Northumberland Tartan

Ok, so this post will mainly be of interest to the guys reading this thread on X Marks the Scot.

There has been some interest there about the Northumberland tartan (also called the Shepherd's Check). This is a very simply black and white tartan that can be expressed in the basic formula K = W. In other words, it doesn't really matter what the thread count is, so long as the black and white threads are equal.

The same design in different colors is used as the Rob Roy tartan (K = R), the Moncrieff tartan (R = G) (this also is an old MacLachlan tartan, by the way), the Robin Hood tartan (K = G) and some other variants.

It is an extremely traditional design. The oldest tartan found to date in Scotland, called the Falkirk tartan (being discovered in Falkirk) is a simply check of light and dark undyed wool.

The tartan came to be associated with Northumberland, in northern England, because it was adopted as the official dress of the Duke of Northumberland's piper in 1760. From the Northumberland Tartan Company web site:

It is not widely known that the county of Northumberland has an official tartan and moreover that this tartan is held by many to be one of the oldest check patterns, predating the more colourful Highland tartans which followed it. The Northumberland Tartan, variously known as the Border or Shepherd Plaid, is also closely linked to the Percy family, forming the official dress of the Duke of Northumberland's piper.

You can read more history on their site. You can purchase this tartan through the Northumberland Tartan Company, of course, but also through any regular tartan retailer under the name "Shepherd tartan." It's the same material.

I've always liked this tartan. Probably partly because my own surname of Newsome is English (though not from Northumberland that I know of), and partly because of the extreme simplicity of the design.

What I do not like about the tartan, and the reason that I have never owned a kilt in it, is because it is always produced with such an incredibly small setting. Even in heavy weight kilt cloth, the thread count is miniscule. Here is a picture of a gentleman wearing a kilt in this tartan. (This was taken a couple of years ago at the Stone Mountain Highland Games in Georgia).

The kilt does not look bad, mind you. The small pattern is simply not to my taste, and not to the taste of a lot of men I talk to about this. Compare this to the size sett you typically see the Rob Roy tartan, or the Moncrieff tartan woven in. I've seen those tartans woven with anything from 1" to 4" squares. I've always thought that the Northumberland/Shepherd tartan would look much more striking (and much more masculine) in a larger setting.

If I were ever to own a kilt in this tartan, I would have the cloth woven for me in a large pattern, perhaps with 2.5" squares or so. It would cost a bit more than using the cloth that is standardly available, but I think it would be worth it.

To give some idea of what that would look like, here is a picture of a kilt I made for a client in the Moncrieff tartan (red and green). I edited the photo to be black and white and played with the contrast and brightness to achieve something like what the Northumberland tartan would look like on a larger scale. I think I might even go a bit larger than what is in the photo, but this gives you some idea.

So how about it woolen mills? When your current stock of heavy weight Shepherd check runs out, why not try weaving it up with a larger setting. I'm willing to be it will increase your sales of kilts and cloth in this tartan. In the mean time, if anyone wants a kilt like this and doesn't want to wait for the tartan industry to begin to produce it in a larger pattern, let me know and I'll be glad to order up a small batch for you (and maybe enough for a kilt for myself while I am at it!)

Why I didn't wear a kilt for Easter

Today is Easter Monday (the day after Easter Sunday for those of you without a calendar). I've noticed a lot of posts on X Marks the Scot are about people who wore their kilts to various Easter services. For example:

http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17259
(I happened to have made the kilt shown in the picture on this post -- it's always gratifying to see a kilt I've made "in action" and getting good use!)

And there is this one:
http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17257

Well, I'm writing to tell you that I did not wear a kilt for Easter.

Why not? I am certainly what you'd call a "regular kilt wearer." I wear a kilt normally four or five days a week. The nicest clothes I own are Highland outfits. I have worn kilts everywhere from the Highland Games to grocery stores. I'm certainly not shy about it. So why didn't I wear one for Easter?

