Highlander Kilts, 7 Years War, Ohio Valley (Osprey Book)

[Bugbear]

I've been reading through another Osprey publication; not entirely for kilt related reasons, but the kilts and Highlanders are in there.
Tomahawk and Musket-French and Indian Raids in the Ohio Valley, by Rene Chartrand and Peter Dennis (Osprey, 2012).

In one place it says some of the Highland regiments started out with jackets that had no lapels; later being ordered to switch to jackets with lapels. That would be under General Forbes.

How exactly did the jackets not have lapels? It doesn't seem to explain.

[unixken]

I imagine one could take an old suit jacket or sport coat, fold the collar and the lapels toward the inside of the jacket, and try it on (with the collar and lapels folded inward toward the body), to get some idea what a jacket without lapels would look like.

[Bugbear]

Thanks.

So… like some of the doublets?

[Bugbear]

It also says separate plaids with belts were worn along with the kilt. I guess this means over the jacket. The book is not too clear on how this was done.

[Sir William]

Think of a high-necked waistcoat that would meet at the base of the neck. It would have 10-12 buttons.

There would be cuffs, about 5 inches deep. The color of the cuffs would be facing color of the regiment: Yellow for the 42nd Black Watch, changed in 1758 to dark blue, dark green for the 77th Montgomeries, and a light buff for the 78th Frasers.

At the beginning of the F&I War (Seven Years War) only field grade officers (major and above) had lapels. Around 1760 lapels were added for all ranks. These would be in the appropriate facing color, with appropriate colored lacing according to the metal of each regiment: Gold or yellow for the 42nd and 78th, silver or white for the 77th. Lacing would be on the cuffs, pocket flaps, and lapels.

I'm not certain what the book means by separate plaids as the Highland regiments in this period wore the great kilt. While the small kilt was worn later in the war as a field expediency, I've found no reference to a separate plaid being worn with it.

[Bugbear]

Thanks, Sir William.

I have looked at the two descriptions of the kilts again. I guess it could be read as the belted plaids being one piece. The way it is worded, it sounds like the top part is separate from the bottom, though, so it must be my misreading. It is a bit vague.

I guess the whole belted plaid is put on over the jacket, then? I don't understand how it could be done any other way without a big bunch of plaid lumped up under the jacket.

[Sir William]

Thanks, Sir William.

I have looked at the two descriptions of the kilts again. I guess it could be read as the belted plaids being one piece. The way it is worded, it sounds like the top part is separate from the bottom, though, so it must be my misreading. It is a bit vague.

I guess the whole belted plaid is put on over the jacket, then? I don't understand how it could be done any other way without a big bunch of plaid lumped up under the jacket.

I have the book at home but since I'm in Scotland at present I'm not able to refer to it. However, all my research into the Highland Regiments in the US (or Colonies as they were then) during the F&I War, indicates the great kilt was initially worn when they arrived, and then, due to the lessons learned during campaigning in the American woodlands in the Ohio and upper New York campaigns came about, the regiments began to use the little kilt in the field, leaving the great kilts to the parade ground. Some accounts indicate the great kilts themselves were actually turned into the little kilts (or philebegs). Essentially the same thing happened during the American Revolution when the great kilts were dropped in favor of both tartan and canvas trousers.

Again, I've seen nothing to indicate the great kilts were exchanged for small kilts with separate plaids during the 1750s.

[Bugbear]

Thanks. Ya, I don't think the book is saying the plaid was in too pieces, it was just vaguely written and kind of sounded like it.

I have to conclude the great kilt is being worn on the outside of the jacket; can't see any other way it is possible.
However, was the little kilt, once adopted, worn on the outside of the jacket, or did they start wearing the jacket over the little kilt?

[Dale Seago]

I have to conclude the great kilt is being worn on the outside of the jacket; can't see any other way it is possible.

Depends on jacket length, I'd say. I'm not sure about period jackets for a Scottish military unit, but the jackets worn by civilian Highlanders were cut a bit shorter than the same-style jackets worn "down south". In the first two pics in this old article, I'm wearing a 1740s (just slightly earlier than F & I) Highland-cut jacket and waistcoat, with a 18th-century style shirt and a linen neck stock, and a great kilt/feileadh mor.

In getting dressed, first the shirt and stock were put on, then the belted plaid over that with the long ends/corners tucked into the belt holding it around my waist. Then the waistcoat; dirk belt with dirk over the waistcoat; jacket over all that; then brought the hanging end of the plaid up to my shoulder and pinned it there with a brooch. (I have a personal theory about annular brooches coming into use by men around that time, but that's another matter entirely.)

Hope that's somewhat useful from a visualization standpoint.

[Bugbear]

Yes, thanks Dale, that does help. The book does say the jackets were short skirted. It's not too detailed, though.