khaki battledress kilts

[Singlemalt]

I know that lack of evidence does not necessarily disprove something. However, when I was living in Toronto going to University in the mid-70's I used to regularly sort through the literally piles of old Canadian army surplus kilts which were available from several Army Surplus stores. I remember the best was call Hercules at around Yonge and Dundas Streets. There were lots of the Hodden Grey Toronto Scottish with a blue fringe as I recall. Black Watch, Gordon, Fraser and Hunting Stewart were mixed in the piles but I never saw a khaki one or one with a muted or simplified tartan.

I only wish I had had the foresight and money to know what was to come. These were well worn but beautifully made heavy 8 yard military kilts. I bought a couple that fit me at the time but I recall they were about $20. If I had only known I would have bought many more in sizes to accommodate my soon to be expanding girth.

[macwilkin]

Last friday I contacted a lady who is the collections manager at the Black Watch of Canada's regimental museum in Montreal. She is also a member of the Scottish Club of Tulsa, Oklahoma, since that is her home town. When I mentioned the khaki kilts of the 42nd/73rd CEF, she knew exactly what I was referring to: the "Cantlie" tartan. Here is part of her message this morning:

When the 42nd Bn was formed, there was a shortage of Black Watch kilts so the men of the 42nd and some of the 73rd were issued Cantlie Tartan kilts in honour of Col [George S.]Cantlie.

And so with without further eloquence, here is the photo she took today of the museum's kilt in "Cantlie tartan":



So, Chappell is quite correct in his plate depicting battalions of the RHR of Canada wearing a "khaki" tartan. It is most assuredly NOT the Toronto Scottish Hodden Grey. Methinks I smell an article for the STA/STM newsletters very soon...

Regards,

Todd

[Downunder Kilt]

Excellent researching and find Todd, hopefully an article on this does eventuate.

[TheOfficialBren]

Excellent, Todd! Very good post!

[billsides]

In Melbourne Australia we had some khaki kilt aprons in cadets in the 1960's which were very like those posted. You still see them periodically on eBay. I suspect they were army issue perhaps as late as World War Two and were worn to protect kilts.
Bill Sides.

[artificer]

Well done, Todd!

I definitely look forward to the potential article as well.

ith:

[Roderick Powell]

Richard, I note you have not mentioned the khaki kilt apron or the london Irish.
Might be worth checking these out.
As a rough guess a wrapover khaki kilt cover might be described as a khaki skirt.
Poor photos and illustrations can sometimes be confusing.
There is a lot of material on the internet if you search various words. I am afraid I am unaware of the scouce of the thread you are searching.

Much old miliary uniform was brought out of storage at the start of the war, and units were mix and match to provide uniforms for high volumes of recruits going into action or training in reserve.
My father was called up within five days of the outbreak of war. He went over to france within 6 weeks. the only amunition he held and fired was one round in the whole of the war.That was his small arms training round.
At that time the whole thing was a Bluff and a phoney war. Just a sheer volume of troops. Roddy

[Roderick Powell]

Photos do show London Scottish engaged in bayonet practice in 1939 wearing kilt aprons.
Photos of WW I troops do show the wearing of kilt aprons to keep mud off the kilt in the trenches.
Do not forget the kilt was largly abolished as a suitable garment for war action in 1940.
Troops protested by burning the kilt.
The Canadian Highland regiment was the last Disasterous invasion of france by a kilted regiment, when the tanks got bogged down in the beach in the 1940S. Another sad story. Roddy

[jhockin]

Those photos are too small to make out just what that thing is, but it certainly doesn't look like a kilt per se. Looks more like a cotton drill kilt cover. And as for the newspaper clipping, I've come to be skeptical about things which appear in newspapers for which there is no supporting evidence.

I "saved" those photos, to the desktop, then opened and 'zoomed-in', and one can see, on the photo, of the back of the kilt, the pleats - not great resolution, but there are clearly pleats - so, not a kilt cover. i would say.