Please explain...

[Big Homestead]

Before quoting that article, I'd take a good look at its claims. There's really no good evidence that the Cornish ever wore kilts before the late 19th - early 20th century. This has been discussed in another thread.

The Cornish are welcome to wear kilts and adopt tartans, of course. I'm all for it, but creating an "ancient pedigree" is another story.

Regards,

Todd

Yeah, that's what I expected. I knew someone would have a beef with the source. I really can't claim to have all of the answers on tartans, but I am regularly drawn the Scot painting of the man in the straight red kilt, and was simply trying to show the thread starter that straight colors exist and are accepted by the kilted.

Cornish still accept the straight black skirt as a tartan for a kilt. So, I do as well. Straight colors count on kilts as well.

Cheers.

[JakobT]

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.

But what you're doing here is defining whether a garment is a kilt or not based on how traditional it is. 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. 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 do think the aprons are one of the defining characteristics of the kilt, especially taken in conjunction with the pleats. 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.

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.

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. In the same way, an off-the-peg suit jacket is certainly no replacement for a tuxedo jacket for formal wear, but it's a jacket none the less.

[JakobT]

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 organiz 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.

I've seen a movie clip where the creator of Utilikilts tells that very story, and that the Utilikilt originally came about when he cut open a pair of cargo shorts and stitched them back together. So I agree that the origin is different. It's certainly not Scottish in any way, and they are quite explicit about that on their website as well. I also agree that the reason they appear at Highland games and festivals is because they find a market for their goods there.

But does it mean Utilikilts are not kilts? Personally, I think they are, because I feel the garments themselves do not differ significantly from traditional kilts from a construction standpoint. However, as you say, we're probably not going to come to an agreement on the issue. So let's amiably agree to disagree, although for the record I do not think the disagreement is as big as all that.

[macwilkin]

Yeah, that's what I expected. I knew someone would have a beef with the source. I really can't claim to have all of the answers on tartans, but I am regularly drawn the Scot painting of the man in the straight red kilt, and was simply trying to show the thread starter that straight colors exist and are accepted by the kilted.

Cornish still accept the straight black skirt as a tartan for a kilt. So, I do as well. Straight colors count on kilts as well.

Cheers.

Again, I have no problems with the Cornish wearing kilts, tartan or solid black. It's when someone tries to claim an ancient pedigree for kilts that I have my doubts.

T.

[Big Homestead]

Again, I have no problems with the Cornish wearing kilts, tartan or solid black. It's when someone tries to claim an ancient pedigree for kilts that I have my doubts.

T.

Agreed. History in time will be revealed, but as for now, pedigree is somewhat of a completly unprovable idea. We live in the information age which makes most information easy to come by and just as easily, corruptible.

Cheers