MacDonald of Clanranald (1914)

[figheadair]

I found the MacKay book on Electric Scotland, here. Here's what MacKay said about the tartan that he calls Clanranald full dress.
Attachment 17752
"For the pattern, which we have no hesitation in giving as the Clan Ranald full-dress, we are indebted to Mr. Allan R. MacDonald of Water- nish, Skye. It is taken from a plaid spun and dyed by an ancestress of Mr. MacDonald's, a daughter of Lachlan MacKinnon of Corry, the entertainer of Dr. Johnson and Pennant, and worn by her husband, Allan MacDonald of Baile-Fhionnlaigh, Benbecula, a cadet of the Clan Ranald family, as a captain in the Clan regiment of the 45, and who was severely wounded at Culloden, whose portrait, dressed in the tartan, is shown on page 166. The plaid is a beautiful specimen of the old Highland hard tartan, and m.ade of the wool of the aboriginal Highland sheep—the colours are still quite fresh and bright. According to John MacCodrum, the bard, c. 1715, the colours of the Clan Ranald tartan were crimson with carnation in the waft."

He also has a plate of Sleat with a different backstory and one of a very similar tartan to this called Glengarry. He calls the similar tartans we know as Clan Donald, Clanranald and Glengarry hunting variants.

Here is the portrait he references. I'm not sure how the tartan is question is demonstrated here.

Attachment 17751

Edit: How reliable a source is MacKay?

Looking at the differences again I discovered that Ranald of the portrait and Allan were the 4th and 6th repectively of the Balfinlay line and that MacKay obviously conflated the two which is why the tartan of the portrait does not match the Red Clanranald. None of this helps with the origins of the latter and I find myself returning to the question of the original cited by MacKay. Where is it now?

[TheOfficialBren]

Respectfully submitted, @figheadair, but might this be an example of the chief's immediate family having woven this particular version for their personal use? I may be incorrect but I believe that I've read of chiefs in the past wearing personal tartans.

Maybe I'm entirely wrong and this speculation was pure rubbish...

[figheadair]

Respectfully submitted, @figheadair, but might this be an example of the chief's immediate family having woven this particular version for their personal use? I may be incorrect but I believe that I've read of chiefs in the past wearing personal tartans.

Maybe I'm entirely wrong and this speculation was pure rubbish...

I know of no pre-19th century example of a chief's sett and therefore conclude that it's probably a Victorian or later invention that sought to equate tartan with the Regimental Tie type social restrictions.

[Domehead]

Hey Ryan,

Can you provide more details about what this means exactly?

Cheers,

N

Nathan,
Initially, let me apologize for my considerable delay. I simply didn't realize you'd asked.

Part I

Based on my formal education and practical application there of, Deconstructive Literary Criticism is premised on two fundamental things:
A. The text only
B. The repetitive idea which illuminates itself throughout that text, called Trace

A. & B. will exist out with the author, meaning the following...
Prose of all forms & Poetry of all styles are wrought of two things:
1. Subjectivity
2. Edit

The reader can only interpret what has been presented to them, and they bring with them the very same subjectivity & edit.
So, it is incumbent upon the reader to discipline themselves to remain as "objective" as possible. Here is an example which has stuck with me for many years...

One can find many educated, well constructed, highly sourced - both critically & psychoanalytically - essays re: the autobiographic nature of Shakespeare's Hamlet.
They center around the character Hamlet: his gender, neuroses, depression, border-line socio-pathology and are subsequently equated with William Shakespeare's biological son named Hamnet, whom suffered from many of the same maladies.

However, lest any reader over any period of time was at the desk while Bill's iambic-pentameter got penned, no-one knows exactly what was the motivation.
As well, one cannot arbitrarily render "Critical Analysis of Shakespeare" from one century as "better than" that of another.
So the deconstructionist attempts to react to "facts" as they are revealed in the text alone...free from subjective contextual information.
If those subjective contextual influences are, in fact, significant - their impact will be revealed throughout the text, repeated over & over & over again as Trace.

Part II

How this relates to Tartanology?

For me, the "text" is:
The entire 19th century canon (The 1819 KPB to H. Whyte & W.&A.K. Johnston's Library Edition (1892-1906).
All the Pattern Books & Ledgers (Scot Adie, J. Claude Friese, William Wilson 3 & 4, HSL through to STS)
All Tartanology Experts (P.E. MacDonald incl. his essays, M.A.C. Newsome, J.D. Scarlett, J.C. Thomson, William & Donald Stewart, et al)
Tartanologically influential works (Frank Adam, James Logan, Martin Martin, Dr. Phillip D. Smith, Roddy Martine, Romily Squire & Gordon Teale, etc.)
Period Pieces & Historic References (Lord John Murray, 4th Duke of Athole's Diary of the Royal Levee, 1822; the Rev.'s Angus & Archibald MacDonald's The Clan Donald, etc.)

The "Trace" are repeated, factually corroborated evidences contained there-in which, through shear preponderance, forms logical & sourced judgments about Authenticity or Credibility of setts. One must recognize, from a deconstructive perspective, we are only peeling back layers to an obfuscated onion which in-turn reveals new "Trace".

As an example, I have been working and re-working, as objectively as I can, a detailed thesis re: the Robertson of Struan 1816.
I completely analyze, cite & source the following:
a. The two sett variants
b. The colourway
c. The sett construction and its relation to the MacDonald Motif
d. The sociological phenomenon nurture, relocation and "groupishness"
e. The Scots Law re: Surname of Place
f. A linguistic explanation of Compound Plural nouns & its relation to Self-style versus Peerage
g. Early Donnachaidh origins from Somerled to Angus Mor to "Duncan" of the mainland
h. The various MacDonald allies whom bear tartan with conspicuous MacDonald motif per P.E. MacDonald's theory on regionality in design
I. Those same allies association with various Stewarts and their association with Atholl and Donnachaidh.

All this, in an attempt to logically & analytically explain why:
This sett was submitted to the Highland Society of London, 1816 tagged "Robertson of Struan"; a Robertson re-colouring of the Kingsbury sett; yet with a green / blue ground & scarlet over-stripes.

I am just about finished, as I've discovered some new information which I feel obligated to address.
That being said, I'm comfortable with not only with criticism of my work, but hopefully any subsequent analysis which comes from the paper.
After all, If I've done my job, there is a "Trace" to be followed & analyzed which will pulverize my effort, but lead to more truth.

[figheadair]

In recent correspondence Clanranald confirmed he and his family wear the red sett "more by dint of having been given a kilt and Plaid by the Edinburgh ClanDonald Society than by any research down to me". This then appears to be the basis for the modern attribution of the tartan as the Chief's sett.

It's a lovely sett, exactly how old is impossible to tell without finding the plaid quoted by MacKay but there is no historical or etiqutte reasons why it should not be worn by anyone that wishes to.

[figheadair]

I'm working on the outline paper that will pull together what is known about this sett.

[Nathan]

I can't wait to read it, Peter. I'm sure it will be illuminating as always.

Nathan

[David Dubh]

I find this fascinating as i wear MacDonald tartans also
David

[figheadair]

I can't wait to read it, Peter. I'm sure it will be illuminating as always.

Nathan

Here you go - MacDonald of Clanranald (Full Dress). Very much an interim paper based on available information. I still hope to track down the original plaid.

One interesting discovery in writing the paper was that MacKay's book was published in 1924 not 1914 as always quoted. I presume that someone, quite possible D. C. Stewart, got it wrong and we've all blindly followed the date. The details are unambiguous.

[Domehead]

Again and as always, thank you very much for your studiousness and effort.
Ryan