"Rules" for wearing family tartan

[Micric]

Though I didn't start this thread, I thank all for the candid replies, and you, Scotsman, for filling me in on restricted tartans.
It's probably as Matt said, hardly any chance of running into them anyway, but still good to know!

Cheers from a still snowy western Canada.

Richard.

[davidlpope]

My family name (up through the male line) originates from Northern England - right along the border of Scotland. As far as I can tell, there is no tartan associated with the name. However, throughout my family tree, there are a few scottish families/clans I am related to, though not through the direct male line.

Is there any rule (of thumb, I guess) prohibiting me from wearing any tartans that I may be related to, though not directly (i.e. blood relation)?

Cheers!

My surname is also English, although several of my maternal ancestors were early emigrants from Scotland to the United States, so we're in a similar position. My thinking on these issues has evolved over several years, but here's the advice I wish I'd taken at the outset:

1. First do your genealogical research to ensure that your "Scottish" ancestors were actually Scots. Many surnames existed both in Scotland and England, so going solely by a surname is not a good practice. For example, I found that my Hayes ancestors were from the southwest of England and not connected to the lowland Hay family at all. I'm really glad I didn't buy a kilt in that tartan first and THEN do my genealogy work...

2. Once you've established an actual link to a Highland clan (or failing that, a Lowland or Border family), buy your kilt in the "general" clan tartan in the color scheme (modern, ancient, weathered, muted, etc.) you like best.

3. If at some point down the road you have the excess funds and the inclination, you can buy a second kilt in the clan's hunting or dress tartan, or failing that, the "general" clan tartan in another color scheme, although there's really no need to do this.

Will anyone give you grief because your surname doesn't match your tartan? Maybe, if they're rude and nosey! I guarantee, though, that you will be better informed than the loads of folks who bear a highland surname as an accident of birth, but have no real understanding of their specific descent.

Cordially,

David

[davidlpope]

If you bear a clan surname then, yes, you are actually entitled to wear the tartan of that clan. A person is entitled to wear only to those tartans made for the clan that their surname is associated with. There is no entitlement to wear the tartan of another clan if you do not bear a surname associated with that clan.

Can you still wear the tartan of some other clan that is unrelated to the surname that you bear? Of course you can, but without entitlement to it.

Though this may be a widely held belief, I don't believe that it reflects either a historical or present reality. If one was to get hyper-technical, I think the only genuine authority for "granting" some sort of "right" or "entitlement" to wear a particular clan tartan would the chief of the clan. I'm sure that most clan chiefs have far better things to do then quibble with Americans over their "Scottishness".

Cordially,

David

[Galician]

To the OP, I would add that some tartans for that region have surfaced on this forum. I'm thinking of the Reivers tartan, and maybe the Shepherd's tartan.

You might want to consider these as a regional association for your ancestry, to which you can connect.

[davidlpope]

Clan membership is determined by surname, since a clan consists of a family or families believing themselves to all be descended from a common ancestor. Thus a clansman has a decided right and entitlement to wear the tartan of the clan that he is a member of. Without being a member of a clan, a person can claim no right or entitlement to wear that clan's tartan. They may still wear it, but without any justification other than personal whim.

I understand your position, but what is your basis/evidence for making these assertion?

Historically, clansmen were those who gave allegience to a particular chief. Surnames within that clan may have been occupational, patronymic, etc. as a means of distinguishing Seumas "the Smith" (Gobhan) from Seamus "son of Ian" (MacIan), although both were allied to the Chief of Clan MacPherson, lived on his lands, etc. Similarly, the clansman, himself, didn't have a "right" to provide allegience to a particular chief (or a "right" to a "clan tartan"), although I'm sure that most chiefs were happy to take on whomever would offer their support. So, Seumas Gow/ James Smith's and Seamus MacIan/ James McIan's descendants originally hailed from Clan MacPherson, even though they bear different surnames...

