Quote Originally Posted by Father Bill View Post
For all those who point out frequently that on a well-fitted kilt, the belt is utterly un-necessary, this is surely true with many excellent body shapes, but...

I don't have one of those.
I don't either, my body being utterly tubular, like a huge sausage, yet all of my kilts are quite secure and I often wear a kilt all day with no slippage.

Men have always had a variety of body shapes yet kilts have never had belts. The whole idea of a "kilt belt" worn through the loops to hold up a kilt seems to be rather recent, and my impression (talking to some kiltmakers on both sides of the Atlantic) is that it's always been more of an American thing (Scottish kiltmakers telling me that they put loops on kilts, per order, from American customers). This impression could well be wrong, given my small sample size.

My assumption has long been (and it could well be wrong) that the belt thing was driven by people not used to wearing kilts wanting a belt by analogy with trousers.

If the loops on a kilt were for a waistbelt and intended to support the kilt they wouldn't just be on the back! There would have to be loops on the front also, in fact going all around, like on trousers. It's obvious from the number and placement of loops that they're for the sporran strap.