Quote Originally Posted by Nervous Jock View Post
you're a bit heavy on the spoiling our heritage, These are the kilts that were introduced by the victorians, right?

I'd go with the line that it allows a whole bunch of folk to participate in kilt wearing who might just not do it otherwise, even if its just to the football or rugby. Expanding your audience is surely better than having it as expensive and perhaps appearing elitist.
I'm not a Scot, but Nervous Jock has several good points in this post.

The usual strict guidelines for a formal kilt describe one from the Celtic Revival of the 19th century. Perhaps George IV rather than Victoria, but now I'm the one who is nit-picking unnecessarily, LOL! It's in the nature of formal attire that it harks back to daywear of a bygone age. If you find the right period in history, top hats and tailcoats were worn on the streets. If you say that only a 19th century kilt is a real kilt, then it probably implies that you think kilts should only be worn for formal occasions.

Of course, kilts were historically worn casually as well as formally, and in centuries earlier than the 19th they were often worn longer or shorter than the 'proper' length (which was first established when they were worn in the British Army), invariably had less than eight yards of fabric (unless they were 'great' kilts), were commonly worn with the sporran off-centre, and were only ever held up by a belt. But, of course, those weren't 'real' kilts, LOL!

If they had had all the fabrics we have today, I doubt if they would all have been made of wool, either, and if they had had Velcro, I'm sure they would have used that too.

...and of course the Irish didn't begin wearing them until the Celtic Revival of the 19th century, but have never felt bound by Scottish conventions anyway.