Kilt with trousers underneath!

**Bugbear** · 28th October 11, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Woodsheal

A tunic is not a kilt. The former with trousers - yes! The kilt - no!

Woolen Viking tunics here:
http://www.museumreplicas.com/p-456-...ing-tunic.aspx

Awesome!

**Ryan Ross** · 28th October 11, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Woodsheal

A tunic is not a kilt. The former with trousers - yes! The kilt - no!

Sing it, brother! And join the Long Shirt movement.

....someone needs to make a Facebook page for it.

Woolen Viking tunics here:
http://www.museumreplicas.com/p-456-...ing-tunic.aspx

You know, I've actually had one of these things in hand, and they're... not good.

Imagine a Greek style tunic, but made from millitary surplus blankets, and you'll have a great idea of these things. Near as I can tell, if you want a proper Norse shirt, you have to make it yourself... or pay an arm and a leg to get someone else to do it.

**Bugbear** · 28th October 11, 01:56 PM

I'll look into making a leine.

**biblemonkey** · 28th October 11, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by MeghanWalker

May I ask a question and NOT be flamed ruthlessly for it? I ask it just because I'm curious....

why does it matter what kind of undies you wear under your kilt? Who is going to ask? Who is going to see? I guess I don't see the reason for these kinds of questions. I know it would be more historically accurate but why does it matter the KIND or whatever? Who is going to ask!?

Yes, I realize I may have dug a hole just asking that BUT cut me a little slack *bats eyelashes*

Undies under the kilt is hotly debated and in the end it's really only a personal choice and the argument is kind of pointless in my opinion.

**Mark Stephenson** · 28th October 11, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

...well, I'm not sure King George got away with it either. After all, folks are still talking about it, and not in complimentary terms. I think it would look quite strange to wear pants under a kilt - to say the least. In any case, I always enjoy interesting questions like this, and the responses that ensue from the Rabble.

**Meggers** · 28th October 11, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by biblemonkey

the argument is kind of pointless in my opinion.

I would have to say I agree... but then again, it really doesn't apply to me.

**Bugbear** · 28th October 11, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Stephenson

...well, I'm not sure King George got away with it either. After all, folks are still talking about it, and not in complimentary terms. I think it would look quite strange to wear pants under a kilt - to say the least. In any case, I always enjoy interesting questions like this, and the responses that ensue from the Rabble.

Exactly. He should have worne a long shirt.

**Ryan Ross** · 28th October 11, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by Bugbear

Exactly. He should have worne a long shirt.

Bingo.

**ThistleDown** · 28th October 11, 04:31 PM

During the only time he ever wore a kilt I think King George wore the closest shade to "flesh" as a wrap for his chubby legs. No doubt he would have looked better in a shirt than in what he did wear -- at least to us almost 200 years later. I suspect some of us will fall prey to the same commentary 200 years from now, if we are remembered at all.

We do have to keep in mind, however, that had it not been for His Majesty wearing Highland dress during his brief travel to North Britain, it is unlikely the kilt in any form at all would be around today.

**Bugbear** · 28th October 11, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by ThistleDown

During the only time he ever wore a kilt I think King George wore the closest shade to "flesh" as a wrap for his chubby legs. No doubt he would have looked better in a shirt than in what he did wear -- at least to us almost 200 years later. I suspect some of us will fall prey to the same commentary 200 years from now, if we are remembered at all.

We do have to keep in mind, however, that had it not been for His Majesty wearing Highland dress during his brief travel to North Britain, it is unlikely the kilt in any form at all would be around today.

Perhaps XMTS will still be around in some dusty archive somewhere.

It was my impression that was one event that soon after contributed to the kilt and tartan being considered the "national ethnic garment" of Scotland. I'm not sure where I got that impression, but I did see that time period, eighteen-thirties, being referenced as a point when the kilt had become the "national garment" in a history book on Scotland yesterday. I've been trying to get a better handle on the timelines of events in Scotland and hopefully the history of the kilt.