Theory and practice.

[sathor]

I'm going to step into the fire on this one. The kilt is an ideal that evolves even today. We may regard the "modern" kilts negatively, because it is a great change. Change is always a risk. But it makes me think, ~150 years ago, give or take a decade, do you think that the same view came into play as the knife pleat took over from the box pleat?

When the 'school girl' uniform came into play, was there lots of sick stomachs? Is a Utilikilt give the same sour thoughts, or different ones being that it is at least designed for men?

I usually wear a tshirt with my kilt. It's not 'formal' but I don't care. Was there derision when the kilt went from daily use to high formal use? Is wearing a tshirt really greatly different than the first kilt wearers wearing just whatever shirt they had?

I think the better way to think of it is

If you took what we call a kilt today, and gave it to a person who wore an early kilt, would they A: consider it a kilt & B: wear it? Ignore different names and all that, would our modern kilts fit their needs? With our sewn down pleats, interfacing, steeking, etc. Or would they call even our 'traditional' kilts an unholy creation?

Just saying.

[CoreyMacLeod]

When the 'school girl' uniform came into play, was there lots of sick stomachs?

Probably not. No. Certainly not.

[Tony Miles]

Thanks Jock,

I love reading your posts and admire your sage wisdom. I do have a serious question though - in your opinion are kilts clothing or a uniform??

[Jock Scot]

Thanks Jock,

I love reading your posts and admire your sage wisdom. I do have a serious question though - in your opinion are kilts clothing or a uniform??

A bit late on answering this I am afraid, sorry. I have been a wee tad snowed under though! Anyway in civilian terms the kilt is clothing, or as we say here "attire". In military terms then they are ,of course, part of a uniform. As I have never been a member of a civilian pipe band I could be wrong here, but I would say that the kilt would be ,in this case ,a uniform.

[Heming]

In my opinion, there are two separate issues that need to be addressed.

On the one hand, the kilt is part of a long and living tradition of national dress, namely "highland dress". As with any national dress in a living tradition, there are certain boundaries that confine the range of diversity within that style, boundaries that help us notice one outfit as highland dress and the next as "a guy in a kilt". Scotland, as the rest of Britain and a few other European countries, follow a quite strict set of rules governing which outfit is appropriate for which occasion. Thus, highland dress comes in a few different styles ranging from casual (used in the traditional sense, i.e. not meaning jeans and t-shirts) to white tie. If at any occasion you wish to wear highland dress, you must therefore know and adhere to the norms governing appropriate highland dress for the occasion. That is, not only must you wear a correct highland outfit, but a highland outfit correct for the level of formality in question. Only then are you wearing highland dress, in my opinion, and Jock Scot and his "colleagues" are invaluable in teaching us how to wear highland dress. This does not make highland dress a uniform, as there are still many choices and options, but it makes it conform to tradition, which must be the whole point.

On the other hand, the kilt is also quite simply a garment. As such it is certainly uncommon, as are knee-breeches (still common in Norway for hiking etc.), but also certainly quite wide-spread in some areas and cultures, for instance the younger generations in Edinburgh. When you choose to wear a kilt as a fashion item, the rules of highland dress no longer apply. Nor do the rules of formality of dress. The kilt has become "street wear", and the only applicable rule is "do as you like". Just as it would be for jeans, or sandals, or rugby shirts.

The problem arises when these two worlds collide. My only recommendations in these circumstances are to wear what you find comfortable and appropriate, but to only call it highland dress when it really is highland dress.

I own two "contemporary" kilts, one as part of a three-piece tailored suit, the other a pure fashion item made from denim. I wear the black suit to occasions where any black suit would be appropriate, and the denim thing to night-clubs and (sometimes) the grocer's. I have a more traditionally styled kilt in the making, though using a fashion fabric. This kilt will never be part of a highland outfit - it is simply not a highland kilt. But I do plan to wear it with a nice jacket, and take care to explain to any one who asks that it is indeed not scottish national dress, but my own creation inspired by highland dress. And the whole point of that is to revel in the joy of wearing a good-looking, comfortable garment without being bound by rules concerning the national dress of a country I have very little connexion to. Just as I might wear jeans with the same coat.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

This is an interesting topic for discussion, Jock, and I hope you don't mind if I contribute my thoughts to this thread.

I think we must accept it as a given that the kilt is clothing -- not a costume or a uniform, though it can be worn in both those capacities -- and as clothing it has and will continue to go through changes in fashion.

