I guess that I'll always think that the Prince Charley looks a little too "military" for my personal taste...and the Montrose, Sheriffmuir, et al look even more "military". Again, it's personal taste but if it's up to me, I try to tone it down and "civilianize" the look as much as I can.

But how much of these outfits that are considered traditional are actually firmly based on authentic traditions and how much of them are based on those sort of compromises that have been made to make it easier on clothing manufacturers and formalwear rental agencies? I ask this question with all candor here and am interested in hearing from the experts. I base the question on a previous discussion where it was postulated that the custom of wearing of white or ivory kilt hose with formal attire was introduced by rental companies so that they only had to stock one color of hose thereby cutting their investment in inventory down.

As an example: epaulets. I understand that epaulets are based on a feature of earlier military uniforms that protected the shoulders from blows. An incoming sabre attack to the shoulders at a Burns Supper is probably pretty unlikely, though and probably has been fairly unlikely for the past hundred years or so. Why retain the epaulet? I can understand including it as part of a military uniform to pay homage to the history of the service but when did it get adopted as part of the outfit for civilians? Was there some point in history where it was fashionable for civilians to adopt aspects of military dress into their wardrobes and it just managed to stick and is kept because "that's the way it always was"?

I'm certainly not arguing with anybody's taste in clothing or sense of maintaining tradition but I'm just curious about how what I would see as the distinction between military and civilian clothing got blurred over the years.

Best

AA