The Importance of knowing the Rules of Kilted Fashion

[Spc. Scott]

I was doing a bit of reading on the net and happened across this little bit of info on wearing feathers. It has come up before and I thought this was a bit interesting.

Feathers in the bonnet are traditionally reserved only for clan chiefs, clan chieftains, and armigers. Officially the rule is; a Chief wears three feathers, a chieftain wears two, and an armigerous gentleman (one who personally has a right to heraldic arms) wears one. The wearing of bonnet feathers by those who are not chiefs is generally considered presumptuous in Scotland. However, Americans, who have the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed under the second amendment of our Constitution, could arguably wear one eagle feather in good conscience.

Here is the link to the whole article in case anyone would like to read it over.

I'm very curious to know what all of you might think of this.

edit: I apologize if this has already been covered and I missed it.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I was doing a bit of reading on the net and happened across this little bit of info on wearing feathers. It has come up before and I thought this was a bit interesting.

Feathers in the bonnet are traditionally reserved only for clan chiefs, clan chieftains, and armigers. Officially the rule is; a Chief wears three feathers, a chieftain wears two, and an armigerous gentleman (one who personally has a right to heraldic arms) wears one. The wearing of bonnet feathers by those who are not chiefs is generally considered presumptuous in Scotland. However, Americans, who have the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed under the second amendment of our Constitution, could arguably wear one eagle feather in good conscience.

Here is the link to the whole article in case anyone would like to read it over.

I'm very curious to know what all of you might think of this.

edit: I apologize if this has already been covered and I missed it.

Well, the major problem with this is that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with heraldic arms, which is what we are talking about here. An armiger is someone who has his own heraldic arms, as the information you quoted correctly states. The Second Amendment is speaking of weapons.

If you are going to try to apply the Second Amendment in this case, you might as well argue that it gives all Americans the right to wear tank top shirts (you know, so we can have "bare arms"). Either way is a gross misreading of the text.

[DTrain]

WOW! Thirteen pages and still no "rules," just a lot of discussion about whether to have rules or not.

OK, traditionalists, please let's try to make some sort of centralized list so as to inform all of us of what IS proper. I might agree with deviating from these on occasion but want to know the ACKNOWLEDGED proper attire guidelines. I am not a traditionalist but want to get it right.

With that in mind:

1. Pleats in the back (with basting stitches removed).
2. No belt with waistcoat/vest.
3. Kilt hose.
4. Dress shoes (no chuck taylors) that match color of accessories.
5. If a hat, a glengarry or balmoral. No feathers in such.
6. Sgian dubh on the right leg (as laws/situation dictate).
7. No white shoes after Labor Day.
8. No rubber chicken sporrans.
9. Semi-dress or full dress sporrans for evening events. Daywear sporran is pretty self-explanatory.


Please feel free to add or edit.

[Scotus]

Actually, DTrain, if you read Jamie's original post, it seems to be a discussion on knowing the rules and not a thread on the rules themselves. A couple of things on this.

First, those who want to know the traditional way of wearing Scottish attire can easily find out by reading; for example, the fairly inexpensive book So You Want to Wear the Kilt? by Thompson.

Secondly, I think there is some frustration with traditionalists with those who ask about the proper way of wearing Scottish attire, and, not liking the answer, say, "Rules were meant to be broken."

Finally, Matt is correct. Many people associate "traditional" with formal wear. But a man wearing a traditional kilt and t-shirt only, while fishing at the River Spey is being every bit as "traditional" as the man in the PC. As Matt said, it's simply that there are more social conventions when in formal attire. This is true of every culture that has formal and informal wear.

[DWFII]

WOW! Thirteen pages and still no "rules," just a lot of discussion about whether to have rules or not.

OK, traditionalists, please let's try to make some sort of centralized list so as to inform all of us of what IS proper. I might agree with deviating from these on occasion but want to know the ACKNOWLEDGED proper attire guidelines. I am not a traditionalist but want to get it right. [snip]

First, although no one has complied a list as such I do think some rules have been mentioned...so maybe its not fair to say "still no rules." The issue of feathers in one's bonnet and the pleats to the rear have been mentioned, at the very least.

I would also come back to something Matt said early on that I thought was significant. Matt referenced "highland dress." If I read and interpreted him correctly, he was saying that kilts such as Utilikits and so forth are not, strictly speaking, highland dress.

I would expand on that notion just a bit and suggest that if Utilikilts are not highland dress, they are not subject to the same "rules" as those who admire and want to emulate highland dress. And neither are their proponents.

Those of us who do admire and wish to wear highland dress not only owe it to history but to the Scottish culture not to thumb our noses at that culture and those conventions. Not deliberately, at least.

On the other hand, I do agree that there is a dichotomy here and those who don't care a fig about highland dress per se should just make no bones about it and do whatever they want.

But maybe just maybe...out of respect, mind you...we should draw a line in our own minds if nowhere else, and not seek to confuse or blend the two.

As for the list of rules above, its a good one as far as it goes but I don't know as if a list is necessary...the only thing necessary is a tiny bit of observation, maybe a pinch of study, a smattering of commonsense, and a whole basketful of respect (there's that word again).

And the thing about respect is that it brooks no thumbing of the nose, no flaunting of the "rules" or it is not, by definition, respect.

[Scotus]

BTW, I was not suggesting that asking questions about "rules" and conventions in Scottish attire was not what this forum is all about; that would be silly. I was merely suggesting that isn't what this thread was about. I think most questions get asked by individuals who start threads and ask things such as, "What would I wear with _______," or "Is it correct to ________?"

[Scotus]

I would expand on that notion just a bit and suggest that if Utilikilts are not highland dress, they are not subject to the same "rules" as those who admire and want to emulate highland dress.

I would agree.

Those of us who do admire and wish to wear highland dress not only owe it to history but to the Scottish culture not to thumb our noses at that culture and those conventions.

Well said.

[Coinneach]

I think there are rules and there are laws and the understanding to know the difference. That being said, when I want to know how to wear a kilt well, I just look for photos of Hamish.

[Spc. Scott]

Well, the major problem with this is that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with heraldic arms, which is what we are talking about here. An armiger is someone who has his own heraldic arms, as the information you quoted correctly states. The Second Amendment is speaking of weapons.

If you are going to try to apply the Second Amendment in this case, you might as well argue that it gives all Americans the right to wear tank top shirts (you know, so we can have "bare arms"). Either way is a gross misreading of the text.

Yeah it didn't seem to make very much sense to me either. But it did happen to catch my eye...I guess I'll blame it on the fact that it was very late at night and I was kinda sleepy.