The Royal Mile

[artificer]

With every respect to those who hold the kilt 'sacred'... wasn't the kilt once worn whilst mucking out the goats? harvesting peat? probably emptying the lavies? and, as Downunder mentioned, going over the top?

For dressed events, a nice Sunday afternoon, dinner, formal occasions, etc, I think the kilt SHOULD be worn as the Victorians dictated and has been more or less 'fixed' since. For a day out at the football or rugby pitch, what's wrong with a bit of boot and scrunched hose? If it was okay for the trenchies, it'll do for me.

a few of the pix from #65, particularly the lad at Murrayfield, seem okay to me. Better people wear it with a more modern (in most cases, casual) twist than not wear it at all and have the kilt be relegated to the old folks home, and eventually, a museum.
Just my $.02 (.0133 GBP)

[Lyle1]

Agreed to a certain extent. It's nice to see young lads wearing the kilt, but they should do the unique attire honor and wear it correctly.

I know my boundaries, and in my opinion, what those lads are wearing in the photos in Edinburgh, is outside of my personal boundaries, but again, that's entirely my opinion and I am by no means attempting to tell anyone how they should wear their Highland attire. Just know this, there does exist a proper manner of wearing it.


Slainte,

You say that you are not attempting to tell anyone how to wear the kilt, but you do say that they are not wearing it correctly. That seems to me to be a contradiction. When you apply rules to the way in which a garment is to be worn and how it is not to be worn, you turn the garment into a uniform or, worse, a costume. Personally, I am not interested in wearing a uniform or a costume.

Perhaps the real problem here is simply that we are not describing the issues clearly. Are we really discussing two desperate topics -- highland dress (or Highland Dress) and the act of simply wearing the kilt?

Clearly the young men in the contested photographs are not wearing highland dress, and my sense is that they would not for a minute claim to be wearing highland dress. They are simply wearing a kilt as an item of daily wear, much in the way their pre-Victorian forbearers (assuming that most kilted young men in Edinburgh have Scottish ancestors) would have worn their kilts! It wasn't until the mid 1800's that the common rabble could even begin to afford the trappings of highland dress. Does anyone who espouses the virtues of highland dress want to suggest that the earliest kilted Scots were guilty of a fashion offense?

If there are really two issues here, then everyone is correct. Men (with apologies to the kilted female members of the forum) who wish to wear highland dress, should do so, and men who wish to simply wear the kilt, should also do so. And each group should, at the very least, be tolerant of the other. There will, of course, be some men who will want to do it both ways, but we can extend our tolerance to them, too.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I have no problem with kilts being worn with grubby socks and rugby jerseys.... I just wonder why all those fellows are also wearing their nice dress Prince Charlie sporrans at the same time! :-)

Seriously, that's what bothered me the most in a lot of those photos -- the mish-mash of casual and formal wear that makes it appear that the wearers really don't know all that much about kilt wearing.

Respecting the traditions of Highland dress does not mean always dressing formally, or even always dressing nicely! But it does mean a certain care is taken to wear with kilt within the broader context of fashion and tradition that it has developed in, and not wearing it as a costume.

Wearing a formal sporran with your rugby jersey and scrunched down hose, to my eye, makes the whole thing look like a costume. "This is my kilt outfit" it seems to say. It matters not that the elements of the outfit really don't all go together.

If the chrome-cantled fur sporrans were simply replaced with plain leather day sporrans in most of those photos, they'd be ok. (I'm not even touching on the subject of Neo-Jacobite shirts, or rainbow kilts in this post, mind you!)

[Lyle1]

With respect, I call balderdash on you sir. It is as easy for a misused kilt to be passed down and raised up by a respecting recipient as it would be for a cherished heirloom to be eventually abused.


Anyone worth their salt would see such an item for its true value and never wear it lightly. I know if I had such a kilt it would only ever see dress occasions.

Just as the kilt was worn daily by all ranks in all manner of ways before proscription, so now do we lose at least some adherence to Victorian (dare I call it) dogma. What is, I think, important is that the wearer have pride in himself and wear his kilt with pride. Just ask a highland games athlete.

That's my opinion and I guess, like an anus, it stinks as much as anybody else's.

I do, most particularly, like the way you express yourself.

[creagdhubh]

With respect, I call balderdash on you sir. It is as easy for a misused kilt to be passed down and raised up by a respecting recipient as it would be for a cherished heirloom to be eventually abused.


Anyone worth their salt would see such an item for its true value and never wear it lightly. I know if I had such a kilt it would only ever see dress occasions.

Just as the kilt was worn daily by all ranks in all manner of ways before proscription, so now do we lose at least some adherence to Victorian (dare I call it) dogma. What is, I think, important is that the wearer have pride in himself and wear his kilt with pride. Just ask a highland games athlete.

That's my opinion and I guess, like an anus, it stinks as much as anybody else's.

Thanks for your post.

[creagdhubh]

You say that you are not attempting to tell anyone how to wear the kilt, but you do say that they are not wearing it correctly. That seems to me to be a contradiction. When you apply rules to the way in which a garment is to be worn and how it is not to be worn, you turn the garment into a uniform or, worse, a costume. Personally, I am not interested in wearing a uniform or a costume.

Perhaps the real problem here is simply that we are not describing the issues clearly. Are we really discussing two desperate topics -- highland dress (or Highland Dress) and the act of simply wearing the kilt?

Clearly the young men in the contested photographs are not wearing highland dress, and my sense is that they would not for a minute claim to be wearing highland dress. They are simply wearing a kilt as an item of daily wear, much in the way their pre-Victorian forbearers (assuming that most kilted young men in Edinburgh have Scottish ancestors) would have worn their kilts! It wasn't until the mid 1800's that the common rabble could even begin to afford the trappings of highland dress. Does anyone who espouses the virtues of highland dress want to suggest that the earliest kilted Scots were guilty of a fashion offense?

If there are really two issues here, then everyone is correct. Men (with apologies to the kilted female members of the forum) who wish to wear highland dress, should do so, and men who wish to simply wear the kilt, should also do so. And each group should, at the very least, be tolerant of the other. There will, of course, be some men who will want to do it both ways, but we can extend our tolerance to them, too.

Well said mate.

[creagdhubh]

With every respect to those who hold the kilt 'sacred'... wasn't the kilt once worn whilst mucking out the goats? harvesting peat? probably emptying the lavies? and, as Downunder mentioned, going over the top?

For dressed events, a nice Sunday afternoon, dinner, formal occasions, etc, I think the kilt SHOULD be worn as the Victorians dictated and has been more or less 'fixed' since. For a day out at the football or rugby pitch, what's wrong with a bit of boot and scrunched hose? If it was okay for the trenchies, it'll do for me.

a few of the pix from #65, particularly the lad at Murrayfield, seem okay to me. Better people wear it with a more modern (in most cases, casual) twist than not wear it at all and have the kilt be relegated to the old folks home, and eventually, a museum.
Just my $.02 (.0133 GBP)

Understand your point, thanks for your post.

[Brian K]

Eyes don't work too well, Brian...

Don't worry about it; I think I should have stayed out of this thread.

I think you belong anywhere you want to be, my friend. Your opinions are no less valid than those of anyone else.

[creagdhubh]

Kyle, if I may call you by your first name, you seem to make some very sweeping statements regarding kilts that have been handed down that have been mistreated, in your opinion, that they are not worthy of being treasured.
You give one example, without exception, of kilts being worn with boots and grubby hose or with rugby football tops. I would hazzard a guess that many service men died in their kilts with grubby socks and wearing boots and may not have been exactly dressed to your exacting standards. Personally I would not care how they were worn if one of those kilts came into my possession.

I agree with you that it is good to have a high standard of kilt dress and I too have shaken my head at some of the attire I have seen with a kilt. I commend you on your standards, but please no more sweeping statements on what should be treasured and what should not be.

Cheers mate, thanks for addressing the issue. Also, don't lecture me (not trying to be snippy or negative when I say it in that manner) about service men, I served as a U.S. Marine from 1999-2007 and saw combat on three separate tours. My great-grandfather was an Argyll during WWI, so I am well aware that many, many, many jocks paid the ultimate sacrifice whilst wearing their kilts and 'grubby' hose-grubby because they were constantly in the filth and mud, not on a pristine Edinburgh street. No disrespect here, not trying to exacerbate the issue, just responding.

[creagdhubh]

I have no problem with kilts being worn with grubby socks and rugby jerseys.... I just wonder why all those fellows are also wearing their nice dress Prince Charlie sporrans at the same time! :-)

Seriously, that's what bothered me the most in a lot of those photos -- the mish-mash of casual and formal wear that makes it appear that the wearers really don't know all that much about kilt wearing.

Respecting the traditions of Highland dress does not mean always dressing formally, or even always dressing nicely! But it does mean a certain care is taken to wear with kilt within the broader context of fashion and tradition that it has developed in, and not wearing it as a costume.

Wearing a formal sporran with your rugby jersey and scrunched down hose, to my eye, makes the whole thing look like a costume. "This is my kilt outfit" it seems to say. It matters not that the elements of the outfit really don't all go together.

If the chrome-cantled fur sporrans were simply replaced with plain leather day sporrans in most of those photos, they'd be ok. (I'm not even touching on the subject of Neo-Jacobite shirts, or rainbow kilts in this post, mind you!)

Well said as always Matt! Thanks for contributing.

Aye,