Simply put, I don't wear kilts to church at all, under normal circumstances.

A little background, just so you know where I am coming from: I am a devout Roman Catholic. I say "devout" because I am not an "attends Mass only on Easter and Christmas" nominal Catholic. My family and I are in the pews every Sunday. I sing in the choir. I teach an adult ed religion class at my parish. And I have a web site devoted to Catholic Apologetics. I'm also currently earning a Masters Degree in Theology from a Catholic college & seminary. So yes, you could say I take my faith seriously. It's a huge part of my life.

So, getting back to why I don't wear a kilt to Mass... I certainly have very nice, formal kilt outfits. That's not the issue. And I'm most certainly not embarassed to be wearing the kilt in public -- heavens no! That's not it either.

I'm not worried about getting a negative reaction. In fact, quite the opposite. To put it simply, a man in a kilt is going to draw a certain amount of attention. Anyone who has worn a kilt knows what I mean. Even if all comments are positive (and they usually are), there will nonetheless be comments. "Oh, neat! Are you a bagpiper? It's so great to see a kilted man. You look so nice! My grandfather was from Scotland. Is that your family tartan? What are you wearing under there?"

This is not that big a deal under normal circumstances. A lot of men like the attention! It is great for the ego. But frankly, when I am at Mass, it is simply not about me. It is the memorial celebration of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the focus. And if I were to wear a kilt, whether I intended to or not, I would be competing for that focus of attention.

I hope I don't sound egotistical here. I am in no way implying that I cut such a striking figure in the kilt that people would not be able to take their eyes from me! Not by any means! But it would make me stand out, and it would distract people from the worship they are there to give. Not to mention the fact that all the attention would no doubt be a distraction for me, as well! Therefore out of respect for my fellow worshippers and myself, I choose to dress in a manner that blends in a bit more with the general norm.

I suppose one way around this would be to habitually wear the kilt every Sunday to Mass until it became a non-issue. "Ho, hum, there is Matt in his kilt again..." If people got so used to me wearing the kilt in church, it wouldn't draw any attention one way or the other. But how long would I have to wear the kilt to church before this happened? And why would I want to go through that great effort? What would I really stand to gain?

This is certainly not about asserting my "right" to wear a kilt. I'm not out to prove a point here. Frankly, my regular wearing of the kilt has never been about proving a point. I have the right to wear a kilt, and I have the right to choose not to wear one. And I also have the duty to prudently choose when and when Highland attire is appropriate.

I am reminded of an article I read in a Catholic journal some time back, about the necessity of dressing appropriately during Mass. The author was male, and the specific issue was the problem of women who come to Mass wearing low cut blouses and short skirts. The author was speaking on behalf of many men (and women) who find such dress distracting. To those who say that women have a right to dress how they choose, he asks what the reaction would be if he were to wear a helmet with a full rack of deer antlers to Mass. He has a "right" to wear any kind of hat he wants, right? But wouldn't such a spectacle be distracting to many people at Mass? Certainly. So out of respect for others, so as not to distract them from their proper focus, he refrains from wearing deer antlers.

And likewise, under most circumstances, I refrain from wearing the kilt.

I say, "under most circumstances." Like most things, there are exceptions. For instance, I was certainly kilted at my wedding! And both my sons wore a wee kilt at their baptism. So, what makes the difference?

Well, if I don't wear a kilt most Sundays because I don't want the attention to be on myself, that certainly does not apply at a wedding. At a wedding, the attention is guaranteed to be on the couple, no matter what they wear. My bride was in a glorious white gown, and I wore my finest, as well -- a kilt. What else!?

Likewise at my boys' baptisms, the focus was going to be centered on them, and so we wanted to dress them especially nice -- and making little tartan kilts for them has become a fun family tradition.

