in that uniform, in kilt and under arms, which order was complied
with . ''

Fraser 1883, III, 326-7


Note the dates Peter , and note also , the dates of the Clan Grant
paintings by Richard Waitt .

[mddock58]

The pieces you quoted only signify that the common colors used in their tartans were "red and green" not that there was a "specific" tartan designed for the clan at that time.

As we have seen in much research, there are many specifics left out, but we tend to define or interpret them as we wish. I am not saying that there was no specific tartan for the Grants, from what you posted, but that what was posted is vague, and can be interpreted many ways.

There are many scholarly works that contain mis-information, mostly because they accepted information of questionable sources. If we could travel back, we could know for sure, but we all try to piece histories together from sources we can access.

Tartans did not really have significance (as far as patterns, for history's sake) until they became manufactured more commonly. When they were woven by local "artisans" there would have been a large variation in design, because they would not "count threads" or see colors the same.

This seems to be an argument that is trying to be "won", when until there is verifiable evidences brought forth to change what is currently known, there is no point in arguing.

This is an interesting thread, but the vehement attitude should be set aside.

[Quaich Maker]

The pieces you quoted only signify that the common colors used in their tartans were "red and green" not that there was a "specific" tartan designed for the clan at that time.

As we have seen in much research, there are many specifics left out, but we tend to define or interpret them as we wish. I am not saying that there was no specific tartan for the Grants, from what you posted, but that what was posted is vague, and can be interpreted many ways.

There are many scholarly works that contain mis-information, mostly because they accepted information of questionable sources. If we could travel back, we could know for sure, but we all try to piece histories together from sources we can access.

Tartans did not really have significance (as far as patterns, for history's sake) until they became manufactured more commonly. When they were woven by local "artisans" there would have been a large variation in design, because they would not "count threads" or see colors the same.

This seems to be an argument that is trying to be "won", when until there is verifiable evidences brought forth to change what is currently known, there is no point in arguing.

This is an interesting thread, but the vehement attitude should be set aside.

The writings give the colours , the paintings give the sett .
All give the Clan

[mddock58]

The painting gives a representation of the sett as worn by the piper at the time the painting was created, not proof that this was a specified "Clan" sett.

[Quaich Maker]

The painting gives a representation of the sett as worn by the piper at the time the painting was created, not proof that this was a specified "Clan" sett.

The chief specified the sett .
Thats why the paintings , and the edict go hand and hand .

Do your own research , do not rely on that of others .
You have enough info to get started .

[Peter C.]

The pieces you quoted only signify that the common colors used in their tartans were "red and green" not that there was a "specific" tartan designed for the clan at that time.

As we have seen in much research, there are many specifics left out, but we tend to define or interpret them as we wish. I am not saying that there was no specific tartan for the Grants, from what you posted, but that what was posted is vague, and can be interpreted many ways.

There are many scholarly works that contain mis-information, mostly because they accepted information of questionable sources. If we could travel back, we could know for sure, but we all try to piece histories together from sources we can access.

Tartans did not really have significance (as far as patterns, for history's sake) until they became manufactured more commonly. When they were woven by local "artisans" there would have been a large variation in design, because they would not "count threads" or see colors the same.

This seems to be an argument that is trying to be "won", when until there is verifiable evidences brought forth to change what is currently known, there is no point in arguing.

This is an interesting thread, but the vehement attitude should be set aside.

Well said, I was trying to say some of what you said but you said it so much better and with extra points, all of wich I agree with.

Peter

[Peter C.]

Quite so Peter ,
evidence such as this

'' Clearly the periodic muster of fencible men stiffened loyalty and dependency in a period
when both were frequently tested in the Highlands. Entries for 1704 in the Regality Court Books
of the Laird of Grant record the calling out, on 48 hours' notice, of the 'fencible men' of Badenoch
and Strathspey for the Laird's 'hosting or hunteing'; each man was to be dressed in 'Heighland
coates, trewes, and short hoes of tartane of red and greine sett broad springed and also with gun,
sword, pistoll and durk ... And the Master to outrig the servantes in the saids coates, trewes, and
hose out of there fies' .''

Stewart 1893, 27-8

and this

'' A sense of kinship and identity must have been strengthened when Ludovick Grant of
Freuchie made a settlement of his estates on his eldest son, Colonel Alexander Grant of Grant, in
1710; at a formal and elaborate ceremony the old laird resigned the leadership of the clan to his
heir. This selection of the heir to the estate before the witness of the clan is reminiscent of the
'tanistry' of the early Irish law tracts by which the successor designate or heir presumptive, an
tanaiste, was chosen within the ruler's lifetime.
[The Laird of Grant] made all the gentlemen and commons of his name wear whiskers, and make all
their plaids and tartan of red and green, and commanded them all to appear before him at Ballintome,
the ordinary place of rendezvous, in that uniform, in kilt and under arms, which order was complied
with . ''

Fraser 1883, III, 326-7


Note the dates Peter , and note also , the dates of the Clan Grant
paintings by Richard Waitt .

Hi Ian,

My statement about knowledge was pretty general and I did feel a little guilty after I had posted it, because there are many very "well studied" people who post on these forums, and you would seem to be another. However I still say it is a fact that many expat scots want history to be the way they would like it rather that the way it is.

