Wearing the kilt...

[RossCroft]

i wear a kilt every day. i'm self employed, so it's easier for me, but a kilt is clothing to me not a costume. i have a suggestion for those who would like to wear the kilt as part of their cultural heritage.

learn the historical roots of *why* anything was worn. highlanders weren't really much for "fluff" and if they wore it there was a reason.

the little kilt is an evolution of the great kilt. the great kilt was sleeping bag (and warm it is too!), coat and game bag. it was an incredibly practical item and wearing it was the most practical way to carry it around. it evolved into the little kilt because the highlanders found themselves "in town" and the great kilt was no longer practical. the little kilt was a way of hanging on to the culture but a scotsman was practical above all. i wear the little kilt to work precisely because the great kilt would get in the way when working. at games or while camping i wear the great kilt because there it is much more practical than the little kilt.

where did the sporran come from? the ghillies? the bonnet? the prince charles jacket? if you know the roots of your attire you will probably come closer to what is "traditional" in the modern world.

the kilt is a wonderful item of clothing. when someone comes into my shop and asks questions about it i'm happy to answer them. questions from folks who know nothing are nice. i've seen a ton of people who wear the kilt with no idea what it is or what the "roots" are of it. and in many cases they put out false information because they heard it, read it or just want to look like an expert. there's a lot i don't know, but taking the time to do some research solves most of that. and when i diverge from the "traditional" attire i know it and i know why i'm doing it. i am constantly getting comments from folks about how "authentic" i look. that's because i wear the kilt as a functional item of clothing and not as a costume. the "attitude" is different when i am in costume and when i'm just wearing my clothing.

btw, one of the biggest reasons i choose to wear the kilt and the old fashioned "stuff" is because it's so practical. and comfortable.

anyway, enough of the soapbox. hope to see more of ye around. i enjoyed meeting folks from this board at the livermore games and hope to meet more of ye.

[Dirk Skene]

I am a bit jealous of your being able to wear one all the time. Even though I am always kilted unless I'm at work or church, I work 2 jobs so I don't get lot of "play" time. I guess that's why I play hard

[furrycelt]

I am a bit jealous of your being able to wear one all the time. Even though I am always kilted unless I'm at work or church, I work 2 jobs so I don't get lot of "play" time. I guess that's why I play hard

at the risk of asking something that is none of my business and could potentially get the thread locked.... why not wear your kilt at church?

just curious. i wear mine to my church all the time, and as far as i know, no one has an issue with it.

[Howard Clark]

I am self employed as well, and the kilt is very practical indeed in the forge shop. I also prefer to think of it as simply clothing, and not costume. I don't need pockets much either, and even before I started wearing kilts I disliked stuff in my pockets, preferring a small pack and waist belt not unlike a sporran, really if you think about it.

Church and church functions are the biggest part of my "out in public" kilt wearing. Being Presbyterian, there is not much anyone can say to denigrate the wearing of a kilt in church, eh ? Of course that presumes they have read some history, which is not always a safe assumption. I guess the way I dress there could be called "costume", but really, it is just the nicest stuff I own.

[Dirk Skene]

at the risk of asking something that is none of my business and could potentially get the thread locked.... why not wear your kilt at church?

just curious. i wear mine to my church all the time, and as far as i know, no one has an issue with it.

It is a legit question my friend The way you asked it, it is not against the rules and & will answer in the same vain. I choose not to because I deem it could be distracting from the focus. I am opposed to women & girls showing up in dresses so short they have to pull the hem down as they sit for the same reason. We XMarkers are used to kilts. Most other folks are not & I do not want to be the center of attention while at church.

Of course one could argue that if I started, then after a few weeks it would be seen as normal.

[Skweres]

It is a legit question my friend The way you asked it, it is not against the rules and & will answer in the same vain. I choose not to because I deem it could be distracting from the focus. I am opposed to women & girls showing up in dresses so short they have to pull the hem down as they sit for the same reason. We XMarkers are used to kilts. Most other folks are not & I do not want to be the center of attention while at church.

Of course one could argue that if I started, then after a few weeks it would be seen as normal.

although i do wear my kilt to church as often as i can, i do agree with your motive, to do so would take all the eyes off the main focus and thats just not good, i tend to sit in the back and come in at the last minute so i dont have any problems, i dont really get to know anyone besides my priest so it doesnt bother me to sit in the back so i dont have to worry about being a distraction.

[Monkey@Arms]

SNIP

the little kilt is an evolution of the great kilt. the great kilt was sleeping bag (and warm it is too!), coat and game bag. it was an incredibly practical item and wearing it was the most practical way to carry it around. it evolved into the little kilt because the highlanders found themselves "in town" and the great kilt was no longer practical. the little kilt was a way of hanging on to the culture but a scotsman was practical above all.