I even wore my kilt to my brother-in-law's wedding, as a guest. I sat in the back of the church, and hardly a soul noticed (again, because all the attention was up front on the happy couple). And my brother-in-law was especially honored that I would wear my kilt to celebrate his wedding.

Special occasions like the above are exceptions. I cannot speak for other sects, but for me as a Catholic, Sunday Mass is no less special. It is a great mystery of the Church that the sacrifice that Christ made at Calvary is brought forward in time, for us to participate in today, enacted upon the altar at Mass. But it is a human weakness that we don't recognize this like we should. We need help -- which is why our churches are filled with beautiful things like stained glass, crucifixes, statues and the like, meant to lift our hearts and souls to heaven. I don't want to be a distraction from that.

This doesn't mean that wearing the kilt is negative in any way, or not "dignified" enough for church. I think my reputation as a kilt wearer is solid enough that people will not confuse my message here.

I'm simply saying that -- as much as I love the kilt -- it is perfectly fine to choose not to wear it under some circumstances. And you shouldn't feel that you are any less dedicated to wearing the kilt for doing so.

Happy Tartan Day!

In case you missed it, April 6 was Tartan Day in the United States (and a few other countries, as well). You can read all about it on the official Tartan Day web site, at http://www.tartanday.com/.

Tartan Day became officially recognized in America in 1998 with the adoption of Senate Resolution No. 155, proposed by Senator Trent Lott. (You can read it on the above Tartan Day web site).

The date was chosen to mark the anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath, signed April 6, 1320. This was the document (composed in Arbroath, Scotland) that was submitted by the assembled Scottish nobility to the Holy Father in Rome, Pope John XXII, asserting Scotland's independance from England in no uncertain terms.

To put the event in some historic context, William Wallace (whom everyone now knows -- though inaccurately -- through the movie Braveheart) was executed in 1305, for using military force to resist the usurpation of the Scottish throne by Edward, King of England.

After Wallace's death, Robert the Bruce was crowned King Robert of Scotland in 1306. The Scots Army, led by King Robert, decisively defeated Edward at Bannockburn in 1314, but Edward continued to claim the Scottish throne as his own.

This story is well known among Scotophiles, but what is perhaps less well known is that Robert the Bruce had been excommunicated by the Pope, and the entire nation of Scotland was under interdiction. An interdiction is like an excommunication, only applied to an entire geographic region, rather than an individual. This effectively denied the sacraments to every citizen of the Scottish kingdom.

Why would the Pope do this? Well, to someone on the outside, it looked as if Edward had a good case. When King Alexander III of Scotland died without an heir in 1284, many men made claims on the Scottish throne. In an attempt to settle the matter, the claims of the competitors for the throne were submitted to King Edward, as their most powerful neighbor to the south. In 1291 they officially sent letter to him, which in so many words acknowledged his soverienty over the Scottish kingdom, asking for his recognition of one of their claims to the throne, and granting his possession of Scotland until he should select a king. Edward decided to back John Balioll, and it was always Edward's position that John held the kingdom of Scotland as a vassal kingdom, subject in every way to Edward's rule.

So when men like Wallace and Robert the Bruce fought against Edward, it seemed to many like the rebellion of a people against their rightful lord, an attempt to usurp a recognized authority and establish a new king through force of arms. Such violence was condemned by the Pope, and thus the interdiction on the Kingdom of Scotland, seen as the agressor.

A key part of Robert the Bruce establishing the legitimacy of his reign over Scotland was to win recogniztion by the Pope. You can read all about that struggle in an article I wrote on the Bruce several years ago.

This is where the Declaration of Arbroath fits in. This letter begins with a short history of the Scottish people, telling of how they conquered the lands they now hold, and how their kings have reigned over that land independently, despite invasions, asserting that “one hundred and thirteen kings. . . have reigned, the line unbroken by a single foreigner.” The letter then goes on to tell of Edward I’s violent invasion of their country while they were weak and without a leader. The authors make mention of his “wrongs, killings, violence, pillage, arson, imprisonment of prelates, burning down of monasteries. . . But from these countless evils we have been set free. . . by our most valiant prince, king and lord, Lord Robert, who, that his people and heritage might be delivered out of the hands of enemies, bore cheerfully toil and fatigue, hunger and danger. . . . Divine providence, the succession to his right according to our laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all, have made him our prince and king."

