A jabot that is not a shade of white (and questions related to that concept)

[CeilidhDoc]

Slainte Jock

[Andrews Son]

The jabot is a remnant of the original tying together of a white linen shirt. Linen was used as I understand it, because it could be bleached. Being white was a sign of cleanliness, something the upper classes affected because they could afford to do so. The aspiring middle class copied that aspiration in both cleanliness and whiteness, thus bleach.

As a matter of history, the white that you see on my clerical collar was merely a bleached, starched, white linen band that was worn by those who could read and write - clerks, clarks, or clerics.

Whiteness therefore was the sign of a gentleman, while other colours were the signs of the illiterate, the poor, or the ill-bred.

I read somewhere about wedding dresses as well only the rich went for white as washing machines werent as good back then
But when cleaning products were introduced the 'commoners' naturally wanted white.

[CeilidhDoc]

No worries Bill!

I very much appreciate all the input. It is extremely helpful. Having not grown up in a family of kilt wearers this forum is an amazing resource.

(*Pulls out a quaich to offer a wee dram*)

Slainte!

[Father Bill]

Slainte indeed! int:

[Jock Scot]

Just an observation Bill. I actually think that you raise in interesting point. I quite accept that we cannot expect a newcommer to realise just how thin the ice may be, as in this case, but your earlier reply does perfectly show the impatience that the traditionalists have with those that do know the form------well, at least enough to know what is what and still insist on the "I shall still dress as I b-------well please" attitude whilst still believing that they are still dressing traditionally, when they quite obviously are not.

[Phil]

Just an observation Bill. I actually think that you raise in interesting point. I quite accept that we cannot expect a newcommer to realise just how thin the ice may be, as in this case, but your earlier reply does perfectly show the impatience that the traditionalists have with those that do know the form------well, at least enough to know what is what and still insist on the "I shall still dress as I b-------well please" attitude whilst still believing that they are still dressing traditionally, when they quite obviously are not.

Exactly, Jock. When it comes to casual dress a kilt matches up perfectly with a pullover or perhaps a tweed jacket and, if a more casual look is required why not a t-shirt? Shoes can be trainers or boots with scrunched down hose and there is nothing wrong with that. When it domes to the likes of jabots, however, we are definitely going formal and, as such, certain rules apply. Otherwise why not just turn up in jeans and offend everybody?

[Liam]

Hi CeilidhDoc!

As my good friend Jock has intimated above, I think it was I more than you, who stirred things up by my unusual bluntness. You posted reasonable questions. What you did not know (and it is always wise and thoughtful to ask when you don't know, so you were quite right and reasonable to do so) is that a jabot is technically not actually neckware but rather a representative bit or piece of what once was a "tie-off" for a shirt.

I think your questions were reasonable in the absence of information to the contrary, but to review them, yes some men dislike the lace because it is lace. Changing the colour doesn't change that much for many of them, and no, black lace is not equivalent to black tie since the jabot isn't a tie nor ireally an ancestor of a tie. The concept of colour just introduces an unusually novel approach to the concept of formality which would likely grate on the sensibilities of many of those who are familiar with formality (and unfortunately I'm one of those, thus my strong reaction. )

A jabot by its nature, regardless of colour, would be an indication of the most formal level. Were it not white, it would be viewed by many as merely pretentious, ignorant, or perhaps even obnoxious. They wouldn't likely say anything, but their contempt could stick to the wearer long afterwards. MacLowlife's well-humoured response outlines some of the pitfalls associated with that.

No, coloured jabots do not, to the best of my knowledge have any highland precedent. The reason has to do with the bleaching as I've discussed above once I crawled back under my more usual rock.

You beg forgiveness; none is necessary. It is I who should have been more thoughtful and cautious in my response, so I ask yours instead. I hope that I haven't dampened your enthusiasm for either highlandwear, nor for XMarks - you sure get an answer here when you ask here!

Meanwhile, you've indicated that you love and respect the tradition, something of which I'm respectful. You and others will wear what you will, but the concern of many of us who are traditionalists is that as "new and different" is tried out, the kilt is nudged towards being a hallowe'en costume. Those of us who love the old traditions as you do, always feel badly when this happens.

Again, my apologies for my curt approach, and I hope that your questions have been answered with greater respect than I showed there.

Always yours,

Bill+

Well said Padre!

[TheOfficialBren]

Hi CeilidhDoc!

As my good friend Jock has intimated above, I think it was I more than you, who stirred things up by my unusual bluntness. You posted reasonable questions. What you did not know (and it is always wise and thoughtful to ask when you don't know, so you were quite right and reasonable to do so) is that a jabot is technically not actually neckware but rather a representative bit or piece of what once was a "tie-off" for a shirt.

