kilts in Scotland

[Chef]

I respectfully disagree. The fact that the kilt is considered a Highlandman's dress is an indirect reason for some of the Lowland squaddies being upset. Yes, there was a general feeling of upset that the regiments were being merged -- I won't argue that point -- but remember that the Lowland Regiments -- the Royal Scots, the KOSB and the RHF (the latter which are amalgamations of the old HLI and the RSF) have never been kilted (save pipes & drums and a few territorial battalions, such as the Dandy 9th Royal Scots and the 10th Glasgow Highlanders of the HLI).

I distinctly remember reading an article in which it was mentioned that the Lowland squaddies were upset in having to wear the kilt when it was never a part of their regimental customs and traditions.

So we're both correct!

I hear what your saying, but I'm not sure we are disagreeing. I remember the same articles but what I took from them was that all the individual regiments disliked the idea of giving up the customs and traditions that had been part of the regiments. For the Lowland regiments one of those happen to be the trews; it set them apart. They didn't have a problem with kilts just that it wasn't their regimental history. All the regiments lost, the trews for the Lowland regiments was just a very obvious one.

[macwilkin]

I hear what your saying, but I'm not sure we are disagreeing. I remember the same articles but what I took from them was that all the individual regiments disliked the idea of giving up the customs and traditions that had been part of the regiments. For the Lowland regiments one of those happen to be the trews; it set them apart. They didn't have a problem with kilts just that it wasn't their regimental history. All the regiments lost, the trews for the Lowland regiments was just a very obvious one.

Exactly. :mrgreen:

T.

[ozone]

What the HLL happened to this thread?!?!

I thought we were all talking about how many folks wear kilts in Scotland? What's all this stuff about military, culture, who's Scottish and so on?!?!

Back on topic: so, how many Scots wear kilts daily? If not daily when do they wear them?

PS: "irregardless" is not a word..."Since the prefix ir- means 'not' (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means 'without,' irregardless is a double negative."...so there!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Sean-- I respond to this because your lengthy, and well argued, reply has shown up. And as an aside, I totally commiserate with you about spending a fair old amount of time knocking out some deathless prose in response to some moronic posting only to have it vanish into thin air when you hit "send".

NOW:

The Duke of Wellington, who was born in Ireland, was once asked if he was Irish. His reply is the now famous line, "Just because someone is born in a stable it doesn't make him a horse."

No one ever seemed to question that Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, was Scottish. But in fact she was born in England. David Lumsden of Cushnie, one of Scotland's most elegant gentlemen, was born in what's now Pakistan, was educated at Cambridge, and spent his working life in Africa. He now resides in a 17th century house in mid-Lothian, having down sized from his ancestral home, Tilliecarin Castle, which he bought as a ruin and restored to all of it's original splendour. He's Scottish, but not by your definition. And what about that icon on the shortbread box, Bonnie Prince Charlie? By your definition I guess he wasn't Scottish, either. Hmmm. This is turning out to be a bad day for royals and aristocarts. Bummer.

So I think you're wrong. But then I would. I'm on the side of all those royals and aristocrats (and hard working Scots not born or raised North of the Tweed).

Or to put it another way, if I had been born on a Navajo Indian Reservation I wouldn't be a Navajo. I'd still be a Scot. To be sure, a Scot with the benefit of an American passort, but a Scot none-the-less. Now this isn't to say being a Navajo is a bad thing. Far from it. Fine chaps, the Navajo. It's just that I prefer to laud my ethnic heritage that happens, by the most happy of circumstances, to be the same as yours. I'm Scottish.

Now don't get too up set by this-- think how it works in your favour. Suppose you get married to a nice, oh I don't know, Tibetan, girl and you end up taking a job in Liverpool. And have children. Guess what? They'll still be Scottish, and can cheer for Rangers or Celtic without being regarded as some sort of pseudo-cultural interlopers . They might be regarded as football thugs and hooligans, but at least they'll be thugs and hooligans with the proper ethno-cultural credentials. Why?

Well just because they were born in Liverpool.... it doesn't mean they're NOT Scots.

[seanboy]

Well just because they were born in Liverpool.... it doesn't mean they're NOT Scots.

I agree with this to an extent, as I said before if I had a child in liverpool and brough he/she up in scotland they would be scottish. it does not matter where you were born.

However if My child was born in liverpool and brought up in liverpool then he or she would not be scottish, they would be english.
My intention is not to offend americans/canadians of scots heritage.

but if you were not brought up in scotland you are not a scot. The vast majority of scots, and all the scots that I personally know do not conisder americans with scottish heritage as scots.

infact bbc scotland conducted surveys with scots to understand scottish identity. and the majority of scots said that the scottish accent defined whom was a scot. I can agree with this as a scottish accent shows you have grown up in scots culture. I will try and find the bbc link. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4994174.stm

...... anyway I have been to america in several locations and I admire americans. However Americans are completely differant to scots in culture, ideology, politically, religiously. Americans and the scots are really very differant people.

[macwilkin]

Before this gets too out-of-hand, let's keep the discussion to kilts, please.

Todd

[Ian.MacAllan]

. . . The photo of the boy with the trout is ca. 1910. Here's another from the same period:



At leat three of the young fellows are kilted, in hardly a formal or ceremonial manner...!

Am I deceived or is the middle one of those three kilts not made of tartan? Can anyone tell what the material is? Tweed?

.

[bjproc]

Am I deceived or is the middle one of those three kilts not made of tartan? Can anyone tell what the material is? Tweed?

.

the old table cloth i think




(joking )

[Chef]

One other thing, making the connection that the Lowland regiments not wanting to wear the kilt is somehow anti-Highland is tenuous at best since tartan trews were originally a highland garment as well. It really is only about the regiments history, not a Highland vs. Lowland idea.

[macwilkin]

One other thing, making the connection that the Lowland regiments not wanting to wear the kilt is somehow anti-Highland is tenuous at best since tartan trews were originally a highland garment as well. It really is only about the regiments history, not a Highland vs. Lowland idea.

Right. But my point was that trews have become a "Lowland" form of dress because of different regimental customs & traditions.

T.