"Rules" for wearing family tartan

[M. A. C. Newsome]

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.

This is actually a more appropriate analogy than you might realize. There is evidence to support the theory that "named tartans" first arose among the Highland regiments. It makes a lot of sense -- the military being dressed in uniforms, which by definition must be uniform (all the same). So the soldiers would be outfitted in the same tartan, which would be the named regimental tartan. Many of the earliest references we have to regulated and named tartan designs are for military regiments.

Now, many of these regiments were closely affiliated with one or more clans. Think of the Black Watch's association with the Campbells, Grants and Munros. Think of the Seaforth's association with clan MacKenzie. The Gordon Highlanders have an obvious association with the Gordon clan.

And the "clan tartans" for each of the above named examples just so happen to have originally been designed for military use by the respective regiments (or, in the case of the Grants and Munros, the hunting tartan for the clan).

My theory is that these tartans came to be regarded as "clan tartans" because they were being worn by people in the clan outside of the military, most likely in a show of support and solidarity for their boys in uniform.

In other words, much like a sports fan may wear the colors of his favorite team, even though he is not actually on the roster.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I am in complete agreement with you on how the notion of named clan tartans first came about, as my own research on the matter has led me to draw the same conclusion. In addition to the Gordon, Campbell and MacKenzie tartans arising from regimental setts, I believe that the tartans worn by the Fraser Highlanders, the Atholl Highlanders, and the MacLeod Highlanders also led to their being worn by the clans Fraser, Murray and MacLeod. John Mackenzie Lord MacLeod may be responsible for the MacKenzies and the MacLeods wearing what was originally the same tartan - the Government sett with buff and red overstripes, worn by the 78th (Seaforth) Highlanders. The tartan worn as hunting Roberston seems to be based on this sett as well.

Yes, I only named but a few of the more prominent examples. The ones you mentioned are other good examples. The tartan known today as Robertson Hunting was originally designed for the Loyal Clan Donnachaidh Volunteers when they were raised in 1803.

In 1816 the chief of the clan regarded this sett as the true clan tartan and submitted it as such to the Highland Society of London for their collection.

[jordanjm]

I would would gos so far as to recommend that people wear a tartan for which they feel a connection to what the tartan represents. I would have no problem wearing a tartan representing family, like my MacGillivray kilt, or my country, USA, or state, Utah, or California as I grew up there, or X-Marks as I feel a member of this community. In fact many of these provide beautiful examples of possible tartans for kilts. In each case I have a reason, or connection. I would never wear a tartan just because it is pretty. This is my opinion, and I would not think less of anyone who thinks differently.

[BoldHighlander]

My theory is that these tartans came to be regarded as "clan tartans" because they were being worn by people in the clan outside of the military, most likely in a show of support and solidarity for their boys in uniform.

In other words, much like a sports fan may wear the colors of his favorite team, even though he is not actually on the roster.

And Matt, I would add to this theory returning veterans who wore their old regimental kilts as everyday wear out of pride of service & the prestige that came with having served.

One such example is Gregor MacGregor of Balquihidder, Perthshire (below), aged 84, a veteran of the 42nd Highlanders & "habitual kilt wearer" painted about 1812 (though I'll admit, in his case he's wearing a tartan other than Black Watch).

[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.

[creagdhubh]

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!

Wear any tartan except the Balmoral tartan. That particular sett was designed by Prince Albert during Queen Victoria's reign. Only the Royal Family and some Royal retainers have permission to wear it whilst in Scotland (typically whilst in residence at Balmoral Castle). It's a very handsome sett and can be seen in use by Prince Edward in another thread on XMTS-not too mention the loads of photos you can find of the tartan, just by searching online. Pick a tartan that is most attractive to you, that you may have a connection with, male or female line, and go with that! Good luck mate!

[creagdhubh]

And Matt, I would add to this theory returning veterans who wore their old regimental kilts as everyday wear out of pride of service & the prestige that came with having served.

One such example is Gregor MacGregor of Balquihidder, Perthshire (below), aged 84, a veteran of the 42nd Highlanders & "habitual kilt wearer" painted about 1812 (though I'll admit, in his case he's wearing a tartan other than Black Watch).

What an odd illustration. Kind of creeping me out to be honest!

[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!

[Tobus]

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.

"Almost identical"? They're completely different. Where there is a legal entitlement to arms, there is none for tartan. There never was. The tartans themselves did not originate from any sense of entitlement whatsoever, and comparing it to something that did and calling it "almost identical" is stretching things quite a bit.

The idea of tartan being restricted to certain surnames is nothing more than a recent tradition (less than two centuries old), which was never universally practiced in any time period, and is only observed by a few romanticists who want tartan to mean something other than what it originally did.

And while I fully respect the idea of clan tartans having some meaning to people and offering a sense of connection to kin, I think it's important to be truthful and objective in relaying to others the history of tartan, instead of trying to push a narrow, romanticized, mythical agenda.

Myself, I wear only one tartan: the clan of my mother. And I am even taking steps to adopt her name (although the reason has nothing to do with tartan affiliation) which would put me in full compliance with Mr. Mackinnon's advice. But at the end of the day, I don't really care what he thinks is 'correct' or not. Just because he wrote it down doesn't make him the authority; nor is his opinion the final word. Plenty of other historians disagree with him. I wear the tartan I have blood ties to, which has absolutely nothing to do with what my last name is.