Wearing a PC in the Daytime??

[Friday]

Friday.

I should have thought that a daytime wedding is far too important to attend wearing inappropriate attire, such as a PC. For the most formal of formal weddings, where morning dress is worn(top hat and tails) by the guests, then the black silver buttoned argyll is required. For any other day time wedding a tweed argyll is appropriate.

For a parade of a Scottish society during the day an argyll is worn.

That is why I raised those items as questions. In general I would agree, however, I recently was asked to attend the wedding of a cousin and my cousin (the bride) asked me to attend kilted in my PC. I knew and mentioned to the bride that a PC was inappropriate for that time of day. She said she wanted me in kilt and PC, it was worn.

But again one of my, and I accept it as a personal, issue is you say that "For the most formal of formal weddings, where morning dress is worn (top hat and tails) by the guests, then the black silver buttoned argyll is required." I must raise the question of: by whose authority is it REQUIRED. By whose authority has the rules of etiquette and proper attire become rules of law that they are required to be followed.

I will fully support and defend your statement with one simple change: "For the most formal of formal weddings, where morning dress is worn (top hat and tails) by the guests, then the black silver buttoned argyll is required appropriate." Yes this is what should be worn, this is how it should be worn and you will look like a fool to those that understand the rules of etiquette, but if it is required should the bumkin be thrown out for not wearing it? Should he be barred from the event? what if he is a favorite but poor relative of the bride should he be refused entry because he could not afford silver buttons for his black argyll and only had black buttons?

[JSFMACLJR]

Wouldn't it be better to associate a piece of attire to a type of event rather than a time of day? Is a parade in which the local Scottish Society important enough to wear a PC even in the day time? Is an afternoon wedding important enough for a PC? From a very strict interpretation of rules of formal attire just taking my lady out for a special evening would not be reason enough for me to wear my PC, just as it would not be appropriate to wear a tails coat.


When I ask why, it is to understand the reason the original tradition came about. I have no problem breaking the rules, I just find I am better at it when I know the rules first.

This could get silly, Friday. Where does one wear a blue blazer? A sales call? Dinner at a nice restaurant? Lunch? Church? Where don't you wear it? And what about jeans? To what event can you wear them? To what can't you wear them? How about a grey suit? A navy suit? A khaki poplin suit or a seersucker suit? It gets silly very fast!

And who is going to make this list? It would have to be a very complex and detailed one, no? And what about "local options?"

I'm writing this a bit in jest, because frankly I find your idea quite preposterous. The established dress customs and traditions work just fine. If you want to read about their history and how we got to this point, by all means do so. You'll find it very enlightening. At the same time, why must there always be some individuals who insist on questioning established conventions? Look, you wear a dinner jacket/tuxedo in the EVENING, to whatever sort of event calls for it. My late father changed into a dinner jacket or velvet or tartan smoking jacket for dinner on most nights of the year...and that's for dining at home. By doing so, he set apart that time as special, and he honoured my mother by dressing like a gentleman. I'm not saying this is the norm, but it was for many, many years and for many, many people. Officers (serving or former) of the Household Division when dining out in London used to wear white tie ( full dress ). Why? Because they were gentlemen and gentlemen dressed that way.

When I was born, my father went to the hospital dressed in a morning coat with striped trousers bacause he, as Chairman of the Board of his company, had been at a Directors Meeting earlier. The nursing staff thought he was an undertaker and asked him to use the back entrance, as it would be distressing to the new mummies and daddies in the maternity ward to see an undertaker! That was in 1961, in Woodstock, Ontario. My father dressed that way because that is the way businessmen dressed and he was an officer of the corporation. When he went to the opera, he wore white tie. When he went to a daytime wedding, he wore morning dress or a lounge suit, depending on the circumstances. Evening wedding, dinner jacket or a lounge suit. When kilted, in the daytime he wore a tweed doublet. In the evening, a doublet of his choosing (for he had a number of them in different style). Sometimes he wore a jabot, sometimes a bow tie. He didn't wear this rig before 1800h. He did, however, throughout his life, attend a number of levees, at which he wore levee dress. When he attended the Queen's Accession Council in Ottawa in 1952 he was properly attired, including a sword.

The point of this post is, Friday, that you wear things because it is expected. It's as simple as that. Even Americans follow conventions of dress!

[JSFMACLJR]

I will fully support and defend your statement with one simple change: "For the most formal of formal weddings, where morning dress is worn (top hat and tails) by the guests, then the black silver buttoned argyll is required appropriate." Yes this is what should be worn, this is how it should be worn and you will look like a fool to those that understand the rules of etiquette, but if it is required should the bumkin be thrown out for not wearing it? Should he be barred from the event? what if he is a favorite but poor relative of the bride should he be refused entry because he could not afford silver buttons for his black argyll and only had black buttons?

