Click here to return to the
archive of articles I have written for the Scottish Banner.
YOU CAN’T JUDGE A TARTAN BY ITS NAME
©2005 Matthew A. C. Newsome, FSA Scot., GTS
published in the Scottish Banner, March
2005
A few months ago
(in the December 2004 Banner) we addressed the topic of
what makes a tartan
“official.” The long and short of it is that, for a tartan to be
official, it must be approved by whatever the governing body is for what the
tartan represents. In the case of clan tartans, that would be the can chief.
For a corporate tartan, that might be the CEO, and for a state tartan, the
state legislature. Whether a tartan is recorded by some body in Scotland has
no bearing on that tartan being official. All such recording does is to
provide an easily accessible record of the tartan.
That being said,
I thought it would be helpful to revisit this issue and discuss a few
particular tartans that might, by their name, give the impression of being
official, when in fact they are anything but. Before we go on, I want to
emphasize the point that anyone can wear any tartan that they choose,
regardless of its status. If a tartan is unofficial, that does not mean that
no one can wear it. I would not begrudge anyone their favorite tartan! But
it does mean that one should not intentionally give the impression that a
tartan has the approval of a sanctioning body, when in fact it does not.
A primary example
of this from the world of clan tartans is the Campbell of Argyll. The chief
of the clan Campbell is the Duke of Argyll. Many people of that clan, when
choosing a tartan, see the name “Campbell of Argyll,” associate that name with
their chief, and therefore choose that tartan to wear. Unless they are
informed by someone, they may never realize that the Duke of Argyll himself
has never authorized that tartan!
In Campbell
Tartan, written by Alastair Campbell of Airds the younger in 1985, he
lists four approved Campbell tartans: the Campbell, which is the same as the
Black Watch; the Campbell of Cawdor; the Campbell of Beadalbane; and the
Campbell of Loudoun. Of the Campbell of Argyll tartan, he writes, “This is
not a pattern which has the Chief’s approval as an official Campbell
tartan and purchasers should avoid it if they wish to be correct.” Yet the
mills continue to produce it, because the public continues to buy it. And the
public continues to buy it because the mills continue to produce it. So the
circle continues.
There are other
non-clan tartans that also give rise to confusion. Military personnel and
veterans in the United States have become very excited over the availability
of
US military tartans. The Leatherneck tartan, for the USMC, is perhaps the
most well known and was designed in 1986. Of more recent dates are the Edzell
tartan for the US Navy, and tartans for the US Air Force, Armed Forces, and
Sea Bees. Many tartan vendors in America offer these tartans. But few
realize that absolutely none of these tartans have been approved by the
military bodies whose names they bear. Rather than being authentic military
tartans, they are fashion tartans that have been named after these military
branches. There is nothing wrong with that, so long as people are not misled
to believe that these tartans have more status than they truly do.
Matters get even
touchier when it comes to
district tartans. Many of the older district tartans in Scotland have
never been officially adopted, even though they may have been worn for nearly
two hundred years. Mull, Aberdeen, Angus, Crieff, Dundee – all of these
tartans are very old and yet have never received official approval by the
places whose names they bear. You could say that they have become, in a
sense, “official” through want and usage, but you cannot make such a claim for
many of the newer district tartans that are sold under a place’s name without
the approval of the place itself.
Some of these are
quite successful. The
Irish County tartans that are produced by The House of Edgar have no
official standing, nor do the
Irish Provincial tartans or the Scottish Border tartans designed by
Lochcarron. One could fill a book listing such “fashion” tartans. As I
stated before, there is nothing inherently wrong with this so long as the
claim is not made that these tartans are official.
I will give one
final example that I deal with frequently, being a native of North Carolina.
Both the states of North Carolina and South Carolina have an official tartan.
They share one, in fact – the Carolina tartan, designed by Peter MacDonald in
1981. In 1991 it was formally adopted by the State of North Carolina, and in
2002 South Carolina also adopted official legislation naming this their state
tartan. This truly is an official tartan.
But in 2003 a
company in Scotland called International Tartans launched (among others) a
North Carolina and a South Carolina tartan. Neither of these tartans have any
official approval by the respective states, but this fact is not disclosed in
their promotional material. The International Tartans web site states that
the tartans are “registered… for the sons and daughters of the state…, their
heirs and successors, and all those people who are granted association with
the state.” While they do not explicitly claim that these tartans have
official sanction, such is heavily implied. Most people do not realize that
simply being registered (“recorded” would be a better word) with organizations
in Scotland does not make a tartan official. Also, it is uncertain what is
meant by those “granted association with the state.” Does a driver’s license
suffice?
David McGill, the
designer of these tartans, states that he “issues a Certificate of Right and
Obligation in his capacity as Custodian of the designs and appoints the
bearers (and wearers) of the tartans and checks Armigers.” The words are
impressive, but mean absolutely nothing. No one can appoint an Armiger in
Scotland except the Lord Lyon, and the term has no relevance in regards to
tartan. Is it any wonder that people mistakenly believe these tartans to be
official when such language is used? And all the while disservice is done to
the actual tartan approved by the states.
Again, those who
wear tartans should feel free to wear any tartan they like. And those who
weave tartans should feel free to create new designs. But many people,
discovering their heritage for the first time and new to the “tartan scene,”
will take words such as these for gospel. Honesty and integrity demand that
we not mislead those who would carry on our noble traditions.
