kilts in Scotland

[macwilkin]

For the majority of its existence in Scotland, the kilt was the everyday, work-a-day garment of thousands of men and boys - farmers, shepherds, boatmen, soldiers, etc. - more often than not sweat-soaked, dirty, and foul smelling.

More this:



...than this:



Some of us just find it a bit sad that, in the country of its birth, the everyday common aspect of the kilt has faded into history....

Brian: Good points all.

Todd

[Chef]

For the majority of its existence in Scotland, the kilt was the everyday, work-a-day garment of thousands of men and boys - farmers, shepherds, boatmen, soldiers, etc. - more often than not sweat-soaked, dirty, and foul smelling.

Some of us just find it a bit sad that, in the country of its birth, the everyday common aspect of the kilt has faded into history....

While that is not completely incorrect, there was only a small percentage of people (excluding military) for whom it was true. Since the repeal the Highland Dress Proscription Act in 1782 the kilt has been primarily a ceremonial dress. In part because people had changed ways during the proscription but also because the kilt was considered unsuitable for many of the jobs that popped up in cities during the industrial revolution.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I appreciate that you don't like contemporary kilts, but ascribing motives to those of us that wear them (and i wear traditional kilts as well) has no place on this forum.

Adam

Adam-- I don't like or dislike quasi-kilts; I merely dismiss them in the same way I dismiss zoot suits, nehru jackets, and platform shoes (except for Frankenstien's monster). Further, I have ascribed no motivation to those who choose to wear them. As far as how people choose to dress, well my attitude is this: When the sun is shining you may carry an umbrella. When it rains, you may do as you please.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

While that is not completely incorrect, there was only a small percentage of people (excluding military) for whom it was true. Since the repeal the Highland Dress Proscription Act in 1782 the kilt has been primarily a ceremonial dress. In part because people had changed ways during the proscription but also because the kilt was considered unsuitable for many of the jobs that popped up in cities during the industrial revolution.

Further to what Chef has rightly said, I might point out that there seems to be a bit of "inverse snobbery" going on here. Specifically the "wretched child" vs. "the technicolour toff" juxtaposition of photographs. It is as if we are being asked to accept that "hard working sons of the Scottish soil" kept alive the great and hallowed tradition of wearing the kilt. Far from it.

Were it not for Sir Walter Scott (and the middle and upper classes in Victorian Scotland) indulging in Caledoniamania -- hyped by Queen Victoria and her beloved Prince Albert, there is a very real possibility that kilt wearing, with the possible exception of the military, may have been extinguished by the end of the 19th century.

The failure of Jacobism in the mid-18th century, the Napoleonic Wars in the early 19th century, and the industrial revolution which followed, all had a profound affect on the Scots. Scotland was a poor country, and clothes cost money. Answer me this: How many pair of trousers can you make from a great kilt?

A changed work environment (factory or mine vs. herding sheep), an enforced change in both religion and language in the west of Scotland, an expanding Empire, and migration to newer worlds; all would have put the stake through the heart of the kilt had it not been for Sir Walter Scott.

Just think. No Sir Walter to sing the praises of Caledonia. Queen Victoria leaning on the arm of John Brown... only he's wearing lederhosen, the fashion introduced to the Romantic Highlands by the late Prince Consort, the Queen's Beloved Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

So who saved the kilt? A handfull of well-heeled Scottish romantics who could afford the luxury of what was, by 19th century British standards, an outlandish, out moded, form of dress. The saviors of the kilt owned the mines and factories and shops-- they didn't work in them.

I'm afraid that the hard truth is that the survival of the kilt owes more to the chap in the colour photo, and what he represents, than it does to the sentimental picture of the wee boy with the trout.

To paraphrase Will Fyfe: "and that's the reason noo we wear the kilt".

[haxtonhouse]

wow, I didn't expect this much response! Thank you all, these have all been eye opening. My ancestors came from Scotland to America in 1676 on my father's fathers side and again in 1802 on my father's mothers side. I agree that the kilt is a treasure to keep and respect, and I have had to scrimp and save to buy one (I am still waiting on it to be made by Newsome). I thank you all again for your insight, you are a very informative lot!

[Jock Scot]

wow, I didn't expect this much response! Thank you all, these have all been eye opening. My ancestors came from Scotland to America in 1676 on my father's fathers side and again in 1802 on my father's mothers side. I agree that the kilt is a treasure to keep and respect, and I have had to scrimp and save to buy one (I am still waiting on it to be made by Newsome). I thank you all again for your insight, you are a very informative lot!

I am not cleaver enough to seperate the relevant sentance,but the skimping,saving,respecting and treasuring bit of your contribution describes,precisely,the Scottish way of thinking about kilts.Well, by some of us at least!

[highlander_Daz]

I point thats not been adressed is the fact that the kilt is Highland wear and not Scottish wear, Highland folk, and what they wore was look down upon by Lowland folk, Highland culture and lowland culture were completly seperate, not so many years ago weegies or Edinburgh folk would not have been seen dead in the kilt, indeed only recently after the mergers of the Scottish regiment (an act of pure vandalism) border regiments were protesting at having to wear the kilt "we are proud to be lowlanders!!!" there has been a merging of highland and lowland cultures with lowland folk adopting highland traditions and branding them as "Scottish" , theres nothing wrong with that , and of course Highland wear has gone from being banned to being a multimilion pound industry,
I was once in Glasgow and some guys wear giving an English guy a (good natured) ribbing for wearing the kilt, I thought to myself hes as entitled to wear one as a weegie, if your point is its odd to wear the kilt because hes English, its just as odd for a Glaswegian to wear one, after all its Highland wear.

Of course you dont have to be a cowboy to wear Jeans, just the same as you dont need to be a Highlander to wear the Kilt, but I think this blurring of cultures should be bourne in mind
the Kilt is Highland wear NOT Scottish wear.

Happy new year by the way

[Jock Scot]

A very good point there,H.D..

[scoutniagara]

Every couple of years, the Glasweegian scouts visit my home town to see the sites. They all dress formally in kilts, but usually carry them to be worn only on special occasions. Back home for their weekly meetings, some actually carry them to their meetings in paper bags so their friends don't make fun of them wearing the kilts.

This past visit, I greeted them in the afternoon wearing my cotton/poly tan Sport Kilt. They all thought it was grand. I went home and dressed in a more formal kilt for dinner that evening, but they didn't. In past years, they did dress in kilts to see the sites of Niagara Falls and had a lot of positive comments and photo ops.

Yes, I have a Scottish heritage (Bramaer to Inverness, Argyllshire), and I began wearing the kilt as a dancer, but now, I wear it because it's the most comfortable garment to wear. My "boys" swing free the way they were meant to swing, and the breezes on my cheeks are the most wonderful.

[seanboy]

the Kilt is Highland wear NOT Scottish wear.

Your talking b****ks