That shirt is white, but when I originally took the picture, it appeared to be a rich shade of yellow. I had to pull all manner of tricks to get the colors to look right.
The understanding I had is that a printed neat (as beloved on SF) was called a "Spitalsfield," after one of the other centers of British silk weaving, while a Macclesfield is a woven pattern (as underrepresented on SF). In this thread I came up with trying to check my facts, Manton says a Spitalsfield is still a woven pattern, but with a larger scale, so I'll defer to him.
I think the term "Macclesfield pattern" is a menswear term, not a weaving term, so they make more than just that kind of pattern in Macclesfield. That's a paisley (type of pattern) foulard (type of printing), as far as I know. A "Macclesfield pattern" wouldn't make a good square.
Here's an example of a Macclesfield tie, from one of the best things ever written about ties online (Tintin uses the Macclesfield/Spitalsfield terminology as I thought it was):
Thank you. My inclination would have been towards a quieter square, but I felt I had to do something to play with the brightly colored cotton trousers.
I know I've heard say that the issue with wearing a patterned tie and square with a solid coat and tie is that it tends to make it look like you're trying to stretch a small wardrobe with bold furnishings -- and I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm doing just that.