Another Question

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I have never understood why being in the presence of ladies or children should carry any greater risk of exposure than anything else.

I'm going to stop you right here. If there is the least possible risk of giving offense, then a gentleman goes to what ever lengths necessary to insure that he does not cause offense.

I don't care what has, or has not occurred in your presence, because that is beside the point. We're (or rather I'm) talking about gentlemanly behaviour and I am sure that as a gentleman you too would not wish to inadvertently give offense.

Now, despite what you and others may have said, I'm afraid that none of it alters, in one iota, how a gentleman should behave or dress. Diehard traditionalist that I am (and damn proud of it), I would repeat that "in the presence of ladies or children trews should be worn under the kilt". I am not alone in that opinion; I am amply supported by the likes of Loudon McQueen Douglas writing in 1914, by the regulations laid down for dress worn at court since Highland attire has been allowed, and by virtually every book or booklet on modern Highland attire published prior to "So You're Going To Wear The Kilt".

It is sometimes forgotten that gentlemen who are wearing the kilt for the first time are, perhaps, less comfortable with that mode of dress. The frankly stupid mythologies that surround the wearing of the kilt do nothing to put them at their ease. So in my opinion, reinforcing those myths is far less helpful than suggesting socially acceptable alternatives.