Allowed tartans

[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.

[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

[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 .

[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 .

[Quaich Maker]

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.

No Grants have ever stated that the clan tartans that we wear today are 'like' the clan tartans that we had in the 1700's , other that the red 'n green of it .

Is there a reason that you do ?

[M. A. C. Newsome]

No Grants have ever stated that the clan tartans that we wear today are 'like' the clan tartans that we had in the 1700's , other that the red 'n green of it .

Is there a reason that you do ?

No, I don't (and didn't) say that.

However, I would say that if your earlier assertations are correct that the Black Watch sett was originally a Grant tartan that was adopted by the Regiment, that would mean that the tartan was worn in the early 1700s by the Grants. However,to the best of anyone's knowledge, the Black Watch tartan was created new for the Regiment, probably around 1749 if Jamie Scarlett's recent thinking on the subject is correct.

[celtiberian]

I have no scottish connection but I find the kilt just great.
Finding a tartan connection should be interesting but a good quality kilt is quite expensive so I think is much better purchasing a tartan you like if you can only get one kilt.
Reading all the opinions posted in this thread It's sure I shall learn something about the tartan I choose...
I have also read about 'wearing It it pride'...Do anybody know someone who doesn't wear a tartan with pride?
Maybe meeting someone who asks you about your clan or scottish connection and not having any may lead to an interesting conversation!
Ah,I shall choose the Lindsay modern.
If anybody knows a reason why I wouldn't wear that tartan please let me know...

Hope I haven't made many mistakes while writing in English language...I chose Scotland for a brief trip to improve my English anguage skills but I spent the whole week trying to get used with the scottish accent ;D

[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

[RK-REX]

Idiot number two here.

Probably be one for the rest of my life too because with the exception of one district tartan from Ireland, I've got not a single tie to any other in existence. Oh, I would just love to have someone tell me I can't wear a tartan because it's "theirs".

This is getting ridiculous....