"Rules" for wearing family tartan

[davidlpope]

These days clan membership is determined by the surname one bears (which is based on the old criteria of "pretence of blood")

"First of all, a word on the rules. The Lord Lyon is an excellent authority, and he points out that name alone is the index of clan membership.

Anyone who does not bear a clan surname should wear a district tartan, if a suitable one exists, or else the Jacobite or Caledonia tartan.

Margaret O. MacDougall, F.S.A. Scot., editing Robert Bain's The Clans and Tartans of Scotland, agreed: "It has frequently been claimed that Scots who do not bear a clan or sept surname may wear the tartan of their mother's clan or sept providing she possessed a clan surname. Although this practice is widespread it is incorrect. Clan membership rests upon name and it follows that if no clan or sept surname is borne, there can be no claim to the tartan of any clan....."

Quick! Someone please inform HRH the Duke of Rothesay (Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor...)

[fluter]

Although Charles had a Scottish grannie, I don't think he goes in for clan tartans as a general rule. Most of his kilts reflect one of his titles such as "Duke of Rothesay," "Prince of Wales," or "Lord of the Isles;" or his military associations, ...

... or in fact the odd Stuart tartan, to which I believe our colleague may have been referring. That was a wee, small joke, which I hope you're enjoying with us.

If I have not been plain enough, I quibble with the confusion of "blood" with "surname." As your dad or your biology teacher may have mentioned, it takes two bloodlines to produce one of us zygotes. I am aware that the general rule is to wear the tartan your dad wears; but that may not always reflect Dad's surname.

My surname may be Norman or it may be Huguenot, or something else entirely---I'm still working on that one. Dad didn't wear a tartan, but for most of my tenure on this earthly plane, I've worn the one associated with Mum's maiden name. I trust that you may approve of the sentiment therein expressed.

[Joe Cabaup]

When I was growing up and going to the Gatherings and Highland Games throughout New England and Nova Scotia I was told that I could not even wear a kilt, not being directly Scottish. I have noticed this attitude change over the last twenty years. I have worn my Utilikilt and SWK "Nightstalker" to several events and Highland Games over the years and received several compliments on them, not one negative comment.

That being said, I believe the tartan you wear should be of significance to you, either family, region or service. The tartan today, in a crowd of strangers, is a way of linking to other family members, neighbors or brothers/sisters in arms. I have seen the disappointment of someone who fought their way across a busy street in New York City only to find the stranger wearing her family's tartan wore it only because it matched his girlfriend's/wife's outfit.

I have recently found a great-grandmother, eight times removed was a Hamilton. Her grandfather came from Glascow. Does this entitle me to wear the Hamilton tartan? According to some, no. Would I? Only if I felt like telling the story of how I discovered the Hamilton family in my geneology, over and over again to perfect strangers. That could be fun!

[Joe Cabaup]

... you could always start a new tradition for YOUR clan by designing, registering, and having made up into a kilt your own tartan, ....

This is the philosophy of my wife. We've worked out a modern tartan for our family that we may or may not register in the future. Our family is such a mishmash of stepchildren, second (or third) marriages, stepmothers and stepfathers, "adopted" nannies and "taken-in" brothers and sisters. She feels the only appropriate tartan is one we make ourselves (like our modern family.)

[davidlpope]

... or in fact the odd Stuart tartan, to which I believe our colleague may have been referring. That was a wee, small joke, which I hope you're enjoying with us.

Exactly!

[davidlpope]

As for the Royal tartans worn by Prince Charles on occassion, these are sometimes called "Stewart" tartans because of the Stewarts having long been a Royal family; however the Crown considers them to simply be "Royal tartans."

In this photo, though, Prince Charles is wearing the "Old Stewart" clan tartan, not a "Royal Tartan".

[jordanjm]

Find a tartan that has a special connection to you. Where I live there are very few of my clan around. When we had a clan gathering last year for the U.S. members of the clan, and I was surrounded by all that tartan, it was a special occasion. It was special because of the connection we all had to a heritage, and tradition. That is the magic of the tartan, in my humble opinion, heritage, and tradition, a binding together of the generations. Standing on the shoulders of those who came before, and moving forward with strength.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

While it will no doubt make little difference to the tartan anarchists, for what it is worth, I will quote a passage from Charles Mackinnon of Dunakin, who is himself a Hebridean chieftain, historian, and author on several books relating to tartan, Highland dress and Scottish clans:

"First of all, a word on the rules. The Lord Lyon is an excellent authority, and he points out that name alone is the index of clan membership. Anyone who does not bear a clan surname should wear a district tartan, if a suitable one exists, or else the Jacobite or Caledonia tartan. It is not correct to wear the tartan of one's mother's clan unless one assumes her name. Margaret O. MacDougall, F.S.A. Scot., editing Robert Bain's The Clans and Tartans of Scotland, agreed: "It has frequently been claimed that Scots who do not bear a clan or sept surname may wear the tartan of their mother's clan or sept providing she possessed a clan surname. Although this practice is widespread it is incorrect. Clan membership rests upon name and it follows that if no clan or sept surname is borne, there can be no claim to the tartan of any clan....." These rulings are perfectly correct so far as they go. It is a genealogical principle that a person can only belong to one family. People with double-barrelled surnames technically belong to no family. It is an odd fact that the double or triple surname should ever have been regarded as an indication of social superiority, for it is a sign of genealogical degeneracy and is looked on askance in the courts of chivalry, where it sometimes causes a great deal of trouble. No Highland chief's heir can be awarded the armorial bearings of the chef du nom, or be recognized officially as the head of a name, unless he adopts the chiefly surname alone.....In short, because clan tartans are basically clan cognisances, only the clansmen can possibly have a "right" to them.....If, for example, the grandson of a MacGregor clanswoman wants to wear that tartan, he is perfectly free to do so. He has, of course, no "rights." That does not mean he cannot wear it, but merely that he wears it for sentimental family reasons rather than as a member of clan MacGregor. What he cannot do is claim a "right" to grannie's tartan."

I have Mackinnon's book on my shelf, as well. I also have books on my shelf from people with equally impressive sounding nomikers who express opinions on wearing tartan that are at odds with Mackinnon's.

The Hon. Stuart Ruadri Erskine, writing in The Kilt and How to Wear It (1901), quotes correspondence from Campbell of Islay in 1882 stating that his tailor (also a Campbell) "knew nothing of clan tartans," neither did his piper, a Mure, and neither did he.

Erskine himself advocates for the use of generic, non-named tartans (what he calls "hill checks") for general wear, reserving clan tartans for those occasions where one wishes to represent the clan, such as Highland Games and the like.

Erskine had his opinion. Mackinnon had his. Neither represents the totality of the tartan tradition, and neither should dictate how we dress today.

I have also a book on tartan in which the author flatly states that if one is caught wearing a tartan in Scotland to which he is not "entitled" he is subject to a 25 pound fine! Of course this is entirely false!

One must look at how tartan was regarded over the course of history to get some context in which we can place these opinions. For example, Mackinnon makes reference to the Lord Lyon as "an excellent authority," which he is -- over heraldry. The problem is that tartan is not heraldic and has never fallen under the Lord Lyon's jurisdiction. Tartan is a textile, a fashion, not a regulated heraldic device.

Mackinnon's opinion that only one who has the surname has an "entitlement" to the tartan, while one without the surname is free to wear it but cannot claim "entitlement" in essence renders the whole idea meaningless. What on earth does it mean to claim some individuals have a special entitlement to a tartan, which he then admits that anyone else is free to wear? In effect it means that there is no such entitlement at all; the notion that there is serves only to "puff up" the man who actually bears the clan surname. It creates the illusion that he is somehow more "authentically Scottish" than the person with a sept name.

These kinds of opinions, which really have no basis on actual law or custom, only lead to confusion -- and we have far too much of that already when it comes to tartan. And so you have the author of the book alluded to above putting in print that visitors to Scotland who wear the "wrong" tartan will be subject to fine. I've seen a clan website that states only those bearing the clan surname are permitted to wear the clan tartan, while those bearing sept names are permitted to wear only the hunting tartan. I've heard of a kilt shop refuse to sell a client a kilt because he wanted his mother's tartan, not his father's (true story, the gentlemen ended up getting his kilt from us).

You can see how it easily gets out of hand. So I will readily admit that you can find authoritative sounding sources which speak of having the "right" to a tartan. But I maintain that in the overall history of tartan tradition, this has been the opinion of a rather vocal minority and has never had the support of law behind it.

[Micric]

Very well put Matt, Thank you!

Scotsman,

"Whimsey"? I think you will find a goodly percentage here that do not share a privilaged state, and therefore chose and wear a tartan "as a whim" as you put it.
By your definition, (having no rights or entitlement) It would appear I married my girl 32 yars ago "on a whim"!
(I don't think she'd be chuffed if she heard that!)

All I can say is, whim is a fleeting fancy.
Poor choice of wording I would say, and maybe meant to be insulting?...., But I won't take it that way!!

Very best wishes,

from a whimseyTartan anarchist.

[Brian K]

Mackinnon's opinion that only one who has the surname has an "entitlement" to the tartan, while one without the surname is free to wear it but cannot claim "entitlement" in essence renders the whole idea meaningless. What on earth does it mean to claim some individuals have a special entitlement to a tartan, which he then admits that anyone else is free to wear? In effect it means that there is no such entitlement at all; the notion that there is serves only to "puff up" the man who actually bears the clan surname. It creates the illusion that he is somehow more "authentically Scottish" than the person with a sept name.

Hmmm...there ought to be a prize. Mackinnon seems to have solved the age old dilemma about how one can eat one's cake and have it, too!

Seriously, I have to agree with Matt. I am not a scholar, but to say that only certain people have an entitlement or a right to a particular tartan but that anyone can wear it, but without the entitlement or right, is sophistry of the worst and most transparent kind. If both statements are indeed true then the entitlement is meaningless.

As for me, my Scottish lineage comes to me through my mother. Her father was a McConnell and her mother an Anderson. I would not hesitate to wear either tartan. I may not have either of the names but I have some of the blood of each. If that doesn't "entitle" me....oh well

Regards,

Brian