Kilt with trousers underneath!

[pugcasso]

Ok....I know this will be regarded as a 'blasphemy' by many (if not all) but I wonder if the idea of some type of trousers under a kilt is seen as acceptable (at least in theory) by some here.


I like to look at many ancient male clothing ideas ... the Viking and Anglo-Saxon (and most males of various regions of that time) typically had some type of trousers, a long belted-tunic (usually to knee length or shorter) and some leg wrappings and I thought why couldn't some type of pants and even leg-wrappings be integrated into kilt-wearing.


Sometimes I question that kilts must be worn in a specific usual "traditional" fashion (althought I like that too ..... even though traditions themselves are often made 'concrete' from more vague and less controlled older times where what was worn was less controlled - such as particular tartans being precisely controlled and associated with clans after a previous time when people wore what fabric was available in their region and they liked).


Well, really, that being said, one could decide to wear trousers under a kilt if one liked and make up their own fashion and that's ok .... just wondering if anyone has thought about this or done this. I'm sure there would be many who would judge this to be wrong... but then again there are plenty of people who judge anyone wearing a kilt to be 'wrong' too ;-)


(partially this idea is prompted by the fact that winter is fast approaching. I am considering making a long knee-length tunic and trying out some viking/anglo-saxon type clothing for winter)

[Tobus]

I'm all for trying new things, but only if they make sense. What would be the point of wearing a kilt over trousers? You get none of the benefit of the kilt. If it's warmth you're after, a long coat will do just as well and look less questionable.

[KenB]

IMHO, no need for trousers under a kilt. The look would just appear rather nasty.
I live in a climate where I have been kilted at -20 C. (-4 F) with no difficulties.
The look is not one I like.

[Bugbear]

Just as long as you don't put the trousers on over the kilt...

I don't recall exactly who came up with it, but I have seen people talking about long handle underpants being shortened in the leg and worn with the kilt.

In my mind, I kind of like the look of long tunics with a belt at the waist. The leine, basically; why bother with the kilt?

[Jimmy]

everyone is entitled to dictate their own particular fashion and style in what way they wear their clothes. I dare say in a hundred years time or even less we may have fashions that we say are just not possible.
Just look at the fashion with young men who wear their trousers almost down below their bum with next weeks washing on show - who would have said that this would have been the fashion in Britain five years ago.
Nevertheless I want to wear a kilt and not trousers or pants, thats what I like, the freedom of wearing a freeflowing garment suits my person and I'm glad the kilt can offer me that privelege.

[zirrow]

I've never seen it with a kilt, but when I was in school in Northern California, many of the girls would do this with skirts and jeans - it was NOT a look I would recommend, but that's just one guy's opinion and YMMV.

[Father Bill]

Mmmm.

.

.

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . no.

[Bugbear]

King George IV wore pink tights with a kilt during his visit to Scotland in 1822, from what I've read.

So... I think you have to be Royalty to get away with it.

* Not sure he would have been George IV in Scotland. I'll have to look it up: working from notes.

[CopperNGold]

Sorry, but I just don't see it working out well. I wouldn't try to mix the two very opposing looks. How about a heavier weight kilt?

[sevenoaks]

A School Girl wearing a Kilt and tights, may be fine... BUT a man in tights and a Kilt would look like a costume to me. He would not appear to very "Manly".
In my humble opinion...
I would suggest... Don't do it!