Has anyone had a problem visiting The Vatican while kilted?

[NPG]

I'm not trying to offend here and I understand where you're coming from, but this line of thought in a casual setting kind of rubs against the grain of why the kilt was worn in the first place. And I'm talking about before the English banned it. It was practical, comfortable, warm in the winter, cool in the summer, and was worn befitting the case and setting. So I don't understand why there needs to be a strict limitation on how it's worn in casual settings. Sorry, but it's simply a barrier to the practicality of the thing. I understand in a formal setting to wear it right. No one should have a missing button on their shirt and sagging slacks at a wedding, but who cares outside of the VIP situation?

Now. I get that the Kilt also represents the struggle of the Scot against the Brits. And I understand what a symbol it is, but maybe it doesn't always have to be a symbol. A martyr you wear. I want to smile when I wear my kilt. I want to remember my Scotch/Irish working class heritage. I want to wear my kilt with as much form as I do function.

As for the OP, I'd think you're fine. But bring a pair of pants you can change into.

I'm not sure I understand your comments here. I took Jock's post to mean, that if you cannot wear a kilt properly due to restrictions placed by the venue you are going, then it is best not to wear the kilt. The kilt is not simply a pair of pants, for better or worse it is more than just a garment. But that is actually besides the point here. Shorts appear to be not an acceptable garment to be worn to the Vatican based on the dress code, they have no symbolism attached. If the OP were suggesting that to get around this they would wear their shorts down to their ankles I do not think any of us would be on board with that work-around. What Jock and other's are saying in my opinion is that don't sacrifice the proper wear of the kilt just to wear it some place it might not be appreciated.

[Peter Crowe]

Brit is a replacer for Englishman.

.

I am sorry but that is absolutely not the case! While many Scots have differing opinions on the state called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (not a subject allowed for discussion here), the noun Briton and adjective British properly refer to an inhabitant or native of the island of Great Britain which includes Scotland, England, and Wales and the small islands and island groups particularly associated with these three countries.

Some in Northern Ireland regard themselves as British and some as Irish (again political, and not a topic for this forum), but Northern Ireland while legally and constitutionally a part of the United Kingdom is not geographically a part of Great Britain. For the avoidance of doubt the Great in the name is a geographical description meaning big or bigger and not a value judgement. Its purpose is to distinguish the island of Great Britain from Brittany in France (Little or Smaller Britain).

As to the OP's question, wearing the kilt is okay in a great many places and contexts, but not everywhere and not in every context, I have worn mine for certain occasions all over the world, but when visiting a place held by many to be sacred I would strongly recommend staying within the bounds of local convention and wearing a pair of trousers.

[Saturday]

My point was that people outside of Britain refer to the English as Brits but don't refer to Scots or the Welsh as Brits.

As for in Scotland and Wales, I've always heard them refer to themselves as Scots or Welsh. I spend a lot of time online and never have I heard it anyt other way.

[Father Bill]

My point was that people outside of Britain refer to the English as Brits but don't refer to Scots or the Welsh as Brits.

As for in Scotland and Wales, I've always heard them refer to themselves as Scots or Welsh. I spend a lot of time online and never have I heard it anyt other way.

Well, speak for yourself then. I'm a person. I'm outside of Britain, and yes, on occasion, I refer to the group above as Brits. I don't know where you're getting these strange definitions.

[jthk]

For What it is worth, my 2 cents,

I understand the desire to wear your kilt. But the last thing you'll ever want to do in an unfamiliar place is to mark yourself as a tourist. That makes you a target for any number of petty crimes, or even worse crimes. In these times, your best bet is to blend as best you can.

A friend of mine, who was stationed in the UK, said that the easiest way to tell who was a tourist from the US, was to look at their shoes or their pants. New shoes, and new blue jeans may seem like a good idea when travelling, (who doesn't want to put on a good face when out), but that will mark you as a tourist and possibly a target in many places in the world.

There is no need to draw any more attention to yourself than is absolutely necessary.

