Recent Irish kilt question

[O'Callaghan]

Anyone born anywhere on the island of Ireland is, under Irish law, entitled to Irish citizenship and, thus, an Irish passport. As far as I am aware the Passport Office down on Molesworth Street does not ask any citizen if he/she holds a UK passport as a condition of issuing an Irish Passport. To my sure and certain knowledge there are a great many individuals in NI who hold both UK and Irish Passports, and indeed a fair number in the Republic as well.

It may be that in the less than three years I have resided in the United States Irish (or EU) laws may have changed, but as far as I am aware there is no general prohibition on people in NI holding both passports.

The law in Northern Ireland is quite clear in that it says you may only claim either British or Irish citizenship but not both if you are from there. However, as always with dual citizenship, the laws of the two countries seldom agree, and this produces odd results. I have no doubt that the Republic of Ireland don't give a fig what other citizenship you hold, so they would of course issue an Irish passport to someone from NI regardless, although I do understand that they require you to specify which of the six NI counties you were born in, despite the fact that all of these counties were abolished some time ago, LOL!

The mills still make tartans for the six counties, for that matter, and I suppose people figure out somehow which one they should wear, even if they can't find it on a map. That's the only part of this post that relates to kilts, folks.

So, I suppose in practice you are right and such a person could hold both passports, because although it is against British law it is not prohibited by Irish law, and as you say, the EU doesn't care if you are a citizen of more than one member state. As I noted, though, even British law has nothing against it unless both claims to citizenship are based on NI, as opposed to the Republic or other parts of the UK.

There is a similar situation regarding the US, in that US law states in one place that dual nationals must choose between US and foreign citizenship when they turn 18, although in other places the law does recognise that dual citizens who are not minors actually exist. This is because the US cannot prevent anyone from obtaining foreign citizenship, only the other country can govern that, and according to the legal precedents, US citizenship is only forcibly revoked if you are only a naturalized US citizen and you voluntarily join either the armed forces or the civil service of your other country of citizenship after obtaining US citizenship.

I don't know your citizenship, but I do know that you live in the US and have been an Irish civil servant. If, for sake of argument, you were Irish and became naturalised as an American, and then joined the Irish civil service, that would be grounds to revoke your US citizenship, but it would not be automatic, the US government would have to file suit against you, and they would have to have some reason to do so. Of course, I imagine you were in the Irish civil service before going to the US, so none of that would apply.

To take another example, if someone were Irish, emigrated to the US and became a US citizen, then moved back to Ireland, they could remain a dual national as long as they didn't voluntarily join the armed forces or the civil service. This is actually not that uncommon. Sometimes they even have kids who are born in Ireland but qualify for US citizenship if the parent has enough years of US residence, and the kids then emigrate to America on a US passport.

I say 'voluntarily' because some countries (not Ireland) still draft people, and that doesn't affect their US citizenship.

[The Thing]

While I can appreciate the emotion behind you sentiments, as someone who worked for several years in one of the departments of the Minister for Arts, Culture, Gaeltacht and the Islands, I would have to take mild exception to your comments concerning what you choose to characterize as "400 years of English interference", and how that somehow prevented the Irish from developing the kilt.

What might be characterized as "the Highland Scots" did indeed come from Ireland-- the North East portion of the Island to be exact. The people inhabiting this least populous corner of Ireland were, in their own time, regarded as "different" than the other tribal people in Ireland, and it is thought that they may have been the remnant of the original inhabitants of the island, pushed back by successive waves of incoming people.

Be that as it may, the Scots came from a fairly defined and somewhat isolated group of people, not from the Irish population as a whole. They brought with them the traditions of that group of people, not an amalgam of traditions drawn from the length and breadth of the island. So, to suggest that had the course of Irish history been different the "Irish" would have evolved into a kilt wearing people is to make a leap of logic that is not wholly warranted.

It begs the question, "Why?"

And the only answer that can be given, or so it seems to me, is one of attempting to justify the present day fascination with kilts and tartans by the Irish diaspora. I think this is merely a manifestation of a desire to have a "national costume" where none exists. The simple reason for this is that the attire of the Irish people followed the natural evolution of European dress, as did all of the British Isles, save for one poor, tiny corner of Scotland. That the Highland kilt achieved its place as the "national costume" of Scotland is down solely to its having been romanticized throughout the whole of the 19th century, primarily due to the military exploits of a few Highland regiments. I am of the certain opinion that, if the Scottish regiments had been forced into trousers in 1770, the kilt, as we know it, would never have achieved anything like the prominence that it enjoys today.

That said, there is no reason whatsoever to make up excuses (or projections of quasi, what if, history) to justify wearing a kilt made up in an "Irish" tartan. If someone feels that the only way they can project a positive image of their Irish heritage and cultural traditions is by borrowing the Scottish kilt, that's fine by me. All I ask is that one refrains from trying to give their "Irish kilt" an historical or cultural pedigree that just isn't there.