The Pope was apparantly convinced, and sent a letter immediately to Edward II (who by now was reigning as his father's successor) instructing him to make peace with Scotland. That peace would be a while in coming yet -- not till 1329, one month before the death of Robert the Bruce, would the English and Scots finally have a ratified peace agreement. But the Declaration of Arbroath played a key role in getting the process started.

This is the background to the April 6th celebrations that take place across Canada, the USA, and other nations where Scots have settled. Though Tartan Day honors and celebrates the contributions of Scottish immigrants to the history and culture of our society, it also hearkens back as a tribute to the bloody and hard history of Scotland, a nation that had to fight so long for its independance.

In many places Tartan Day was celebrated over the weekend. New York City, for example, had a whole Tartan Week, with a parade on April 8. In Franklin, NC, at the Scottish Tartans Museum, we didn't have a celebration quite as grand (but perhaps more on the scale of Tartan Day festivities in other small towns). We celebrated on the date of April 6, though it was a Thursday, with an Open House day at the museum. We offered free admission all day to visitors, with guided tours available (kilted tour guides, of course!). The Friends of the Museum and Walkers Shortbread provided refreshments in our gift shop -- Scotch broth soup for lunch, with Oatmeal bread, blueberry scones, empire biscuits and chocolate covered shortbread for dessert.

The picture below is of some of the museum guests enjoying the free lunch. By the way, the man helping himself at the refreshment table is wearing a kilt I made for him in the Cockburn tartan.



And what did I wear for Tartan Day? Not my new solid colored Harris Tweed kilt. No, no, one must wear tartan for Tartan Day! See the picture at the top of this post. I had on my Armstrong tartan kilt (my maternal grandmother's maiden name was Armstrong) -- a four-yard box pleated kilt, of course, made from Lochcarron's Strome weight cloth. The vest is a nineteenth century reproduction I purchased from the Leavy Foundation for Historic Preservation. The sporran is of unknown origin -- I picked it up several years ago from a vendor at a Highland Games with a lot of antiques and British military items. And the Hummel Bonner was made for my by Betty Johnson, who cards, dyes, spins and knits the bonnets herself by hand! (We sell these at the Scottish Tartans Museum gift shop, by the way).

Anyway, I hope one and all had a happy Tartan Day, 2006!

New kilt, new sock style

Ok, I admit it. I used to really not be fan of what I call the "contemporary" style of wearing your kilt hose. By that I mean what you typically see on runway kilt models these days, the kilt hose worn pushed down, usually with boots, such as Doc Martins.

In fact, it would be quite fair to say I hated it. Why? Well, I suppose it was because I first noticed that particular look on people wearing what you might call "urban chic" Highland wear. For an example of what I mean, you can look at the "21st Century Kilts" web site.

http://www.21stcenturykilts.co.uk/celebrityclients.htm

Kilted or not, the style of dress exhibited in these photos -- hip, in your face, me-against-society kind of style -- simply does not appeal to me. You also see this style a lot on people wearing Utilikilts, and that's also not a style of dress I am particularly fond of.

I also didn't like it because it seemed to be mostly a "young" style. (Despite the fact that I am turning 29 just this month, I tend to have the mentality of an old geezer).

Anyway, I also have what I consider a healthy skepticism about anything that resembles a fad. So for all of the above reasons I steered clear of the "socks-pushed-down" style.

Well, then what on earth am I doing in the above photo wearing my hose in this heretical manner?

