A question of "entitlement".....

[Blu (Ontario)]

Although rare, there are some very old surviving remnants of tartan-like scottish fabric. It seems, however, that tartan as we would recognise it today did not come into regular use until sometime in the 1600's. At best, they were most likely associated with districts and regions rather than individual families. There are numerous paintings predating the infamous "Dress Act" (1747), (when such works of art were done with much precision and accuracy), showing individuals wearing tartans unknown in any surviving records. Other paintings show related individuals wearing tartans completely different from one another and often unrelated tartans on a single individual. This would suggest that tartans were chosen more from personal taste than from clan considerations. The use of tartan as a family kinship badge is much more recent and probably started with the regimental tartans. I think it is noteworthy that tartans and kilts were confined pretty much to the highlands. Lowlanders, it seems, regarded them as a sign of lower social standing, as modern blue jeans were for many years. The use of tartan gained popularity coincidentally with nationalist sentiments through both Jacobite revolutions. After the rebellion of 1745, The Dress Act was invoked, which prohibited the wearing of tartans, kilts, or any highland garb under severe penalty of law. It remained remained in effect for 35 years. With the exception of the regiments, tartan history and tradition was effectively expunged from an entire generation and there was little interest shown when the act was repealed in 1782 in part due to the impoverished conditions of the people. Here's where things get a bit hazy. Between the writings of Sir Walter Scott and newfound enthusiasm for Scottish culture by English royalty, there was a tartan re-birth of sorts. The only truly reliable records of tartans were those kept by the regimental weavers, and most of these were numbers, not family names. It wasn't until the early 1800's that there a serious attempt to re-assemble the history and identity of tartans by the Highland Society of London. To confuse matters, two brothers, John and Charles Hay Allan, published a book of tartans in 1842, titled the Vestiarium Scoticum, which they claimed to be a copy of a long lost medieval manuscript listing the tartan setts of some 70 scottish families. This later proved to be a hoax...many of the setts being the invention of the brothers themselves. Many other tartans in use today are completely modern inventions with no historical foundations at all. I suppose that means anyone feeling a deep sense of tradition regarding their clan tartan should probably look at the facts a bit more closely. Given that, I suggest we can safely and confidently step beyond the Victorian rules of "entitlement" and wear the tartans that appeal to us, as the pre- Culloden Scots were known to do. How about you?

[Dakotan]

I'm in TOTAL agreement with you Blu!
If for no other reason than merely that my clan tartan is, in my humble opinion, really "unattractive".

[Graham]

Very hysterical oops, I mean historical and interesting.

I also agree, while also having some pride in what may be regarded as my "family" tartan, but then, only because I like the tartan, if I didn't then I would choose another.

The history of tomorrow is what we do today, so who says we cannot "adopt" a tartan we like as our family tartan now to pass on to our children?

Just a thought.

[Macwizzard]

In truth, modern day tartans(with the exceptions of those custom-created since about 1800) were products of mill weavers and have not semblence on their own or connection to any Clan. However, a Clan tartan can be designated by the Laird of that Clan. Then, and only then, is that tartan officially associated witn that Clan. Many Clans have addopted tartans sharing a similar name to their Clan, but others, such as the Hunter Clan, have commissioned their own tartan to directly reflect the Clan and it's history. After, and pending approval of the Lord Lyon, a sett is officially created and becomes a tartan.

Also, the tartan itself was just a fabric woven and similar shades were usually present throughought a region, though different patterns may exist, due to similar local plant dyes used for dying wool. Also, in regard to the paintings, many were stock photos used by traveling painters who would leave the head areas of stock paintings blank and paint them in when a client desired that painting. Thus, the tartan may have had no resemblance to what the person painted in may have been wearing at the time. Thus, inconsitinces is tartan history through paintings is rather unnacurate.

Or, in shortwind, Clan Tartans are only a Clan Tartan if selected and adopted by the Laird. Otherwise, it's just a mill stock sett with a name that a clan may share.

[David E]

From the posts I've read on Bravehearts (by many of those who post here), I think most, if not all of us, have "stepped beyond the Victorian rules of entitlement". In fact, it was due to posts on Bravehearts that convinced me that I wouldn't get into trouble buying a tartan kilt, even though I'm not aware of having any scottish ancestry.

However, its nice to know that history backs up our position - thanks Blu.

Cheers
David.

[al' Sporrano]

I seem to recall most of your account, Blu.

I've posted somewhere else about the criteria for Clan membership and the 'right' to wear their tartan.
Links can be very tenuous. Some even accept membership on the grounds of enthusisasm/respect of the Clan.

Let's face it, if you are prepared to support events and pay a subscription, they're not gonna turn anyone away.

Al'

[richardljohnson]

When I got my first kilt almost 20 years ago I went to a kilt maker and asked some questions. He was VERY traditional in his approach and he told me that a man should ONLY wear the kilt he was entitled to. I took this as gospel. My approach didn't change over the years.

Now, I have changed. When I first MADE A CHOICE to wear a non-traditional kilt I felt a little like I had betrayed my Clan. But, I then came to the conclusion that evertime I put on the kilt I honor my heritage no matter if it is my Clan Kilt or the camo kilts. Plus the extra fact that I like it!

I have also been told by a man that he would love to have and wear a kilt but he didn't think he was 'entitled'. I told him that he actually was 'entitled' if he felt he needed to be 'entitled'. I asked if he was born in Texas. He said he was and I told him that Texas does have an official tartan and that he could wear this or many other tartans if he wanted. I don't know what happened but the seed was planted.

I now have 1 traditional kilt NOT in my Clan and I have plans for 2 others and one of these will be a kilt to honor my wife's side of the family. To any Clan events I might go to I will still wear the Clan Kilt but the rest of the time it's up to me.

RLJ-

[Donnie]

I agree with Macwizard. From what I understand so called "Clan Tartans" are a historically recent invention. Tartans before Culloden were just what your local weaver happened to be weaving. I really like the "family" connection of a clan. But, you should wear whatever Tartan strikes your fancy!

[Blu (Ontario)]

I posted this in another thread but thought it was interesting enough to repeat. The tartan used by Clan Hunter is the exact same tartan used by Clan Galbraith and Clan Russell. There may be other examples of this that I'm not aware of.

[bubba]

I have blood ties to 2 Clans and I intend to eventually have a tartan kilt for each. That's the heritage thing for me. I also plan on at least one that's a general tartan and a couple of the more contemporary kilts. Am I getting ambitious or what