Quote Originally Posted by cajunscot View Post
To be fair, though, it wasn't just an English monarch, it was a British monarch. Remember, James I was James VI of Scotland first, and the Act of Union had been in place since 1707. Many Highland chiefs were embracing the myth just as enthusiastically as the "English" monarchs.

The point that some seem to be missing is (save Gil) is that the tradition of tartans being associated with clans has been around for some time now. As Matt notes, regardless of the history -- Wilson's, the Sobeski Brothers, George VI's 1822 visit, etc. -- a tradition has been established that certain tartans are associated and recognised with certain clans.

Matt's article on the sources of tartan explains it far better than I can, though:

http://www.albanach.org/sources.htm

Of course the sept lists are suspect -- almost all of the noted tartan scholars agree -- but why cut our nose off to spite our face? The real story of clan tartans does not diminish, in my opinion, the symbolism they have developed since the early 19th century.

Does that mean you can wear "my" clan's tartan? By all means, be my guest. Our society supports a pipe band in Scotland that does, and I doubt the members are all Cummings. Personally, I only wear tartans I have a personal connection to, be it a clan/district/state, etc. But that's just me. If kilts are about "freedom", as many espouse here, then one freedom which must be respected is the freedom to follow custom and tradition.

Regards,

Todd
Ah, I believe we are actually in fairly close agreement. I recognize and honor the association, of whatever length, recent or ancient, of some tartans and some clans/families. As I said in my original reply, and have said elsewhere, the Marine Corps is my clan, and I wear the USMC tartan proudly. Can a non-Marine wear it? Certainly, if done with respect. But tartans are not heraldry. I would not dream of wearing someone's coat of arms. And I would be upset at someone not a Marine wearing an Eagle Globe and Anchor. But a tartan that was woven and sold to all and sundry for many years is not a coat of arms, and can't have that kind of exclusive status. We don't need to claim great antiquity for the concept. Scotland can hardly encourage the mills to produce and sell tartans throughout the world, and then not expect folks to wear them! And certainly the Monarchs are "British". But George VI and Victoria were far more English than Scottish, by all accounts I have read.

I am giving serious thought to buying a Gordon tartan kilt. I am Jewish, and many Scottish Jews are named Gordon, and many who are not have worn the Gordon tartan (usually the Dress tartan). This seems like a close enough association to me, but i would not want to be upbraided for wearing a tartan I "don't have the right to".

Again, I respect the clans association with a tartan, and realize haw strong the feeling can be, however recent. But to say that there is something wrong, or unmannerly, or disrespectful in wearing a tartan of a clan one is not a part of is just not justified, given the history.

Geoff Withnell