Irish kilt books

[M. A. C. Newsome]

It would be reasonable for someone writing in the 19th century to have concluded that Irish kilts were a new thing and not historical. Newsflash, it's the 21st century, now folks! Treating something that originated in the 19th century as not historical is like treating Queen Victoria as if she were still on the throne. Perhaps some people think she is, LOL! Better cover the table legs, lest they should inflame your passions.

When folks like me say there is no "historical" evidence for "Irish kilts" what we mean is that there is no reason in the historical record to believe that the kilt ever formed part of the native Irish dress. Kilts were not part of Irish fashion. They were never worn by any significant number of Irish men. For a time they were worn by a relatively small sub-set of Irish nationalists in an attempt to define a "national costume" but this was not entirely successful, as the article shows.

[opositive]

sarcasm failed me once again. the kilt has become identified with the irish in the u.s., even though the kilt is not really native irish garb nor ever widely accepted as such in ireland. the kilt is traditional, historical garb in scotland. nevertheless, the irish historical society police pipe band that played at a conference i attended last month in norwood, mass. wore kilts. the american experience/tradition is different from ireland and scotland--that's what i meant to say.

[macwilkin]

When folks like me say there is no "historical" evidence for "Irish kilts" what we mean is that there is no reason in the historical record to believe that the kilt ever formed part of the native Irish dress. Kilts were not part of Irish fashion. They were never worn by any significant number of Irish men. For a time they were worn by a relatively small sub-set of Irish nationalists in an attempt to define a "national costume" but this was not entirely successful, as the article shows.

Spot on, Matt. The point of the article was not to imply that the Irish were "wrong" in wearing kilts, but to simply address the "old chestnut" that the Irish wore the kilt in the mists of antiquity. If we wanted to deny that the 19th century adoption of the kilt by Irish nationalists and Irish regiments in the British Army, we would have simply not written the article.

Sometimes, the reality of the historical record is just as fascinating as the well-known myth.

T.

[O'Callaghan]

When folks like me say there is no "historical" evidence for "Irish kilts" what we mean is that there is no reason in the historical record to believe that the kilt ever formed part of the native Irish dress. Kilts were not part of Irish fashion. They were never worn by any significant number of Irish men. For a time they were worn by a relatively small sub-set of Irish nationalists in an attempt to define a "national costume" but this was not entirely successful, as the article shows.

You said "it is without historical basis". A correct statement would have been "it WAS without historical basis" in the 19th century. But there is a historical basis now, you see, from those Irish nationalists who wore the kilt in the late 19th century and early 20th century. The facts are not seriously in dispute, but there was still an incorrect statement in your post. Call it nit-picking or even a matter of the grammar police correcting your tense, but I find it too irritating not to say anything.

ETA: Change IS to WAS and I will stop complaining.

[OC Richard]

You said "it is without historical basis"...there is a historical basis now...

If the argument is that "history" is anything prior the the present moment, then I could sew up a kilt out of fuschia neoprene and the moment it is completed it is an historical garment, if you will excuse an absurd example that makes the point.

We all know the facts and we all know what Matt meant, that the kilt had no ancient traditional existence in Ireland.

"History" means an account or record of what happened in the past and sadly there are large chunks of Scotland's and Ireland's past which were never recorded. The costume of Scotland and Ireland is one of those areas and there isn't much "history" to go on. McClintock gathers all the evidence which was available to him at that time.

[macwilkin]

If the argument is that "history" is anything prior the the present moment, then I could sew up a kilt out of fuschia neoprene and the moment it is completed it is an historical garment, if you will excuse an absurd example that makes the point.

We all know the facts and we all know what Matt meant, that the kilt had no ancient traditional existence in Ireland.

"History" means an account or record of what happened in the past and sadly there are large chunks of Scotland's and Ireland's past which were never recorded. The costume of Scotland and Ireland is one of those areas and there isn't much "history" to go on. McClintock gathers all the evidence which was available to him at that time.

Originally, the artist Seán Keating headed up a committee to design a uniform in a suitably modern-but-Celtic style, as was the general artistic bent of the Irish state at the time. Keating’s design called for a saffron léine tunic with six rows of black braid, black cuffs, a blue brat cloak, pantaloons, and a black Balmoral bonnet with saffron feather.



See: http://www.andrewcusack.com/2010/04/...-blue-hussars/

T.

[Chas]

See: http://www.andrewcusack.com/2010/04/...-blue-hussars/

T.

Todd, thanks for the great link. It brought back a lot of memories of my early days in the RAF. It was only about 10 years ago that the RAF closed down its Recruiting Office in Dublin. It was one of the five great prestige postings and much sought after. Happy Days.

Regards

Chas

[O'Callaghan]

If the argument is that "history" is anything prior the the present moment, then I could sew up a kilt out of fuschia neoprene and the moment it is completed it is an historical garment, if you will excuse an absurd example that makes the point.

We all know the facts and we all know what Matt meant, that the kilt had no ancient traditional existence in Ireland.

"History" means an account or record of what happened in the past and sadly there are large chunks of Scotland's and Ireland's past which were never recorded. The costume of Scotland and Ireland is one of those areas and there isn't much "history" to go on. McClintock gathers all the evidence which was available to him at that time.

If you think the 19th century was five minutes ago you must be very old, that's all I can say!

[Kiltedmedic]

I recently had the pleasure of listening to a native American/Scot musician Arven Bird. He has an interesting take on tradition. He talks about when he performs at pow-wows and such many other native Americans question why he plays the fiddle and not a "traditional" instrument. His answer is "At what point does something become traditional?" The fiddle was introduced to America 400+ years ago.
It seems to me that if this forum were around 300 years ago (the era of Queen Victorias reported obsession with all things Scot)some people could argue that there is no historical basis for the Scots to be wearing kilts and argueing instead that it was the Roman Legions that first wore an bifurcated garment.

It is time to accept that the kilt is a Pan-Celtic-American garment. Just as the Native American headdress (initially NOT worn by all "Indians") and tee pee have become Pan-Naitve American symbols.

[Nick the DSM]

It is time to accept that the kilt is a Pan-Celtic-American garment. Just as the Native American headdress (initially NOT worn by all "Indians") and tee pee have become Pan-Naitve American symbols.

To be blount, why? For native Americans to fill in a false stereotype? For Irish-Americans to wear something they won't feel comfortable till they know they can "legally" wear it?