Great Kilt worn as formal attire

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I read the first few posts in this thread, and then didn't check in again until now, and have just read page 4. From the content and tone, I can guess at what pages 2 and 3 will say. :-)

I just wanted to comment again, since my pic has been posted.

That is, indeed, me wearing a bona fide breacan feilidh to a formal evening function. (Actually, taken in my living room before leaving to said function). It was an experiment I decided to try out. Can the historic belted plaid be made to suit modern highland formal attire?

The event was a Burns Supper. The tone of the particular supper is pretty low key. Most men in kilts are wearing Prince Charlies or black Argyles. Most men not in kilts will be in suits, or a sportscoat. Nothing fancy. So I felt comfortable trying out something new.

I have to say first of all that I got a lot of compliments on this outfit. If anyone had anything negative to say, they kept it to themselves. That being said, that was the first and last time I wore that ensemble.

Why? Well, despite getting loads of compliments, I was not comfortable in it. I had worn a breacan feilidh many, many times previous, but all in the context of historical reenacting. To my mind, I just couldn't get past the notion that I was wearing a piece of historical dress, and I felt more like I was wearing a costume than clothing.

Secondly, the dang thing was just too much. I was spending the majority of the evening sitting in a chair around a table eating dinner, and all the folds and drapes of the cloth just kept getting in my way. (Same reason I never wear a fly plaid, I suppose).

Thirdly, while I think the natural folds of a breacan feilidh look just fine in the context of an historical event, for modern formal attire people generally want their kilts to look nice and neatly pressed, and I just was not going to go through all that trouble with my feilidh-mor.

At the end of the day, I simply decided that the neat, trim, tailored look of a modern kilt worked better for this sort of thing than an historical feilidh-mor. And so I took that same cloth and made it into a modern tailored knife pleated kilt for myself, which I got much more wear out of, before I eventually sold it to a piper friend of mine.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

[Jack Daw]

Except for the choice of tie, shirt and PC, I think the great kilt, as you have put it together, looks just that - great.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

The logical extension of David's and MoR's arguments is that the box-pleated, Kingussie-pleated, and other earlier and historic forms of the kilt should not be countenanced with current attire, and we should all limit ourselves to the 8 yd, knife-pleated tank - as that is what is accepted and worn in today's Scottish highlands. (I assume David has sold his box-pleats! )

I think everyone would agree that there are certainly elements of historic (or historic-inspired) dress which are perfectly acceptable, and perhaps even expected, with modern day Highland attire. I'm thinking not only of things such as pleating styles, but also gauntlet cuffs, tashes on doublets, the cut of certain doublet styles such as the Sherrifmuir, buckle brogues, certain sporran styles, bonnet styles, lace jabots, cravats, etc.

I have seen on numerous occasions clan chiefs wearing sporrans that are 200+ years old with modern Highland attire and it not only looks perfectly acceptable, but actually better than many modern day sporrans.

But on the other hand, I think we all can agree that other times wearing items of historic dress with modern Highland attire can lend a certain costumish look to the outfit.

So, how do we know what will work and what will not work? I think it takes a little trial and error, and may also be dependant upon the wearer's personality!

[Droid]

This thread interests me. If I have to choose, I'd side with those that say, "Yeah, wear a belted plaid to a formal event. If you look good and feel comfortable... why not?" I like the way the OP and Matt look where where a belted plaid as formal attire.

This sparked a question in my head, though. What aspects of fashion from the 1800's would look appropriate at a modern formal event according to English/American fashion. So, I looked up men's fashion of that time period. Tight breeches, coats with tails, ruffled shirts and silky ties. If I saw someone wearing clothes of that time period mixed with clothing of today, I'd think they were trying to impersonate Prince (the artist formally know as Prince).

So, now I see where some of you are coming form. To you, this may look costume-y because the two fashion periods are far apart. Sure, some aspects are the same, meaning the general look (pants, shirts, jackets) but the specific types of pants, cuts of jackets, material of the shirts differ so completely that mixing them looks silly.

