Absurd kilt myths

[Raptor]

Imagine the fun I have then: I WAS born in Scotland, but have the broadest Aussie accent imaginable (I came here when I was two!)... Are you Scottish? Yes. But you dont sound it... No. Why?... Wuid ye lik' me tae? Hunnnh?????

[haukehaien]

My favorite kilt myth goes something like this:
If you have red in your tartan, then some yahoo will tell you a stupid "fact" about tartan or kilts or Scotland.
If you have green in your tartan, then some yahoo will tell you a stupid "fact" about tartan or kilts or Scotland.
If you have blue in your tartan, then some yahoo will tell you a stupid "fact" about tartan or kilts or Scotland.
If you have yellow in your tartan, then some yahoo will tell you a stupid "fact" about tartan or kilts or Scotland.
If you don't wear tartan, then some yahoo will tell you a stupid "fact" about tartan or kilts or Scotland.

Oh wait ... I guess this isn't a myth. ;)

[Coemgen]

[Roan Carter]

My favorite kilt myth goes something like this:
If you have red in your tartan, then some yahoo will tell you a stupid "fact" about tartan or kilts or Scotland.
If you have green in your tartan, then some yahoo will tell you a stupid "fact" about tartan or kilts or Scotland.
If you have blue in your tartan, then some yahoo will tell you a stupid "fact" about tartan or kilts or Scotland.
If you have yellow in your tartan, then some yahoo will tell you a stupid "fact" about tartan or kilts or Scotland.
If you don't wear tartan, then some yahoo will tell you a stupid "fact" about tartan or kilts or Scotland.

Oh wait ... I guess this isn't a myth. ;)

Jeez, you are soo right. Everyone's an armchair historian when a kilt comes by.

[Archangel]

Jeez, you are soo right. Everyone's an armchair historian when a kilt comes by.

...and, if not, they're obviously fashion experts and so willing to volunteer their wisdom.

[1981Marcus]

Though on the "no kilts pre-C16" topic, I should point out that we don't actually know either way. There may very well have been, it's just we don't have contemporary images of Highlanders from any earlier to judge from.

And the "must be male line" thing is balls too. Well, I suppose you could wear the Royal Stewart or something non-clan like Flower of Scotland (you could have asked that guy who said "it must be your own clan or Black Watch" why all the non-clan tartans existed if nobody was allowed to wear them), so you wouldn't be forbidden to wear the kilt... but what about my family?

We've lived in Perthshire for ever. The name is of Pictish derivation so we were actually in Scotland BEFORE THE SCOTS. But we don't have a tartan. We do, however, have gallons of Highland blood by the distaff side at various stages - MacLaren, Robertson, MacKenzie, MacNaughton, God knows what else. I wear the Ancient MacLaren tartan and the MacLaren badge*: two different lines of my ancestors came from that clan and I'm not going to give them up.

* Re the whole heraldic issue: coats of arms are unique and personal, but the badge, plant-badge, crest and motto (the motto has no official heraldic standing anyway) belong to holders of the surname. The "badge" I'm referring to here is the bonnet-badge bearing the motto and crest of MacLaren: it is a much stronger statement than merely wearing the tartan of allegiance to the chief but I'm not breaking any law. I WOULD be if I went around flashing the MacLaren coat of arms, and then the Lyon Court could indeed fine me.

Incidentally, how many of these idiots you met were wearing bonnets with feathers? The feathers behind the badge (conventionally eagles') are a specific mark of status, though not protected by law. One means you personally possess a properly matriculated coat of arms, two that you're the chieftain of a sept, and three that you're a full-blown clan chief. But one often sees these on the heads of drunk footie fans who, one suspects, are not ALL chiefs.

I may as well further explain the whole heraldic thing here, given that it varies from country to country: Scottish heraldry is a combination of the individualist and tribal systems. What this means is best illustrated by comparison with examples of other countries, so that we cover all the main types of system.

Ancien regime Spain (modern Spanish heraldry is more democratic): the elitist type of the individualist system: not only are individual arms unique and jealously guarded, the right to become an armiger at all was restricted to the nobility.

England: individualist system without elitism: anybody can become armigerous, but not only is each coat unique, even similar coats are reserved for related persons and are differenced by a strict system. If an existing armiger has the same surname as you and you become armigerous you are obliged to accept a coat sufficiently different from theirs to prevent anybody from mistakenly thinking you're related.

Poland: basic tribal heraldry: all armigers of the same surname, or even of surnames within the same clan, bear identical arms.

Scotland: tribal-individualist: each individual's arms are unique, but any two armigers with the same surname are considered to belong to the same clan and are therefore allowed a differenced version of the existing clan arms. It's also a lot cheaper to matriculate a coat of arms if somebody with your surname already has one, as it doesn't have to be designed from scratch. Differencing where no blood relationship can be proven is necessarily unsystematic, but for cases in which a new armiger CAN prove a relationship to an existing one a much more sophisticated differencing system exists than the one used in England.

[1981Marcus]

PS - Anyone who offers allegiance to a chief is considered to be a member of the clan in question unless the chief rejects him / her. It could be argued that to wear a particular tartan constitutes such an offer. By that reckoning, whatever the tartan you're wearing, unless the person saying you can't is actually the chief of that clan, you're entitled to it.

[Rex_Tremende]

Jeez, you are soo right. Everyone's an armchair historian when a kilt comes by.

Though on the "no kilts pre-C16" topic, I should point out that we don't actually know either way. There may very well have been, it's just we don't have contemporary images of Highlanders from any earlier to judge from. [...]

Q.E.D.

[Chef]

Marcus very interesting information on Heraldry.

By the way,

[Arlen]

PS - Anyone who offers allegiance to a chief is considered to be a member of the clan in question unless the chief rejects him / her. It could be argued that to wear a particular tartan constitutes such an offer. By that reckoning, whatever the tartan you're wearing, unless the person saying you can't is actually the chief of that clan, you're entitled to it.

The fact of the matter is that some people are just eejits.

And welcome to Xmarks from another Scot.