"Rules" for wearing family tartan

[Lallans]

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!

Bringing it back again, if you are from a Border family or clan, you should consider the Northumberland Tartan, aka many things including The Border Check and The Shepherd's Plaid (sorry purists!). As you will see, it's a basic black and white design, or variations with similar colours. Its authenticity has always stuck in my mind because Sir Walter Scott, who was ultimately reponsible for most of the Scottish dress codes we practice now, once said it was the true lowland tartan and also the most ancient tartan still in existence. And you could wear it proudly and confidentally, snobbishly even, if so inclined.

[Bugbear]

The chief of the clan is the one whose choice in the matter is acknowledged - although many of the clan tartans were named by their designers (be they firms like Wilsons of Bannockburn, or creative individuals like the bros. Sobieski-Stuart) before the chiefs of the clans in question could say yea or nay. An effort was made by the Highland Society of London in 1819 to get the chiefs of each of the clans to submit samples of the tartan that they recognized as appropriate to their clan. However a lot of tartans (mostly for the lowland clans) were created by the Sobieski Stuarts, and many of these are still recognized as clan tartans to this day.

Thanks. I had read several times that it was the chief, and I wanted to be sure.

Hopefully this time I can drop out of the thread. Sorry.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

By that logic one would conclude that no one has a "right" or "entitlement" to bear the surname of their family; which of course is ridiculous. We are all entitled to the right to bear the surname that our parents used. Others may adopt the same surname (even though they may be of no blood relation) out of mere whim; but those born to a surname by right of blood are entitled to it. It works the same way for tartans. If my surname is Gunn then I am entitled to the right of wearing that tartan by "pretence of blood". On the other hand, if my surname is Higginbotham, I can decide to wear the Gunn tartan out of whimsey, but I can claim no right or entitlement to it any more than I can claim right or entitlement to bear the Gunn surname.

Not at all. The question of whether someone has the right to use the surname he was given at birth has no bearing at all on the matter of whether one has the "right" to wear a tartan.

I think that any time we talk about tartan, the terms "right" and "entitlement" are grossly misapplied.

"Entitlement" means a guarantee or a right to certain benefits (often supported by law or contract).

Historically, the concept of "rights" was also bound to the concept of obligations. One has the right to something in order to fulfill a necessary obligation.

To give an example of what I mean, if I, as an American citizen, have an obligation to participate in the government of my country, then by necessity I have the right to vote in an election, so that I may fulfill that obligation.

Another example: if I have the moral obligation to provide for myself and my family, then I have the right to a certain minimum wage from my employer that would allow me to fulfill that obligation.

We have, in many respects, gotten away from this association of rights with obligations in our modern concept of "rights," and more is the pity. But that's not really germane to the topic at hand.

My point here is that in no way do the terms "right" or "entitlement" apply to what pattern of cloth you choose to wrap around your hips -- no matter the symbolic significance of that cloth.

If you have a reason for choosing to wear a particular tartan pattern, that should be good enough for anyone who asks. People are free to agree or disagree with your reasoning. But you are the one wearing the kilt, not them.

Only in very rare circumstances (and, as I have mentioned twice already, this will not be of general concern to the average person), will a kilt maker ask for proof that a given person is "entitled" to wear a certain tartan. I can think of exactly two occasions in my career thus far where it has been an issue. And those were very specific circumstances.

But 99.99% of the time, the concept of entitlement just does not apply to tartan.

[English Bloke]

... I think you may have misunderstood what I said...

I see, sorry, no offence intended. With you now.

[McClef]

On the other hand, if my surname is Higginbotham, I can decide to wear the Gunn tartan out of whimsey, but I can claim no right or entitlement to it any more than I can claim right or entitlement to bear the Gunn surname.

The usage of "whimsy" implies capriciousness and something fantastical rather than a deliberate and informed choice. If no right or entitlement is required in the first place to wear a particular tartan then one has done nothing wrong in choosing it. The name of the tartan is secondary to the fact that one has chosen it because one happens to like it, That does not mean that one does not wear it without honouring and respecting the name it represents.

But neither does it mean that one has a desire to take the surname which is a totally separate issue and nothing to do with why one has chosen the tartan. Would you buy a pair of Levis and thereby claim right and entitlement to be of that tribe?

[Lallans]

Having been flamed for suggesting something similar once before, I'm a little shy about saying this, but perhaps there are slightly different standards on different sides of the various oceans, and America, whose very existence was founded on defiance of or at least variation from British norms, has a different way of looking at this issue than people on the British side of the Atlantic. And we Canadians play the role of onlookers who pick and choose different sides at different times. But I do think that what is being seen is that there are two slightly different sets of rules in play here and I do have the idea that clan tartans are a little more I-don't-know-the-word in Britain than some other places. Correct me if I'm wrong...

[wildrover]

Same thing I've been saying for a while now...find a tartan that means something to you, and wear it. That's really the only suggestion...it's not even a requirement, just a suggestion.

There are a few more 'restricted' tartans...and some that aren't even restricted, just not necessarily worn by people not directly associated with that tartan, like LEO Memorial, Leatherneck, and so forth. It's worth looking around.

-Sean

[Monkey@Arms]

The Scotsman, since you have neglected to introduce yourself to this forum, it is perhaps a little difficult to get a sense of where you are coming from, so to speak, on this topic.

I think there are two problem with your continued use of the word "entitlement" in this discussion. The first is it contains the inference that one who does not bear the last name associated with a particular tartan has no business owning that kilt. As you have stated yourself, that is a Victorian myth. While no one is suggesting that a person who feels strong association with a given clan tartan shouldn't follow the convention of wearing that tartan to the exclusion of all other (if that is what they wish), that does not mean a person who does not share that view is not "entitled" to wear the tartan pattern of their choosing.

Which brings us to the second problem. Again, as has already been pointed out in this thread, one's surname may have little to do with actual historical clan ties, as only genealogical research can tell for sure. So if one truly held the belief that only members of a clan are "entitled" to wear that tartan, it would not follow that a person whose last name is, for example, MacDonald, is "entitled" to wear that clan's tartan, as one would need to know whether the namesake Donald was a member of that clan.

Best regards,

Jake

[Pleater]

At one time the use of a surname was a far more casual thing than it seems to be today.

There were of course always those who changed their names more frequently than they changed their shirts in order to conceal their identity, but - although I strongly suspect that is was not half as common as recorded in the many old novels I found in my grandmother's house, it did seem that where a family member went to live with a widowed lady with no immediate family of her own, they would alter their surname to hers, and often inherited as though they were her son or daughter, despite actually being a cousin or nephew/niece.

I was reminded of this when listening to a BBC Radio 4 serial - I think it was called 'The Expedition of Humphry Clinker' where something similar happened.

Having inherited land or money, or both, a man might then be in a position to marry above his expectations, particularly when war or other disruption to the normal order of things occurred, but it was not, apparently, unusual for someone in that situation to take his wife's surname, particularly where there was no close male relative to maintain the line and name.

It was, however, rather difficult to get away from your Christian name, which was regarded as sacrosanct, at least for legal matters.

I wonder how someone would be advised who chanced to find out that his surname was that - say - of his great grandfather's maternal aunt, rather than of his actual paternal line.

Anne the Pleater :ootd:

[Old Hippie]

I wonder how someone would be advised who chanced to find out that his surname was that - say - of his great grandfather's maternal aunt, rather than of his actual paternal line.

Humour Alert...

My advice would be to buy a Freedom Kilt Casual Model in a nice solid colour.

:ootd: