Style, Fashion Rules, traditions, Flat caps, and the missing element...

[Phicong]

My ancestor MacHardie's, as I have been told by many family members, were first of all infantry for the rich during war and highwaymen during peace. This went on until many of them were rounded up and shipped to the New World as indentured servants.
I am sure that they never ever gave a hoot what people of culture thought of their clothing.

[Pleater]

In the first photo of the thread you will note that the gentleman has matched the red flower in the shirt to the red of his kilt - what more needs to be said?

Such care in the selection of attire seems to come with the wearing of the kilt, and after a few years of almost constant kilt wearing I now match belt and footwear, select the colour of top that best goes with the kilt and tend towards a lot more preeking and preening than I used to do.

I have even been seen in shoes, which had long languished neglected as my footwear was either sandals or boots.

My crochet hook has been plied to make berets of different colours to wear with different kilts and I have also taken up knitting needles and begun to make new hose.

If wearing the kilt can achieve such alteration in an ageing female hippy type, it is only natural that men should aspire to perfect their attire - but of course it also brings out the individuality, so what seems good to one can offend the eye of another - but that is only to be expected.

Anne the Pleater

[macwilkin]

We must remember a few things here.

1. The kilt was worn by poor people as their daily garb. It was worn to the field and the funeral. It was worn to breakfast and the battlefield. In short, it was the bluejeans or chino of it's day. There was no set of "rules" or even "guidelines" for them to adhere to.

2. One of the reasons women "dig" guys in kilts is because of the belief that to wear the garment takes a certain self confidence that women find attractive. This same self confidence means that we should not be afraid to bend the "guidelines."

When we view the "traditional" kilt, we fail to remember that what we see is what it became after proscription. Highlanders didn't wear pretty P.C. jackets with jabbots. They certainly didn't wear buckle brogues. We are viewing things through the filter of a revived (if not romanticized) style of dress that originated as the practical dress of the rough - and - tumble working man.


If Bluejeans were outlawed, how would they be worn once the prohibition were lifted?

Respectfully, though...it should be pointed out that much of civilian Highland attire has its origins in the Highland regiments of the British Army, from the cut of jackets to styles of bonnets, hose, sporrans and all that. One could hardly accuse the officers and other ranks of the Highland regiments of not being of the same ilk as the rough-and-tumble working man.

Also, even rough-and-tumble working men knew how to dress appropriately when needed. My grandfather, who farmed the Iowa soil for most of his life, would have never dreamed of wearing his dirty overalls to church or lodge.

Again, please do not think me disrespectful -- just an observation.

Regards,

Todd

[raibeart_dubh]

Panache,

I think you have really hit on something here. I find your statements to be quite an accurate assessment. There are many times I have seen pictures here on the forum and said "That looks great, but there's no way I could pull that off." We all have our own look and things we are comfortable with when it comes to kilted attire.

I personally think I look best in either semi-formal/formal kilt attire or real casual like a black t-shirt and black work boots. Anything in between, I tend not to be able to pull it off. However, I do like to experiment with different looks. I recently tried the controversial Jacobite shirt. I look terrible in it. However, there are many members here who make it look good.

I come here to get advice from my kilted brethren. If it works for me, great. If not, I add my own style to it. I like to know the tradition but I also welcome the evolution of kilted attire and I think that is what the freedom of the kilt is all about.

[puffer]

JAMIE, THANK YOU for your POST. As you all know, I wear a KILT "Most" of the time. It is my "Daily wear", Business wear", "period wear ETC< ETC,. The kilts are "Traditional, but I wear them as the "mood" or situation, occurs. ith:

Some "like" the looks, others do not, IT IS ME!!. In the "main" XMTSers have been VERY SUPPORTIVE ( even when they "disagreed")

Thank you ALL !!

Puffer

[O'Callaghan]

Many years ago my wife went to a "consultant" to help her dial in her color and pattern "harmonies." Consequently, she has her own personal wheel of color swatches which she adheres to when purchasing any article of clothing. Does it work for her? You betcha! IMHO the money she paid that consultant was money well spent!

But just knowing what colors work most flatteringly with one's harmony is only part of the equation. I joke about wearing flat caps Samuel Jackson style because he somewhat famously wears his backwards. But the truth is, a backward turned flat cap suits my face much better that wearing it normally--ie, it better suits my harmony.

As for more traditional kilt attire, on some it suits them to a tee. On others, well... Bending the "rules" can bring one back into one's personal harmony. I think that's why some can pull off a very casual presentation and wear baseball hats or hawaiian shirts or whatever with a kilt and look good....

The only reason to wear a flat cap backwards is to ride a motorcycle, preferably one with floorboards, acetylene lights and a hand shifter.

[O'Callaghan]

We must remember a few things here.

1. The kilt was worn by poor people as their daily garb. It was worn to the field and the funeral. It was worn to breakfast and the battlefield. In short, it was the bluejeans or chino of it's day. There was no set of "rules" or even "guidelines" for them to adhere to.

2. One of the reasons women "dig" guys in kilts is because of the belief that to wear the garment takes a certain self confidence that women find attractive. This same self confidence means that we should not be afraid to bend the "guidelines."

When we view the "traditional" kilt, we fail to remember that what we see is what it became after proscription. Highlanders didn't wear pretty P.C. jackets with jabbots. They certainly didn't wear buckle brogues. We are viewing things through the filter of a revived (if not romanticized) style of dress that originated as the practical dress of the rough - and - tumble working man.


If Bluejeans were outlawed, how would they be worn once the prohibition were lifted?

That's one of the things I don't quite get about traditionalists. The "tradition" seems to be defined as what was considered proper in the 19th century, not only excluding what came after, but also what went before. ETA: Not to even mention that it was in that century that the Irish took up the kilt, and yet the same people say that it's not traditional for Irish to wear kilts.

Take the combined use of a belt and buckles. In the 19th century the buckles were what held up the kilt. Doubtless the belt evoked a bygone era to them at the time, when it was the belt that held up the kilt. How ironic then that people now copy them and also wear both together? It's like wearing belt and braces (or belt and suspenders if you are American), and yet to do that is a faux pas, or if you like, a trouser don't!

Also, for sake of argument, if you wore a kilt that fastened with velcro and wore it with a belt, you would be closer to the look that they may well have been striving for! How's that for an irony?

Personally, I'd rather not have two seperate systems holding up my kilt, just to look like a Victorian who was in turn trying to look like someone from an earlier era.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

We must remember a few things here.
When we view the "traditional" kilt, we fail to remember that what we see is what it became after proscription. Highlanders didn't wear pretty P.C. jackets with jabbots. They certainly didn't wear buckle brogues. We are viewing things through the filter of a revived (if not romanticized) style of dress that originated as the practical dress of the rough - and - tumble working man.

I'm afraid that the historical evidence just doesn't support such a sweeping generalization. There are literally hundreds of portraits of Highlanders dating from before the Act of Proscription in 1748. Admittedly these are of middle and upper class Scots, but what they show is a profusion of ornately dressed gentlemen. Viewed in chronological order one sees a steady changing in the style of kilt jackets and in the kilt itself.

There is a definite evolution of Highland dress if one compares the Michael Wright portrait of Lord Breadalbane (c.1660) with the portrait of "The Piper To The Laird of Grant" painted by Richard Waitt in1714. A scant thirty years later David Morier painted the famous "Episode of the Rebellion" a year after the battle of Culloden. As models he used regular British soldiers and Scottish prisoners being held in the Tower. Clearly seen again is the further evolution of Highland attire-- in the 80 years that separates young Lord Breadalbane from those furious Highlanders throwing themselves against the bayonets of a regiment of Grenadiers, the the jackets and kilts, diced hose, bonnets and sporrans have become "almost modern" by today's standards.

Come forward another 40 years to 1780 and David Allan's portrait of the Duke of Atholl out hunting with a servant shows the two men almost identically attired in clothing that would not look terribly out of place today.

Contrary to your thesis, we do see elaborate and well cut jackets, we do see see buckle shoes and, as the age of brush and palette give way to photography, we see the continual evolution of Highland attire right down to the present day.

To suggest that the kilt originated as the everyday dress of the "rough and tumble everyday working man" is to overlook the fact that it was, at one point in time, the everyday dress of every man, rough and tumble and highly refined alike. And depending on the circumstances of that man his clothes would have been simple or elaborate, as he could afford, and it is the same with clothes today.

