"Rules" for wearing family tartan

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Tartan and Heraldry have two very different origins and two very different usages, though because of the modern-day association of tartans with surnames, and the modern-day misconception that "coats-of-arms" are associated with surnames, tartan often gets treated in a heraldic fashion. But really, any time one tries to draw comparisons between the two, one is treading in muddy waters.

I wrote an article a few years ago on this subject for The Scottish Banner, which is archived here:
http://albanach.org/tartans_heraldry.htm

The origins of heraldry are medieval, if not earlier -- in other words, it goes back for centuries, possibly more than a thousand years. It originated as a graphic means to represent an individual identity. A picture or design would be displayed to represent a particular person.

When a knight's identitiy would be otherwise concealed by a full helmet, having his arms painted on his shield, or displayed on his surcoat (hence "coat of arms"), or a crest mounted on his helm, served as a means of identifying him. Heraldry could be displayed on banners flying high above a rallying point on the battle field. Heraldry could be used to mark property to show ownership. But heraldry originated, and has always been used, as a means of identifying an individual person.

Tartan, on the other hand, originated as a textile, a manufacture, and a fashion. Weavers would create artistic designs in the cloth they produced by arranging stripes of various width and color in the warp and weft of the fabric. Tartan weaving was by no means limited to the Scottish Highlands, but the art form became rather characteristic of Highland clothing. The Scots became known for their tartan designs -- not specific, named tartan designs, mind you, but rather their creation of and usage of tartan in general.

When tartan was banned in the Act of Proscription, it was not "clan tartan" being banned. It was tartan in general, as a symbol of the Gaelic culture.

People wore tartans, generally -- they bought their cloth from the weavers based largely on what pattern they found attractive, not what the tartan was or was not named. This practice persisted for much longer than people generally realize. Last year when visiting the Charleston Museum (SC), I recorded the details of a kilt outfit from the late nineteenth century that someone with the surname Rhett had made in Scotland and imported. The tartan was not one recognized today -- no name, no clan.

We have an outfit on display in the Scottish Tartans Museum that belonged to William Muirhead that dates from the 1840s. Today, the tartan has been recorded as the Muirhead tartan, named for the man who wore the outfit. But at the time, in the 1840s, it was an unnamed tartan pattern, loosely based on a Stewart sett.

Even tartans which did have a name were often worn irrespective of what that name might be. We have another kilt in our collection dating from 1800-1820 and it originally belonged to a man named Peter Malcolm. The tartan is from Wilsons of Bannockburn and they called it Locheil. Now there is absolutely no evidence to sugget that Peter Malcolm was from the Locheil region or had any familiar ties to the Locheil Camerons. Likely he just liked the tartan.

The earliest named tartans were named after regiments, after cities and regions, and sometimes just given fancy names like "Regent" and "Caledonia" and "Waterloo." Actually, the earliest way that weavers identified particular tartan pattens in their records was simply by assigning them a number!

Tartan designs have always come and gone -- weavers and wearers have always been free to create their own new designs or alter and renname old ones. This is an ongoing practice. It's never been regulated by any authoritative body.

Now the custom has arisen over the past 200+ years of wearing tartans in a symbolic or representative fashion. By wearing a tartan with a certain name, you are identifying yourself as having some kind of affiliation with what the tartan is named for -- most often a clan, but it might be a district or these days a corporation or club or a web forum! And the principle is generally accepted that a clan chief has the right to declare what tartan(s) is/are recognized as official for that clan. By extension, this same perogative extends to the respective authority of whatever other body may wish to have a tartan (the CEO of a company, or the governing council of a town, etc.)

But that's as far as any such "authority" over tartan extends. People remain free, as they always have been, to wear any tartan they like. Tartan is not heraldic. No special permission needs to be sought after or acquired. No entitlement is necessary.

[Monkey@Arms]

others bearing non-clan affiliated names have no right to them, though they can (if they choose) be obnoxious and disregard this tradition by wearing them without any entitlement.

Glad to see you showing your true opinions. I'll keep them in mind while reading your future postings.

Best regards,

Jake