Quote Originally Posted by DWFII View Post
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 .