Kilt Do's and Don'ts

[DWFII]

I think Frank, put his finger on it. My own take would be that Thistledown's characterization of what is fashionable is suspect. Or if not suspect, at least beside the point. Many would wear buckle shoes...ala the 18th century...as a matter of preference with evening wear and it would, I wager, be considered not only perfectly acceptable but even a cause for some admiration.

There is a rather famous, recent photo of Sean Connery wearing a Montrose and a Jabot. He looks as good as it gets it Scottish regalia.

I think that when one commits to honouring the traditions...and not just re-enacting or adhering to rules...I don't think it is ever wrong to look to the "founding principles."

[ThistleDown]

I think Frank, put his finger on it. My own take would be that Thistledown's characterization of what is fashionable is suspect. Or if not suspect, at least beside the point. Many would wear buckle shoes...ala the 18th century...as a matter of preference with evening wear and it would, I wager, be considered not only perfectly acceptable but even a cause for some admiration.

There is a rather famous, recent photo of Sean Connery wearing a Montrose and a Jabot. He looks as good as it gets it Scottish regalia.

I think that when one commits to honouring the traditions...and not just re-enacting or adhering to rules...I don't think it is ever wrong to look to the "founding principles."

Sorry, I guess I wasn't stating all that well enough. I was asking DWFII for clarification in my first sentence. I thought I went on to give my opinion that "tradition" and "fashion" are two entirely different things. Today it is unfashionable to wear a PC during the day, even in Scotland. But it was formerly traditional to do so. Because elsewhere in this thread we have criticised someone doing so, does that mean that it is no longer "traditional"?

Perhaps the same thing holds true with 18C buckled shoes? In Scotland they are out of fashion today and, although I've not seen them worn for years, I suspect that if they were the wearer would be thought of as "old fashioned". That may not be true in Canada or the US, of course.

So, if something is unfashionable for a period of time, does it become untraditional, as well?

I think, DWFII and Frank, we are in agreement and it's only the terms we are discussing .

[DWFII]

Not to put too fine a point on it...if I understood him correctly, Hamish recently commented that he has a pair of buckle shoes made in the style of the "Culloden era" and he wears them to formal events with alacrity.

As to the business with the PC, and whether to wear it during the day...that is undoubtedly determined by fashion and what is fashionable. Once upon a time it was fashionable, all over the Western world, to wear a jacket, w'scoat, and tie during the day... for everyone except common labourers. Today it's blue jeans and branded T-shirts--we're all walking advertisements for companies we have no holdings in and which are not universally benevolent...but that's another thread.

If a garment is worn with a certain probative deliberation and a respect for tradition...hence this thread...I don't think it is ever really "old fashioned." Only in some people's mind...maybe those who could care less about traditions?

I have worn frock coats and stand up collars in a former life and because...and mostly because...I researched the "look" and wore it with respect, I never got anything but compliments. People would go out of their way to photograph me and be photographed with me.

Maybe the impasse here is that, for myself at least, I'm just as much a rebel as those who wear non-traditional kilts, but in a different way. I am indifferent to "fashion" but I revere traditions and to some extent history. There is a freedom that comes from knowing you've "got it right" and not caring what the moguls of fashion think. Of course, you actually do have to "have it right." Again, hence this thread.

I'm a wild and crazy guy...stop me before I buy a vintage broach.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't stating all that well enough. I was asking DWFII for clarification in my first sentence. I thought I went on to give my opinion that "tradition" and "fashion" are two entirely different things. Today it is unfashionable to wear a PC during the day, even in Scotland. But it was formerly traditional to do so. Because elsewhere in this thread we have criticised someone doing so, does that mean that it is no longer "traditional"?

Perhaps the same thing holds true with 18C buckled shoes? In Scotland they are out of fashion today and, although I've not seen them worn for years, I suspect that if they were the wearer would be thought of as "old fashioned". That may not be true in Canada or the US, of course.

So, if something is unfashionable for a period of time, does it become untraditional, as well?

I think, DWFII and Frank, we are in agreement and it's only the terms we are discussing .

[ThistleDown]

Not to put too fine a point on it...if I understood him correctly, Hamish recently commented that he has a pair of buckle shoes made in the style of the "Culloden era" and he wears them to formal events with alacrity.

Could that not mean that Ham is trying on a "new" fashion? Something like his new dayglo kilt? Of course he is in England and it was Scotland I was referring to.

As to the business with the PC, and whether to wear it during the day...that is undoubtedly determined by fashion and what is fashionable.

I was just wondering why we criticise someone who wears a PC during the day when it is/was traditional to do so (in some circumstances). Certainly it is not fashionable today, but why do we equate fashion to tradition in this case and not in others?

Maybe the impasse here is that, for myself at least, I'm just as much a rebel as those who wear non-traditional kilts, but in a different way. I am indifferent to "fashion" but I revere traditions and to some extent history. But there is a freedom that comes from knowing you've "got it right" and not caring what the moguls of fashion think.

I see no impasse here. I suppose most in this forum are rebels in one way or another. I've worn a kilt pretty well daily for the last fifty years. What kind of a rebel does that make me? What I am concerned with is the confusion of fashion with tradition, just as you are, but also with the fact that traditions evolve due to fashion in different places at different times. What is thought of -- for example -- as traditional Highland dress in the US today has already altered in Scotland and is now seen as "costume".

[DWFII]

, but why do we equate fashion to tradition in this case and not in others?.

I think...upon thinking further...that "fashion" is dictated by people who, for one reason or another are seen as the "elite"--presidents and prime ministers, opera divas and rock stars...etc. .,When those people pass on, "fashion" moves on.