It is REQUIRED by men and women of good manners, my friend. Period.

If you don't want to dress appropriately, then please don't come. We'll miss you, of course, and understand, but we'll be okay.

[DWFII]

I will fully support and defend your statement with one simple change: "For the most formal of formal weddings, where morning dress is worn (top hat and tails) by the guests, then the black silver buttoned argyll is required appropriate." Yes this is what should be worn, this is how it should be worn and you will look like a fool to those that understand the rules of etiquette, but if it is required should the bumkin be thrown out for not wearing it? Should he be barred from the event? what if he is a favorite but poor relative of the bride should he be refused entry because he could not afford silver buttons for his black argyll and only had black buttons?

This isn't about what is required by law...thereby necessitating that the "bumpkin be thrown out." None of this on the forum or even what wafts around in the evening air is about law or punishment.

It is about what is required if one wants to dress appropriately. It's about what is required if one wants to be sure that one doesn't breach a commonly accepted code of conduct. It's also about respect...respect for the occasion, respect for the host or hostess, respect for the Traditions.

I don't know why it is that this patently false notion--that someone's rights are automatically being abridged if they are expected to behave within a certain set of civilized constraints--is so eagerly embraced. "Shame on you...you're grounded for a week and your allowance is gonna be cut. Now go to your room."

What it is, in my opinion, is normal, social complaisance--the "grease" than makes civilizations, alliances, and all human intercourse work smoothly--as opposed to social "orneriness."

[Friday]

It is REQUIRED by men and women of good manners, my friend. Period.

If you don't want to dress appropriately, then please don't come. We'll miss you, of course, and understand, but we'll be okay.

Thank you I stand corrected, and accept that I am not of good manners.

[Monkey@Arms]

This could get silly, Friday. Where does one wear a blue blazer? A sales call? Dinner at a nice restaurant? Lunch? Church? Where don't you wear it? And what about jeans? To what event can you wear them? To what can't you wear them? How about a grey suit? A navy suit? A khaki poplin suit or a seersucker suit? It gets silly very fast!

And who is going to make this list? It would have to be a very complex and detailed one, no? And what about "local options?"

I'm writing this a bit in jest, because frankly I find your idea quite preposterous. The established dress customs and traditions work just fine. If you want to read about their history and how we got to this point, by all means do so. You'll find it very enlightening. At the same time, why must there always be some individuals who insist on questioning established conventions? Look, you wear a dinner jacket/tuxedo in the EVENING, to whatever sort of event calls for it. My late father changed into a dinner jacket or velvet or tartan smoking jacket for dinner on most nights of the year...and that's for dining at home. By doing so, he set apart that time as special, and he honoured my mother by dressing like a gentleman. I'm not saying this is the norm, but it was for many, many years and for many, many people. Officers (serving or former) of the Household Division when dining out in London used to wear white tie ( full dress ). Why? Because they were gentlemen and gentlemen dressed that way.

When I was born, my father went to the hospital dressed in a morning coat with striped trousers bacause he, as Chairman of the Board of his company, had been at a Directors Meeting earlier. The nursing staff thought he was an undertaker and asked him to use the back entrance, as it would be distressing to the new mummies and daddies in the maternity ward to see an undertaker! That was in 1961, in Woodstock, Ontario. My father dressed that way because that is the way businessmen dressed and he was an officer of the corporation. When he went to the opera, he wore white tie. When he went to a daytime wedding, he wore morning dress or a lounge suit, depending on the circumstances. Evening wedding, dinner jacket or a lounge suit. When kilted, in the daytime he wore a tweed doublet. In the evening, a doublet of his choosing (for he had a number of them in different style). Sometimes he wore a jabot, sometimes a bow tie. He didn't wear this rig before 1800h. He did, however, throughout his life, attend a number of levees, at which he wore levee dress. When he attended the Queen's Accession Council in Ottawa in 1952 he was properly attired, including a sword.

The point of this post is, Friday, that you wear things because it is expected. It's as simple as that. Even Americans follow conventions of dress!

Dude, this explains a lot. Now I was but a mere babe in 1961 but on this side of the border I suspect only the Rockefellers, Astors, and people of that ilk dressed in the manner you describe.

I'm beginning to suspect British class distinctions, and American antipathy to such things, have a lot to do with the recurring tensions that occur in some of the threads.

