At what point doe's a Kilt ....

[Derek]

After we had a rehearsal with the band yesterday evening I was talking to the other guitarist, who at some time in the future is going to get a traditional kilt in his family tartan and join me on stage kilted. His wife fully supports him, its simple the cost and they have their children to consider first. However he mentioned over a cold beer yesterday that he doe's check on E Bay regularily for Kilts but the chance of his family tartan and size coming up is nigh on zero. He is also aware there is now quite a diversity of kilts available at really good value prices but obviously not in his tartan. He also asked me out of interest .. At what point does a Kilt cease to be a Kilt. I didn't know how to explain it just like that so I said I would ponder on it and let him know. I'm still trying to put it together other than the obvious things .. ie fasten to the left etc etc. Any help in explaining gratefully received.
Derek

[Bob C]

The answers are going to be all over the map on this one, Derek.

To me, the kilt is rooted in history. I would probably never wear a kilt that was not of tartan. It would have to have the pleats and appear, at least, to be of traditional design.

There are plenty here who love camo, khaki, denim, etc. kilts. I find no fault with them, but I think they're really close to the line where they are simply wearing male skirts.

I support, by the way, anyone's right/choice/desire to wear a male skirt.

[James]

As a one man awkward squad-but it is how I was brought up: I'd look to the link between the individual-their family/clan, and the tartan they wear.

However there is an escape clause-that is all the superb district-regional and such variations as the national tartans.

So I'd suggest that there are plenty of options without risking treading on any toes.

In my own case, whilst most of my various kilts are variants of my own clan tartan-and I doubt if I'd dare go out in a clan tartan which was not my own. I do quite happily wear a Loch Lomond district tartan.

I do appreciate that I tend to be a bit of a purist and certainly first up against the wall in the minds of many on this board. However whilst I might not agree with some views-I'd defend the right to hold them.

To close I'd suggest that for a first kilt, it is worth getting a decent well fitting one-for it adds to the wearer's confidence.

James

[Jimmy Carbomb]

A kilt ceases to be a kilt when one of two three things happens...

1). The wearer considers it a skirt,
2). It's worn with no tradition or thought for heritage,
3). The wearer accessorizes it with inappropriate things.
In my opinion, the kilt is so much more than a garment. When it's treated as something that it's not... it comes across in the appearance. Frilly shirt, pleated garment and a pair of Mary-Janes make it a skirt. On the other hand, a simple UtiliKilt with the proper accessories becomes a solid kilt.

It's always been my contention that a "kilt" is more a state of mind. It's just a WHOLE lot easier to get that feeling when the thing is wool, heavily pleated, made with skill, and accessorized appropriately.

[Freedomlover]

According to the dictionary a kilt is "a pleated skirt, usually (but not necessairily) tartan, worn by men".

In that definition there is a lot of leeway. I wore the family tartans (yes, plural) for decades before decent modern variations became available. Since they are pleated (notice no mention of 'aprons' in the definition), may or may not be tartan, and are worn by men, then I would say that just about every such product offered by the so-called non traditional makers is (purists notwithstanding) a genuine kilt.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

How do you define a "kilt." Good luck. A kilt is rather like "offensive material" -- as people say, they can't define it, but they know it when they see it!

About a year or more ago I corresponded with people in the Scottish Tartans Authority on this question. They were attempting to come up with some kind of definition of what is and is not a kilt, with the intent being to prevent foreign, cheaply made costume items from being sold to unsuspecting tourists as "kilts." But the problem is that no one can agree on any definition that is broad enough to include the myriad of modern and historic styles of kilts, and narrow enough to be of any signifigance.

Can you go by yardage? No, because even though a typical modern kilt has eight yards of cloth, the first tailored kilts of the late eighteenth century had only four.

Can you go by the style of pleating? No, because though a typical modern kilt is knife pleated, the original tailored kilt was box pleated. Then you have the barrel pleating of some regiments, and the "Kinguisse" style of pleating that was sometimes seen in the nineteenth century. I've even seen other oddities like one nineteenth century photo of a man in a tweed kilt with one wide box pleat on the hip, and all the other pleats knife. Some early portraits show kilts with very narrow aprons, with the pleating coming up in the front -- some even with all around pleating!

