Please explain...

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

WHAT MAKES A KILT A KILT?

How about: kilt: A part of modern male highland dress, a knee length 'skirt' of tartan cloth, thickly pleated at the back, probably descended from the woollen plaid worn by the highlanders from early times. This is the definition used in "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Scotland", Lomand Books, 2004.

With the exception of the word "tartan" I think this pretty much sums up it up. The kilt is the refinement of the earlier dress of the highlanders. Like all good sartorial evolution, it became simpler not more complicated.

There are other "wrap around" garments. Sarongs for example. But they aren't kilts. There are "wrap around" garments that are based on the kilt, but because they have complicated the basic simplicity of the original kilt they have become something else.

Rather than use another car analogy, let me tell you about my dog, Oswald. Oswald's mother is a Cruft's Champion Basset Hound bitch. Oswald's sire was my Irish gun dog, a Golden Retriever. So what does that make Oswald? Well, he's got short legs and long ears, but he isn't a Basset Hound. He's got thick yelow hair like his father, but he's certainly no Golden Retreiver. What he is, is a dog. Plain and simple.

And I think that's what we're looking at here. The kilt and the "contemporary" are both garments, and that's about as far as it goes. Suppose the quasi-kilt had been invented in Indonesia and marketed as a "sport-sarong" or "utili-sarong"-- would guys still buy it? Yeah, but probably not in any significant numbers. The only reason for calling it a kilt is that that word resonates in our culture.

"Kilt" says "manliness" and puts over the image of social acceptability in a way that "sarong" or "manskirt" doesn't. Put another way the traditional kilt has, over the last 186 years, become an acceptable form of male attire. The "contemporary" or "quasi"-kilt is still very much a garment on the fringe of social acceptance and in some regards may be construed as more of a fetish* than a fashion choice.

It is probably going to take another 186 years to determine if the "contemporary" is going to be fashionable, or merely regarded as a passing fad of the late 20th century. One thing is for certain: the traditional kilt will still be around.

*(Before anyone gets a nose-bleed over the use of the word "fetish", look it up. It means an object believed to have magical powers of protection or an object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence and that is the context in which it is used here-- no one is being insulted.)

[JakobT]

WHAT MAKES A KILT A KILT?

How about: kilt: A part of modern male highland dress, a knee length 'skirt' of tartan cloth, thickly pleated at the back, probably descended from the woollen plaid worn by the highlanders from early times. This is the definition used in "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Scotland", Lomand Books, 2004.

With the exception of the word "tartan" I think this pretty much sums up it up. The kilt is the refinement of the earlier dress of the highlanders. Like all good sartorial evolution, it became simpler not more complicated.

This is a perfectly good definition, as far as it goes, but some kilts, as mentioned earlier, are not made from tartan cloth, and there are skirts made from tartan cloth that are not kilts. Utilikilts on the other hand are pleated at the back, but are not made from tartan cloth. So how do we decide whether or not they're "descended from the wollen plaid worn by the highlanders from early times"? The only way I can see is to enumerate the characteristics of a kilt, and see how they differ from other forms of dress. That way, we'll be able to tell if a garment has the proper characteristics to count as a kilt.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

This is a perfectly good definition, as far as it goes, but some kilts, as mentioned earlier, are not made from tartan cloth, and there are skirts made from tartan cloth that are not kilts. Utilikilts on the other hand are pleated at the back, but are not made from tartan cloth. So how do we decide whether or not they're "descended from the wollen plaid worn by the highlanders from early times"? The only way I can see is to enumerate the characteristics of a kilt, and see how they differ from other forms of dress. That way, we'll be able to tell if a garment has the proper characteristics to count as a kilt.

I have a letter on file somewhere that a friend of mine passed on from the inventor of the Utilikilt. He speaks of its design being based for the most part on a pair of men's cargo shorts -- not the Scottish kilt. It's origin and designs are removed from the Scottish culture. The word "kilt" was included in the name, I suspect, because of what has already been mentioned here -- namely, "kilt" is a term widely recognized to denote a skirt-like garment for men. If you want it to be known that the skirt-like garment you have designed is for men, what more efficient way than to label it a kilt?

I think the phenomenon of Utilikilts having booths at Highland Games and the like came about after the fact; that is to say, after they realized that there was a market for their product among the Scottish kilt wearing community.

But it seems plain that the origins of the Utilikilt are quite distinct from the organic traditions of Scottish Highland attire, and while I have no problem with people wearing Utilikilts, I also see the point of those who argue that they should not be considered a Scottish garment; because they are not.

