"Rules" for wearing family tartan

[Brian K]

Your position brings to mind the image of an American sports fan, dressed in a jersey of his favorite team. The sports fan isn't actually a member of the team - in most cases he has never even attended the college that the team plays for, but he likes to wear the jersey because (for whatever reason) he feels some sense of identity with that particular ball team, even though he isn't an actual member.

Well, I think your analogy is inexact or inapt at best. As a Yankee fan I have worn various articles of clothing with a Yankees logo on them for years, but I have never worn a jersey because that's something you wear if you're playing the game. I might change my mind at sometime, at least I might wear a reproduction of a vintage jersey (if I could afford one!).

With a tartan I feel a bit differently. In the post you referenced I mentioned the ancestry of my maternal grandparents. I think that is different. I do not wear Yankee apparel trying to pose as anything other than what I am - a fan.
I don't do it because Grandpa or Nana played for the team or because I am trying to look like a player. Grandpa and Nana were, however a McConnell and an Anderson and their blood runs in my veins. I think makes it acceptable for me to wear the MacConnell tartan (a very recent one) or one of the general Anderson clan tartans (from the early 19th century) whether or not I have what you feel is a proper "entitlement" or "right." Both of them, along with my great-grandfather Anderson (the finest gentleman I've ever known), were powerful influences in my life and I would do it to honor the three of them.

I would probably not wear a tartan of some other family or clan (but I have absolutely no problem with someone who wears a tartan just because they like it as long as they are not trying to commit some sort of fraud), so if I wanted something different from one of those two I would probably wear one of my own designs (a couple hundred or so at Scotweb) as I have seen few "universal" tartans I feel a connection to or that I like very much. Perhaps one of the few Masonic tartans that exist, but I'm not entirely thrilled by the ones I've seen.

I still think you're trying to have it both ways. If there is a genuine right or entitlement it means nothing of you can't prevent the unentitled from trespassing on your rights.

[robthehiker]

It is a common problem in venues other than tartan. In heraldry, for instance, coats of arms are borne by individuals, not entire families as is sometimes misunderstood. The rightful heir to a coat of arms is the direct senior male in the line of descent. Say that grandfather was an armiger, having been granted arms. His eldest son would be the one to inherit them exactly as grandfather bore them, and then his eldest son after him. Other brothers would have to have arms matriculated that bore some difference, such as a distinguishing border or a mark of cadence; so no one, except the direct senior heir male line has a right or entitlement to bear the undifferenced ancestral arms. Yet, it is often the case that unscrupulous bucket shops will sell coats of arms printed out on certificates or painted on plaques to unsuspecting individuals based on nothing more than similarity of name. These individuals, not knowing any better, will often proudly display what they think to be "their" ancestral arms. They may have them engraved on a gold ring, wear them as a blazer badge, have them printed on their personal stationary or calling cards. For the most part there is nothing that anyone can do about it. In Scotland one would, if they hired a lawyer, have legal recourse by taking a case before Lyon Court, but for most of the rest of the world, there is nothing anyone can do to stop these unentitled individuals from bearing coats of arms that do not properly belong to them.

Now I am not suggesting that tartans should be legally protected so as to prevent unentitled individuals from wearing them. Tartans (unlike coats of arms) are usually intended to be worn by more than one individual at a time, most being intended for entire clans or names; yet the situation of entitlement vs. capability is almost identical. Anyone is capable of assuming a coat of arms, but not all those who assume a particular coat of arms are actually entitled to bear them.

I completely misunderstood coats of arms before I came to XMarks. Luckily I was always too cheap to buy one of those "family" versions!

The Scotsman, are you by any chance an armiger? (I hope it's not rude to ask?)

[robthehiker]

In a manner of speaking. My paternal line of ancestry is armigerous going back several hundreds of years, although the arms were never recorded in Lyon Register, so the arms have no official recognition from a heraldic authority, though they exist as a longstanding tradition.

Thanks for sharing. As an aside, you've reminded me that I've been putting off researching my family tree!