Can anyone wear any tartan?

[Jock Scot]

You can theoretically wear any tartan, yes. Some don't even have a clan attached (my kilt was labeled "Gray Granite" at the shop)

First of all welcome,from Inverness-shire. As much as hate "splitting hairs" and as much as I do not wish to cause you upset on your first post, can I correct you. You can theoretically wear NEARLY any tartan you wish and some would add, that whether you should or not, is quite another matter. Might I suggest that you read all the posts carefully on this thread and you will discover why I say what I do.

[Matthew Siegmann]

Interesting thread. Personally I have trouble wearing a tartan of a clan I'm not affiliated with, however, there are literally thousands of tartans to choose from.

I'll give an example for some of "wearing the wrong tartan." I'm a member of clan Keith (true) and the Keiths had been enemies with Clan Gunn for several hundred years (until official peace several years ago). Before the peace it would have been inappropriate for me to wear the tartan of Clan Gunn, even if I liked it better than my own clan.

I understand that there are people out there that something like this wouldn't matter to, but for others it would. I found the website http://www.tartans.scotland.net/find_tartan.cfm.htm which has a large list of registered tartans (I don't know if this is the complete list though). It gives some good pointers and advice on what types of tartans should and should not be worn. Examples that they state to not wear: Chiefs tartans and Royal tartans, however other people made the point that there are specific tartans that also hold a copyright. I also understand that most tartan weavers are located in Scotland or other parts of the UK. That being said if you find a tartan you like and it's one that only certain people in the UK are permited to wear, good luck having it manufacutred for you, unless you have permission from the owner of the sett.

But as I stated before, and I belive was already stated several times, there are thousands of tartans to choose from, only a fraction of them are not okay for just anyone to wear, so there should be plenty of choices without having to get into legal battles.

Also on ties... in the UK at least, some ties are made for certain organizations, it may be less common now than in the past but I would assume the same is applyed to tartan ties as well as kilts...

:-)

[Sammac]

If I were to see anyone other than family wearing a Kilt in my family's tartan(MacDiarmid),I would take it as a compliment.

[RadioKen]

I'm a member of clan Keith (true) and the Keiths had been enemies with Clan Gunn for several hundred years (until official peace several years ago). Before the peace it would have been inappropriate for me to wear the tartan of Clan Gunn, even if I liked it better than my own clan.

I can trace my ancestry to Keith as well as Gunn, and I have to say that between the two I actually DO like the Gunn tartan better. (Well, Gunn Modern, anyway.)

I'm also a Gregor and the current Chief of that clan, Sir Malcolm MacGregor, has stated publicly that of the four Gregor "clan" tartans, only two are, in his opinion as Chief, appropriate for ANY Gregor to wear. Those are the the MacGregor Red and Black (the proper name for the so-called "Rob Roy" pattern), and the MacGregor Red and Green. MacGregor of Glengyle/Deeside is a tartan which he suggests should be reserved for that branch of the clan. Furthermore, he states explicitly that the tartan called MacGregor of Cardney should, as far as he is concerned, be worn only by MacGregors from Cardney. (He did point out, however, that this tartan was for years sold erroneously as "MacGregor Hunting", and has said that if you've already got it in your closet because of that to go ahead and wear it.)

Does that mean that people who aren't MacGregors from Cardney can't wear the MacGregor of Cardney tartan? I think we've established in this thread (and many, many others) that it does not. However, it does mean (to me, anyway, as a Gregor) that perhaps I shouldn't wear it, if for no other reason than the head of the clan it represents has said so. I respect him and his position (as I would the Chief of any clan), and will therefore respect his opinion in this matter. (Which is too bad, in a way, because I would really like a MacGregor kilt and USA Kilts has a small supply remaining of the tartan they sell as "MacGregor" which is, in fact, MacGregor of Cardney.)

~Ken

[fluter]

... I would really like a MacGregor kilt and USA Kilts has a small supply remaining of the tartan they sell as "MacGregor" which is, in fact, MacGregor of Cardney.

