Victorian Kilts

[KMacT]

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.

I think if you start at the beginning of the thread you'll see that it's not clear we do have labels for these kilts.

For example, Scotus says that a "traditional" kilt is "the 8 yd., 16 oz. wool version." In other words, "traditional" in his usage refers to kilts that were first know in the Georgian period. But where do the older four yard box pleated kilts come in? By the above definition they are not traditional kilts, even though box pleats are the oldest style of kilt known. An attempt to find new names is an attempt to recognize these other styles of *traditional* kilt and not relegate them to being merely "non-traditional" as some would have it.

Kevin

[Scotus]

Perhaps I am not up on the kilt history, but if I say "traditional kilt" to a Scotsman, they thinking of a 13 - 16 oz. wool kilt with lots of pleats. I don't think we'd be talking about labels if someone had not invented the "modern" version that some would say really pushes the definition of "kilt."

[KMacT]

Perhaps I am not up on the kilt history, but if I say "traditional kilt" to a Scotsman, they thinking of a 13 - 16 oz. wool kilt with lots of pleats.

I think you are correct about what people think of as a traditional kilt. My point is that such an understanding is held in ignorance of what I would call (for lack of a better description) an even *more* traditional kilt. People tend to think that the first kilts were knife peated and made of eight yards of material. They were not.

I don't think we'd be talking about labels if someone had not invented the "modern" version that some would say really pushes the definition of "kilt."

You'd be talking with me, regardless, because I'm coming at this from the four yard box pleated perspective. The fact that there are also "modern" kilts (and by this I'm referring to the USA Kilts style, and not the eight yard knife pleated style - see how the names can be imprecise?) justs adds to the need for names that are more precise that merely saying "traditional."

Kevin

[Scotus]

I am wondering why Bear started this thread. I'm not sure if I was just to insult trads by calling us "Victorian," but I do believe it is not within the scope of this forum to find new definitions for kilts, as there is already a common usage for the different versions of the kilt. People call the four yard box pleat kilt the "four yard box pleat." People call the 16th century version, "the great kilt." People call the 8 yd. kilt the "traditional kilt." We already have terms that are in use.

I just sense something else behind the desire to label the traditional kilt. If there are those of us who wear the 8 yd. kilt who don't like the demeaning term "Victorian," then I don't think it is up to Bear or any of the more modern kilt wearers to come up with new terms for the traditional kilt.

[macwilkin]

Again, assigning the name of one particular period in history "Victorian", "Georgian", etc. really defeats the whole argument that the kilt is an "evolving" garment, in my opinion.

I have a a wonderful little book from the 1930's about the Clans & Tartans of Scotland which has great full colour drawings of gents and ladies in various forms of Highland attire -- formal, daywear, hunting, even curling bonspiels! The 1930's fashion is much more closer to what we consider "traditional" Highland attire than the Victorian-era fashion of Kenneth MacLeay's "Highlands of Scotland", which was published in the 1870's. Yes, you can certainly see some similarities, but I just can't see that what MacLeay portrayed in the 1870's is the exact same thing we're wearing today. Even the 1930's prints have differences. You can see as you "move forward" in history how fashions evolved in Highland attire.

As a "traditionalist", I sometimes feel as if those of us who prefer the "traditional" (whatever that means) ways of Highland attire are between a rock and a hard place. Some of the "moderns" I have met assume that all of us are unbending and intolerant of the modern ways of wearing a kilt, and demand that we "accept" their new ideas, and then turn around and attempt to change us as well, and are not tolerant of us. (and not all "moderns" are this way) Are "modern" kilts and kilt-wearing ways for me? Not really. Does that make them wrong for someone else or in general? Absolutely not. I respect those folks, as I respect those who agree with my own opinions.

This is starting to become a "broken record", but some of the most intolerant & conformist people I have ever met were those who claimed to be tolerant and non-conformist. Tolerance is a two-way street.



Cheers,

Todd

[KMacT]

I am wondering why Bear started this thread. I'm not sure if I was just to insult trads by calling us "Victorian," but I do believe it is not within the scope of this forum to find new definitions for kilts, as there is already a common usage for the different versions of the kilt. People call the four yard box pleat kilt the "four yard box pleat." People call the 16th century version, "the great kilt." People call the 8 yd. kilt the "traditional kilt." We already have terms that are in use.

I just sense something else behind the desire to label the traditional kilt. If there are those of us who wear the 8 yd. kilt who don't like the demeaning term "Victorian," then I don't think it is up to Bear or any of the more modern kilt wearers to come up with new terms for the traditional kilt.

Scotus,

Yes, there are names given to different styles of kilt, but the names are not equal. Only one is "traditional." That's the trumpt name. And it's inaccurate. It gives a unique status to one style and that status is wholy undeserved.

