"Brigadoonery"? "TCHD"? Who decides?

[BadenochWolf]

I realize that -despite the length of time spent lurking- I'm fairly new here. I'm having some trouble with what constitutes "traditional" casual highland attire. It seems a number of people here take exception to ghillie (pseudo-jacobean) shirts as manufactured history, yet a safari/fishing shirt and pith helmet as civilian casual dress is generally well regarded. Why is the former considered costumery, but the latter not? I am not trying to start a flame war; I own both outfits and see no reason to forego either, yet. I'm genuinely trying to understand why Outfit B is somehow preferable to Outfit A, when both seem to have jumped out of a romanticized (but not particularly accurate) glimpse of history.

[Nathan]

I realize that -despite the length of time spent lurking- I'm fairly new here. I'm having some trouble with what constitutes "traditional" casual highland attire. It seems a number of people here take exception to ghillie (pseudo-jacobean) shirts as manufactured history, yet a safari/fishing shirt and pith helmet as civilian casual dress is generally well regarded. Why is the former considered costumery, but the latter not? I am not trying to start a flame war; I own both outfits and see no reason to forego either, yet. I'm genuinely trying to understand why Outfit B is somehow preferable to Outfit A, when both seem to have jumped out of a romanticized (but not particularly accurate) glimpse of history.

I not a fan of either if that helps.

Honestly though, I think the pith helmet is an idiosyncratic choice but it was worn by kilted regiments. The pseudo jacobite shirt is the product of Hollywood imagination. It leads people to incorrectly deduce that the kilt was worn this way in a bygone era. Just my thoughts.

[BadenochWolf]

I not a fan of either if that helps.

Honestly though, I think the pith helmet is an idiosyncratic choice but it was worn by kilted regiments. The pseudo jacobite shirt is the product of Hollywood imagination. It leads people to incorrectly deduce that the kilt was worn this way in a bygone era. Just my thoughts.

You just cut to the heart of the issue for me: the pith helmet was a part of a military uniform in previous generations, but not civilian dress. Why is one ahistorical affectation bad and the other not?

[Panache]

You just cut to the heart of the issue for me: the pith helmet was a part of a military uniform in previous generations, but not civilian dress. Why is one ahistorical affectation bad and the other not?

While certainly most notable as part of the kit for military units stationed in the tropics, the pith helmet wasn't solely used as part of military uniform. I believe the term "Bombay bowler" was often used to refer to civilian pith helmets used in tropic regions.

It is also worth noting that military uniforms have often influence civilian dress. This is no different for highland dress. I am pretty sure that the two straps on the right hip so often seen on modern kilts come from the high waisted military kilts where the top of the kilt came to the bottom of the rib cage, making the second strap necessary for a proper fit. Even though civilian kilts don't have that military rise, the two straps carried over to civilian dress.

Cheers ith:

Jamie

[CMcG]

You just cut to the heart of the issue for me: the pith helmet was a part of a military uniform in previous generations, but not civilian dress. Why is one ahistorical affectation bad and the other not?

Neither are "bad," but they signify different things. It depends on what sort of look you're going for.

Pith helmets are worn by a few Xmarkers who are taking a cue from certain kilted regiments that fought in hot climates. They claim that this type of head wear is practical for the blazing sun, which gives them a sort of dispensation under THCD. I don't think, however, that pith helmets are widespread outside of Xmarks and should thus be considered idiosyncratic, personal flair, and/or practical adaptation to the weather.

Those puffy, pseudo-Jacobite shirts, on the other hand, are derived from a Hollywood or romance novel approaches that are decidedly costumey, which is how they get labelled as brigadoonery. If you like them, then go ahead and wear one, especially if you're going to a Renn Fair! Traditional, however, they are not.

[BadenochWolf]

I believe the term "Bombay bowler" was often used to refer to civilian pith helmets used in tropic regions.

Interesting. Some erstwhile Rhodesian cousins led me to beleive a "Bombay Bowler" referred to a packable Panama hat such as this one

[Panache]

For those with an interest in pith helmets and sun helmets here is an excellent website

http://www.militarysunhelmets.com

It is run by Stuart Bates and Peter Suciu who together wrote both The Wolseley Helmet In Pictures from Omdurman to El Alamein and Military Sun Helmets of the world

While their focus is on military pith and sun helmets, this post (link below), was interesting as it shows an advertisement for helmets for the entire family and the article itself notes the line between military and civilian helmets gets fuzzy

http://www.militarysunhelmets.com/20...r-british-maid

Cheers ith:

Jamie

[Panache]

Interesting. Some erstwhile Rhodesian cousins led me to beleive a "Bombay Bowler" referred to a packable Panama hat such as this one

Here is another link from the same website on the Bombay Bowler

http://www.militarysunhelmets.com/20...-bombay-bowler

Cheers

Jamie

[Nathan]

You're asking great questions @BadenochWolf, in fact, there was considerable discussion between @CMcG and myself about whether to include the picture of @Panache (EDIT: I should have written @Tobus) in a pith helmet in the THCD thread. Ultimately, it was chosen as an example of a sensible adaptation to a non-Highland climate. We were trying to illustrate that THCD isn't quite as rigid as some think, so long as there's a sensible explanation for deviation from the conventional choice.

In the case of a shoelace-necked pirate shirt, it serves no function that a more traditional button down shirt does not serve. It is no cooler or more comfortable than a modern shirt worn with the neck open. It is likely less cool than the short sleeved variety.Moreover, it is actually featured in the wardrobe of the movie Brigadoon and its popularity followed the popularity of the film and Broadway production. To my mind it is, therefore, perhaps the very definition of Brigadoonery.In answer to the title of your thread, "who decides?" the answer is the Highland Scots. They alone get to decide what is and is not traditional where they live and if most of the kilt wearers among them would look upon a garment or look as nontraditional, it is.

There's not much external logic to it. An idea or garment has been accepted and adopted or it has been rejected. Sometimes it has just been ignored. The members of xmarksthescot.com came up an acronym to help clarify discussions around what is perceived as traditional civilian attire for kilted civilians by kilt wearing Highlanders with a family tradition of doing so who live in the Highlands but the members of this website are not the final arbiters of what is or is not THCD. In short, we are mere scribes studying and explaining a culture and perhaps even influencing it (time will tell) but not directing it.In the case of the pseudo Jacobite shirt, it has been pretty much rejected by traditionalists in the Highlands as a poor idea. It looks historical but isn't. One can be just as comfortable in a shirt of their own era, so why the pageantry? The answer for "why the pith helmet?" goes back to my sensible deviation from convention point. A wool bonnet is a terrible choice in the Arabian or Indian sun. Something lighter with a little shade makes sense. @Panache lives in California where the sun gets pretty hot compared to Badenoch, so he may have chosen a logical garment with a kilted precedent over say a cowboy hat which would serve the same function but be more incongruous due to its iconic Western status.Does that help any?

[Grizzled Ian]

If I wear one of the so-called "ghillie shirts", it's not because I am trying to emulate a historical or piratical look. It is because it is a very comfortable and practical garment, loose and cool, and made of natural fibre, and it keeps the sun off my arms - an important consideration in Australia.

It is outside the context of the three classifications of kilted attire discussed at length elsewhere on the forum. (I've lost track of the most recent nomenclature, but if I indicate with Traditional/Historical/Contemporary, I think most will understand that context.) I am not seriously suggesting a fourth classification - hang it, most days I wear my kilt of the day with what suits the day - but in my mind, I am dressed in "plain, everyday kilted attire", and, as long as my clothing 1. is socially acceptable, and 2. is neat, then I don't lose any energy stressing about whether I am dressed correctly.

T'ink about dat one, as Guru Bob might say.