What can I say, I'm a convert. It started by reading some of the postings in the X Marks the Scot kilt wearers' forum. I would read these guys discussing their kilt hose, the proper way to roll or fold them down, and what kind of boots and shoes to wear with them. Hey, I thought, these guys obviously are giving a great deal of thought to how they dress and present themselves. They didn't seem to fall into the "young and against the world" category, an attitude worn on the faces (and clothing) of so many of the fashion models. Maybe there is something to this style...

I began to look though some of the posters' photo galleries, to see how they were wearing their hose. For instance, here is David Freelander's gallery:
http://home.c2i.net/kilted_1/public_html/gallery.html
He's wearing his hose in this style in what I would consider fine casual kilt wear fashion. Take, for example, the picture in the upper left of that page, of him and his family. He's wearing a golf shirt, hiking boots, and a simple leather sporran and belt. Make the sporran and belt brown, and that's what I typically wear most days -- only his socks are pushed down.

Well, in the name of science, I thought, why not give it a go. So a few weeks back, I went "contemporary." I think the exact outfit I wore was my brown Donegal tweed kilt, a solid green pullover shirt, cream colored hose, and Colombia hiking boots. I folded the tops of the hose down (like I normally would if wearing them with garters) and then just gently pushed them down to where they rested comfortably on my lower calf.

The verdict? First off all, I have to say it was very comfortable. I hate to say it, but the only part of wearing a kilt that I ever find uncomfortable are high woolen hose in the summer time, held up by garters. This contemporary style was a breeze.

Second, I actually liked the look. The style seemed more to me like something I'd wear on a hike or other casual affair, than the urban look I had feared. I think that is a result of the accessories -- namely hiking boots rather than Doc Martins, and my kilt wasn't made out of pleather or anything like that.

Thirdly (and this was the cincher), my wife thought I looked sexy, and really, guys, what other fashion critic counts besides your wife? I was sold.

So now, on occasion, I leave the house dressed like I am above, my calves bared in all their glory. Long before knee-high hose became the fashion, the Highlanders were reknowned for going "bare-legged," after all. (Look at the MacQuarrie figure painted by R. R. McIan that I use in the lower left of my kiltmaking page).

Here are some thoughts I have on this style so far:

1. This is a casual style. I would never dream of appearing at a formal occasion with hose pushed down. It would be like showing up with your shirt untucked. Fine for casual wear, but just sloppy when jacket and tie are in order.

2. Some kind of very heavy shoe is needed. I think a boot is in order here, either a hiking boot, Doc Marten, or some similar style. You need something "chunky" on your foot to pull the look off. Otherwise it just looks like your hose are slipping.

3. Contrary to my usual preference for darker colored hose, I actually think lighter colored hose work better here. I usually wear cream hose when I opt for this style. In fact, since I generally don't like the cream or off-white hose, this is now the only way I wear them. In the above picture, I have oatmeal hose, which also work great. I couldn't tell you why I don't think darker hose work with this style. I guess it depends on the outfit -- I could easily envision an outfit with a dark tartan kilt where black hose would work. I'm still working out my thoughts on this one.

4. You really need to wear kilt hose, or some other high sock, like an over-the-calf hiking sock, to pull this off. The point is to have the bulk there, only pushed down. Face it, wearing a kilt with athletic socks just looks goofy.

So there you have it. Not all dyed-in-the-wool traditionalists like myself are too stubborn to try something new. My thought when it comes to this is to try it at least once to see what it's about. You just might like it. If not, well at least then you can say with experience why you don't like it.

Oh, and in case anyone is wondering, the kilt I'm wearing in the above pic is the latest one I have made for myself. It's made from a beautiful heavy weight Harris Tweed. Lucky for me there was enough cloth left over for a vest, which my lovely wife has promised to make for me. In my arms is my youngest son, Malcolm.

(And before I hear it from anyone, yes I know my belt is a much darker brown than my sporran. Sheesh, some people are soooooo picky!)