You can imput motives to Bear if you wish, but I will take him at his word when he said he wanted to find a way to properly recognize what you call the Traditional Kilt without taking away from other styles of kilt that may or may not be equally traditional, but cannot be called that because one style has taken the word and, seemingly, trademarked it. Bear was throwing the idea out for discussion. It seems to have been well received as a topic of discussion. You may think it is a topic that we should not discuss, but others disagree and I guess that's the whole point. If everyone agreed then why would there be any discussion.

Clearly "Victorian" does not work. It's not even accurate. I responded with Georgian because it is more accurate - the kilt you call Traditional was created in the Georgian era. I have also said that I'm fine just calling them all "kilts" and not needing to make these distinctions. I believe the distinctions are often used to show up others ("I have a Traditional Kilt, but yours is merely a Modern Kilt"). To me, the real crux of the matter is what is a kilt? Does it need to have eight yards of fabiric? Surely not. Does it need to be made of tartan? Does it need to be made of wool? These are the more interesting questions to me, but so far, not interesting to others (hense no discussion).

Kevin

[Scotus]

Just to show you I have an open mind about this topic , I have been giving this a lot of thought. I was, of course, offended by the notion of "Victorian" to describe the traditional kilt in this forum. Others have argued that we need to distinguish between the "traditional" kilt and the "modern kilt," especially when dealing with so many people in a forum that covers all types of kilts. While we cannot effect the nomenclature world-wide, I think the desire was to give some name to the 8 yd., pleated kilt made of heavy wool. I am not yet convinced that we need to have a name for this style of kilt, other than kilt; however, a name came to me this morning on my pre-Mass walk. It was the inventor of this style of kilt, Thomas Rawlinson. I would think a "Rawlinson style" kilt would be a name that would not be offensive by giving an "era" to the kilt. Yes, there are small changes that have been made, perhaps, but not significant enough not to honor the man who designed a very practical garment.

What do you think? Obviously, most people in Scotland and the world are going to call the wool, tartan kilt, "a kilt," but I am only suggesting this as an alternative to the derogatory (and symbol-filled) term "Victorian." It's only an idea that came to me. For further clarification on Rawlinson, see Matt's post #16 in this thread.

[KMacT]

Interesting idea. I'm not opposed to "Rawlinson style" kilt

Kevin

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I would object to the term "Rawlinson" style kilt for two reasons.

#1: It is a hotly debated issue wheather Rawlinson did indeed invent the phillabeg in the first place. And you are going to get a lot of greif from those who question the Rawlinson story if you raise his name to such status. (My own opinion is that Rawlinson probably did introduce his workers to the phillabeg, but was not the first person to do so).

#2: It is inaccurate, historically, to describe the knife-pleated eight yard kilt that is standard today as a "Rawlinson" kilt because (assuming for the moment that he did invent the phillabeg) the kilt he introduced was the original feileadh-beag -- made of four yards of cloth gathered and belted on, not even tailored at all. So if the point of it would be to come up with a name for the eight-yard knife pleated kilt to differentiate it from other traditional styles (I only assume the four-yard box pleated kilt is meant here) then it wouldn't make sense to use a name associated with the development of a style of kilt that pre-dates the box pleated kilt for a style of kilt that post-dates the box pleated kilt.

But, on the whole, I agree with Fr. Archer. Why do we need another name? Just call it a kilt!

Matt

[Colin]

I am wondering why Bear started this thread. I'm not sure if I was just to insult trads by calling us "Victorian," but I do believe it is not within the scope of this forum to find new definitions for kilts, as there is already a common usage for the different versions of the kilt. People call the four yard box pleat kilt the "four yard box pleat." People call the 16th century version, "the great kilt." People call the 8 yd. kilt the "traditional kilt." We already have terms that are in use.

I just sense something else behind the desire to label the traditional kilt. If there are those of us who wear the 8 yd. kilt who don't like the demeaning term "Victorian," then I don't think it is up to Bear or any of the more modern kilt wearers to come up with new terms for the traditional kilt.

Knowing Bear, I highly doubt there was any malice meant by the posting or the term "Victorian'. After all, the man also makes 8 yard wool kilts in the traditional style. If anything (and this is just my opinion) he was likely picking the forum member's brain for his own product. It has been brought up here numerous times that the new style kilts of materials other than wool are not "traditional" kilts. Hell USA kilts realized this and changed the name of the "traditional" kilt to the "semi-traditional". Considering the ideas for kilts that Bear has shown in the past (grizzly cut, raven cut, etc) he was likely doing a bit of marketing to sort out names for some other style he is developing.

I think we are all getting to be a wee bit oversensitive these days.