"Rules" for wearing family tartan

[Corden]

And I thought my original question would have a quick yes/no answer and that'd be the end of that... :-)

[robthehiker]

And I thought my original question would have a quick yes/no answer and that'd be the end of that... :-)

No.

[Dixiecat]

Chief of the Murrays dressed circa 1822:

great-great-great-grandfather.....

Neither images of which were Victorians...or Edwardians...FYI

[Dixiecat]

True, which shows that Highlanders were dressing to the nines well before the Victorian period - in opposition to the earlier argument that a "real Highlander" would not go in for such ornament.

No it doesn't show that at all. It shows that highlanders of a particular social status and wealth dressed like that on special or court occasions. They certainly wouldn't wear that gear everyday. You can't take what you see in portraits of wealthy or royal, or both men as what 'real' highlanders were wearing at the period the portrait was painted.

[Dixiecat]

Well for those who think that we must dress as the average, impoverished Highland peasant when wearing the kilt in order to be "authentic," they should be prepared to go about unbathed and infested with lice and fleas as part of their "historical authenticity."

I see the more genteel style of the late 19th and early 20th century to be the superior point of development where the kilt is concerned.

Holy....Love how you put words in peoples mouths. Not sure where you got the above from me pointing out that not even the two men in the portraits wore that gear everyday. I guess from your point of view, anyone that didn't wear that gear shown in the portraits must of been one of the unbathed and flea infested. Can't wait to see you in everyday highland gear. Please post that pic asap, so we can see how unbathed and flea infested you are.

[Brian K]

True, which shows that Highlanders were dressing to the nines well before the Victorian period - in opposition to the earlier argument that a "real Highlander" would not go in for such ornament.

Of course, the style you love so much - and it certainly is fine - is probably how the nobility and the gentry dressed, since all the evidence we have is from paintings and old photos. Those sitting for the portraits most likely had money to engage the services of an artist and they'd wear their absolute best in order to present the best possible appearance. Among the middle and lower classes the style of dress was probably now where near as splendid, especially when you consider that the accessories you have shown, and which are shown in the images provided, were probably horribly expensive even back then, let alone what they'd cost if we tried to outfit ourselves in similar fashion today.

There is also the possibility that, at least in the paintings, there has been some romanticization going on. The royal portrait you posted is a case in point. George IV, from what I've read about his trip to Edinburgh in 1822, was a rather corpulent and unattractive man that did not look as good in real life as he does in Wilkie's highly flattering portrait.

I think I understand where you're coming from. Humans are by nature somewhat conservative. Even the most liberal among us hates to see things we love change. You're younger than me and there are many older than us on this forum, but there is most likely no one here who has first hand knowledge and experience with Victorian and Edwardian highland dress. We look back at paintings and photos that people thought were worth preserving as though we're looking at a fly trapped in amber and assume it is representative when, perhaps, we are seeing the one member of a rare species that was lucky enough to survive. What we see in old pictures is not necessarily representative.

The only constant in the universe is change. For good or ill, what does not change or move in some form dies. We fight an Sisyphean battle if we try to stop this process.

Regards,

Brian

[McClef]

I think that people, particularly the British, are very good at preserving those things that they appreciate. After all, in the 21st century we still have Yeoman Warders, Beefeaters, Palace guards, Highland regiments, even fox hunters, who still wear traditional styles of clothing that have changed very little since the Victorian era. Once they had reached a certain state of aesthetic perfection efforts were made to preserve them in that form. The adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind. To me, the world wouldn't be nearly as pleasant if things like the ubiquitous British telephone booths and letter boxes that have been a fixture since the Edwardian era were suddenly replaced by some unsightly modern counterpart. I feel the same way everytime I see attempts to modernize Scottish dress, it gives me a sick feeling to see something I personally cherish bastardized in such a manner.

Some things change and that, alas, includes red telephone boxes and letter boxes.

Uniforms also change with a few exceptions apart from dress or ceremonial varieties. The kilt as also evolved - no doubt there were those who resisted the way it changed from the feile mór to the feile beagh too. The kilt is a very versatile garment and can go with many different styles of apparel. Some styles will look good in the eyes of some people and not of others - that is part of the variety and enjoyment.

[auld argonian]

And I thought my original question would have a quick yes/no answer and that'd be the end of that... :-)

You're new here, aren't ya?

Best

AA

[Brian K]

You're new here, aren't ya?

Best

AA

Sort of reminds of the old saying of Talmudic scholars: "Ask 10 rabbis a question and you'll get 11 opinions!"