Dressing for a wedding

[Chas]

Probably, yes. But being clergy, you can dress it way down with no vest, no lace, and a black clerical shirt. At that point it no longer looks nearly as "gussy."

Unless the design of a Montrose has changed very recently, it is not worn with a vest anyway and a black clerical shirt would also not be seen. Unless, of course, you are advocating wearing it unbuttoned. If that were the case, then the look would be at the other end of the spectrum - somewhere between sloppy and slovenly.

[Father Bill]

My very sincere apologies - that was very stupid of me. I was thinking of a Sheriffmuir, NOT a Montrose.

[Chas]

My very sincere apologies - that was very stupid of me. I was thinking of a Sheriffmuir, NOT a Montrose.

I did wonder if it was the Sheriffmuir you meant - no probs.

[Sir Didymous]

The general run of the dress for persons in my age bracket will likely be smart day wear to business suit with some more dressed than others. The wedding is at 4:00pm with the reception following close after. I'm starting to lean toward the idea of either jacket and tie or clerical collar with the top of the doublet folded back. Oh, and just as a point of clarification: I was using the term neck stock in place of clerical collar. I still have a nasty habit if using terms specific to reenactment items.

[Father Bill]

Too early in the morning for my poor addled brain.

[Jock Scot]

Worry not Bill, at my age the addled brain syndrome works 24/7!

[Father Bill]

Thanks, Jock - I knew I could count on you for an encouraging smart crack!

[McMurdo]

I would not wear the Montrose especially if the dress of the guests will vary from shirt and tie to black tie. Your outfit is a white tie formal outfit and therefore it will be an anomaly even without the kilt. Ask yourself would you wear white tie and tails? If so then by all means wear the montrose, however if not then I would seriously back away from that idea. If it were me I would wear an Argyll jacket.