Ken, if you mean the special run of poly-viscose which Rocky had made by Marton Mills: it is definitely the Red and Green. It's beautiful fabric. It is at the upper right in this photo, with a sample of MacGregor of Cardney below.

[RadioKen]

Ah! Well, if that is the case then I stand (happily) corrected! The photo of that tartan on the USAK website looks very much (to me, anyway) like the example of MacGregor of Cardney from Sir Malcolm's articles and very UNlike the MacGregor Red and Green from those same articles (both of which may be found on the Clan Gregor Society website.) I may have to reconsider ordering one of Rocky's kilts in that pattern, though I will admit to being more partial to the Red and Black than to the Red and Green.

~Ken

Ken, if you mean the special run of poly-viscose which Rocky had made by Marton Mills: it is definitely the Red and Green. It's beautiful fabric. It is at the upper right in this photo, with a sample of MacGregor of Cardney below.

[Nanook]

That's not correct.

The Balmoral tartan is a "royal" tartan, and may only be worn with permission from the sovereign.

No. The trademark/design holders can only restrict the production and trade BUT not the wearing of correctly issued and produced goods or for that matter "fakes". Its really the same legal principle that applies to trademarked items from handbags to raincoats to bluejeans. If I get a Chanel handbag there is absolutely nothing Alain or Gerard Wertheimer can do to prevent me for wearing it. I don't need their permission. What about fakes (as a large portion of Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Coach, Hermes, YSL, Gucci, Burberry, Fendi etc. designs are)? There is absolutely nothing legally wrong in the UK with someone wearing or carrying a counterfeit item but in production, sale and trade. Suspected counterfeit goods may be seized by customs. Trademarks must be defended so it would be up to the owner's of the Balmoral tartan to sue for protection (and damages) against those that violate their rights (and for this an economic damage must also be proven to exist). In the U.K. nearly 1/4 of the population own (and openly admit to owning) counterfeits of luxury branded items. Among some kids its currently even a bit chic to openly wear fakes. An entire subculture of working class youth are identified today by their fake luxury branded tartan caps.

To misquote Gold Hat to Fred C Dobbs (Bogart) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre: 'Permission? We ain't got no warrant. We don't need no permission! I don't have to show you any stinkin' warrant!'

[Jock Scot]

Nanook

I think you are missing one very important point and it may apply to the Balmoral tartan,I don't know,although I rather suspect it does. So let's say tartan "B" is privately designed,privately commissioned and privately financed, the end result is "policed" by the simple fact that the owner of the tartan only gives it to whoever he/she chooses. The tartan cloth will be kept in the owner's wardrobe(moth proofed?) and it would be quite easy to prove where the design was stolen from, if ever that happened. We are talking of a rare situation with tartans I know,although private estate tweeds are very jealously guarded here, not only by the owners ,but by the recipients too, which is exactly the same situation and perhaps, a more common event. Believe me, estate owners are not backward at resorting to legal action if needs be.

[macwilkin]

Post removed.

[Nanook]

It was intended that the tartan should be personal to the Sovereign's family and so it is not possible to purchase it for public use.[/i]*

Purchase here means "trade" in public--- trafficking in goods violating the intellectual property (trademarks and copyrights). Key here are the words "purchase" and "public use". The "not possible" is only "intent" (as in "was intended") rather than a statement of exclusion (intended not to be possible versus not possible). The modal "should" is central to the "intent".

So let's say tartan "B" is privately designed,privately commissioned and privately financed, the end result is "policed" by the simple fact that the owner of the tartan only gives it to whoever he/she chooses.

Unless there is a contract between the designer (IP holder) of said item as a first purchase by-back option (such as the contract between the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences and recipients of an Oscar) there is no way that the holder of the copyright/trademark can effectively prevent the item changing hands. The IP holder can try (intent) to prevent others from copying the intellectual property (design) but can do little to prevent those found with such copies outside of the spheres of commerce (especially those created for their own "private" use) of continuing to wear said items.