Kilts Scottish only??

[Rob]

I have been keeping pretty quiet about all of this, mainly because I really have no knowledge of my ancestry beyond scant information regarding my own parents. However, I should like to see the man, any man, nowadays who could step forward and provide proof that he is pure anything at all. No matter where we now reside, we are all of us mongrels and let us not forget it.

Ham,

When, in my previous post, I stated that the English gene pool was 40% Germanic and 60% Native British, this does not imply that 40% of the English have 'pure(?)' Germanic genes and 60% have 'pure(?)' British genes. As you quite correctly say, we are all mongrels, so on average an Englishman will have 60% British signature genes and 40% Germanic signature genes. I was merely questioning what Todd said about the English having Anglo-Saxon blood, a common misconception.

James is quite right about the use of the term 'Celtic' here and on other forums. Many tend to use it without having the faintest idea of what it means. As 'Celtic' is a language classification, any talk of 'Celtic blood' is meaningless, unless it is used metaphorically to refer to an affinity for Celtic culture, i.e. the culture of those who speak (or whose ancestors spoke) a Celtic language. One would then, of course, need to define Celtic culture more specifically.

Rob (with his philosophical hat on)

[highlander_Daz]

Naff Off = do I really need to elabourate, and her dog bit a member of the public and she was prosecuted under the dangerous dog act, I think she was fined

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2497531.stm

its interesting because in England criminals are prosecuted by the crown (the queen) - so in effect she was prosecuted by her own mother!!

[James]

Mention of the Royal Family in various of the previous posts possibky warrants some slight digression.

The Queen as the present monarch is the Head of State, whilst at one level this might appear to be a purely figurhead role: it is in fact a crucial position.

To illustrate this, when a serving soldier I took the oath of allegiance it was to the crown, and not the government of the day, which changes and blows with the wind.

The same applies in respect of such bodies as the police and the judiciary: who akin to the military are not associated with politics.

This might appear to be splitting hairs, but in a country like Britain that does not have a written constitution, it is a vital safeguard. For after the experience of the civil war and military rule, it was and is considered essential that certain things such as the judiciary and the military are for ever distanced from politics.

There is of course a joke, in that one might or might not be in favour of the royal family of the moment: yet still be in favour of the principle of the monarchy.

James

[Dwarf]

James,

As a former Highland Officer, several points (partly tongue in cheek) spring to mind about this discussion.

Tartans, and particularly the kilt, were banned after the '45, and only caught the fancy of polite society and became fashionable after Sir Walter Scott glamourised and "codified" it for a visiting King (one of the Georges, I think) who apparently also wore some fetching pink silk tights!


All this discussion about what tartan belongs to which clan, is moot. As members of a clan you wore what Himself (the Laird) liked.

It is, was and always shall be an uniform or a means of identification.


When you went out raiding, or to visit the neighbours to complain about their borrowing of your herd again without your permission, you wanted to make sure you didn't stick 2'6" of dirk through a fellow clansman. Sadly if Himself was colour blind you might end up with a spectacular rainbow of colours.


As a rabid fanatic of the kilt, I see no problem with anyone wearing it. Officers attached to Highland Regiments were encouraged (strongly) to wear it (and correctly).

It bonds kith and kin. The kilt is a statement. As a tool is no more risible than a football or Rugby fan wearing his club's or nation's Jersey, even if he could never represent either.

It gives people confidence, why else would sassenachs wear it at their most important celebrations: marriages, christenings and that most primitive of mating rituals Balls and parties?

[Blu (Ontario)]

... It is, was and always shall be an uniform or a means of identification... The kilt is a statement....

In Canada there is a growing flood of visible ethnic diversity. By wearing my kilts, I certainly make a bold statement for the strong and historic Scot-Brit heritage here. I'm proud of it and need apologize to no one for showing it.

[motorman4life]

I think everyone should be free to wear whatever they like.

You don't have to be a cowboy (or even an American) to wear blue jeans or a cowboy hat.
You don't have to be an athlete to wear a warm-up suit or sweats.
You don't have to be a painter to wear painter's pants.
You don't have to be a pilot to wear a bomber jacket or aviator's glasses.
You don't have to be a baseball player to wear a ball cap.
You don't have to be a hunter, soldier or Marine to wear camouflage clothing.
You don't have to be a man to wear pants and..
You don't have to be a Scot to wear a kilt.

The next person wearing jeans that asks me if I play the bagpipes... I'm going to ask them if they play the banjo!

[highlander_Daz]

"but in a country like Britain that does not have a written constitution, it is a vital safeguard."

The Declaration of Arbroath is regarded by most Scots as our unrecognised constitution, The Magna Carta and the act of settlement forms most of the British constitution. Everything the government does is on behalf of the Queen, she can dissolve parlement at any time, she is the safeguard against the nightmare scenario of President Blair.