SNIP

anyway, enough of the soapbox. hope to see more of ye around. i enjoyed meeting folks from this board at the livermore games and hope to meet more of ye.

It was great meeting you in Livermore. Your post raises an interesting question, the answer to which I guess is lost in antiquity. If, as I have read, the great kilt developed relatively late in Scottish history, what was it that triggered the inhabitants of the Highlands to change their style of dress from the leine and brat to the kilt?

If it was an improvement, why wasn't it adopted in other areas with similar conditions? (Just to keep the discussion focused, I'm discussing the great kilt in particular, not pleated unbifurcated garments in general.)

Best regards,

Jake

[M. A. C. Newsome]

If, as I have read, the great kilt developed relatively late in Scottish history, what was it that triggered the inhabitants of the Highlands to change their style of dress from the leine and brat to the kilt?

Of course we don't know for certain, because they are no longer around to ask after 400+ years, but we do have our theories.

The feilidh-mhor ("great kilt") evolved from the brat or plaid. It originated as simply a long wrap (feilidh in Gaelic) that was gathered and belted at the waist, rather than just draped over the shoulder. This adaptation occurred towards the very end of the sixteenth century.

I have encountered at least two different theories as to why, and both are beleivable, and I think both are probably true.

The first factor is that the cost of wool dropped considerably in the late sixteenth century. There apparantly was a glut on the market at the time, and this made it less expensive, so the average person could afford to purchase more woolen cloth. Keep in mind the fashion at the time was for excess cloth in clothing. Look at some late sixteenth century depictions of the leinte, and you will see very long sleeves, pleated skirts, and basically a lot of cloth. Apply the same fashion of excess cloth to the brat or mantle, and you easily end up with a length that requires belting on to keep it all together.

The second factor was that apparantly around this time Europe entered into a "mini-Ice Age" resulting in temperature drops in places such as.... Scotland! Add colder weather to the above mentioned lower-cost wool and affection for excess fabric, and the feilidh-mhor is born!

[RossCroft]

Of course we don't know for certain, because they are no longer around to ask after 400+ years, but we do have our theories.

The feilidh-mhor ("great kilt") evolved from the brat or plaid. It originated as simply a long wrap (feilidh in Gaelic) that was gathered and belted at the waist, rather than just draped over the shoulder. This adaptation occurred towards the very end of the sixteenth century.

I have encountered at least two different theories as to why, and both are beleivable, and I think both are probably true.

The first factor is that the cost of wool dropped considerably in the late sixteenth century. There apparantly was a glut on the market at the time, and this made it less expensive, so the average person could afford to purchase more woolen cloth. Keep in mind the fashion at the time was for excess cloth in clothing. Look at some late sixteenth century depictions of the leinte, and you will see very long sleeves, pleated skirts, and basically a lot of cloth. Apply the same fashion of excess cloth to the brat or mantle, and you easily end up with a length that requires belting on to keep it all together.

The second factor was that apparantly around this time Europe entered into a "mini-Ice Age" resulting in temperature drops in places such as.... Scotland! Add colder weather to the above mentioned lower-cost wool and affection for excess fabric, and the feilidh-mhor is born!

wow. research results. i'm impressed.

related thoughts...
i think the use of lots of material was more in use by nobility and rich folks, and i suspect the poor had to make do with what they could get so long as it met their needs. when they could they used lots of cloth, but huge billowing anything got in the way of those who had to actually work. as a wearer of the great kilt i can tell you that less than six yards would limit it usefulness. most of the folks i see wearing one use a belt to control the billowing folds. i leave them blowing to have their use as pockets for bulky items that won't fit in a sporran. less than six yards would leave me without those useful pouches.

as far as the leine, i tend to stay away from them. i lean toward the jacobite style shirt as a more practical piece of attire. and even then, i use a lace on cuff to keep the sleeves out of leather dyes. my wife wears a leine at games and ties the sleeves back to cook. it makes it practical for her, but i would ruin one quickly.

all of which is just my opinion, which will buy me a cup of coffee so long as i add the appropriate amount of money to pay for it.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

most of the folks i see wearing one use a belt to control the billowing folds. i leave them blowing to have their use as pockets for bulky items that won't fit in a sporran. less than six yards would leave me without those useful pouches.

Oh, I don't know about that. Mine is just over 4 yards and I am able to arrange it to give me pouches a'plenty!

I've seen speculation that the feilidh-mhor could be anywhere from 3 to 6 yards in length (and certainly there was no "standard" length -- people likely used what they had). However, since all the earliest tailored kilts we know of contained around 4 yards, and these were the direct development out of the feilidh-beag, which was just the lower half of the feilidh-mhor, I have to assume 4 yards was the average length for those, as well.

M