Prince Charlie Vest

[David Dalglish]

Vest is full back, if you did not want to wear a vest, you would wear your belt & why would you want to cover it up with a cumberbund.

[beerbecue]

Vest is full back, if you did not want to wear a vest, you would wear your belt & why would you want to cover it up with a cumberbund.

The cummerbund wouldn't cover a belt, there would be no belt. Modern tuxedos may use a waistcoat instead of a cummerbund, and vice-versa... or you can wear a belt....

It really seems quite parallel and interchangeable to me.....

So I don't see why not...

[GatorUK]

The cummerbund heightens the waist of the tuxedo trousers especially when worn with an eton style jacket without a waistcoat. This prevents an expance of shirt being seen between the top of the trouser and the bottom of the jacket. A traditional kilt is worn where the top of a cummerbund rises, hence there is no need for a cummerbund while wearing a kilt. Like P1M says, the cummerbund would be up around your armpits if worn kilted.

[Colin]

As someone that used to have to wear a cumberbund for work, I hate the wee buggers and would never wear one with a kilt. With a traditional kilt, the waist is higher that pants. The top of the kilt actually comes to about the same level as a cumberbund does with pants. It kind of becomes a moot point if the kilt already comes up quite high. If you don't want to wear a waistcoat, I would suggest just a belt, but not a cumberbund.