While I can understand the desire to blend in with a local scene, why is being a tourist such a bad thing? I've met many tourists who are kind, generous, thoughtful, and interesting. Further, there are many markers that yell "tourist" other than simply one's clothing.

I understand the need for some people to strictly adhere to a particular, socially-defined dress code and I can also understand the complete opposite end of the spectrum. At the end of the day, life is short and we're all dust anyway -- Vatican or not.

That said, I will agree with another poster that the Vatican isn't "my house" and therefore -- as a guest in anothers' house -- I would follow their rules. Just as I ask my guests to remove their shoes before entering my house. My house, my rules. The Vatican, their rules.

Regards,
Jonathan

[Saturday]

This really feels like a battle of Semantics at this point.

As for the OP, so we can get back on track, see if you can get in touch with the tour you're taking and ask. Like I said, bring pants along with you if you're concerned.

[SPS tools]

The "no bare knees, no bare shoulders" comes from my Fodor's guide book. My travel agent said, "No shorts, no tank tops." When I mentioned a kilt, she said she wasn't sure. She checked with a Roman guide she recommends, who said, "They make allowances for traditional attire.", but that he had no personal experience. I thought I'd check here to see if anyone had any personal experience with this issue. If I were that guy wearing bib overalls to a formal wedding, I wouldn't have bothered to start this thread. It appears that there are lots of opinions, but no actual experience.

I've been wearing a kilt full time for the past 6 years, some tartan, some not. Pants are safety gear (motorbike, chainsaw, etc.). I do NOT have a suitable pair of pants (or at least none that fit - discarded a pair with a 2" gap at the waist last week). What I do have is a pair of 10 year old nylon hiking pants (zip-offs) from my bicycle touring days. They don't take up much room or weight allowance. This is the only day I anticipate wearing pants during the 2 week trip.
I guess I'll pack the pants, and talk to that Roman guide when I see him a few days prior to visiting the Vatican museum.

What I wasn't prepared for was, "What's that Yank doing wearing a kilt?" and "Don't slouch your kilt down to cover the knees." And yet many of the contemporary photos I see posted on this site have covered or partially covered knees.
Perhaps we should specify that you can't wear a pair of blue jeans w/o pointed toe boots, a double breasted shirt and a cattleman's crease, or a white T-shirt, black leather jacket, and ducktails. But that cat's already out of the bag.

------------
Cattleman's crease = a style/shape of the crown for Western felt & straw hats
Ducktails = a men's swept back hair style from the 1950's. See Grease, the musical.

[Jock Scot]

Why so surprised? You asked for advice on an international website, surely its hardly surprising that some of the answers and advice that is given runs contrary to what you might have expected. The very fact that you asked in the first place, implies that you knew that probably there might be differing views on the matter in question and you have done what any thinking person does and ask.The problem comes when you ask questions to an international community is that wholly unexpected answers are almost bound to crop up and make you think. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. Life would be very much easier all round if we all thought the same way, but we don't and that's why you asked.

[The Q]

[QUOTE=Saturday;1319426]I'm not trying to offend here and I understand where you're coming from, but this line of thought in a casual setting kind of rubs against the grain of why the kilt was worn in the first place. And I'm talking about before the English banned it. QUOTE]

Just to point out the English did not ban the Kilt, it was the Parliament of Great Britain that is Scotland, Wales and England. With much support from the MPs of Scotland. At that Time most (but not all) of the SCOTS (who did not wear the kilt) supported the British government the Act was seen as against the GAEL ( many of whom were against the GB government but not all) who did wear the Kilt.

[ratspike]

I'm also not sure the comments were at all surprising. An important point to remember is that the kilt is a very significant, meaningful garment to some folks. That it isn't to me doesn't diminish that simple truth, and understanding it goes a long way towards not feeling angsty and butthurt in discussions like this. Been there and done that, and I enjoy xmarks much more now.

Honestly, my takeaway wasn't "silly American in a kilt" but more "stop trying to be sneaky and circumvent the dress code with your kilt and just put on a pair of pants for a few hours".