-
26th January 05, 05:28 PM
#31
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/01fa0/01fa01748f66dbe7e358dcbfdd626e558c8dec22" alt="Quote" Originally Posted by M. A. C. Newsome
May be Matt can answer one more question:
With or Without?
As for what I wear, you'll have to ask my wife.
As for what the rest of you guys wear, I don't need to know! lol...
Matt
Actually Matt, It wasn't suppose to be a personal question for you. I have heard that some people argue that the whole underwear issue is a myth that went too far and that the highlander did wear under garment one point in time.
I would like to get your take on the issue.
-
-
27th January 05, 09:35 AM
#32
Actually Matt, It wasn't suppose to be a personal question for you. I have heard that some people argue that the whole underwear issue is a myth that went too far and that the highlander did wear under garment one point in time.
I would like to get your take on the issue.
Well, here is my take. Oral tradition has always affirmed that the nothing was worn under the kilt. How much of this is fact and how much is a "pious legend" deamed up for tourists? Impossible to say. But I would hazard a guess that it is at least based somewhat in fact, or else why does the legend exist?
The fact is that no one in history ever chose to have their portrait painted while lifting their kilt for us to see what is underneath. And, as far as I know, no historic texts deal with that issue. So we just don't have that kind of evidence either way.
And I don't know of any historic undies that have been found in any private or public collection on display anywhere, either.
So I'd lean heavily to the tradition of wearing nothing, though I advise people to wear whatever the heck they want.
(Try going up to a young lady in a skirt and asking her what she's wearing underneath... see how fast they slap the cuffs on you!)
Aye,
Matt
-
-
27th January 05, 09:41 AM
#33
regimental...
But I would hazard a guess that it is at least based somewhat in fact, or else why does the legend exist?
I think a lot of this stems from the Scottish Regiments of the British Army, like so many other customs and traditions relating to Scottish attire. You were considered "out of uniform" if you had anything on underneath your kilt, and the couple of ex-servicemen from Scottish regiments that I have talked to remember sergeants "inspecting" other ranks with mirrors, and those same soldiers hiding pairs of underwear in their tunics and slipping them on after they left post before heading into town! :mrgreen:
Cheers, data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0f2af/0f2aff15194d8229a0d9ea7eef2fe63e28cf3cb3" alt="Cheers!"
Todd
-
-
27th January 05, 01:01 PM
#34
I think that one has to define "underwear". As the "shirts" were fuller and longer, they may have eliminated the need for any supplimentary garment under the kilt.
Casey
-
-
27th January 05, 01:07 PM
#35
long shirts...
As the "shirts" were fuller and longer, they may have eliminated the need for any supplimentary garment under the kilt.
You hit the nail on the head there, Casey.
I know one gent who buys his undershirts that he wears with his kilts at the big & tall man's shop, so that way he has some "protection" when he goes regimental!! (wait a mo' -- that didn't sound so good!) :mrgreen:
Cheers, data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0f2af/0f2aff15194d8229a0d9ea7eef2fe63e28cf3cb3" alt="Cheers!"
Todd
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks