New Edinburgh Castle Kilts

[cacunn]

Since Edinburgh Castle is a part of Historic Scotland, and the guides of Historic Scotland have traditionally worn the same corporate tartan, asking why a new tartan was necessary, especially since the old one is of a very pleasing design, is completely legitimate in this forum.

Why a new tartan was necessary or not is a question for those running the Castle. Corporation and other groups other change because they can or they may have seen a chance to get some publicity out of the new kilt to put in more tourist dollars. Maybe TFCK designed it on their own without the knowledge of the Historical Scotland group.

I see no problem with the original, in fact I like the tartan and think is should be worn as part of the Castle's history. But I don't think just because something is historical makes it better than something new or something new is better than historical just because it is new.

Change is hard to accept especially when it is hard to identify the need for the change.

[macwilkin]

Why a new tartan was necessary or not is a question for those running the Castle. Corporation and other groups other change because they can or they may have seen a chance to get some publicity out of the new kilt to put in more tourist dollars. Maybe TFCK designed it on their own without the knowledge of the Historical Scotland group.

I see no problem with the original, in fact I like the tartan and think is should be worn as part of the Castle's history. But I don't think just because something is historical makes it better than something new or something new is better than historical just because it is new.

Change is hard to accept especially when it is hard to identify the need for the change.

I would echo Scotus comments; I see nothing wrong with a simple question as to why the new tartan was adopted.

I also agree with your last statement, which contradicts your first somewhat: without an answer as to why this tartan came about when HS already has a tartan, it is hard to explain the need for a change.

T.

[cacunn]

I would echo Scotus comments; I see nothing wrong with a simple question as to why the new tartan was adopted.

I also agree with your last statement, which contradicts your first somewhat: without an answer as to why this tartan came about when HS already has a tartan, it is hard to explain the need for a change.

T.

cajunscot I am confused. You posted this article about the new kilt:

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Ca...-in.3921441.jp

which says.

"The new tartan is part of a branding initiative set up by Historic Scotland last year."

It would appear that Historic Scotland is re-brand. Why you have to ask them.

[macwilkin]

cajunscot I am confused. You posted this article about the new kilt:

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Ca...-in.3921441.jp

which says.

"The new tartan is part of a branding initiative set up by Historic Scotland last year."

It would appear that Historic Scotland is re-brand. Why you have to ask them.

Exactly my point; why the re-brand? I read the article, but that really isn't much of an explanation. What was wrong with the old tartan? That's all I want to know. And yes, I know...you don't know.

Sorry to confuse you.

[Scotus]

But I don't think just because something is historical makes it better than something new or something new is better than historical just because it is new.

Change is hard to accept especially when it is hard to identify the need for the change.

Vetus melius est.

Scotus

[highlander_Daz]

in my mind shes wearing thigh highs and a garter belt but maybe thats wishful thinking