The discussion was about Black Watch tartan- I don't see any evidence in those two statements to say that the Grants wore Black Watch tartan.

Peter

[M. A. C. Newsome]

A rather lengthy reply was unfortunately swallowed into the ether, so here is a more abridged version of what I was trying to post.

The 1704 letter has been oft-cited as "proof" that clan tartans eixsted prior to the generally accepted date. In reality, all this letter tells us that the cheif of the Grants expected his men to turn out in "red and green" tartan on the field. It does not specify a particular sett or design. In fact, if it proves anything, it proves that clan tartans were not in use, for if they were, all the cheif would have had to have done is to instruct them to wear "the proper Grant tartan" and no more would have been neccesary.

As for the Richard Waitt protraits of 1714, here they are:



Yes, these two figures are wearing similar tartans. But again, what does that tell us about "clan tartans?" All we can deduce from this is that two men in the same household were wear clothing seemingly made from the same cloth. Is this all that unusual? Does this mean it was a "clan Grant" tartan? No. In fact, if it proves anything, it proves too much, for this tartan is nothing like the Clan Grant tartans of today.

I note that the Clan Grant USA, in the "history" section of their web site, again claim that the Black Watch regiment took their tartan from a pre-existing Grant tartan. They write, "the Clan supposedly has the reciepts for the original order of the tartan material."

Well, I'd like to see that documented. Saying that the clan "supposedly" has such material proves nothing. Show me the evidence so that I can look at it ojectively and see what it really tells us. If it proves what they claim it does, it would cause us to rewrite tartan history. This means that any evidence needs to be looked at critically and subject to peer review before any wild claims are made. In other words, we need to proceed with caution.

I will end by quoting what the UK Clan Grant has to say on their site:
http://www.clangrant.org/tartan.php

An argument has been put forward for the Black Watch tartan having originated as the Clan Campbell tartan because of the large number of Campbells serving in its ranks. In fact the reverse is almost certainly true: the regimental tartan was adopted by the Campbells as theirs because so many Campbells were already accustomed to wearing it when the idea of wearing clan tartans became general. This explanation would account for its use by the other clans mentioned [Grant, Munro], all of whom were involved in the formation of the Black Watch as well as the Campbells.

[MacWage]

While I was LOOKING for picts of these portraits in question, and Matt's articles to see if he posted something to link here, He posted over here WITH the picts!

The 1704 letter has been oft-cited as "proof" that clan tartans eixsted prior to the generally accepted date. In reality, all this letter tells us that the cheif of the Grants expected his men to turn out in "red and green" tartan on the field. It does not specify a particular sett or design. In fact, if it proves anything, it proves that clan tartans were not in use, for if they were, all the cheif would have had to have done is to instruct them to wear "the proper Grant tartan" and no more would have been neccesary.

The VERY point I was going to make: There is a GOOD probablility that the modern "Grant tartan" was created/picked TO FIT that letter!

As for the Richard Waitt protraits of 1714, here they are:



Yes, these two figures are wearing similar tartans. But again, what does that tell us about "clan tartans?" All we can deduce from this is that two men in the same household were wear clothing seemingly made from the same cloth. Is this all that unusual? Does this mean it was a "clan Grant" tartan? No. In fact, if it proves anything, it proves too much, for this tartan is nothing like the Clan Grant tartans of today.

Actually, according to Ian Grimble's "Clans and Chiefs: Celtic Tribalism in Scotland" (original by Blond & Briggs, 1980; reprint Edinburgh: Birlinn Limited, 2000-> I also have a hardbound version from Barnes & Noble with the same page numbers):
"Before the Jacobite uprising of 1715 (which the Grants opposed, thus earning their place in the Mackenzie rant of Cabarfiedh), Sir Ludovick Grant of Grant ordered all his dependents to wear a particular pattern of tartan described as consisting of "red and greed dyce." Yet nearly a dozen family portraits of the time of Ludovick's son prove that his attempt to introduce a standard sett for his clan was largely ignored even by his closest relatives. They simply picked the patterns they fancied.. But this ruling was respected in a later century when the present Grant tartan was composed." (p. 220)

I THINK the portraits shown above are related DIRECTLY to Grant's proclamation.

What they together shown is that "clan tartans" DID NOT EXIST in the pre-Jacobite period. Grant's attempt to MAKE ONE in the early 1700s failed miserably. So, one cannot argue that those associations are OLD.
Good article (By Newsome) on some "older" tartans:
http://albanach.org/oldtartans.html

However, to wear the "Grant" tartan TODAY bears the association WITH Clan Grant!!! To me, that association bears weight on what I want to buy and wear as a kilt. I go back to the sports-analogy from page 1 of this thread:
You CAN wear whatever you like, BUT each has associations, most VERY strong. So, bear in MIND the associations.

This whole last portion of the thread has been a GREAT example of the history, concerns/feelings, and practical applications of those associations, in the form of "Black Watch" (and its various manifestations) and Grant's various tartans.

[Quaich Maker]

"Before the Jacobite uprising of 1715 (which the Grants opposed, thus earning their place in the Mackenzie rant of Cabarfiedh), Sir Ludovick Grant of Grant ordered all his dependents to wear a particular pattern of tartan described as consisting of "red and greed dyce." .

Check you facts before you post .