Victorian Kilts

[bear]

I know someone who call 'Traditional' kilts 'Victorian" kilts.
I like the idea. It places the kilts at a specific time in history and gives back some respect due to kilts worn before Victorian times.
What do you guys think?

[Dreadbelly]

Hmm.

I have heard that someplace else as well. A book or something comes to mind that uses that term. Something about the idea that kilts being a Victorian invention being absurd or something. Some guy that did research on the kilt. I can't place my mind on it. He was pretty irate when kilts were placed in the Victorian era. I can't think of what the book was... Maybe CajunScot could help me out... Or one of our well read board members.

Using that term might confuse people on the origins. There is a lot of heated debate on that issue.

[Barb T]

Ahhh, no, I don't think so. As far as I know (and Matt can correct me), the "little kilt" dates from earlier than Victorian times. It's my understanding that what we consider traditional kilts evolved in the mid 1700s in the British Highland regiments from the earlier great kilts, and, by the time the end of the 1700s had arrived, the kilt with stitched knife pleats, buckles, and straps was pretty much as it is today.

Matt - am I right about that?

Barb

[jfellrath]

I know someone who call 'Traditional' kilts 'Victorian" kilts.
I like the idea. It places the kilts at a specific time in history and gives back some respect due to kilts worn before Victorian times.
What do you guys think?

Bear (and all),

I dislike the Victorian attitude on most things, honestly. I've not heard this kilt thing before, but I've heard it plenty in one of my other hobbies.

I'm a rennaissance martial artist - studying the longsword, dagger, etc. of the medieval and rennaissance eras, based on the actual manuals of the period. This doesn't mean I'm a re-enactor or any such thing, I just study the thing as accurately as I can (without actually going out and cutting people up).

Anyway, a lot of the misconceptions people have about the sword of that era come from the Victorian writers. Victorian writers, in my humble opinion, are notorious for misapplying Darwin's theory of evolution and survival of the fittest to imply that all of history was leading to them as the rulers of the world. They saw themselves as the most advanced civilization of the age and therefore everything that came before them was to be regarded as less-important.

Therefore you get a lot of assumptions made about topics based on that feeling of Victorian superiority. Example from my hobby - the belief that the medieval sword didn't take anything but brute strength to wield and was only good for mindless hacking. Victorians believed that their swords - sideswords and cavalry sabers and the like - were the pinnacle of sword-dom. Everything before them must have been clumsy and not as good. And of course, more of the existing literature on the sword is from the Victorian era than any era except our own - which jaded the writers and historians of our era when they did their writing.

The truth, of course, is that swords of the medieval era were the pinnacle of technology for their era. They were light, strong, and metallurgically sound, and required great skill and technique to wield properly.

Likewise, I think the kilt of the Victorian age was given that title due to the penchant that Victoria herself had for Scottish fashion - it was her and George IV who brought the kilt back to prominence after the catastrophe of the Dress Act. The small kilt was just coming back into style at this point, and I think that Victoria's promotion of the kilt caused many historians to give it this name. Again, they saw the Victorian version of the kilt as the greatest since it not only occurred in that era, but was promoted by their queen.

Well, that's my two cents.

[jfellrath]

Ahhh, no, I don't think so. As far as I know (and Matt can correct me), the "little kilt" dates from earlier than Victorian times. It's my understanding that what we consider traditional kilts evolved in the mid 1700s in the British Highland regiments from the earlier great kilts, and, by the time the end of the 1700s had arrived, the kilt with stitched knife pleats, buckles, and straps was pretty much as it is today.

Barb - I just read the same thing on a couple of websites with kilt history.

[KMacT]

As far as I know (and Matt can correct me), the "little kilt" dates from earlier than Victorian times. It's my understanding that what we consider traditional kilts evolved in the mid 1700s in the British Highland regiments from the earlier great kilts, and, by the time the end of the 1700s had arrived, the kilt with stitched knife pleats, buckles, and straps was pretty much as it is today.

If so, then maybe they could be called Georgian kilts, if one desires a time context in which to place them. The Georgian era, as I understand, is normally defined as covering the period from 1714 to 1830 (during the reigns of George I, George II, George III and George IV).

Kevin

[jfellrath]

If so, then maybe they could be called Georgian kilts, if one desires a time context in which to place them. The Georgian era, as I understand, is normally defined as covering the period from 1714 to 1830 (during the reigns of George I, George II, George III and George IV).

That would certainly be better, based on the support that George IV gave for the kilt and wearing of Scottish dress. I think we can come up with a better, non-English term for it.

[KMacT]

I think we can come up with a better, non-English term for it.

Now I fear I'm about to venture into dangerous and unchartered territory here, but is it not incorrect to refer to Georgian as "English" (in this context, meaning "not Scottish") when the term would be better described as a "British" term? Were not all four of the Georges king over England *and* Scotland? They were as much Scottish Kings as they were English, no?

Kevin

[jfellrath]

Now I fear I'm about to venture into dangerous and unchartered territory here, but is it not incorrect to refer to Georgian as "English" (in this context, meaning "not Scottish") when the term would be better described as a "British" term? Were not all four of the Georges king over England *and* Scotland? They were as much Scottish Kings as they were English, no?

Point taken, for sure, Kevin, but for the most part the British kings have favored the English side of things to the detriment of the Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish. Hence my suggestion of coming up with a non-English term. But you're right, non-British would be a better way to say it.

(all IMHO, of course)

[KMacT]

...for the most part the British kings have favored the English side of things to the detriment of the Scots...

Fair enough. And if a better "non-British" name can be found then I'm all for it. But I like the idea of a term that places the "traditional" kilt is an historic context. Georgian as a term encompassing more than just four kings that may have favoured the English over the Scots. It is a widely recognized form of architecture and a clearly defined historical period in which the present-day kilt - and tartan patterns - seem to have developed. For me it transcends the actual Kings, the cabinet and Parliament and their policies. But at the same time, if one is from Georgia, either in the United States or Europe, then "Georgian kilt" surely must take on a completely different meaning.

I kinds like this idea, but I'm open to something better (if anything at all is advisable). The term "traditional kilt" has the advantage of being widely accepted and known, but it does have the problem that Bear is trying to address with a new name. Traditional doesn't work for me at all. Victorian clearly doesn't work, but maybe Georgian does?

Kevin