My grandfather who was brought up in a kilt wearing and piping family, saw action in both World Wars in a Highland Regiment and was kilted in France during part of the First World War. I will relate some of his opinion as told to me. According to him, the low lands of France during the First World War and in the winter particularly were not a place for the kilt, the exceedingly wet and unsatisfactory environment played havoc with its normal function.

Problems mentioned by him were the hem getting caught in barbed wire and protruding objects, mud from the fields and from the side of the trenches collecting on the kilt, difficulty drying it (lack of wind, not as in Scotland) and flees breading in the pleats. The worst part was in the winter when the kilt was perpetually wet often caked with mud causing it to be weighted down to such an extent that even its length seemed to grow and the kilt would not sit as it should.

The theory is a kilt of the proper weight and correct length would normally allow the water to drain off, but a longer heavier kilt with the hem caked in mud became a cutting object. When moving/running about it caused chaffing and cuts where it contacted the back of the leg, this at times led to a medical problem called phlebitis. Of course, gone untreated, could easily have led to more serious problems.

In contrast, in Scotland at that time it was not uncommon for some men on the hill to have a shorter kilt as much as 2 – 3 inches above the knee to alleviate problems associated with a wrong length kilt.

I digress slightly here, but to me, there is a purpose for the designated “correct” length of kilt as has been stated repeatedly, by at least one member on this site. Kilt length is not just a fashion fad, but something that is born out of practical function as I hope is illustrated above.