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.

[pbpersson]

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!

Oh my gosh! I had no idea!!

[turpin]

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!

So according to Mr. Newsome, solid kilts predate the clan tartan system by at least 150 years.

[Blu (Ontario)]

... Frilly shirt, pleated garment and a pair of Mary-Janes make it a skirt...

Ooooh, do you think some green tights would go OK with that?? :razz: