"Rules" for wearing family tartan

[Lallans]

Having been flamed for suggesting something similar once before, I'm a little shy about saying this, but perhaps there are slightly different standards on different sides of the various oceans, and America, whose very existence was founded on defiance of or at least variation from British norms, has a different way of looking at this issue than people on the British side of the Atlantic. And we Canadians play the role of onlookers who pick and choose different sides at different times. But I do think that what is being seen is that there are two slightly different sets of rules in play here and I do have the idea that clan tartans are a little more I-don't-know-the-word in Britain than some other places. Correct me if I'm wrong...

[MacBean]

Since membership in a clan is generally determined by the surname that one bears (i.e. "pretence of blood"), then that has a very definite bearing on the right to wear that clan's tartan.

Stepping into the fray a bit late here. I'm not sure I see a 1:1 connection between "pretence of blood" and surname because that discounts all the maternal blood lines. Let me give a nice example.

Dougal Dall, 7th Chief of Clan Chattan gave his daughter and heir, Eva, in marriage to Angus MackIntosh, the 6th Chief of Clan MackIntosh in 1291. A Bean Macdhomhil Mor came with Eva as part of her retinue. When the Mackintosh granted him land, he became clan chief.

The story seems to have it all: occasional matrilineal succession, membership by association, chiefdom and land ownership, and succession disputes (MacPherson - MacKintosh). I think my conclusion is that belonging to a clan was a two-way exchange, not always strictly patrilineal, sometimes open, and sometimes not, but often debated.

[Tobus]

Others here have made many of the points I was going to make in following up on my earlier statements. Modern mythology surrounding tartans is a bad mixture of pre-proscription tradition and Victorian romanticism, which has somehow been morphed into a sense of "entitlement".

The truth is that when clans mattered, there was no such thing as a "clan tartan". People wore whatever tartan pattern they fancied (and often several at a time). And after clans lost their power is when the idea of "clan tartans" began.

Clans were never homogeneous groups of family, all bearing the same surname. There were many documented sept families too. Plus tenant families that lived on clan lands and enjoyed some protection of a clan, but never made it into the official sept category. There were the so-called "broken men" which may have allied with a particular clan too, but did not bear a relevant surname. And none of them wore a clan tartan.

Yes, the modern idea of a clan and its tartan is different today, but it need not be exclusive to those with a recognized patrilineal surname. Any family connection is sufficient.

I also take issue with the idea that being associated with a particular clan or wearing their tartan has anything to do with pledging allegiance/fealty to a chief. Simply having a family connection, whether I bear a particular name or not, is enough to warrant being "part of the family"... which is to say it's a very loose connection of people with something in common, even if it's a distant connection.

But I think this thread exemplifies what I'm talking about. Some people will always insist that only having a proper surname entitles you to be good enough to wear 'their' tartan. You'll find them everywhere, thanks to the revisionist mythology about tartans.

[Bugbear]

And who decides what the clan tartans are?

Oops, I thought I was out...

[Bugbear]

The chief of the clan is the one whose choice in the matter is acknowledged - although many of the clan tartans were named by their designers (be they firms like Wilsons of Bannockburn, or creative individuals like the bros. Sobieski-Stuart) before the chiefs of the clans in question could say yea or nay. An effort was made by the Highland Society of London in 1819 to get the chiefs of each of the clans to submit samples of the tartan that they recognized as appropriate to their clan. However a lot of tartans (mostly for the lowland clans) were created by the Sobieski Stuarts, and many of these are still recognized as clan tartans to this day.

Thanks. I had read several times that it was the chief, and I wanted to be sure.

Hopefully this time I can drop out of the thread. Sorry.

[Lallans]

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!

Bringing it back again, if you are from a Border family or clan, you should consider the Northumberland Tartan, aka many things including The Border Check and The Shepherd's Plaid (sorry purists!). As you will see, it's a basic black and white design, or variations with similar colours. Its authenticity has always stuck in my mind because Sir Walter Scott, who was ultimately reponsible for most of the Scottish dress codes we practice now, once said it was the true lowland tartan and also the most ancient tartan still in existence. And you could wear it proudly and confidentally, snobbishly even, if so inclined.

[McClef]

On the other hand, if my surname is Higginbotham, I can decide to wear the Gunn tartan out of whimsey, but I can claim no right or entitlement to it any more than I can claim right or entitlement to bear the Gunn surname.