I personally like the look of the belted plaid with formal wear, but, after looking further into it, I now also understand why some people don't like it.

[Woodsheal]

Box- and Kingussie-pleated kilts are latter-day revivals of historic forms contemporaneous with the belted-plaid. Leaving aside the "comfort factor", to accept the first two forms as acceptable with "modern" attire, and to reject the latter (as another possible "revival"), is an entirely inconsistent argument - which argument then falls flat on its face.

[Dale Seago]

Box- and Kingussie-pleated kilts are latter-day revivals of historic forms contemporaneous with the belted-plaid. Leaving aside the "comfort factor", to accept the first two forms as acceptable with "modern" attire, and to reject the latter (as another possible "revival"), is an entirely inconsistent argument - which argument then falls flat on its face.

I find it inconsistent too, which really seems to leave those against the idea with pretty much only, "But even though there was an overlap of perhaps anywhere up to a century where the great kilt and small kilt were both being worn, we kept wearing some form of small kilt up to the present and we don't wear the great kilt any more and therefore the great kilt with modern accoutrements looks weird and inappropriate and we don't like it".

Which also seems to me to be a perfectly valid contemporary Scottish cultural perspective.

[Woodsheal]

I find it inconsistent too, which really seems to leave those against the idea with pretty much only, "But even though there was an overlap of perhaps anywhere up to a century where the great kilt and small kilt were both being worn, we kept wearing some form of small kilt up to the present and we don't wear the great kilt any more and therefore the great kilt with modern accoutrements looks weird and inappropriate and we don't like it".

Ha! Indeed! Re: the folks who accept box- and kingussie-pleated kilts (but NOT the belted-plaid) it's even weirder: "We like and condone early, historic styles of kilts, just not the ones with those silly sections that go up your back and pin to your shoulder. Outrageous!"

Anyways, I've flogged this particular dead horse way too much....

[davidlpope]

Brian,

Thanks for the clarification on Matt wearing the Breacan Feile in the photo. I had erroneously thought this photo was taken after he sewed up the kilt.

Your line of reasoning seems to make sense in the abstract and I follow your logic, really, I do. Also, I find that my hands-down favorite kilts are 6yd knife-pleats because they are much more comfortable when wearing outside in warm weather all day, so I'm not averse to allowing good common sense to modify traditional practices when it makes sense.

That being said, the only kilt that I wear for evening events now is an 8yd knife-pleat, since it matches my Argyle hose. I have worn BP kilts for evening events in the past, but as my views have slowly evolved I've started paring down to only those kilts that I wear on a regular basis. I still have one remaining BP kilt, but haven't worn it for quite a while. While Kingussie and BP kilts may not be noticed as being different, I don't believe that they are "traditional" in the very narrow sense of the word. That doesn't mean that they aren't very nice kilts.

As far as the difference between them and the breacan feile, perhaps it's a matter of degree. While a Kingussie or BP may be out of the ordinary and not strictly "traditional", the breacan feile, for me, crosses the line well into historical "dress-up". Perhaps it's the fact that the Kingussie and the BP look like a "traditional" kilt from the front (the Kingussie looks a lot like a "traditional" kilt from the back, as well), whereas the breacan feile looks like a completely different beast, particularly with the excess fabric swagged around the upper torso. As I said, there are some folks who can pull of this look very well, but it's not one that I generally find attractive or traditional.

David

[Woodsheal]

One more thought! I hear what you're saying, David, and agree on the quite different "looks." I haven't tried the breacan feile with a modern ensemble as some of the others have. If I was to try it, I'd incorporate some modifications, in much the same way as our present-day BPs and Kingussies have been modified. I'd have the pleats stitched into place and pressed, to give a neat appearance. I'd want an internal strap-and-buckle installed, and belt-loops to hold everything in position (and to make it easier to put the thing on!). In other words, it would be a somewhat different animal than the 5 yards of tartan I belt into place for a reenactment! And a short-waisted jacket or doublet would be a must, of course.
Hell; now I'll be spending more money...!