Best regards,

Jake

[pastorsteve]

Friday, Your question is valid and very legitimate. As I stated earlier in this thread, before it got a bit silly, is that weddings and other daytime dressy affairs - for centuries - have been done in tuxedos. In fact, I would like to know, not on this thread, how many of the people telling you it would be bad manners to do so wear a hat indoors (or backwards), wear a leather/cotton/denim "kilt", wear other than brogues, appear at wren faires.... all perfectly acceptable but may not be "proper".


So - and because - we (you, myself and others) have been instructed to wear the PC anytime you would wear a tux I see, and feel, your frustration. Wear your PC WHEN YOU WANT, PERIOD. AND send me a picture when you do as I'm sure you will be smashing and in perfectly good taste.

In fact, wearing a tux during the day (generally not early morning) has, and will be, perfectly acceptable and not bad manners. Anyone intimating the contrary is lost in a world of their own (or again pulling your leg). Therefore if a PC is interchangable with a tux, wear your PC to your event just as you would a tux - and don't let anyone make you feel uncomfortable. Just the fact that anyone would seriously tell you differently amazes me.

Smoking jacket............ come on. . I don't have a smoking jacket (and maybe Hugh Hefner is the only person in the past 50 years I may have seen in one) so I could wear my PC with jeans for supper tonight - really spice things up.

[pastorsteve]

It is REQUIRED by men and women of good manners, my friend. Period.

If you don't want to dress appropriately, then please don't come. We'll miss you, of course, and understand, but we'll be okay.

I'm sorry sir but what is required is that all men do the best they can. When this is done, their efforts will be and are always applauded. One reason many of us, whose family came from Ireland, Scotland and England was to be free of the class rigidity and snobbery that makes fun of or ridicules someone because they're trying to better themselves - even by asking questions. Many other reasons also. Pooh, Pooh and frump to you sir.

Now on this subject I will be like Roberto Duran - No Mas.

Yep, Pastor for the people.

[DWFII]

If you come right down to it it's not about "manners." Because manners is about more than whether to wear a PC at a certain hour or not.

Fundamentally, "manners"...and whether you have them or not depends upon how much energy you put forth...are about liking and respecting people enough to maximize your chances of getting along with them.

If you slurp your soup, people...even working class people (I are one)...are far more apt to consider it annoying than if you eat with some decorum. And having been annoyed, they are far less likely to want further contact with you.

Yes, yes, I know "who cares what they think?" The old, tired, and by now certifiably, discredited refrain. But whether one subscribes to that or not, it just brings us back around to the beginning--liking people, respecting people, and wanting to facilitate understanding and friendships.

As for the red-herring of British versus American class distinctions...it's just that --a red herring. I'm highly unlikely to ever be invited to a black tie event much less a white tie event. I'm a working man with black "stuff" under my fingernails. Yet I do respect people...their cultures and conventions...enough that I want to know and understand. All those incipient anarchists with their publicly avowed disdain and scorn for the mental and physical discipline to learn and appreciate something beyond themselves, turn out to be the ultimate conformists...if not just simply sad-sacks. (in my opinion)

Manners are, and always have been, more about the journey than about the destination. I don't think that anyone here has suggested otherwise.

[Monkey@Arms]

SNIP

At the New York City Tartan Day parade last year, I noticed a not insignificant number of participants decked out in their PCs. This also included all the dignitaries of the event such as the Grand Marshall and even the Prime Minister of Scotland himself. Do you think this type of event gets a pass on the usual protocol?

If you come right down to it it's not about "manners." Because manners is about more than whether to wear a PC at a certain hour or not.

Fundamentally, "manners"...and whether you have them or not depends upon how much energy you put forth...are about liking and respecting people enough to maximize your chances of getting along with them.

SNIP

As for the red-herring of British versus American class distinctions...it's just that --a red herring. I'm highly unlikely to ever be invited to a black tie event much less a white tie event. I'm a working man with black "stuff" under my fingernails. Yet I do respect people...their cultures and conventions...enough that I want to know and understand. All those incipient anarchists with their publicly avowed disdain and scorn for the mental and physical discipline to learn and appreciate something beyond themselves, turn out to be the ultimate conformists...if not just simply sad-sacks. (in my opinion)

Manners are, and always have been, more about the journey than about the destination. I don't think that anyone here has suggested otherwise.

So DFWII, just so I understand, those people who wore their PCs in the parade in NYC during daylight hours, the Grand Marshall and such, they were ill manered incipient anarchists because a "proper gentleman" would be wearing an Argyll jacket?

Best regards,

Jake