From "Normal" to "Formal" - the kilt's place as a Highland garment

**Jock Scot** · 30th May 10, 06:07 AM

Good question.

I think before we get too deep into the discussion here, we all need to understand that "formal" does not mean the same in the UK as certainly in the USA and perhaps other countries too. For formal day wear in the UK, where a top hat and tails may be worn as Saxon wear. In kilt terms that would mean a black barathea silver buttoned argyll and four in hand tie. Formal evening wear in the UK, would be the black tie(bow)/white tie(bow) and an appropriate accompanying jacket.

"Formal" in the USA, I am reliably informed, starts at a suit and four in hand tie.

A suit is not regarded as formal in the UK.

I think we need to bare that subtle difference in mind ,or we could be talking at cross purposes very quickly.

**Slag101** · 30th May 10, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Jock Scot

Good question.

I think before we get too deep into the discussion here, we all need to understand that "formal" does not mean the same in the UK as certainly in the USA and perhaps other countries too. For formal day wear in the UK, where a top hat and tails may be worn as Saxon wear. In kilt terms that would mean a black barathea silver buttoned argyll and four in hand tie. For formal evening wear in the UK, would be the black tie(bow)/white tie(bow) and an appropriate accompanying jacket.

"Formal" in the USA, I am reliably informed, starts at a suit and four in hand tie.

A suit is not regarded as formal in the UK.

I think we need to bare that subtle difference in mind ,or we could be talking at cross purposes very quickly.

Formal, for those of historical mindset, and in reference to the time period, I feel would be almost a universal interpretation. We also must distinguish among the classes of society as well, as some of those who may have previously worn the kilt as work wear, may not have had a need/means/desire for "formal" wear, as formal functions, historically, were for the upper classes. Also, what a lower class worker might consider formal at his/her level would be very different then that of the gentrified or social elite.

An example of this would be your modern belief that in the USA, we view formal differently than our UK cousins. Let me expand on this, as I feel, in the USA, our size (land space) also regionalizes perception of this. I live in the very large metro area of NYC. I would consider a suit business wear, and I recognize the different levels of formal attire in the same ways as you do. I also travel/function in upper middle class circles, due to the nature of my education and profession. That being said, for many years, I was working class/poverty line, and the concept of wearing a suit was getting "dressed up" and I had no use for it. I am sure that in different regions of the USA, this would be a very different perspective, and perhaps, in some parts of my country the suit is considered formal attire in the upper class.

I use this example to demonstrate that human nature has not changed, people's views can change as their status changes, region can have vast effect on social norms, as well as socio-economic status. I think we either need to narrow our focus on simply the transition of the kilt from everyday wear to formal and/or festive wear, or broaden our considerations/perspective on the social classes of the times and regions in the highlands as well.