Whether or not that makes them a true kilt depends entirely on how you define the word "kilt." Different people use that word in different contexts. I, as a tartan academic and historian of Highland clothing, have a much more restrictive definition of the word than someone writing a fashion column in a New York magazine might, for instance. It's an interesting thing to discuss, but I don't think we are going to come to universal agreement on the issue.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

This is a perfectly good definition, as far as it goes, but some kilts, as mentioned earlier, are not made from tartan cloth, and there are skirts made from tartan cloth that are not kilts. Utilikilts on the other hand are pleated at the back, but are not made from tartan cloth. So how do we decide whether or not they're "descended from the wollen plaid worn by the highlanders from early times"? The only way I can see is to enumerate the characteristics of a kilt, and see how they differ from other forms of dress. That way, we'll be able to tell if a garment has the proper characteristics to count as a kilt.

I've agreed all along that a kilt doesn't have to be cut from tartan. And if you'll look at the definition, you'll see that it says the kilt is part of men's highland attire, so obviously a woman's skirt could never be a kilt by definition or design. It might look kind of like a kilt, but by no stretch of the imagination could it be considered part of a man's highland attire.

Setting aside velcro, lift the dot fasteners, and all the rest of the gubbins associated with the "contemporary" wrap around garment, it would seem that there are two, possibly three significant differences. (1) the traditional kilt has a lack of pockets. (2) the traditonal kilt is thickly pleated at the back. (3) the traditional kilt is a tailored garment. By tailored I mean shaped, not cut like a pleated sack that wraps around the waist.

I think we can all agree that traditional kilts don't have cargo pockets, or any pockets at all. I will admit that possibly a very few kilts have been made in the past with concealed pockets (usually in the waistband) but by and large on a kilt, pockets there ain't.

Now it's possible to split hairs over what "thickly pleated" means, but I think it is pretty much self-evident that "contemporaries" aren't exactly "thickly pleated", and many have pleats that continue "beyond the back" of the garment giving it a "ladies tennis skirt" look.

I will concede that there's good tailoring (custom kilts) and not so good tailoring (off the rack kilts made in some foreign sweat shop). But traditional kilts are cut to three or four basic measurments: waist; hips; rump, and overall length. A "contemporary" rarely concerns itself with more than waist and length, hence it's "towel around the waist" look and fit.

So how do we decide if the "contemporary" is "descended from the woollen plaid worn by the highlanders from early times"? Quite easily. Look at the history of the development of the traditional kilt:

1822. King George IV comes to Scotland and the kilt undergoes a virtual rennaisance. Pockets were not unknown at this time in Great Britain, but fail to to be included in kilts (perhaps, due to the rush to get everyone kilted in time for the king's vist they were omitted).

1848. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert lease a castle in Scotland and the kilt industry goes into overdrive. Still "no pockets" but this is possibly because the industrious Scottish Victorians do not wish to be seen with their hands in their pockets while somebody else builds the British Empire.

1901. Edward VII ascends the throne, and despite having big pockets put on virtually all of his jackets (to accommodate his smoking requesites) pockets still don't feature on kilts.

1910. George V ascends the throne and has a suit cut from Leslie tartan, pockets and all. Despite this, pockets still aren't seen on kilts.

1922. Edward, Prince of Wales is named the best dressed man in the world (a title he will hold longer than King). Despite inspiring trend setting changes in all manner of men's clothing, and playing the bag pipes, he leaves the kilt well enough alone and doesn't monkey with it by the addition of pockets.

1939. George VI declares War on Germany. The German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, has been seen wearing lederhosen with pockets. In a patriotic fervor never before seen, Scotmen everywhere show their solidarity for King and Country by continuing to have their kilts made without pockets.

1945-1953. Because of post-war rationing suits are no longer supplied with two pair of trousers, and kilts are not fitted with pockets.

1953. Princess Elizabeth ascends the throne as Elizabeth II. As Her Majesty never carries any money, loyal Scots can see no reason for pockets to be cut into kilts either.

So, for at least 131 years kilts met the strict definition of a kilt, and went through little or no changes other than to the style of pleating.

But not so the "contemporary" wrap around garment. It's actual origins are shrouded in the murky mists that surround the rag trade. Some suggest that it is the result of an unemployed itinerant pleater eeking out a living turning used jeans into mini-skirts in the 1970s, while others suggest an even darker past, involving surplus army cargo pants following the Falklands War...

Whatever its origins, it is a recent phenomenon and like my dog Oswald, "contemporaries" fall short of being any sort of "pure bred pup". That doesn't mean they're not likeable or useful. It just means that they're different, and shouldn't be judged by or held to the same standard as the traditional kilt. They are fine for messing about in the great out of doors, mowing the lawn, or doing any sort of task that you would do in jeans-- and that includes going to the pub for a pint.

Perhaps their greatest virtue is that ownership of a "contemporary" does often encourage someone to buy a real kilt. And that has to be a win-win situation for all involved.

