Kilt Length ?

[kc8ufv]

I was always told that when kneeling the front apron should just touch the ground. When standing it will be halfway down the kneecap. That supposedly is the "traditional" way.

There are no rules to the wearing of trousers (pants) but I think that those who wear them halfway down their backside or the older generation who pull them up past their navel or those who show a few inches of ankle don't look right and in some cases stupid. I feel the same about the wearing of the kilt. Each to their own but expect to be criticised or in some cases ridiculed especially by those outside their peer group.

I think with trousers, there are 2 things to look at - generally, (from my POV) the beltline (for us guys) should be about at the hip, and the bottom of the pants varies a little based on footgear. I regularly wear boots, so my pants are a little shorter than if I were wearing shoes. It's rather dificult for me to find pants that look right on me wearing shoes, they tend to either be made too long (where the back is dragging the ground) or they are too short where you can clearly see my ankles (but works just fine with my boots).

[JSFMACLJR]

I think with trousers, there are 2 things to look at - generally, (from my POV) the beltline (for us guys) should be about at the hip, and the bottom of the pants varies a little based on footgear. I regularly wear boots, so my pants are a little shorter than if I were wearing shoes. It's rather dificult for me to find pants that look right on me wearing shoes, they tend to either be made too long (where the back is dragging the ground) or they are too short where you can clearly see my ankles (but works just fine with my boots).

Just a thought...trousers can be altered.

[Tobus]

Just a thought...trousers can be altered.

Indeed. I had the same problem for years. My inseam is an odd length, at 31". It's hard to find off-the-rack trousers in that length. So now I just buy them long and hem them to my custom length. It's very easily done, with no need to even pay a tailor or seamstress to do it. The ideal length is for the hem to fall just at the top of the heel of the shoe when standing straight.

I wish kilts were that easy to do! Then I could actually buy off-the-peg kilts and make them fit me!

[kc8ufv]

Indeed. I had the same problem for years. My inseam is an odd length, at 31". It's hard to find off-the-rack trousers in that length. So now I just buy them long and hem them to my custom length. It's very easily done, with no need to even pay a tailor or seamstress to do it. The ideal length is for the hem to fall just at the top of the heel of the shoe when standing straight.

I wish kilts were that easy to do! Then I could actually buy off-the-peg kilts and make them fit me!

I didn't say they couldn't be altered. (about half my pants are) I just tend to wear my boots more as they are more comfortable, especially since I am usually on my feet all day.

[English Bloke]

When we were all on the lash in the local Pubs of Dumfries during the Burns weekend of 2010, Dee (starbkjrus) from Washington DC was wearing his Kilt at the traditional highland length, ie. slightly above the knee, as described by Jock Scot in the posts and links above.

During the evening he was approached by some local (lowland) chaps who informed him his kilt was too high and that he was wearing it all wrong, they seeming to think that mid knee at the highest or just below knee was the current norm for Kilt wearing in Scotland and that wearing his Kilt in such a way identified him as American. I've also seen younger Scots who wear their Kilt an inch or two below their knee which would substantiate the current trend to wear Kilts lower than the older (no disrepect) generation but then 'yoof' also seem to wear their trousers in a most unusual way... Just reinforces Jock's point that it's the Highland way and not Scotland in general that one should follow if you wish to be traditional.

Me personally? I wear mine mid knee but only because I think it looks better on ME that way (I have shocking knees ). I don't create issue with anyone who ploughs a different furrow. I think you should wear it where you find it most comfortable.


Just thought I'd add this picture so you can see where my kilt usually breaks... each to their own I guess.

[Peter Lowe]

This thread has pictures with the kilt at or just above the knee cap. I am sure that is the way the kilt was worn at the time. In those days it was worn, mostly, standing up or sitting in predoniately male company (Military Mess etc).

In modern times (1900 on) the military adopted the rule of kneel down and the kilt was just above the ground.

I would therefore suggest that the modern kilt should touch the kneecap. While a bit longer than "in the beginning" it makes the modern kilt a more practical garment especially when sitting down.

Ultimately it is a matter of personal preference. Personally I "aim" for the middle of the kneecap. I feel that below the knee is too long and practicality and comfort defines how "short" one can wear it!

Each to his own, I say!

Peter

[Tobus]

In modern times (1900 on) the military adopted the rule of kneel down and the kilt was just above the ground.

I would therefore suggest that the modern kilt should touch the kneecap.

Personally, I don't place any importance on military standards. The kilt started as a civilian garment. Many of the traditions today, of course, came from the fact that the only kilts worn during proscription were worn in military service. But that doesn't mean we have to accept that as "the rule". I actually prefer to see kilt-wearing in the older civilian manner.

I started off wearing mine at mid-knee. But following Jock Scot's advice, I adjusted to where I now aim for the top of the knee or perhaps just a fuzz higher. It's much more comfortable, makes things proportionally more appealing, and shows off my bonnie knees to all the ladies!

[Dr Mac]

Just .02 worth more fwiw...
since it's a matter of preference anyway, I prefer my kilt edge to touch the middle of the kneecap, and hose to come up to three-fingers width below the knee.
What seems so prevalent is no knee nor shin showing at all... with the hose pulled up under the long-ish kilt.
I know, I know the mantra: "to each his own."

[kilted scholar]

It seems that the overwhelming consensus on this forum is that Prince Charles, inter alia Duke of Rothesay, is the very model of a modern sartorially correct kiltwearer. The pictures on the first couple of pages of the thread relating to him (search: Duke of Rothesay) taken from his adult years show him wearing the kilt to roughly the middle of the kneecap.

I would take it that this is more of an accurate guide than a letter from a man who, writing in 2002, was then 70 years past his schooldays, and so would - if alive today - be in his nineties.

[JSFMACLJR]

It seems that the overwhelming consensus on this forum is that Prince Charles, inter alia Duke of Rothesay, is the very model of a modern sartorially correct kiltwearer. The pictures on the first couple of pages of the thread relating to him (search: Duke of Rothesay) taken from his adult years show him wearing the kilt to roughly the middle of the kneecap.

I would take it that this is more of an accurate guide than a letter from a man who, writing in 2002, was then 70 years past his schooldays, and so would - if alive today - be in his nineties.

That is assuming an awful lot, Kilted Scholar. I agree that the Duke of Rothesay is well dressed, but is he the only well dressed Scot? I agree with the letter writer: the kilt is worn too long by too many people. Even the Duke of Rothesay's kilts by some standards might be considered a wee bit too long: take a look around at some of the photographs of his grandfather the late King.