Wearing a PC in the Daytime??

[A Hay]

As I have read through the posts to this thread, I'm reminded of a video series I saw probably 30 years ago. It was called "What you are now is what you were when". It was based on the theories of Morris Massey (I just googled it and there are many links if you want more details).

As I recall, his basic point is that you are greatly influenced by the times that you were in certain formative ages. For example, the type of music you like now may have been greatly influenced by what you listened when you were in your late teens or early 20s.

For my own situation, I'm more interested in the traditional kilt and historical clothing. I don't think I would be comfortable in some of the more modern kilts. I just have no interest in them. I think this may come from my 20s when I first saw kilts worn by pipe bands ( that was in the 1960s by the way)

But I don't think I see things in terms of black and white, right and wrong.
I want to understand the proper wearing of highland attire, and in certain situations, I would choose to wear what is conventional. I've been fortunate enough to acquire a lovat green argyll, a black argyll, a PC and recently a sheriffmuir doublet. And if I were attending a function that was predominately knowledgable kilt wearers, I would try to conform to the norms of that group.

On the otherhand, I wear a kilt nearly every Sunday to Church and afterward to the PX and Commissary on the military base I'm associated with. I wear everything from casual, i.e., kilt and sweater or pullover in summer, to Argyll, PC, and even Sheriffmuir last week (but with just a collar shirt and tie, not the lace jabot and lace cuffs!) Partly I do it to show others various combinations of attire. I have found that kilt wearing here opens many interesting conversations with nice people that I would otherwise never meet.

This forum has given me the information to know what is the appropriate attire when I choose to wear it, and I have also seen many variations that give me ideas of other options.

So to Jock Scot and McMurdo, thanks for your guidance toward tradition, and if I visit your neighborhoods, I would, out of courtesy, of course follow your traditions. But if I'm at a Highland Games in Colorado, you probably would see me in knit shirt and 5 yard casual kilt.

That is the freedom of kiltwearing (and reaching an age where I'm comfortable who I am 60+) and so ends my humble contribution to discussion.
Long live diversity!

Regards,

Tom

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

First let me say that even though I try to wear my kilt and kilt attire as traditionally as I can, I am one that chafes at some of the statements made by some of the “traditionalist.” In some cases it may rest on a semantically discussion, perhaps if the statements made were more in the vain of “traditionally” this was the way this article of attire of clothing was worn, rather than what I perceive as the more common the ‘that must not be worn it this way.”

I fully believe in traditions, but, I do believe that Emily Post and others of her group did a disservice to tradition when they seem to write “tradition” in stone. Tradition is simply what was done in the past.

Tradition is "custom and usages transmitted from one generation to another and viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present".

However, that past was not stagnant it changes and evolves. Who decides at what point that evolution stops?

Past events are, by and large, immutable, and are history. In this instance history is the well spring of tradition. The past is carved in stone, and traditions evolve from past events. Evolution does not stop, but rather it follows the path of tradition-- change is subtly evident; lapels may be wider, or the cuffs a different style, but the traditional shape remains as does the tradition of wearing certain styles of attire on specified occasions.

McClef says that he graduated from St. Andrews’ in white tie in the day light. Ye Gads the man should be shot, white tie in the day light. Yes, and it was proper because this is the tradition at St. Andrews. I would like to have the time to really research this tradition. When the wearing of white tie for the graduation first started was it proper to wear white tie in the daylight for special occasions? Were the graduations at St. Andrews originally held in the evening so that the working/traveling family of the graduates could attend, and over the years the time of the graduation changed but the attire did not?

Academic traditions have little or nothing to do with the conventions of wearing formal attire, as I am sure someone else will probably point out (SFMACLJR has, in a previous post). McClef should not be shot for adhering to the traditions of his university regarding graduation attire.

From what I have read and heard if we look at what is often called traditional highland attire would not have been worn 50 or 100 years before the tradition was “codified”.

All traditions have a starting point, be it "highland games" the first of which was held at the Falkirk Cattle Tryst in 1781, or "Highalnd attire", in the sense we are talking about here, which dates from about 1840.

In addition what is often called traditional highland attire was not what would have been worn by the vast majority of Scottish people. The traditional attire is more what would have been worn by the upper class Scot and English.

Actually, Highland attire-- with the exception of the kilt-- is based on what was worn by the vast majority of the people in Scotland at that time. True, the very wealthy could indulge in the extravagances of "Balmorality" in their attire, but the vast majority did not. The Scottish middle classes, the people responsible for the mass popularity of Highland attire, remained sober and restrained in their mode of dress.

Do you think that the average Scottish farmer would have had brown belts and sporrans for day wear and run home to change into black leather at night?

No. And neither does a traditionalist. As JockScot and SFMACLJR have repeatedly pointed out, the phenomenon of matching colours, etc. is foreign to Scotland and seems to be something unique to North America.

I await to be corrected, but, what I often hear as the proper traditional way to wear highland attire is based on the requirements for attending society events, either day, evening or night.

You are correct-- based is the operative word. You are wrong, however, when you suggest that this applies only to "society events"-- whatever that may mean. There are modes of dress appropriate to the time of day, whether kilted or in trousers, and this applies to casual as well as formal attire.