[USMC45CAL]

where can i take a look at a hot topic kilt? and the stillwater kilts have pockits?

[Makeitstop]

where can i take a look at a hot topic kilt? and the stillwater kilts have pockits?

I'm too lazy to put in a link, but if you just google hot topic kilt, the first result will be it.

No, stillwater kilts do not have pockets.

[string]

I'm too lazy to put in a link, but if you just google hot topic kilt, the first result will be it.

Ok i looked it up... urgle, that is quite horrible.

[Tommie]

Damn! I read this thread from beginning to end an all I got was a headache.

Come on guys.We have em,so wear an enjoy them.

I could care less if you have ten pockets-made out of Zebra skin-Its pink-or what ever-if I pass you on the street an it looks like a kilt I will give you a thumbs up.

[Alan H]

Ok i looked it up... urgle, that is quite horrible.

and that, right there, that "urgle" is why string is cool.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

But what you're doing here is defining whether a garment is a kilt or not based on how traditional it is.

Yes, I am. Any definition has to have a starting point. For purposes of this thread I am starting with the physical kilt itself; of the type and style available to the general kilt buying public in 1950.

My point is that I don't really think you can do that, I think you have to look for the unique characteristics of the garment. I agree completely about the pleats as a defining characteristic, but "thickly pleated" is very much open to interpretation, as it depends on the amount of material used, which is, as we've seen, anything from 4 yards and up.

As I said in my original post, this is hair splitting-- obviously a 4 yard kilt will have less substantial pleating that an 8 yard kilt; the difference is that across the broad range of all kilts made a "real kilt" will be more thickly pleated than a "quasi-kilt".

My own contemporary kilt is a 6-yarder with 28 2-inch pleats, so I'm not sure how self-evident it is that contemporary kilts are not "thickly pleated" either.

I haven't seen your kilt, so I can't comment. If you have a 30-inch waist then your kilt will be more thickly pleated than if you have a 54-inch waist. But let me reiterate this: the thickness of the pleating is only one of several criteria used in defining the kilt, and broadly speaking real kilts will have heavier pleating.

I do think the aprons are one of the defining characteristics of the kilt, especially taken in conjunction with the pleats.

I agree.

As for pockets, I'm not sure whether they matter in this connection at all, since most of the pockets I've seen are simply sewn and/or riveted on the outside of the kilt, and don't really make any difference to the construction of the garment as such.

Presumably you are taking about the pockets on a "contemporary" or "quasi-" kilt. The pockets are the single biggest difference between the kilt, and the quasi-kilt. And here's why:

The quasi-kilt is the direct modification of a pair of trousers, not a modification of a kilt. The "inventor" of the "utility kilt" started out by modifying a pair of pants with cargo pockets.

And yes, pockets do affect the construction of a standard kilt. To place the pockets on the side of the kilt would require some significant alterations to the garment.

It's the same way with trousers, you can have them with or without pockets, the style and number of pockets may vary, the legs may be long or short, wide or narrow, straight or bell bottomed, and the material can be anything you like, but they're trousers just the same, because they have two legs. That's the defining characteristic of trousers.

Absolutely. And when you attach a pemanent top to the trousers it becomes a boiler suit, a totally different garment. Or, if you split the legs and then sew them into one long tube, it becomes a skirt. Or, if you split the legs of a pair of cargo shorts, then sew them together, you get a different kind of garment (i.e. a quasi-kilt), but you don't get a real kilt. Now you can re-design your modified cargo shorts to be more like a kilt, but that still doesn't make it a kilt, because it wasn't a kilt in the first place.

However, I think much of the disagreement here stems from the fact that the kilt is both a general type of garment and a very specific piece of formal wear, and that these things over time have become more or less synonymous. Now I quite agree that strict rules should apply to formal wear, that's what "formal" means, after all. But that doesn't mean that casual or non-traditional kilts aren't kilts, they just aren't acceptable as formal wear.

The real kilt provides a basis for casual wear, day wear, and evening wear. It has not become restricted to being merely an item of gentlemen's formal attire. The kilt is vastly more versatile than the "contemporary" as it can be worn to more places and on more ocassions.

The "contemporary" is a recent phenomenon; the result of an enterprising guy modifying a pair of worn out cargo shorts. Like I've previously said, that doesn't mean they're not likeable or useful. It just means that they're different, and shouldn't be judged by, or held to, the same standard as the traditional kilt. Likewise, they should not be compared to the traditional kilt because they have vastly different origins. They are fine for messing about in the great out of doors, mowing the lawn, or doing any sort of task that you would do in jeans-- and that includes going to the pub for a pint.

But they're not a "kilt".

Perhaps the greatest virtue of the "contemporary" is that sometimes it may encourage a guy to buy a real kilt. And that has to be a win-win situation for all involved.