Furthermore, the conflation of "clan tartans" (a nineteenth century phenomenon that gained popularity in the wake of the Hanoverian King George IV's visit to Edinburgh in 1822) and the "classic" clan system prior to the Clearances (a seventeenth- eighteenth century phenomenon) just doesn't make historical sense.

Surnames simply don't tell the whole story...

Cordially,

David

[Paul Henry]

Clan membership is determined by surname, since a clan consists of a family or families believing themselves to all be descended from a common ancestor. Thus a clansman has a decided right and entitlement to wear the tartan of the clan that he is a member of. Without being a member of a clan, a person can claim no right or entitlement to wear that clan's tartan. They may still wear it, but without any justification other than personal whim.

My bold:

This isn't actually correct, surnames are not always a good guide to belonging to a clan.Historically,the clan chief would often take on other families under his care,or those he took as servants, or those who would fight for him, they became known as clansmen. It's quite possible that the original names of these people were very different to their "new chief" indeed it is known that various fights between clans included fighting between the same "actual" family on different clan sides.

There is no "entitlement" to wearing a clan tartan, there is tradtion, which is very important to many, but not all.

There are many people who only wear one family tartan, because that is important to them,there are others who choose several different clans because of family connections, and there are some who wear tartans of their own choice.

Any of these choices are equally important and equally valid.

I think it's good to know what tartan you wear , because there are bound to be asked, and whatever tartan you wear, wear it well

[macwilkin]

My bold:

This isn't actually correct, surnames are not always a good guide to belonging to a clan.Historically,the clan chief would often take on other families under his care,or those he took as servants, or those who would fight for him, they became known as clansmen. It's quite possible that the original names of these people were very different to their "new chief" indeed it is known that various fights between clans included fighting between the same "actual" family on different clan sides.

There is no "entitlement" to wearing a clan tartan, there is tradtion, which is very important to many, but not all.

There are many people who only wear one family tartan, because that is important to them,there are others who choose several different clans because of family connections, and there are some who wear tartans of their own choice.

Any of these choices are equally important and equally valid.

I think it's good to know what tartan you wear , because there are bound to be asked, and whatever tartan you wear, wear it well

Very diplomatic, Paul.

T.

[davidlpope]

I think we have to draw some distinction between the clans as they existed prior to 1745 and clans as they are today. While the historical clan system that existed in Scotland prior to the '45 has played a significant role in the shaping of the clan system that we have today, it isn't one and the same. The clan system of today as we know it is more a by-product of 19th century romantic revivalism than it is a survival of the ancient clan system. Thus, what may have been true in regard to clans of the 17th or 18th century is not necessarily true of clans in the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries. The tartans that we wear, the clan crest badges, even our sgian dubhs all came into existance in the 19th century, decades after the clans ceased to have any real power or significance (other than nostalgia) in Scotland. So the customs that we observe today as clansmen have much more to do with the Victorian rather than the Jacobite era.

I heartily agree. My point is that surnames, absent genealogical research, are not a reliable indicator of a genuine connection to a "clan", although that misconception is what guides most folks here in the US as to "clan identity". At the end of the day, the entire subject is heavy with Victorian romanticism/ nostalgia, so perhaps Paul said it best, below...

David

[Bugbear]

Hmmm, I thought the clan chiefs were an unbroken tradition. Perhaps the roles have changed, but when did the chiefs go out of existence then return?

[Bugbear]

That depends on the clan. Not all chiefly lines are unbroken. There are clans whose chiefly line became extinct, and some where (generations later) a new chief was confirmed in the person of the closest living heir. The role of the chief today is not the same as it was in the past. Today the chief is more of a mascot or figurehead, representing the founder of the clan. The role of a clan chief (and that of a clansman) in past centuries was much more demanding than today.

Guess I was mostly confused by the comparison being made: Druid to clan. But I didn't remember having read that there was a long period of time where there were no chiefs of clans, then there was a revival of the chiefs. It was my understanding that the chief is the one to whom clan members are pledging loilty, not to the clan, and this was still the case.

Just wondering; not a member of a clan, and don't really even wear highland attire anymore, so it's not that big of a deal, to me.

I'm out.