Has anyone had a problem visiting The Vatican while kilted?

[ratspike]

If there are rules about clothing that state no bare knees then I think sagging your kilt just comes off as trying to get away with something you know full well isn't allowed. Sure it might be fine and staff members don't give you a second though, or it might not be fine and you're denied entry or asked to leave. American tourists have a well earned reputation for being obnoxious so why risk being That Guy? Me, I'd put on a pair of pants and go enjoy the museums.

[Destin_scot]

For What it is worth, my 2 cents,

I understand the desire to wear your kilt. But the last thing you'll ever want to do in an unfamiliar place is to mark yourself as a tourist. That makes you a target for any number of petty crimes, or even worse crimes. In these times, your best bet is to blend as best you can.

A friend of mine, who was stationed in the UK, said that the easiest way to tell who was a tourist from the US, was to look at their shoes or their pants. New shoes, and new blue jeans may seem like a good idea when travelling, (who doesn't want to put on a good face when out), but that will mark you as a tourist and possibly a target in many places in the world.

There is no need to draw any more attention to yourself than is absolutely necessary.

[thecompaqguy]

For What it is worth, my 2 cents,

I understand the desire to wear your kilt. But the last thing you'll ever want to do in an unfamiliar place is to mark yourself as a tourist. That makes you a target for any number of petty crimes, or even worse crimes. In these times, your best bet is to blend as best you can.

A friend of mine, who was stationed in the UK, said that the easiest way to tell who was a tourist from the US, was to look at their shoes or their pants. New shoes, and new blue jeans may seem like a good idea when travelling, (who doesn't want to put on a good face when out), but that will mark you as a tourist and possibly a target in many places in the world.

There is no need to draw any more attention to yourself than is absolutely necessary.

OP, leave the Loud McLeod kilt at home blend in with Joe Public and just wear regular chinos. Don't take anything like a flashy SLR camera with you, just a simple camera phone (like a Galaxy S6) that can be discreetly put in your pocket will do. There is a big pickpocketing risk in Rome, surely exacerbated by the growing migration issue. Don't draw unnecessary attention to yourself with big rucksacks etc... We can always distinguish the US Tourist from everyone else

[Father Bill]

I think you're getting a pretty clear message here. A pair of good quality trousers take up very little space in a bag if properly folded - far less than a kilt as a point of comparison.

There is a cultural tendency in some regions to think that they can ignore or stretch the rules at home or in other parts of the world, or to think that they have the right to do as they might prefer. They don't. People from those regions are immediately and easily identifable and disdained with silent contempt by locals and other travellers for their lack of consideration, and are generally considered to have poor manners. As a result they are not welcome

Please don't be a part of that movement, and please don't do it with a kilt and bring our favourite garment into disrespect and disrepute.

[Taffy Jack]

This will be an inexpert suggestion, as I'm not Catholic. There aren't crucifixes on our walls, nor a living room Bible stand such as my parents favored. Also, I practically never wear a tie. Still, when Mom and I go to church on Easter Sunday, I put on a tie and knot it carefully so as not to discomfit either my mother or her fellow church ladies. It's not my territory, but hers and theirs.

Likewise, although I'm not Jewish my wife and two of our kids are, so... I have a kippeh or two that I keep handy for synagogue. You could call it kowtowing, or cultural appropriation. You could call it "go along to get along," and I wouldn't disagree with you. Not my will, but theirs be done... because it's their house.

We never ask people to remove their shoes in our house (we own brooms and mops, after all), but most of our friends do because they've observed that this is the way we act in our home. On a recent visit to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, I was rather proud of my fellow ugly Americans who -- sloppy t-shirts, rubber Crocs, wraparound sunglasses and all -- made not one peep during the changing of the guard. Most people "get it" when it comes to honoring others' traditions, even when it means momentary suspension of one's own self-expression. Kinda like the class clown sometimes needs to pipe down and listen to the teacher, even if his jokes feel quite brilliant as he makes them. Seems that's part of being a member of this vast human community.

Not everybody gets the memo. My son's biological father, a proud atheist, showed up to son's bar mitzvah in a pair of cargo shorts. I guess he was making a statement for himself. I wore a suit, because that ceremony, in that place, was not about me. It was for the boy who went in, and for the young man who emerged.

Speaking for myself alone, I would not have felt comfortable touring Catholic holy (or adjunct) facilities in Spain and Italy in a pair of shorts, although there weren't guards present in most cases. Those rules were enforced by older women in black clothing.

Saints preserve us from the disapproval of elderly women!

[Lady Grey]

I am a very lapsed Catholic and have toured the Vatican.
The shoulders and knees edict is mainly geared towards women but I remember the males being told to ensure they had long shorts on that covered the knees.
Not sure when you're going but a wool kilt would be rather impractical as Rome can be hot and muggy. Also the pickpockets and beggars are stressful when you are a tourist. Whilst you may get away with wearing traditional kilt attire in the Vatican (and look decent & respectful) you would be a fool to wear it in the streets as that sporran won't be on you for long.

[Saturday]

If you must wear the kilt , then wear it as it is supposed to be worn, anything else is just a travesty. There are plenty of RC's here in the Highlands who wear the kilt properly, so at least do the home of the kilt the honour of wearing it properly.

I'm not trying to offend here and I understand where you're coming from, but this line of thought in a casual setting kind of rubs against the grain of why the kilt was worn in the first place. And I'm talking about before the English banned it. It was practical, comfortable, warm in the winter, cool in the summer, and was worn befitting the case and setting. So I don't understand why there needs to be a strict limitation on how it's worn in casual settings. Sorry, but it's simply a barrier to the practicality of the thing. I understand in a formal setting to wear it right. No one should have a missing button on their shirt and sagging slacks at a wedding, but who cares outside of the VIP situation?

Now. I get that the Kilt also represents the struggle of the Scot against the Brits. And I understand what a symbol it is, but maybe it doesn't always have to be a symbol. A martyr you wear. I want to smile when I wear my kilt. I want to remember my Scotch/Irish working class heritage. I want to wear my kilt with as much form as I do function.

As for the OP, I'd think you're fine. But bring a pair of pants you can change into.

[Jock Scot]

Firstly the English did not ban the kilt. Secondly, Scotland is part of Britain so they are British. Thirdly the Vatican apparently have dress codes and it is not for guests to question it.

[Saturday]

Firstly the English did not ban the kilt. Secondly, Scotland is part of Britain so they are British. Thirdly the Vatican apparently have dress codes and it is not for guests to question it.

The Dress Act of 1746 did, in fact, make it illegal to wear a kilt.

Yes Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. However, how many Scots identify as Brits and how many people understand that for a majority of planet Earth, Brit is a replacer for Englishman.

And I didn't say to disobey the Vatican rules anywhere in my post.

[Jock Scot]

The Dress Act of 1746 did, in fact, make it illegal to wear a kilt.



And I didn't say to disobey the Vatican rules anywhere in my post.

Nor did I, "disobey", is a word that is entirely yours.

I think that we really are not going to agree here by your tone of voice , but for your information it was the British Parliament that made the banning judgement in 1746. I cannot agree with you that "Brit is a replacer for Englishmen" a common mistake that those outwith Britain make, I am afraid.