I never said that the Irish developed the Kilt, rather the forerunner to the Kilt the Leine and Brat, and that this piece of attire was common amongst the Irish (particularly amongst the Ulster Irish Gael's to which I belong) and Highlanders.
My arguement points to the fact that with the decline of Gaelic culture in Ireland, by the banning of the old ways, naturally the Irish type of clothing would cease as well. As I have said, Irish culture from Norman right through to English rule was heavily supressed, the old clan system and the Irish law system died and were replaced by an alien system that the Irish didn't want nor understand. As a testiment to Scottish Independence during this period as a Nation, it can still be seen today with it's National dress (The Kilt) and it's own Scottish Law system.
The Kilt is the nearest form of clothing that the Irish can adopt to form that Old Gaelic link with it's past.

[slohairt]

I wouldn't say that Irish culture was suppressed by the Normans, or at least not for very long. The Normans were assimilated into native Irish culture very quickly leading to the expression, Hiberniores Hibernis ipsis. More Irish than the Irish themselves.

[macwilkin]

Before the war, the Irish representative to the Commonwealth Conference tendered Ireland's resignation, some time around 1935 or so. There is a story that this only happened due to a misunderstanding, and that he wasn't supposed to have done that, but he did.

Changing the name from the Free State to the Republic didn't coincide with resignation from the Commonwealth. It was later changed simply to 'Ireland', but I prefer to call it the Republic. For that matter, the Irish Gaelige name has never been changed since independence, and remains to this day Saorstat Eireann, which means ... the Irish Free State (same as the original name in English)!

Now that you say that, I do remember reading that story in a history of Ireland during the "Emergency".

But the act of parliament of 1948 was entitled "The Republic of Ireland Act".

T.

[O'Callaghan]

Until The Thing commented, I didn't really notice, but I have to take issue with just a couple of things.

What might be characterized as "the Highland Scots" did indeed come from Ireland-- the North East portion of the Island to be exact. The people inhabiting this least populous corner of Ireland were, in their own time, regarded as "different" than the other tribal people in Ireland, and it is thought that they may have been the remnant of the original inhabitants of the island, pushed back by successive waves of incoming people.

Be that as it may, the Scots came from a fairly defined and somewhat isolated group of people, not from the Irish population as a whole. They brought with them the traditions of that group of people, not an amalgam of traditions drawn from the length and breadth of the island. So, to suggest that had the course of Irish history been different the "Irish" would have evolved into a kilt wearing people is to make a leap of logic that is not wholly warranted.

The Gaels were at least the third wave of inhabitants of Ireland, after the Firbolgs and the Tuatha de Dannan, about whom very little is known, especially by me, LOL! However, the Dal Riada were one of the five major tribes of Irish Gaels, all of whom traditionally trace their lineages from Milesius (Milidh) who legend tells us came from Spain, and it is the Dal Riada that settled in the Scottish Highlands. That isn't to say that they mightn't have been mixed to some extent with earlier tribes that weren't Gaelic, but it is a long way from saying that they differed in any important way from the other four Irish Gaelic tribes.

It begs the question, "Why?"

And the only answer that can be given, or so it seems to me, is one of attempting to justify the present day fascination with kilts and tartans by the Irish diaspora. I think this is merely a manifestation of a desire to have a "national costume" where none exists. The simple reason for this is that the attire of the Irish people followed the natural evolution of European dress, as did all of the British Isles, save for one poor, tiny corner of Scotland. That the Highland kilt achieved its place as the "national costume" of Scotland is down solely to its having been romanticized throughout the whole of the 19th century, primarily due to the military exploits of a few Highland regiments. I am of the certain opinion that, if the Scottish regiments had been forced into trousers in 1770, the kilt, as we know it, would never have achieved anything like the prominence that it enjoys today.

That said, there is no reason whatsoever to make up excuses (or projections of quasi, what if, history) to justify wearing a kilt made up in an "Irish" tartan. If someone feels that the only way they can project a positive image of their Irish heritage and cultural traditions is by borrowing the Scottish kilt, that's fine by me. All I ask is that one refrains from trying to give their "Irish kilt" an historical or cultural pedigree that just isn't there.

Kilts, particularly non-tartan ones (and yes, I know the highlanders wore non-tartan ones as well), are about the only thing that has ever been proposed as Irish national dress, and this is not a recent proposal, but one that goes back more than a century, and yet which apparently still annoys the Scots even after all this time.

[ccga3359]

Now that you say that, I do remember reading that story in a history of Ireland during the "Emergency".