However, it is not merely clothing, as we would consider a pair of jeans or a dress shirt. It is National Dress. It is tradition. It is heritage. To many (dare I say most) who wear it, it is imbued with meaning and signifigance relevant to their family, their ancestors, the place they live or the place they are from, etc.

Because it is also traditional dress, the fashions we see in Highland attire will tend to change much more slowly and conservatively. Thus we still see elements in Highland dress today that would not have been out of place 100 years ago or more.

Also because of this, those changes in fashion that will be most accepted (and therefore be most sucessful and long lasting) will be those changes that are congruous with the traditions of Highland dress; organic changes, if you will, coming from within the tradition, rather than being imposed on it from outside.

With that in mind, I'd like to relate the story of the modern revival of the four yard box pleated kilt (Woodsheal's "funny looking kilt") to see whether and how this may affect your opinion of it.

This is how it was related to me anecdotally by Bob Martin, who taught me how to make them. Bob has been a kilt maker and kilt historian for many years. He first started making kilts in the early 1980s. He had been a student of Highland dress and culture for I don't know how many years before that. Yes, he is an American, but over the course of the decades he got to be on a first name basis with many Scottish museum curators, tartan weavers, and historians. He was named a Fellow of the Scottish Tartans Society and of the Guild of Tartan Scholars, etc. He's considered by many to be one of the formost experts on the history of the kilt, world wide.

Anyway, enough with Bob's credentials. Back around 1983, when he was still early in his kilt making career, he was talking with Dr. Michael MacDonald, a Scottish anthropologist (and, incidentally, father of tartan weaver Peter MacDonald). In their conversation, Bob was lamenting that he had a hard time convincing people here in the American southeast that heavy weight wool was the best weight for kilts. They all wanted light weight saxony, because they were convinced that was what they needed in the warmer climate. Bob knew that heavy weight worsted made better kilts, though he had a hard time convincing people they would not be "too hot" to wear.

Dr. MacDonald suggested to Bob, "Why don't you offer them a four yard box pleated kilt?" As an anthropologist and a historian of the kilt himself, Dr. MacDonald was familiar with this older style of kilt -- which was in fact the dominant fashion in the late 1700s and early-to-mid 1800s, when the kilt was still being worn as everyday dress by many in the Highlands. He could offer it in the superior heavy weight cloth, but because it only had four yards instead of the (now) more standard eight, it would not be nearly as heavy or "hot" to wear.

And so Bob started to offer this style of kilt, not exclusively, but as one option among many that he offered to his kilt clients. No doubt the majority of those he made kilts for still wanted the typical eight yard knife pleated kilt, for the very reason that this was the standard fashion of the day. But many took advantage of the opportunity to have a different style of kilt that could be made from high quality heavy weight wool, but still be lighter and cooler to wear in warmer climates, especially for every day dress.

Now, going back to my previous point about changes in Highland dress fashion being organic and in line with the history and traditions of the garment, my opinion is that the modern revival of the box pleated kilt is a perfect example of this. People were seeking out a light weight, more comfortable alternative to the typical eight yard kilt. One solution was to make the kilt from lighter weight cloth, which many viewed as inferior. Another solution was to look to the past and reintroduce an older style of kilt that simply required less material altogether. The style was modernized to bring it more in line with modern fashion conventions (in other words, it was not meant as a "museum reproduction" of an 1800 era kilt -- it had modern elements such as leather straps and buckles, a tapered waist, etc.).

Would this modern revivial be successful? Well, like any fashion, that would be completely dependant upon whether it was adopted and approved by those who wore the kilt. If enough people accepted it as a good and appropriate style, it would continue. If people did not like it or viewed it as innapropriate, it would die out.

My point here is that the modern revival of the box pleated kilt does represent a change in the fashion of Highland Dress. But, in my opinion, it is a change that is in line with the history and tradition of the kilt and therefore is more likely to be accepted and to be long lasting than other changes that may have been intorduced outside of the Highland dress tradition.

And -- for what it's worth -- when I wear my four yard box pleated kilts (and I also wear eight yarders, and like them both), most people don't even notice. They see it and to them it's a kilt, plain and simple. I've actually found it to be a non-issue in the nearly 10 years I've been wearing the box pleated kilt.

[Sammac]

I am another member who really appreciates reading and learning about the traditions of wearing the kilt. Getting a Scottish perspective is always enlightening and refreshing. Thanks guys for the considerable contributions to our community.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Hi, Jock!

I had to have a chuckle when I read your post about "Sir Sean." I love him as an actor, but he is one of the worst examples when it comes to Highland attire. Every time I see him in a tartan neck tie and Prince Charlie I cringe. And I do find myself often correcting (or shall I say "gently advising") those who have seen those photos of him and want to copy his style.

I simply point out to them, very respectfully, that this is not really considered proper formal wear and when they say, "Sean Connery wears it that way," I say, "Well, when you get to be as famous as he is, you can wear it however it want, too!" That usually gets a laugh.

In any case, I agree with you about 95% of the time. The only issue I have with some of your posts is that they can tend to be a bit dogmatic -- and I say this with every ounce of respect for your opinion. I think in most cases you don't necessarily mean it to be so, but the tone of your post might come across that way.

Just to give an example, in your opening post you write:

I can't find a clan tartan so I will wear a district tartan, I can't be wrong there, right? Well nearly wrong! District tartans have little or no relevance to us in Scotland.

This can easily be read to imply that district tartans are not part of the Scottish Highland Dress tradition and some might then conclude that they are a modern anomaly, or a novelty invented outwith Scotland. However, actual history indicates that the concept of the "district tartan" grew up alongside the concept of the "clan tartan," and while they have never been as popular or dominant as clan tartans, district tartans have always been there.

I have a book sitting on my shelf at home from the 1930s, written by a Scot and published in Scotland, that specifically recommends those without clan tartans select an appropriate district tartan to wear.

One of the earliest collections of named tartans we have is Wilsons of Bannockburn's Key Pattern Book of 1819. Of the approximately 250 tartans included in that pattern book, roughly 100 had names (as opposed to simply identifying numbers) and of those that were named, about 20% were named for districts, with the rest being named either for clans, families, regiments, or simply given fancy names. Of the district tartans named in that pattern book, one of the oldest is the Aberdeen tartan, records of which go back to 1794 (and it was an older pattern at that time). Another is their Gallowater tartan which dates to 1793.

In Wilsons' 1840 pattern book, even more district tartans are introduced, such as Tweedside and Dunbar.

The pattern books of other mills from the era also contain district tartans, such as the Ettrick tartan, found in the pattern books of Pattons from the 1830s.

District tartans were still being designed in Scotland in the 1930s -- an example being the Carrick tartan designed by Arthur Galt; another being the Galloway tartans designed by John Hannay.

District tartans were still being designed in Scotland in the 1950s, such as the Musselburgh tartan, or the Paisely tartan designed by Allan Drennan.

They were being designed in the 1970s, such as the Holyrood tartan, by Alistair Buchan (owner of Lochcarron).

Similarly I could name district tartans designed in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, all designed by either Scottish individuals or Scottish woolen mills. Some have been successful and some haven't, but my point here is that one can easily identify an unbroken tradition of wearing district tartans in Scotland that goes back from the present day to the very beginnings of "named tartans."

No, they have never been as common as clan or family tartans. But nor are they a "single example anomoly" like some of the other things you mention that they should be regarded as somehow foreign to the Highland Dress tradition.

I have more to say on this very interesting subject, but will continue in another post....

[Jock Scot]

Oh Matt you prove my point exactly! The historical facts are precisely as you say and no one should dispute that, including this "dogmatic" Scot(lol)!


The history books and the theory of district tartans is therefore beyond dispute.

The practice, however, in real life Scotland, today, says that they are almost irrelevant here. This may not be what you want to hear, but I have no doubts whatsoever what I say is correct. Dogmatic that maybe, but right, nevertheless.

[macwilkin]

Oh Matt you prove my point exactly! The historical facts are precisely as you say and no one should dispute that, including this "dogmatic" Scot(lol)!


The history books and the theory of district tartans is therefore beyond dispute.

The practice, however, in real life Scotland, today, says that they are almost irrelevant here. This may not be what you want to hear, but I have no doubts whatsoever what I say is correct. Dogmatic that maybe, but right, nevertheless.

Of course, one could argue that even the clan tartan is somewhat irrelevant, since many (but not all) Scots wear one that they do not have any connection to due to the inventory of kilt rental firms.

Mind you, I'm not making light of the clan tartan's important symbolism -- but just some food for thought...

T.