X Marks the Scot - An on-line community of kilt wearers.
|
-
13th August 09, 01:13 AM
#1
 Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown
Actually there are two different Bell families- those from around Loch Tay are generally regarded as a sept of MacMillan; the border Bells are a different family, and their last recognized chief -- whom, I am led to believe, was so styled in 17th century Scottish legal documents -- was "Bell of Blacket House".
I, for one, wouldn't be too quick to sneer at those "emigrants overseas"-- they spend a lot of money in Scotland, as evidenced by the recent Gathering of the Clans (and I suppose "Border Families", too). And while it is true that the border families didn't historically wear kilts, one shouldn't loose sight of the fact that the kilt has become the national dress of Scotland. That being the case, it would seem only reasonable to accept that it is a fit and proper thing for border families to adopt wearing the kilt -- and designing their own tartans-- if they choose to do so.
I can't see where anybody should have a problem with that.
Who's sneering? I was simply stating a fact.
-
-
13th August 09, 06:09 AM
#2
 Originally Posted by Phil
Who's sneering? I was simply stating a fact.
Not exactly, though, Phil -- the "promotion" of Lowland families to Clans wasn't just due to "emigrants overseas", but also to the Lord Lyon and the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, and while there are some "colonial" chiefs, the body itself is Scottish.
If you look on the council's web site, you will see a number of Lowland and Border names represented: Kerr, Johnstone, Elliott, Moffat, etc.
One could even argue that the Lowland Regiments played a role in this transformation, with their use of pipers in Highland kit.
Regards,
Todd
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks