Victorian Kilts

[jfellrath]

Well, maybe we need to look at what we call all the kilt forms... see if we can't come up with a proper name based on what we call those.

[KMacT]

Well, maybe we need to look at what we call all the kilt forms... see if we can't come up with a proper name based on what we call those.

How about "kilt"?

Whether they be box-pleated or knife-pleated, high waisted or hip huggers, full apron or partial, plain or tartan, wool or PV or leather or cotton... As long as the essential nature of the garment remains (ah, there's the rub!), they can all simply be called "kilts" as far as I am concerned. But the reason we get into these discussions, I think, is because some feel the need to distinguish their kilt from their neighbours kilt.

Kevin

[James]

This could get on dangerous ground-so could I suggest a rather different approach bearing in mind that the kilt has always been a dynamic/evolving garment.

Just say the kilt a worn/made circa 1830-1890,then whatever you might want to say. It would then locate it within a particular time frame without treading on any toes.

James

[macwilkin]

I have seen it posted on this board on numerous pages that the kilt is an evolving garment, so I don't feel that you can peg a "traditional" kilt as a "Victorian", or assigning the name of a particular period in history to a garment that has changed with the times, so to speak. Remember that we also a lot to the Highland regiments of the British Army in terms of Highland attire, and as a uniform (although please don't misunderstand me, for it is not uniform kit per se), it has evolved as well. Most of those regiments were raised in the 1700's, well before the Victorian period. These regiments played a large part in keeping the kilt alive when it was proscribed after the '45. It's a well known fact that military fashions influence civilian "mufti" -- witness all of the kids wearing camo today.

For example: at the beginning of the 19th century, the old Highland bonnet had evolved into the Kilmarnock or Hummel Bonnet, which you see Highlanders (and other regiments) wearing in the Napoleonic Wars. As the Kilmarnock Bonnet was worn in the field, it started to develop a crease in the top of it, a "fore and aft" style, and eventually it evolved into the glengarry at mid-century. At one time, regiments wore the glengarry, some plain, some diced. Others wore the bonnet, plain or diced. Scottish regiments, Highland & Lowland, wore tartan trews, "non-Scottish" uniform kit, kilts & Highland attire -- you name it. Military tartans evolved and changed, from the first Government sett of the Independent Companies in the 1700's to the various regimental tartans, some of which were adopted by clans like the Cameron of Erracht (which was actually designed by a MacDonald, btw) and the Mackenzie. The kilt & Highland attire evolved throughout the Victorian period in the army.

If we proclaim the kilt to be an evolving garment, then to say that all traditionals are "Victorians" or "Georgians" negates the evolution of the garment, in my opinion. Yes, the Victorians & their love of all things "brigadoonery" did introduce a lot of things that we consider "traditional" today -- but so did the Edwardians at the turn of the 20th century. Or Edward VIII, later the Duke of Windsor. Or the regiments. Or just general fashion trends since the late 1600's. All of these periods and influences have blended together to produce the kilt in all its forms. The "traditional" kilt and of the associated "kit" comes from many traditions, not just 1837-1901 (the reign of Victoria). The "modern" kilt comes from these traditions as well, since it was the "traditional" that inspired the "modern" and all its variants.

As a traditionalist, I have no problem with "modern" kilts or their wearers, provided that they show me the same respect that I show them. Tolerance is a two-way street, and some of the worst conformists I have met claimed they were "non-conformist", or "everyone should be different (as long as you're just like me!)". I would hope that those who wear the "modern" variations pay respect to the lineage of the "traditional" kilt, because without it, there wouldn't be "modern" kilts. I think we're pretty safe in saying that. Would I wear a "modern" kilt. Probably not. Would I be rude to a wearer of one? Absolutely not. My mother raised me better than that.

Courtesy and courage is the mark of a gentleman, to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt.

Cheers,

Todd

[Jimmy Carbomb]

Although the end of the clan system came after 1745, some Highlanders continued to defy the government in London - so much so they were transported to the Colonies and Australia. With deportation and voluntary removal from Scotland, there was a great exodus of Scottish people to the colonies after 1745, especially to North Carolina where today there’s the largest, bar all, highland games in North America - in the world!

To further wag their fingers at the British law, some became quite prosperous Plantation owners and dressed their slaves in clan tartan. The tartan remained very much alive in what is today the Carribean Islands, Nova Scotia, North and South Carolina - and in the far reaches of the highlands and islands of Scotland. Some families took advantage of the law. They all wore tartan openly and all were deported - what a great way to get to North America without having to pay a fare, ultimate Scot’s frugality.

After the repeal of the law and by the 1780's the practice of wearing tartan began to make a strong reappearance in the highlands of Scotland. The Scots might not be able to lay claim to inventing striped material but they can be credited for taking the tartan kilt, or philla beag to its highest levels of sophistication.

Thomas Rawlinson and a tailor by the name of Parkinson are credited with the kilt or philla beag as we know it today. In the late 1780's Parkinson conceived the idea of making the lower half of the belted plaid a separate garment. Rawlinson ordered the first suit. His appearance in public in this suit started a major stampede toward wearing highland regalia. His outfit consisted of an eight yard kilt, pleated in back, with a flat panel in front and a large shoulder plaid, that took the place of the yards of material in the belted variety. This shoulder plaid became mostly decorative. You can still see it today, swinging from the shoulders of pipe band members.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Barb writes:

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.

