Please explain...

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

This is a perfectly good definition, as far as it goes, but some kilts, as mentioned earlier, are not made from tartan cloth, and there are skirts made from tartan cloth that are not kilts. Utilikilts on the other hand are pleated at the back, but are not made from tartan cloth. So how do we decide whether or not they're "descended from the wollen plaid worn by the highlanders from early times"? The only way I can see is to enumerate the characteristics of a kilt, and see how they differ from other forms of dress. That way, we'll be able to tell if a garment has the proper characteristics to count as a kilt.

I've agreed all along that a kilt doesn't have to be cut from tartan. And if you'll look at the definition, you'll see that it says the kilt is part of men's highland attire, so obviously a woman's skirt could never be a kilt by definition or design. It might look kind of like a kilt, but by no stretch of the imagination could it be considered part of a man's highland attire.

Setting aside velcro, lift the dot fasteners, and all the rest of the gubbins associated with the "contemporary" wrap around garment, it would seem that there are two, possibly three significant differences. (1) the traditional kilt has a lack of pockets. (2) the traditonal kilt is thickly pleated at the back. (3) the traditional kilt is a tailored garment. By tailored I mean shaped, not cut like a pleated sack that wraps around the waist.

I think we can all agree that traditional kilts don't have cargo pockets, or any pockets at all. I will admit that possibly a very few kilts have been made in the past with concealed pockets (usually in the waistband) but by and large on a kilt, pockets there ain't.

Now it's possible to split hairs over what "thickly pleated" means, but I think it is pretty much self-evident that "contemporaries" aren't exactly "thickly pleated", and many have pleats that continue "beyond the back" of the garment giving it a "ladies tennis skirt" look.

I will concede that there's good tailoring (custom kilts) and not so good tailoring (off the rack kilts made in some foreign sweat shop). But traditional kilts are cut to three or four basic measurments: waist; hips; rump, and overall length. A "contemporary" rarely concerns itself with more than waist and length, hence it's "towel around the waist" look and fit.

So how do we decide if the "contemporary" is "descended from the woollen plaid worn by the highlanders from early times"? Quite easily. Look at the history of the development of the traditional kilt:

1822. King George IV comes to Scotland and the kilt undergoes a virtual rennaisance. Pockets were not unknown at this time in Great Britain, but fail to to be included in kilts (perhaps, due to the rush to get everyone kilted in time for the king's vist they were omitted).

1848. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert lease a castle in Scotland and the kilt industry goes into overdrive. Still "no pockets" but this is possibly because the industrious Scottish Victorians do not wish to be seen with their hands in their pockets while somebody else builds the British Empire.

1901. Edward VII ascends the throne, and despite having big pockets put on virtually all of his jackets (to accommodate his smoking requesites) pockets still don't feature on kilts.

1910. George V ascends the throne and has a suit cut from Leslie tartan, pockets and all. Despite this, pockets still aren't seen on kilts.

1922. Edward, Prince of Wales is named the best dressed man in the world (a title he will hold longer than King). Despite inspiring trend setting changes in all manner of men's clothing, and playing the bag pipes, he leaves the kilt well enough alone and doesn't monkey with it by the addition of pockets.

1939. George VI declares War on Germany. The German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, has been seen wearing lederhosen with pockets. In a patriotic fervor never before seen, Scotmen everywhere show their solidarity for King and Country by continuing to have their kilts made without pockets.

1945-1953. Because of post-war rationing suits are no longer supplied with two pair of trousers, and kilts are not fitted with pockets.

1953. Princess Elizabeth ascends the throne as Elizabeth II. As Her Majesty never carries any money, loyal Scots can see no reason for pockets to be cut into kilts either.

So, for at least 131 years kilts met the strict definition of a kilt, and went through little or no changes other than to the style of pleating.

But not so the "contemporary" wrap around garment. It's actual origins are shrouded in the murky mists that surround the rag trade. Some suggest that it is the result of an unemployed itinerant pleater eeking out a living turning used jeans into mini-skirts in the 1970s, while others suggest an even darker past, involving surplus army cargo pants following the Falklands War...

Whatever its origins, it is a recent phenomenon and like my dog Oswald, "contemporaries" fall short of being any sort of "pure bred pup". That doesn't mean they're not likeable or useful. It just means that they're different, and shouldn't be judged by or held to the same standard as the traditional kilt. They are fine for messing about in the great out of doors, mowing the lawn, or doing any sort of task that you would do in jeans-- and that includes going to the pub for a pint.

Perhaps their greatest virtue is that ownership of a "contemporary" does often encourage someone to buy a real kilt. And that has to be a win-win situation for all involved.