Royal Regiment of Scotland

[Jock Scot]

Jock,

I think you are misreading me. I'm not disagreeing with you. I understand and agree that the vast majority of people think of the kilt as a very regulated garment that must be a certain way -- and one of those "requirements" is that it be made from eight yards of cloth.

Regardless of common opinion, however, the amount of material in a kilt is not now and has never been historically a requirement for being an authentic kilt. Is a misconception -- a popularly held one, I'll admit, but a misconception nonetheless.

It is my job (literally) to educate people about the history and traditions of the kilt, and one aspect of that is to dispell the myth that a "real" kilt must have exactly eight yards of cloth.

Matt ,I understand full well that you are not disagreeing with me.I feel that you are missing my point though. What I am trying, unsuccessfully it seems, to point out, is that you should not be surprised, or hurt, that the misconception continues, as most of the people who are even mildly interested in the kilt have a perception of what a real kilt is. You and others know that that perception is not necessarily correct,sadly that message is not getting through, in spite of your best endeavours. And I cannot see it ever will.

What I am saying(nicely I hope) is that you should not be surprised when a person of the majority, ill informed if you like, group has no idea what you are talking about! Of course if you,me, others who know better, xmarks, etc, could reach out and educate them, then all to the good. Sadly I don't think that will ever happen, so the 8 yard, tartan, wool, knife pleated, real kilt perception will live on. I am afraid you will still have to grind your teeth with frustration when people talk of "real" kilts for a very long time yet!

[Phil]

When I went to my tailor to have a "real" kilt made, the only choice I was offered was in the tartan to be used. Apart from that there was no question that it would be knife pleated to the sett and that was what was delivered. I fully understand that others regard a box-pleated kilt as perfectly acceptable and even a low-cost alternative. As Jock has tried to put across, somewhat unsuccessfully it seems, the only style of kilt considered as authentic by any Scotsman is a tartan, knife-pleated kilt, predominately pleated to the sett with a few pleated to the line, although these would be regarded as a military style rather than a civilian one (i.e. the wearer got a cheapie from the military surplus store!). I imagine the actual yardage would vary depending upon the size of the sett and the wearer's waist size but a good indication of a quality kilt would be the depth of the pleats - 4 inches almost or the length of your fingers. Anything less is nothing more than a tartan skirt.

[Tartan Hiker]

(snip)...the only style of kilt considered as authentic by any Scotsman is a tartan, knife-pleated kilt, predominately pleated to the sett with a few pleated to the line...

If my memory serves correctly, pleating to the sett was first documented in 1902 and described at that time as a novel new way to pleat a kilt. That means that there very well may be a few Scots still living that were born before knife pleats to the sett had even been invented.

[Phil]

If my memory serves correctly, pleating to the sett was first documented in 1902 and described at that time as a novel new way to pleat a kilt. That means that there very well may be a few Scots still living that were born before knife pleats to the sett had even been invented.

I seriously doubt that there are any 107 year-old Scots still around. There are, however, a number here who can trace their kilt-wearing traditions back to the early 1950's and to dismiss this in such a way is nothing but an impertinence. Modern re-inventions of our national dress should take account of the culture that actually originated it without trying to re-invent the tradition and culture behind it. There are many differing opinions expressed on this site quoting innumerable "learned" sources. The fact remains, however, that there is probably no-one here other than the native Scots that has worn a kilt prior to 10-20 years ago. Quoting spurious historical "facts" to justify modifying these traditions to suit ones own point of view is easy to do but to try and infer that they have any relevance to a traditional form of Scottish dress is nothing short of re-writing a culture of which you really have no genuine experience or knowledge to suit the circumstances you wish to present.

[Panache]

Phil,

I don't mind in the least being given an insight into how the average modern-day Scot perceives the kilt.

This whole site is about kilts, both modern and traditional.

Kilts and highland dress are a type of fashion.

The thing with fashion is that some things come into an then out of style

They can also come back

If the old style montrose or sherrifmuir doublet is still a valid option then why not an older style of kilt?

At one point pleating to stripe was the norm until some clever kilt maker figured out pleating to sett.

It became the norm

Now some people (perhaps only outside Scotland) are thinking "Gee pleating to the stripe seems a really neat idea"

The marvelous thing about the kilt is that it has never become a period costume piece. It is a valid fashion for a modern world and continues to evolve.

It would be strange indeed if the kilt became less of a costume outside of Scotland than in it.

Looking at how various kilt makers (in Scotland) are now offering Hill walker (5 yarders) or even their own versions of modern/contemporary kilts it is obvious to me that even the Scots themselves have not set all kilt conventions in stone.

Which I think is wonderful

Because it would be sad if kilts were only worn as a costume or something you viewed in a museum.

Cheers

Jamie :ootd:

[Tartan Hiker]

and to dismiss this in such a way is nothing but an impertinence.

Well, i certainly didn't intend to be impertinent. I was just making an observation that the knife pleated kilt pleated to the sett is one of the most recent styles of kilt manufacture.

Quoting spurious historical "facts" to justify modifying these traditions to suit ones own point of view is easy to do but to try and infer that they have any relevance to a traditional form of Scottish dress is nothing short of re-writing a culture of which you really have no genuine experience or knowledge to suit the circumstances you wish to present.

I don't have the time right now to run down this particular quote, but I don't believe that the source is in the least "spurious." If someone has access to this particular quote, please jump in here with a reference. If not I'll try to run it down after work this afternoon.