The usage of "whimsy" implies capriciousness and something fantastical rather than a deliberate and informed choice. If no right or entitlement is required in the first place to wear a particular tartan then one has done nothing wrong in choosing it. The name of the tartan is secondary to the fact that one has chosen it because one happens to like it, That does not mean that one does not wear it without honouring and respecting the name it represents.

But neither does it mean that one has a desire to take the surname which is a totally separate issue and nothing to do with why one has chosen the tartan. Would you buy a pair of Levis and thereby claim right and entitlement to be of that tribe?

[M. A. C. Newsome]

If one chooses a tartan based on no other criteria than "because I like the way it looks" - that is a personal whim.

Those who wear a clan tartan because it is an identifying symbol of the clan that they belong to and are a member of are not choosing the tartan based on personal whim, but out of longstanding tradition that is a part of their heritage.

Clan tartan (unlike denim) is not a generic fabric, it is a very specific tribal symbol of identity and kinship, having been designed and produced for that purpose - to distinguish the members of the clan to which the sett pertains.

I don't have any problem with anything you have stated here. It is all very true, tartan is a very special fabric, rich with traditions and customs that in many cases go back generations.

However, that does not all add up to mean that any such thing as an "entitlement" or a "right" to a tartan exists.

My maternal grandmother's maiden name was Armstrong. Therefore I wear the Armstrong tartan in honor of my blood connections with that family.

There are those who would not consider wearing the Armstrong tartan unless they were decended from that clan on the male line. Fine.

There are those who would not consider wearing the Armstrong tartan unless they actually bore the surname "Armstrong." Fine.

Each of the above hypothetical gentlemen are entitled to their opinion, and I respect that. But we are talking about my kilt, here, and my choice of what tartan to wear in my kilt, and if I want to wear a tartan to honor my grandmother and her family, so be it!

And, truth be told, if I wanted to wear the Armstrong tartan, and yet had absolutely no ties to that clan, I would be free to do so. Who is going to stop me?

Which brings me to the point which I have been attempting to make all along. There is no such thing as a "right" or an "entitlement" to wear a tartan. Except in those .01% of cases that I have mentioned, no one is going to ask for any kind of proof whatsoever that you have a justified reason for wearing your tartan. Your reason is up to you.

Most people will feel compelled to select a tartan to which they feel some tie, which they feel represents them or their ancestry in some fashion. This is the tradition that has developed -- of wearing tartan in a symbolic fashion.

But to suggest that one must have an entitlement to wear a tartan implies that one cannot wear any tartan to which one is not entitled, and this leads to much unnecessary worry and hand wringing; and really it is a concept rather foreign to tartan tradition.

[Monkey@Arms]

The Scotsman, since you have neglected to introduce yourself to this forum, it is perhaps a little difficult to get a sense of where you are coming from, so to speak, on this topic.

I think there are two problem with your continued use of the word "entitlement" in this discussion. The first is it contains the inference that one who does not bear the last name associated with a particular tartan has no business owning that kilt. As you have stated yourself, that is a Victorian myth. While no one is suggesting that a person who feels strong association with a given clan tartan shouldn't follow the convention of wearing that tartan to the exclusion of all other (if that is what they wish), that does not mean a person who does not share that view is not "entitled" to wear the tartan pattern of their choosing.

Which brings us to the second problem. Again, as has already been pointed out in this thread, one's surname may have little to do with actual historical clan ties, as only genealogical research can tell for sure. So if one truly held the belief that only members of a clan are "entitled" to wear that tartan, it would not follow that a person whose last name is, for example, MacDonald, is "entitled" to wear that clan's tartan, as one would need to know whether the namesake Donald was a member of that clan.

Best regards,

Jake

[davidlpope]

These days clan membership is determined by the surname one bears (which is based on the old criteria of "pretence of blood")

"First of all, a word on the rules. The Lord Lyon is an excellent authority, and he points out that name alone is the index of clan membership.

Anyone who does not bear a clan surname should wear a district tartan, if a suitable one exists, or else the Jacobite or Caledonia tartan.

Margaret O. MacDougall, F.S.A. Scot., editing Robert Bain's The Clans and Tartans of Scotland, agreed: "It has frequently been claimed that Scots who do not bear a clan or sept surname may wear the tartan of their mother's clan or sept providing she possessed a clan surname. Although this practice is widespread it is incorrect. Clan membership rests upon name and it follows that if no clan or sept surname is borne, there can be no claim to the tartan of any clan....."

Quick! Someone please inform HRH the Duke of Rothesay (Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor...)