Yes and no. It all depends on how you define the terms "kilt" and "little kilt" and how picky you want to be with the particulars.

The feilidh-mhor (great kilt) we can document as early as 1594. I call this the grandfather of the kilt.

The feilidh-beag (little kilt) came about sometime between the late-1600s and the mid-1700s depending on whose opinion you want to go with, and was essentially the lower half of the feilidh-mhor. Sometimes this is Anglicized phillabeg. It's still an untailored garment. I call this the father of the kilt.

The tailored kilt came about at the end of the eighteenth century. The earliest one was know of is documented to 1794. I consider this the birth of the modern kilt, but it was not the exact same as we know it today.

In a nutshell, here are the main differences. Like the feilidh-mhor and feilidh-beag before it, the first tailored kilts had 4 yards of cloth. Most modern kilts have about 8. The first tailored kilts were box pleated. Most modern kilts are knife pleates. The first tailored kilts were made selvedge-to-selvedge. Most modern kilts have been made from cut cloth and so have a waist band. The first tailored kilts lacked many amenities like a lining, straps and buckles, and tapered pleats.

So it's not quite accurate to say that by the end of the 1700s the kilt was pretty much as we know it today. It underwent further fashion evolutions throughout the course of the nineteenth century. I think it fair to say that by the end of the nineteenth century the kilt was pretty much as we know it.

Jimmy wrote:

Thomas Rawlinson and a tailor by the name of Parkinson are credited with the kilt or philla beag as we know it today. In the late 1780's Parkinson conceived the idea of making the lower half of the belted plaid a separate garment. Rawlinson ordered the first suit. His appearance in public in this suit started a major stampede toward wearing highland regalia. His outfit consisted of an eight yard kilt, pleated in back, with a flat panel in front and a large shoulder plaid, that took the place of the yards of material in the belted variety. This shoulder plaid became mostly decorative. You can still see it today, swinging from the shoulders of pipe band members.

This is a different version of the Rawlinson story than you usually see. The one I'm familiar with says that Thomas Rawlinson opened an iron-smelting factory in the Highlands around the year 1730. His workers all dressed in the belted plaids, which proved too hot and cumbersome for close work in his factory. He solved the problem by cutting the garment in half. The lower part could now be worn separately and the upper part discarded when coming indoors. This is considered proof that an Englishman invented the Scottish national dress.
The problem with this story is that we know of numerous illustrations of Highlanders wearing the only the bottom part of the belted plaid that date long before Rawlinson ever set foot in Scotland. Remember that the belted plaid consisted of two widths of material stitched together. If one neglects to stitch the two together, and only the bottom 4 yards are worn, pleated and belted around the waist, the resulting garment is called the feilidh-beag (little wrap). The word is often spelled in English “phillabeg.” I will not go into detailed evidence of the wearing of the phillabeg here, but I will say that there is some suggestion of its use in the late 17th century, and it was definitely being worn in the early 18th century. It most likely came about as a natural evolution of the belted plaid and Rawlinson probably observed its and quickly deduced its usefulness in his situation and introduced it among his workers.

My two cents!
Matt

[Jimmy Carbomb]

Matt, that's the story that's been handed down in the family for a LONG time. In fact, it's also written that the kilts were altered for the Campbells. When Rawlinson asked to have "something done" about the burning of the fabric and the number of accidents... this was the solution. Works for me!!!

I'm so glad that there are numerous sources that house this information... many are on the internet too. There's only reason that I know the name of the actual tailor. ;)

[Scotus]

I can only say "ditto" to what Todd has already posted. As a traditionalist, I reject the idea of having to give a name to the traditional kilt, especially the name "Victorian." Yikes! The traditional kilt is simply a kilt. When I say "traditional," it is so others know I'm speaking of the 8 yd., 16 oz. wool version.

[Sir Robert]

The oldest clothing that we know for sure that our ancestors wore is the Lenie & Brat and this combination is VERY OLD, literally pre-historic. This is nothing more or less than a T-tunic and a blanket. We call this: feilidh-mhor, or Great Kilt.

The Scotish regailia we know today is BEST described as Victorian as the outfit, as civillian formal clothing, is pretty much from about that time period.

Modern Kilts like the Utilikilt have evolved in places like the USA/CND/OZ where most modern Scots live. There is a Goth Kilt which is co-evolving as well in the UK/GE/US and wheather we like it or not is a modern Kilt.

Because we need to specify between them we have the option of saying "Ancent,Victorian and Modern" or "Big, little and Modern"

What do you guys think?

[Scotus]

Don't we already have labels for these kilts? Don't we already say, "great," "traditional," and "modern?" When you put a label like "Victorian" on the kilt that some of us consider simply a "kilt," without qualifications, it is somewhat insulting. It brings to mind old parlor rooms, doilies, and antiques. It makes those of us who wear this version of the kilt seem stuck in some ancient past; moreover, "modern" says those who wear that version are new, up-to-date, with the times, and not stuck in the past. In my humble opinion, "Victorian" is a derogatory and demeaning term to be put on the kilt that most people in Scotland wear.