Can you go by how it is tailored? No, because even though the kilt is traditionally a hand-tailored garment, many -- even the major kilt making firms -- offer machine stitching as a less expensive alternative. And keep in mind the feilidh-mhor and feilidh-beag were completely untailored garments!

Can you go by whether or not it is tartan? No, because even though most kilts are of a tartan material, solid color kilts have been worn as long as kilts have existed. Though they never have been as popular, we have portraits of people in solid kilts from as early as 1635! You want to tell the London Scottish, or the Toronto Scottish regiments that they aren't wearing real kilts, because they are not tartan? I didn't think so.

Can you go by whether or not it is wool? No, because even though wool has always been, and will continue to be the best cloth for kilts, other cloth has been used. And not just in a modern context. It was once the fashion in Victorian times for gentlemen to have a silk kilt for evening wear (gotta get one of those!).

So, if anyone here can come up with a definition that encompasses modern and historic styles of kilts, but is exclusive enough to still be of some use, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I'll have to stick to "I know one when I see one!"

Aye,
Matt

[Dreadbelly]

What makes it a kilt is the man wearing it.

So long as he knows his beans and the particular history or style of what he is wearing, it is a "kilt."

I also agree with Mr. Newsome.

[macwilkin]

Matt, that is one of the best posts I have read on Xmarks, period!

A note about the London Scottish for those who are not familiar: Lord Elcho, who raised the regiment from Scotsmen living in London, chose "Hodden Grey" on purpose:

This avoided all interclan feeling on the subject of tartan and, as Lord Elcho said "A soldier is a man hunter. As a deer stalker chooses the least visible of colours, so ought a soldier to be clad."

-- http://www.londonscottishregt.org/history.cfm

Hodden Grey is a homespun, and also mentioned in the song "The Star o' Rabbie Burns" as the colour of the ploughman's garments.

The Toronto Scottish are an affiliated unit of the London Scottish. Scottish regiments often "twin" with Commonwealth units, ie The Black Watch & the BW of Canada, etc.

Cheers,

Todd

[Sir Robert]

Because you asked, not because I know anything, I would say the med/heavy weight wool and a front full width apron are the defining caracteristics of a kilt.

I have an all black "manskirt" That is wool and is made with apron front pleited in back but I will never wear it to the highland games. It meets my definition of kilt but....

[Hamish]

Matt,

Yours is a superb response to Derek's question. Thank you for it.

For most of my life, and I've been wearing kilts for 55 years now, I thought of the kilt as being woollen, tartan, roughly 8 yards, hand-sewn, pleated save for the overlapping aprons at the front (and the top one wrapping to the right), fitted tightly to the waist with a 2" rise above that point and held in place by two or possibly three buckles and leather straps.

In the past six years or so, I have been honoured and privileged to witness an explosive step forward in the evolution of that kilt. Firstly, with Howie Nicholsby's "21st Century Kilts" (machine-stitched, 'hipsters' tailored by experienced traditional kiltmakers, using fabrics and materials other than tartan but otherwise following the 'established' kilt pattern). Then, almost immediately after Howie came Steven Villegas with his American Utilikilt - a totally different but, oh so practical leisure or work kilt, with capacious and wonderful pockets, that could be tossed into the washing machine (something one would never dream of doing with a kilt previously). These two gentlemen opened the flood-gates to the amazing diversity from which we may now chose: variations on the 'traditional' tartan kilt, and variations on the non-tartan newcomers too.

Today, just about every long-established kiltmaker of repute offers, in addition to his stock-in-trade 'traditional' kilts, contemporary machine-sewn garments worn on the hip in solid colours and reduced yardage.

The kilt is evolving, as it has always done. Of course, it must and will retain its traditions, but it is also rightly moving forward as an everyday garment of our time, and this continuing progress will ensure that our beloved kilt does not simply stagnate as a costume to be worn on special occasions - which is how most of us treated it until comparatively recently.

Here's to Tradition! But here's also to Progress!