Wearing another clans Tartan?

[seanachie]

I agree, Nathan, but I would point out something: Not everyone who wears clan tartans that they have no affiliation with feel they ARE doing something wrong. It boils down to how the individual feels about it (which is where this conversation usually comes full circle). If you personally don't feel comfortable wearing another clan's tartan, don't. If you do, go ahead. You may be wise to understand there are 200 years of history surrounding the clan tartans (with the understanding that they were 'made up' by a mill to move cloth), but ultimately, the decision is up to the individual.

Where I tend to veer slightly off the path of the discussions laid out here is in the use of clan tartans in other articles of clothing. Not sure why someone would be uncomfortable wearing a Dress Godron kilt, but boxers or shirts are completely fine. If it b/c it's "accepted in society" to wear tartans as a shirt, but when you wear it as a kilt, it's a symbol of who you are? If so, then I would ask when that rule started? It's still Dress Gordon. The tartan and it's meaning don't change b/c one is a kilt and one is a shirt. People fiercely protect clan tartans in kilts, but let it slide in other articles of clothing.

It's the black / white mindset vs. the grey area. Individuals pick and choose what parts of the argument to pull into their beliefs... where on the "tartan enforcement agency" scale they want to fall between "wear any tartan at any time for any reason" all the way to "only ever wear your father's clan tartan, no matter what article of clothing, period". There's plenty of room in the middle of that scale for differing view points.

Rocky makes some interesting and carefully reflected ideas here. One that immediately pops out is the idea of mills making up tartans to move cloth. I wonder how much that has really changed. I have a Buchanan Hunting Modern kilt, the cloth woven by Locharron. The Registry did not give me a date when this tartan was created but the modern moniker would lead me to believe it does not have ancient roots. I love the tartan, and many people have commented on it. I always represent it as a Buchanan tartan, always when probed tell people I am not a Buchanan and never, ever wear it in a manner that anyone would consider disrespectful. If someone wants to condemn me for it, fine. I just respectfully disagree. How many agree that at the same time that if you are a Celtic or Rangers supporter it is totally wrong for wearing a team jersey because you have never taken the pitch for either side?

I sold a specific tartan kilt a year or so ago, but when I purchased it someone wrote me stiff rebuke replete with some acerbic comments. I actually wrote the clan secretary who took no issue with me wearing it and while I can not at this moment locate the email said something to the effect that they were honored by it.

My hope in all of this discussion, and I agree it is a bit of beating a dead horse, is that we are all bound by pleasure in wearing the kilt and that is not dissipated by divergent points of view.

[RockyR]

Rocky.

I think we agree that what people choose to do in their tartan choice is an individual thing.

As you "tend to veer slightly off the path" over the quetion of mixing, wearing, assorted tartans with assorted non kilt attire-------shirts, underpants etc.--- when "someone" is very particular over their kilt tartan choice. You seemed to think that many were not being consistent with their choices and perhaps they are, but, all I was pointing out that in my experience the Scots are far more particular and consistent over this by rejecting tartans other than their own---even down to shirts and underpants. To be clear, its "their tartan" and nothing else will do. So perhaps now that you are aware of this, you may "veer" rather less!

It's actually GOOD to know that there are those who take it to that extreme in not wearing any tartan un-associated with their namesake. I'll stop veering now.

Rocky makes some interesting and carefully reflected ideas here. One that immediately pops out is the idea of mills making up tartans to move cloth. I wonder how much that has really changed. I have a Buchanan Hunting Modern kilt, the cloth woven by Locharron. The Registry did not give me a date when this tartan was created but the modern moniker would lead me to believe it does not have ancient roots. I love the tartan, and many people have commented on it. I always represent it as a Buchanan tartan, always when probed tell people I am not a Buchanan and never, ever wear it in a manner that anyone would consider disrespectful. If someone wants to condemn me for it, fine. I just respectfully disagree. How many agree that at the same time that if you are a Celtic or Rangers supporter it is totally wrong for wearing a team jersey because you have never taken the pitch for either side?

I sold a specific tartan kilt a year or so ago, but when I purchased it someone wrote me stiff rebuke replete with some acerbic comments. I actually wrote the clan secretary who took no issue with me wearing it and while I can not at this moment locate the email said something to the effect that they were honored by it.

My hope in all of this discussion, and I agree it is a bit of beating a dead horse, is that we are all bound by pleasure in wearing the kilt and that is not dissipated by divergent points of view.

I have had the same experience that when I wear my Buchanan Weathered tartan kilt, the reps from Clan Buchanan (who are at the few games we attend) like the fact that I wear their tartan (in a respectful way). They are wonderful people and have encouraged me, even as a non member, to wear it.

To address your other point (with tongue firmly planted in cheek), you mean that mills are in the business to sell cloth? Is that why there's generally more than one version of most popular tartans (Modern, Ancient, Muted and Weathered)? Is that why there has been a huge influx of Universal tartans in the past 15 to 20 years (to give Scots with no clan tartan or Scots who want a second kilt or non Scots who want a kilt a valid choice)? In case you didn't get the tongue in cheek bit, the answer to all of those is yes.

The thing I find interesting is the relationship between the mills and the kilt buying public. Generally, it's the industry or a single mill that comes up with a (new) idea and tries it. They put it out there to the public and if it takes root (i.e. people start buying), other mills and the industry as a whole follows suit. What was once a thought of a single mill becomes accepted as "the normal practice".

Case in point: Weathered / Reproduction / Muted tartans. Dalgliesh came out with the Reproduction colors stating (paraphrasing here) that they had a piece of cloth that was XXX hundred years old and that they carefully and meticulously re-created the colors using modern dyes. (important side note: While this story may be true, this piece of cloth has never been produced or shown to any tartan scholar).

After they came out with the Reproduction Colors (roughly 15 years ago I believe), Lochcarron came out with their "Weathered" color scheme and other mills followed suit with Muted (similar, but different) color schemes. Perhaps if you would have shown a Buchanan tartan in the Weathered colors to someone 100 years ago (when there was only one or MAYBE 2 color variations), they may have scoffed at the idea... but now, b/c it's common practice, people seem to like the idea of selection, so it's accepted.

Just interesting how things affect and effect each other.

[Kiltedbeemer Guy]

I don't know I'm new here, but I think it would be like wearing another mans under shorts it would make me squirm. There are many tartans that are steeped in tradition and they would maybe ones to shy away from.
There are so many decent public tartans out there. You should maybe stick to one of them or to that of your family.