I have seen it posted on this board on numerous pages that the kilt is an evolving garment, so I don't feel that you can peg a "traditional" kilt as a "Victorian", or assigning the name of a particular period in history to a garment that has changed with the times, so to speak. Remember that we also a lot to the Highland regiments of the British Army in terms of Highland attire, and as a uniform (although please don't misunderstand me, for it is not uniform kit per se), it has evolved as well. Most of those regiments were raised in the 1700's, well before the Victorian period. These regiments played a large part in keeping the kilt alive when it was proscribed after the '45. It's a well known fact that military fashions influence civilian "mufti" -- witness all of the kids wearing camo today.

For example: at the beginning of the 19th century, the old Highland bonnet had evolved into the Kilmarnock or Hummel Bonnet, which you see Highlanders (and other regiments) wearing in the Napoleonic Wars. As the Kilmarnock Bonnet was worn in the field, it started to develop a crease in the top of it, a "fore and aft" style, and eventually it evolved into the glengarry at mid-century. At one time, regiments wore the glengarry, some plain, some diced. Others wore the bonnet, plain or diced. Scottish regiments, Highland & Lowland, wore tartan trews, "non-Scottish" uniform kit, kilts & Highland attire -- you name it. Military tartans evolved and changed, from the first Government sett of the Independent Companies in the 1700's to the various regimental tartans, some of which were adopted by clans like the Cameron of Erracht (which was actually designed by a MacDonald, btw) and the Mackenzie. The kilt & Highland attire evolved throughout the Victorian period in the army.

If we proclaim the kilt to be an evolving garment, then to say that all traditionals are "Victorians" or "Georgians" negates the evolution of the garment, in my opinion. Yes, the Victorians & their love of all things "brigadoonery" did introduce a lot of things that we consider "traditional" today -- but so did the Edwardians at the turn of the 20th century. Or Edward VIII, later the Duke of Windsor. Or the regiments. Or just general fashion trends since the late 1600's. All of these periods and influences have blended together to produce the kilt in all its forms. The "traditional" kilt and of the associated "kit" comes from many traditions, not just 1837-1901 (the reign of Victoria). The "modern" kilt comes from these traditions as well, since it was the "traditional" that inspired the "modern" and all its variants.

As a traditionalist, I have no problem with "modern" kilts or their wearers, provided that they show me the same respect that I show them. Tolerance is a two-way street, and some of the worst conformists I have met claimed they were "non-conformist", or "everyone should be different (as long as you're just like me!)". I would hope that those who wear the "modern" variations pay respect to the lineage of the "traditional" kilt, because without it, there wouldn't be "modern" kilts. I think we're pretty safe in saying that. Would I wear a "modern" kilt. Probably not. Would I be rude to a wearer of one? Absolutely not. My mother raised me better than that.

Courtesy and courage is the mark of a gentleman, to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt.

Cheers,

Todd