[Bigkahuna]

I seriously doubt that there are any 107 year-old Scots still around. There are, however, a number here who can trace their kilt-wearing traditions back to the early 1950's and to dismiss this in such a way is nothing but an impertinence. Modern re-inventions of our national dress should take account of the culture that actually originated it without trying to re-invent the tradition and culture behind it. There are many differing opinions expressed on this site quoting innumerable "learned" sources. The fact remains, however, that there is probably no-one here other than the native Scots that has worn a kilt prior to 10-20 years ago. Quoting spurious historical "facts" to justify modifying these traditions to suit ones own point of view is easy to do but to try and infer that they have any relevance to a traditional form of Scottish dress is nothing short of re-writing a culture of which you really have no genuine experience or knowledge to suit the circumstances you wish to present.

Although not a Native Scot, I have been wearing a kilt since the 1960s when I started playing in a pipe band. Just to keep the record straight.

[Phil]

Although not a Native Scot, I have been wearing a kilt since the 1960s when I started playing in a pipe band. Just to keep the record straight.

I am glad to hear it and I apologise if I have misled anyone but 10-20 years was just a figure plucked out of the air. I have no intention of disputing anyones choice of wearing other styles of kilt or their historical justifications for so doing. It is not a field I have studied and, therefore, not one that I can speak to with any authority. What I can do, however, is recount my experience over (too) many years as a native Scot of the kilt as it has been worn, in my lifetime at least. A similar discussion arose a while back regarding buckle brogues when I was told, in no uncertain terms, that the shoes I had worn comfortably, walked and danced in on many occasions, could not possibly be worn because of the way they were designed. The buckle, I was told, was in the wrong place and would interfere with my foot when worn. This from someone who had never actually worn such shoes but represented himself as an authority on the subject of all things "cordwainer".
If you haven't experienced it at first-hand yourself it surely is an impertinence to then contradict someone who has.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I'm afraid that this conversation is going far afield from the original topic of the thread, but since it seems far gone anyway, I may as well continue. :-)

Jock, thanks for your post and please understand that I am in no way "hurt" or even "surprised" when someone makes a statement such as "a real kilt must have 8 yards." Maybe a bit surprised to read such a statement on X Marks, but in general, there is pretty much nothing anyone can say about the kilt that can surprise me.

I've heard all kinds of doozies, really just as often by native Scots as by Americans. I have been told by native Scots the following:
-the only shoes proper to wear with the kilt are high-laced ghillie brogues. Period. No exceptions.
-if your tartan has red in it, it means you come from a bastard family (this from a Scottish school teacher to her class of children).
-I was wearing my kilt incorrectly because the turn-over on my hose was about half an inch too long.
-that the Scottish government can fine you for wearing the "wrong" tartan.
-and the errors regarding the provenance of modern, ancient, dress and hunting tartans are too many to list!

I've heard just as many doozies from Americans, as well, so I'm by no means singling out native Scots. My point here is that my experience has taught me that just being born in Scotland does not make someone an expert on the kilt. In fact, nine times out of ten when I meet a kilted Scot here in the US, he'll admit to me that he never wore a kilt or gave it any interest at all until he came to the States!

Now, there is another class of folks who were born and raised in Scotland for whom kilt wearing was part of their regular life. They grew up wearing the kilt for various occasions, have memories of their fathers and grandfathers wearing the kilt, etc. These people (I'm assuming you are one of them, Jock!) are an invaluable resource to learn how the kilt is worn today and how it has been worn in living memory. But even then one must understand that there will of course be regional and even familial variations.

How the kilt is worn traditionally in the western Highlands and Isles will be different from how the kilt is worn traditionally in East Lothian, and this will differ from how the kilt is worn traditionally on Price Edward Isle!

You cannot say any of these variations are any more or less "correct" any more than you can say English spoken with an Alabama accent is more or less "correct" than spoken with a London accent.

I, personally, find learning about these subtle variations in fashion quite fascinating, and take pleasure in using them as inspirations in my own Highland wardrobe.

[macwilkin]

Matt ,I understand full well that you are not disagreeing with me.I feel that you are missing my point though. What I am trying, unsuccessfully it seems, to point out, is that you should not be surprised, or hurt, that the misconception continues, as most of the people who are even mildly interested in the kilt have a perception of what a real kilt is. You and others know that that perception is not necessarily correct,sadly that message is not getting through, in spite of your best endeavours. And I cannot see it ever will.

What I am saying(nicely I hope) is that you should not be surprised when a person of the majority, ill informed if you like, group has no idea what you are talking about! Of course if you,me, others who know better, xmarks, etc, could reach out and educate them, then all to the good. Sadly I don't think that will ever happen, so the 8 yard, tartan, wool, knife pleated, real kilt perception will live on. I am afraid you will still have to grind your teeth with frustration when people talk of "real" kilts for a very long time yet!

Welcome to the world of a history teacher, Jock.

Of course, many of us in the field have a belief that if we can reach just one student, then we've done our jobs...I deal with myths about history on a daily basis. I may not change some of my student's minds -- all I can do is present with them the facts, and provide the most accurate and objective account of the subject at hand -- and I've done my job. What they do with them is their business, I suppose. You can lead a person to knowledge -- but you can't make them think! :mrgreen:

T.