If Bluejeans were outlawed, how would they be worn once the prohibition were lifted?

They would be worn by putting them on, one leg at a time. They might not look exactly the same, but then a pair of Levi Strauss denims made in 1850 are a world away from a pair of "engineered to fit" Levis from the year 2000. The bottom line is that the occasions when jeans would be worn might change, but the garment itself would not be radically different from that made in 1850.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Take the combined use of a belt and buckles. In the 19th century the buckles were what held up the kilt. Doubtless the belt evoked a bygone era to them at the time, when it was the belt that held up the kilt. How ironic then that people now copy them and also wear both together?

I'm assuming that by "buckle" here you mean the leather straps and buckles used to hold the kilt on. I clarify because the belt, too, of course has a buckle.

So assuming I am reading you correctly, you suggest that the leather straps and buckles were the way kilts were held on in the 19th century and so therefore now considered "proper" by traditionalists.

This is not really historically accurate, however. I have examimes nineteenth century kilts that have been closed with buttons, tied with ribbons, fastened with cloth straps and buckles (not leather), or more often than not, held on with nothing at all but the waist belt, or sprung steel pins.

So your premise that straps and buckles were standard in the nineteenth century, and therefore the only thing considered "proper" by today's traditionalists, is not accurate. Nor, I would argue, is your premise that nineteenth century fashion is the standard that traditionalists still hold for Highland dress.

I think that we can certainly take a good deal of inspiration from the nineteenth century, as many of the elements of Highland attire have roots in that era. But Highland fashion is a living fashion, and it is continually evolving -- even among those who consider themselves "traditionalist." I'd actually argue that the traditional idea of "proper Highland attire" really draws more inspiration from the early and middle twentieth century than the nineteenth. But my main point here is that Highland dress is a contemporary, living fashion, a true National Dress, and not an attempt at period costume limited to any one era.

[Friday]

As we discuss this and other items on this forum, and a nice discussion this is, some things come to mind. I choose to believe that we all realize these things but they might not always on the top of our minds or the tips of our tongues fingers as we type.

We are talking in written word. The facial clues, body language and voice inflections that are use during verbal conversations to convey much, if not most, meaning to our words are not present. So we need to think is that even though the words I am typing are the word I am "saying" do they convey exactly what I mean.

This is an international forum even it there were only one language spoken around the world words often have region meanings or submeaning that may not be known to all. As someone once said the US and England are two countries separated by a common language. As I read through many threads it becomes clear that often one writers reaction are to words that may not have been understood to mean the same thing as the writer intended. As the thread continues you can see the two come together as a common meaning is reached.

In my opinion I often wear a kilt and other times wear a wrap-a-round skirt pleated in the back and with and over and under apron. By this I mean that when I am wearing a kilt I am trying to honor my Scottish ancestors and as such which to follow traditions as much as possible. On the other hand there are time in which I choose to wear a comfortable piece of clothing that may or may not be plaid, but I am not trying to look like a highlander but a comfortable person. I personally do not believe that wearing comfortable clothing as I like is disrespectful to any one or any culture. I have a friend who is into punk and has punked out a kilt. His style not mine, I do not like the look but knowing this person I know that it is not done to disrespect by to bring his style to a piece of clothing.

Also as we look at kilt attire we must also adjust for the fact that wearing a kilt is becoming more and more international. Because of this some changes need to be made for the difference in location. I live in the eastern United States 100s of mile south of the where the highland of Scotland lay. I am also 100s of miles from the ocean and even though I am not at sea level the altitude is not as high as the we hills of the highland. The though of wearing a wool jacket and vest for most of the year brings images of a sauna to mind. I like the look and style of jacket and vest with a kilt, but I would imagine that some would look at a light weight cotton/linen jacket and vest disrespectful to highland customs and traditions. For me it is a fact of reality adapting to the local conditions.

In closing I see nothing wrong with Grant's chicken sporran he is just honoring his families traditional role as chicken rustlers. If you stick chickens under you belt you can carry more than if you use hands alone.

[The picture of Grant's chicken sporran should serve as a reminder that anything posted on the internet will live forever. I assume that that picture will still be around in 100 years. Grant the immortal kilt wearer.}