Kilts Scottish only??

[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.

[James]

Dwarf's comments regarding the identification of 'friend or foe' raises another issue-that is the plant badge, and such things as 'The White Cockade'.

I'm not sure how true this might be, but I've heard that such means of identification were necessary because the wearing of a particular tartan was not always a sure means of saying which side a person might be on.

James

[macwilkin]

Dwarf's comments regarding the identification of 'friend or foe' raises another issue-that is the plant badge, and such things as 'The White Cockade'.

I'm not sure how true this might be, but I've heard that such means of identification were necessary because the wearing of a particular tartan was not always a sure means of saying which side a person might be on.

James

There is a documented story, James, of a member of the Argyll (Campbell) Militia almost being killed by British troops at Culloden until he was identified by an officer as a "friendly" by his cockade colour.

Cheers,

Todd

[Mike n NC]

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.

A lesson I truly wish the United States had learned. Even after our uncivil war and military rule, we still don't have it right. :sad:

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

Love it but you really have to pay attention to posting something like this where people can see it first off in the morning...Spraying coffee on the monitor is not only hard on the monitor but generally a waste of good coffee.

Mike

[Archangel]

Finally back from a great week away and getting caught up on 1100 posts, not likely to happen.

So, looking over this thread, I'd say go with James' post several days ago. It would cover the "Celtic" issues best. Most of what we understand as history, in terms of kilts, is mythology, like Dwarf's story. Scotland embraced it for the reasons James described.
Linguistic is not valid history, like most history methods that developed out of the nineteenth century. Research methods were so primitive as to make them almost useless today. They cannot be taken at face value.
DNA and history are a new combination. The full meanings are not fully realized yet.
The German monarchy connection is anti-monarchist rhetoric. It's there but it is invalid in terms of having any significance in reality. Watch out for that.

So, can a Manxman wear a kilt? Yes, if he wishes to identify with Scotland, or a clan, I'm honoured. How about you, James? If he wishes to apply the concept of regional kilts, then IoM is honoured. If it's simply personal desire, then go for it. Revel in the impact of your personal choice on your world, there are enough forces out there trying to constrain you.