Whereas traditions spring not only from the common folk but from protracted usage, that because "fashions" tend to be time (or era) limited), defies time and fashion.

I really don't think the two are connected except in the most tenuous manner.

[ThistleDown]

I think...upon thinking further...that "fashion" is dictated by people who, for one reason or another are seen as the "elite"--presidents and prime ministers, opera divas and rock stars...etc. .,When those people pass on, "fashion" moves on.

I agree that, generally speaking, fashion is fleeting and passes with the fashionable. Hmmmm...of course, it became "fashionable" for non-military men to wear the PC to somewhat match (or at least compete on the same level with) their military counterparts. And the PC stuck and is now considered traditional. To support our argument, however, there's the 19C fashion of the great hairy sporran. Fortunately that one eventually passed. At least it did in Scotland; has it in North America?

Whereas traditions spring not only from the common folk but from protracted usage, that because "fashions" tend to be time (or era) limited), defies time and fashion.

Yes. As I said in an earlier post: common use and common beliefs over time. So we cannot say, until it has passed, whether a fashion will become tradition, or not, I suppose. Tradition does not lead to fashion, for sure, but I think you will agree that sometimes tradition becomes fashionable

[Monkey@Arms]

I agree that, generally speaking, fashion is fleeting and passes with the fashionable. Hmmmm...of course, it became "fashionable" for non-military men to wear the PC to somewhat match (or at least compete on the same level with) their military counterparts. And the PC stuck and is now considered traditional. To support our argument, however, there's the 19C fashion of the great hairy sporran. Fortunately that one eventually passed. At least it did in Scotland; has it in North America?

Yes. As I said in an earlier post: common use and common beliefs over time. So we cannot say, until it has passed, whether a fashion will become tradition, or not, I suppose. Tradition does not lead to fashion, for sure, but I think you will agree that sometimes tradition becomes fashionable

I would argue that it is all fashion. As you point out the big hairy sporran used to be de rigeur, to wear a simpler one would probably have been considered a "don't" in its day. Indeed the kilt as we all know, came into vogue as a result of King George IV 's visit to Scotland, and was quite unfashionable before that time, and existed as a tradition only in the Highlands.

Sure we now have expectations about how a "traditional" kilt is "traditionally" worn, such as where a kilt pin goes if one wears one, and what style of jacket goes with what, but as you have given many examples, these customs have changed with the times.

Kilt wearing evolves, some changes take, others fall by the wayside, and unless you're wearing it as a uniform, or as a re-enactor, its a clothing, not costume.

Best regards,

Jake

[DWFII]

I agree that, generally speaking, fashion is fleeting and passes with the fashionable. Hmmmm...of course, it became "fashionable" for non-military men to wear the PC to somewhat match (or at least compete on the same level with) their military counterparts. And the PC stuck and is now considered traditional. To support our argument, however, there's the 19C fashion of the great hairy sporran. Fortunately that one eventually passed. At least it did in Scotland; has it in North America?

I almost hesitate to bring this up because the the several times I have raised this point here, I have gotten such massive (reactionary?) disapproval I know that, even with a more thoughtful explanation, it will not sit well with some.

But the fact is that from a sociologist's, or perhaps even an anthropologist's point to view, all clothing is costume. Indeed, my handy desktop dictionary (Mirriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) defines "costume" as "the prevailing fashion in coiffure, jewelry, and apparel of a period, country or class." Costume is, has been, or can be a statement of personal philosophy, of unity, and/or national identity. I have always maintained that the ubiquitous three piece suit with obligatory red tie was an almost global costume and no mistake.

In the sense that you or your countrymen regard the kilt (especially on an American ?) as a costume; or in the sense that people mean when they speak of a "Halloween costume," one could easily infer that there is an element of deceit or pretense involved...or perhaps just of projecting an image that is at odds with reality. And I would not disagree... that's certainly one of the (legitimate?) functions of costume when we regard it in a certain (broader?) context. Again, I think the three piece business suit is a prime example. Some use it for camouflage, some for image inflation but every single wearer changes into something else as soon as leisure and relaxation permits.

In a broader sense, all clothing is a projection of those elements of ourselves that we wish to share with the world. It is always a statement (not necessarily genuine) about our beliefs and our values while, at the same time, walling off the inner lives from which those values spring.

In that sense...who needs a dictionary or a sociologist...all clothing is costume. Whether it be a pair of jeans and a T-shirt with "Nike" on the front; or a a pair of trousers that are so loose only a prayer (and not necessarily by the wearer) keeps them from revealing more than the fissures of the gluteus maximus; or a dashiki; or even a military uniform.

And having come that far, it's maybe more surprising that native Scots have so little regard (I am operating on supposition here...by no means am I certain that all Scots feel this way) for the kilt than the appreciation that those scattered multitudes of Scots ancestry have come to have for it.

As for the great honking hairy sporrans (rolling my "r's") , I think they are just not available like they were then. Surely they were a fashion that never became a tradition in the most fundamental sense of the word. By contrast, look at the Rob Roy sporran...it never went out of fashion with kilties.

Yes. As I said in an earlier post: common use and common beliefs over time. So we cannot say, until it has passed, whether a fashion will become tradition, or not, I suppose. Tradition does not lead to fashion, for sure, but I think you will agree that sometimes tradition becomes fashionable

Well, this is what I meant earlier...for me at least, tradition has never gone out of fashion. Even when I was a young man thumbing my nose at my father and his generation....and everything remotely connected with authority and paternal preeminence.