vintage kilt with drawers on Ebay

[freddie]

The braces/suspenders issue is confusing me too. I think all men wore them at that time, but on your underpants???!!!!!

[Chas]

We are making some assumptions that might not hold true.

The Duke of Windsor's underwear used to button into his trousers. He put the two on together and regardless of how strenuous the exercise he undertook, his underpants would never ride up.

It might very well be possible that the same goes for these kilt drawers. It was also quite standard at one time for men to tuck their T shirts or singlets into their underpants.

It wasn't that long ago when most clothing was individually tailored, so it is possible that these drawers were made to fit a particular set of braces (suspenders).

As it is the waist sizes are quite different, so I don't think that they originally went together.

Regards

Chas

[Elf]

The braces/suspenders issue is confusing me too. I think all men wore them at that time, but on your underpants???!!!!!

Pardon me for a minute, comparing this to saxon wear. Historically underdrawers with trousers had loops or holes to catch into the braces/suspenders and thereby hold them up along with the trousers. The shirt remember was knee lenght and considered underwear. It would be tucked up between the legs and held there by the trousers. Obviously the shirt had to go under the underdrawers. Oftimes habits continue long after the reason for them is moot. Sorry if this is revealing too much.

[Laird_M]

Personally, I find it quite bizare myself, but maybe the gent cycled in his kilt and didn't want to offend?

[Tobus]

I find it odd that some people claim these were "common", yet no one can explain how they work or how they're worn!

And when I try to work it out in my own head, I can't help but think it's like a tartan version of this:

[neloon]

Tartan undertrews were not just common, they were almost universal, two pairs being automatically supplied by kiltmakers prior to the Second War. Of course, they were not comfortable but people didn't expect clothing to be all that comfortable in those days. They originated in the army.

[Leoghan]

i might even think the trews under the kilt was a very common thing even in the early days of the kilt. many of the descriptions giving of the 16th century scots do mention trews and there long cloak witch could be neatly tucked up in belt for travel. or simply says the simplest of covering for there lower then goes on to describe shirt and cloak/brat/kilt.
for a while i have thought that going regimental was a rather new thing.
but im sure there is better historians here who can say more.

[neloon]

"even in the early days of the kilt. "
Oh, indeed, when the kilt was invented around 1580, Highlanders were wearing "femoralia simplicissima" = shorts of the simplest kind. The kilt was an OVERgarment and went on top of these so that they became "undertrews" though, of course, they were not underwear. It was still quite common in my young day for boys and men to remove their kilts in public when circumstances warranted since there was nothing embarassing about what was underneath.

[Tobus]

Tartan undertrews were not just common, they were almost universal, two pairs being automatically supplied by kiltmakers prior to the Second War. Of course, they were not comfortable but people didn't expect clothing to be all that comfortable in those days. They originated in the army.

I thought the army required the kilt to be worn 'regimental' style? I guess I don't understand how tartan undergarments would have originated in the army if they weren't allowed to be worn. Or is the whole military 'regimental' requirement just a myth?

I could see them being used for formal affairs like military balls where ladies might be present, though, so that could explain it...

[neloon]

The so-called "regimental" tradition applied only to private soldiers (i.e. the lowest rank - not the officers and pipers) and only on active service to reduce the difficulties of drying laundry round a camp fire. But in the freezing trenches pf the First War, even private soldiers (my father was one) were issued with woollen undertrews to be worn on the say-so of the medical officer.* The kilt has not been worn on active service since 1940 and for ceremonial duties nowadays there is no "regimental" requirement - it would probably be regarded as an infringment of a soldier's human rights!!

*I believe that, in uniform lists, they were called "drawers, short".
Pictures show them being worn behind the lines while kilts were being de-loused and my father said they were always worn when travelling home on leave.