I think your questions were reasonable in the absence of information to the contrary, but to review them, yes some men dislike the lace because it is lace. Changing the colour doesn't change that much for many of them, and no, black lace is not equivalent to black tie since the jabot isn't a tie nor ireally an ancestor of a tie. The concept of colour just introduces an unusually novel approach to the concept of formality which would likely grate on the sensibilities of many of those who are familiar with formality (and unfortunately I'm one of those, thus my strong reaction. )

A jabot by its nature, regardless of colour, would be an indication of the most formal level. Were it not white, it would be viewed by many as merely pretentious, ignorant, or perhaps even obnoxious. They wouldn't likely say anything, but their contempt could stick to the wearer long afterwards. MacLowlife's well-humoured response outlines some of the pitfalls associated with that.

No, coloured jabots do not, to the best of my knowledge have any highland precedent. The reason has to do with the bleaching as I've discussed above once I crawled back under my more usual rock.

You beg forgiveness; none is necessary. It is I who should have been more thoughtful and cautious in my response, so I ask yours instead. I hope that I haven't dampened your enthusiasm for either highlandwear, nor for XMarks - you sure get an answer here when you ask here!

Meanwhile, you've indicated that you love and respect the tradition, something of which I'm respectful. You and others will wear what you will, but the concern of many of us who are traditionalists is that as "new and different" is tried out, the kilt is nudged towards being a hallowe'en costume. Those of us who love the old traditions as you do, always feel badly when this happens.

Again, my apologies for my curt approach, and I hope that your questions have been answered with greater respect than I showed there.

Always yours,

Bill+

Father Bill,

We are all human. I have suffered from Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome on many occasions, several in recent memory.

You are still our same Father Bill+.

[Highlander31]

Hi CeilidhDoc!

As my good friend Jock has intimated above, I think it was I more than you, who stirred things up by my unusual bluntness. You posted reasonable questions. What you did not know (and it is always wise and thoughtful to ask when you don't know, so you were quite right and reasonable to do so) is that a jabot is technically not actually neckware but rather a representative bit or piece of what once was a "tie-off" for a shirt.

I think your questions were reasonable in the absence of information to the contrary, but to review them, yes some men dislike the lace because it is lace. Changing the colour doesn't change that much for many of them, and no, black lace is not equivalent to black tie since the jabot isn't a tie nor ireally an ancestor of a tie. The concept of colour just introduces an unusually novel approach to the concept of formality which would likely grate on the sensibilities of many of those who are familiar with formality (and unfortunately I'm one of those, thus my strong reaction. )

A jabot by its nature, regardless of colour, would be an indication of the most formal level. Were it not white, it would be viewed by many as merely pretentious, ignorant, or perhaps even obnoxious. They wouldn't likely say anything, but their contempt could stick to the wearer long afterwards. MacLowlife's well-humoured response outlines some of the pitfalls associated with that.

No, coloured jabots do not, to the best of my knowledge have any highland precedent. The reason has to do with the bleaching as I've discussed above once I crawled back under my more usual rock.

You beg forgiveness; none is necessary. It is I who should have been more thoughtful and cautious in my response, so I ask yours instead. I hope that I haven't dampened your enthusiasm for either highlandwear, nor for XMarks - you sure get an answer here when you ask here!

Meanwhile, you've indicated that you love and respect the tradition, something of which I'm respectful. You and others will wear what you will, but the concern of many of us who are traditionalists is that as "new and different" is tried out, the kilt is nudged towards being a hallowe'en costume. Those of us who love the old traditions as you do, always feel badly when this happens.

Again, my apologies for my curt approach, and I hope that your questions have been answered with greater respect than I showed there.

Always yours,

Bill+

Well said, Father Bill.

[AFS1970]

I think it would be impossible for me to have a "take on tradition". Either something is traditional or it is not. It really does not matter if that tradition is 10, 100 or 1,000 years old, the very word means passed down from one generation to the next. There is nothing stopping me from wearing whatever I want, but it is not my place to declare it traditional, even in part.

I have seen a few black and red jabots, mostly in the goth/vampire scenes. One thing I think I would not here is that rarely have I seen those worn with a coat and if they are it is not a black coat. I think that to wear a black jabot with traditional highland wear (which almost always includes a black coat) it would get lost and really end up not being either traditional or esthetically pleasing. The photo's showing other colors added in, show them with a dark green montrose and the black one gets lost and the red one looks almost comical.

Recently I was invited to a formal political event, that was listed as black tie optional. I did not attend but saw many pictures and all I can say is that the variety of what was worn was quite broad. I would assume such an invitation to mean black tie, and if not something dark and relatively formal. The number of brightly colored and patterned ties (for those that bothered with them) and the number of light colored jackets really showed that even in saxon dress, we have lost touch with any sense of formality.