I’m know that I would not fit in local “society”...

"Fitting in" with local society, or any society for that matter, requires making the effort to fit in. This involves showing respect for that society's customs and traditions. Those that make the effort are usually accepted. Those that make no effort aren't. The only way one knows for sure that they won't fit into "society" is if they have already decided they do not want to fit in. That choice is totally down to you.

...much less 16th, 17th or 18th English society why should I be bound by their requirements?

Why not? We are talking about accepting traditional standards of dress, not dancing the minuet. We are talking about traditions that have developed over 150 years or so, and have been applied to clothing that is exactly the same as that worn in the workaday world today, with the exception of those few changes needed to make it work with a kilt.

As I wear my kilts I will do so with respect to the heritage behind them, but not always to what I consider to be out dated traditions.

Last point, I respect those that are more traditional than I am, I want to thank them for their view point and knowledge, and if I have offend in the past in my questions I apologies.

There is no need to offer an apology for an offense not given. Questions never should offend (although sometimes the answers might! ).

[Panache]

To all,

There is currently another thread discussing how to improve XMTS

I think that the rather lively discussion here has illustrated the need for the addition of a couple of separate sub forums for modern kilt attire and classic / traditional kilt attire (1850 to 1960?).

I strongly believe that offense is not the intention on either side of this debate. It is abundantly obvious from the preceding posts that there are great differences in how the various members perceive formality in regards to attire.

Now instead of this thread finally collapsing into outright nastiness I propose a cease fire.

The original topic has been well covered so without further word from either side of the equation why don't we retire from these chambers.

I think that we all could use a nice breather and perhaps if these discussions where housed in more specific areas all could find either common ground or at least the agreement to disagree.

What of it Gentlemen and Ladies?

Shall we shake hands and let this go?

I am

Cheers

Jamie

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

deleted by author

[thescot]

I love this place. Threads like this can go on and on, and people still remain quite civil. I really do enjoy spirited discussion.

Of course, we have devolved into the arguments that JockScot assured us we would devolve to, i.e, "by whose authority--I can do what I want --you can't tell me . . ." And I think that a shame.

Those statements are correct; no one can tell anyone else how to dress, nor will anyone try. Nor has anyone tried here. Friday, you can wear anything you like. We've all said that here, and if you want to wear suspenders on your kilt, a polkadot tie, a striped shirt, and knee-high waders with your kilt, be our guest. There really are no kilt police, so you won't be arrested.

But if you are chafed because you don't like tradition or convention or conserviative styles, then there is little that discussion will do to alleviate it. It's a choice you make. No one has tried to dictate your mode of dress; we have however discussed the conventions of highland attire and pointed out what they are. No one is required to follow them. They have indeed evolved over a couple hundred years, heavily influenced by military traditions and the requirements of court dress, and they are fairly well known and understood. And as JockScot pointed out, it is Highland attire we speak of, not Georgia attire or California attire. If the dictates of dress are heavily British, well . . . duh!

And I beg to differ with pastorsteve; the wearing of a tux in the daytime for weddings is not centuries old on either side of the pond. Wearing a tux in the daytime almost certainly dates from the 60s or thereabouts. And again, the whole "formal" wedding idea is pretty much based on watching Princess Margaret get hitched on TV in the 50s. Before that, most folks married in a nice dress for the girl and a suit or the guy. The problem was--I say again--that many folks, unaccustomed to the niceties of formal or even black tie conventions didn't know any better than to wear a tux for a noon wedding. They'd seen tuxes at proms (in the evening), movies with good looking guys in tuxes and dinner jackets (in the evening), and figured that getting dressed up meant wearing a tux.

Want to wear a tux at noon?--go for it. Want to wear a pair of pink checkered shorts with tails?--OK. Insist on a PC in the early afternoon?--you can do whatever you like.

But at least if you've read this thread, you'll know better and do so because it was a choice.

And that's why I love this place.

The "authority" you question and imply does not exist--or perhaps is bogus--is convention. It's that same convention that places the fork on the left, the pocket on a man's jacket on the left, the wedding ring on the left--why all this left stuff?--and it's not authority. It is, however, good taste. And like other conventions, it is well understood and easily attained--if one wishes to do so. It is also easily ignored, just like forks and pockets and wedding rings.

But if one should choose to ignore convention, then one should not be surprised if one is considered unschooled, unsophisticated, and/or uncooth. That's just the way it is.

[JSFMACLJR]

deleted.

[Jock Scot]

Well I can agree to differ.

[JSFMACLJR]

Sorry, Jamie, I'll hush up now. I didn't see your truce proclamation.

[macwilkin]

Jamie,

Fair enough. I certainly will do my best to be respectful, and my apologies to all if I have caused offence.

Yr obdt svt,

Todd

[Friday]

As a closing comment and I will limit comments on this subject in the future, I am very conservative in my attire, highland and other wise. Maybe it is because of almost 30 years working for the US Federal Government and constantly hearing "it is done this way because" and no one can explain the "because" that gets me started.

And "because" of that thanks to all for the information I now know that it is "because".