Can anyone wear any tartan?

[triolamj]

Rawlinson's men were wearing the full great kilt and sparks from their work in the foundry were catching spots on the kilts on fire. Rawlinson arranged for the men to wear the shorter philabeg as a safety measure, though I would have thought they needed more coverage, not less. In any event, the men liked the new sewn-down kilts, their friends liked the look and comfort, too, and the custom spread.

[gilmore]

Yes, that is the story.

[Rob MacDonald]

You can wear any tartan you want. Whether your should is a different matter.

To wear the tartan of a clan one has no association with simply because one finds the colors groovy is, to my mind, rather superficial and silly.

Some tartans are the 'trademarked' 'copyright' of the owner and are no one else's business, and a reputable weaver won't sell a piece of that sett to an unauthorized buyer.

I once had a punter that wanted a kilt in the 'Chief's sett' of the MacKinnons. I told him that I would gladly make him that kilt upon his produced a notarized letter from the owner of that sett as I expected, I never heard from him again.

as to 'groovy' colour selection, that's how all the 'old' setts were designed in the first place.

As I've said elsewhere, there's nothing to prevent you from wearing the RCMP tartan, but if you aren't a current or retired 'horseman' you are going to be spending a lot of time walking backwards while you explain WHY you're wearing it - and some folks I know won't pause to hear an explanation before they get physical......

[Phogfan86]

"To wear the tartan of a clan one has no association with simply because one finds the colors groovy is, to my mind, rather superficial and silly."

"How the Scots Invented the Modern World" and several other books I've read said that clan chiefs used to pick up new kilts often, regardless of the tartan, when they'd travel. Those books also say that most chiefs seemed to take the philosophy, the louder, the better.

So a groovy color or sett was exactly what the chiefs used to look for.

[gilmore]

"To wear the tartan of a clan one has no association with simply because one finds the colors groovy is, to my mind, rather superficial and silly."

"How the Scots Invented the Modern World" and several other books I've read said that clan chiefs used to pick up new kilts often, regardless of the tartan, when they'd travel. Those books also say that most chiefs seemed to take the philosophy, the louder, the better.

So a groovy color or sett was exactly what the chiefs used to look for.

That was chiefs, then. We (many of us) are clan members, theoretically at least followers of the chief, now.

[Mair of the Tribe of Mar]

That was chiefs, then. We (many of us) are clan members, theoretically at least followers of the chief, now.

The chiefs now, though, wish for us (clan members) to adopt whatever tartan that they have. And they also try to maintain an antiquated romantic form of what the Highlands use to be.

Unfortunately, these romantic ideas of kilts in the highlands where McDonald's wore a specific tartan and Campbell's used a different, but specific tartan is hogwash. The only thing that the continued use of these ideas are good for, is to line the pocketbooks of the few that deal in the trades regarding Scottish "history." (I used McDonald and Campbell because of historic animosity, which has been romanticized to an effect.)

That being said, I do feel that there is something to be said for wearing the tartan of one's own family or clan, "it's how it's done NOW." But also, this shouldn't stop me from going out and purchasing a McDonald tartan just because I like the set. And personally, I don't feel that I am abandoning my chief because I don't like the tartan that he/she has decided to like. To base a person's "allegiance" on whether they buy a certain color cloth or not seems a little shaky.

Just my two cents, I will get down now
Peace and Harmony

[macwilkin]

The chiefs now, though, wish for us (clan members) to adopt whatever tartan that they have. And they also try to maintain an antiquated romantic form of what the Highlands use to be.

I can't help but [respectfully] see the irony of the content of this post, while the poster has as their avatar, a "clansman's badge", which denotes loyalty to a clan Chief.

Not all chiefs, by the way, feel so strongly on their clan's tartans.

Unfortunately, these romantic ideas of kilts in the highlands where McDonald's wore a specific tartan and Campbell's used a different, but specific tartan is hogwash. The only thing that the continued use of these ideas are good for, is to line the pocketbooks of the few that deal in the trades regarding Scottish "history." (I used McDonald and Campbell because of historic animosity, which has been romanticized to an effect.)

That being said, I do feel that there is something to be said for wearing the tartan of one's own family or clan, "it's how it's done NOW." But also, this shouldn't stop me from going out and purchasing a McDonald tartan just because I like the set. And personally, I don't feel that I am abandoning my chief because I don't like the tartan that he/she has decided to like. To base a person's "allegiance" on whether they buy a certain color cloth or not seems a little shaky.

Just my two cents, I will get down now
Peace and Harmony

I'll be the first one to say that the concept of clan tartans has no ancient pedigree -- that's pretty much a given.

But, I'm not so sure I agree that the concept of clan tartans should be dismissed so outright because of it. The simple fact of the matter is that the Clan Chief does have the authority to decide which tartans are "official" clan tartans. Obviously that won't stop anyone who doesn't give a fig what the clan chief says, but nevertheless, it has become a custom today, and I personally respect it. That doesn't mean others have to agree with me, and I do not expect them to. I think sometimes folks are a bit too "iconclastic" when it comes to clan tartans.

Respectfully,

Todd

[gilmore]

...
I'll be the first one to say that the concept of clan tartans has no ancient pedigree -- that's pretty much a given.

...

Granted clan tartans evolved after the clans' heydey, but does that mean they are not hoary? I think not. A few date from the mid-18th century, and many if not most are now close to 200 years old. That is certainly more ancient than most people can trace their own pedigrees.

[macwilkin]

Granted clan tartans evolved after the clans' heydey, but does that mean they are not hoary? I think not. A few date from the mid-18th century, and many if not most are now close to 200 years old. That is certainly more ancient than most people can trace their own pedigrees.

Exactly my point, Gil. You mistook the meaning of my post; you'll notice that I am defending the concept of clan tartans.

T.

[Geoff Withnell]

Granted clan tartans evolved after the clans' heydey, but does that mean they are not hoary? I think not. A few date from the mid-18th century, and many if not most are now close to 200 years old. That is certainly more ancient than most people can trace their own pedigrees.

Yes, the tartans are that old, but they were not in those days considered CLAN tartans, because the concept as we know it now did not exist. They were tartans in style of the Campbell's weavers, or the tartan worn in this or that area. In the turmoil of the mid-18th century, do you really think weavers didn't weave whatever they and their customers wanted (not to mention family weavers)? And who was going to stop someone from wearing whatever tartan cloth they wanted and could obtain? Just because a particular sett is 200+ years old, does not mean it has been a clan tartan for that time.

I really don't have a dog in this hunt, since I am not a member of any clan beyond the USMC, and at the moment I wear that tartan or a "universal" one because those are the kilts I have. But it seems silly to this Welshman that the Scots are defending a custom invented by the Sassanach

Geoff Withnell