But the act of parliament of 1948 was entitled "The Republic of Ireland Act".

T.

Did it not have something to do with King Edward's abdication to marry Mrs. Wallis-Simpson in 1937?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I never said that the Irish developed the Kilt, rather the forerunner to the Kilt the Leine and Brat, and that this piece of attire was common amongst the Irish (particularly amongst the Ulster Irish Gael's to which I belong) and Highlanders.

As the Leine was, essentially, a long quilted jacket, open at the front, I fail to see how it evolved into three or four yards of cloth wrapped around the waist. A Brat, which is the common Irish word for a cloak, was worn in exactly that manner; wrapped around the shoulders and fastened at the throat with some sort of pin or brooch. One might arguably posit that the kilt evolved from this garment, but similar cloaks were in use throughout all of Europe since before Roman times and so it would be difficult to exclude the Scots having adopted (and modified) garments worn by Norse raiders, Picts, or anyone else who happened to set foot in Scotland.

The other thing to consider is just when the Dalriadic Scots from Ireland arrived in what was then called Pictavia or Caledonia. Fergus and his brothers arrive from Ireland in 498 and thus begins the settlement of western Pictavia by the Irish Scots. Fergus establishes the kingdom Dalriada in 503 AD and, in 575 at the "synod" of Drumceatt, the Dalriadic Scots break with the King of Ulster and cease paying tribute to him. In other words, they are no longer defining themselves in "Irish" terms, but see themselves both politically and culturally as something different-- they see themselves as Scots. And culturally they begin to evolve in a totally new direction, with only a basic linguistic tie to the Irish Kingdom of Ulster. And while this is happening the Irish continued to evolve socially and culturally in their own direction.

Now all of this "cultural evolution" happens over what... about one thousand years before the great kilt comes on the scene? I'm sorry, but given that sort of time span I think it is just not plausible to suggest that the Scottish kilt evolved from a padded shirt.

The Kilt is the nearest form of clothing that the Irish can adopt to form that Old Gaelic link with it's past.

What link? Leine = Kilt? I think not. What Past? 1,500 years ago when Fergus and his brothers left Ulster to set up their own kingdom on the East coast of Scotland?

Here's the thing, and I'm sorry if you think I'm being argumentative. Sometime within the past 400-500 years the kilt, for whatever reason, appeared as a garment in a wild and remote region of the North West corner of Britain. That's what we know for a fact. We also know that within the last 200 years the kilt has come to represent strong familial relationships, and, more recently, to be regarded as a symbol of an entire nation. Again, theses are facts.

I have no objection, whatsoever, to anyone wearing a kilt, if that's what they want to do. As I have said before, if someone feels they need to define their "Irishness" by wearing a kilt, they are welcome to it. But in attempting to define one's Irish cultural heritage, by wearing a kilt, then in my opinion they need to be scrupulously honest about the facts-- as they are known-- about the kilt, and not succumb to myth-building to justify wearing it.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Until The Thing commented, I didn't really notice, but I have to take issue with just a couple of things.



The Gaels were at least the third wave of inhabitants of Ireland, after the Firbolgs and the Tuatha de Dannan, about whom very little is known, especially by me, LOL! However, the Dal Riada were one of the five major tribes of Irish Gaels, all of whom traditionally trace their lineages from Milesius (Milidh) who legend tells us came from Spain, and it is the Dal Riada that settled in the Scottish Highlands. That isn't to say that they mightn't have been mixed to some extent with earlier tribes that weren't Gaelic, but it is a long way from saying that they differed in any important way from the other four Irish Gaelic tribes.

The first inhabitants of Ireland came via the land bridge that connected it to Scotland about 8000 BC. The builders of the megalithic tomb at Newgrange were the New Stone Age people, and they arrived about 3000 BC. The Gaels arrived in Ireland staring about 100 BC. And, we actually know a fair amount about all three. Much of what we know about the people in the North East of Ireland comes from what was written about them. Anyone who would care to read the Annals (and not just those of "The Four Masters") will find that the people of this region are inevitably described as looking, and acting, "differently" than the people of say, Munster or Leinster.

Kilts, particularly non-tartan ones (and yes, I know the highlanders wore non-tartan ones as well), are about the only thing that has ever been proposed as Irish national dress, and this is not a recent proposal, but one that goes back more than a century, and yet which apparently still annoys the Scots even after all this time.

Quite wrong. Doesn't annoy us at all, at least not me. And it doesn't annoy me that at the turn of the 20th century a few Anglo-Irish eccentrics in the genteel Dublin suburb of Clontarf sipped tea and passionately debated wearing the kilt as an expression of Irish nationalism. The fact that most Irish folks at that time found the idea about as silly as Arthur Griffith's proposal to make Ireland a monarchy (Monarcacht Sinn Fein?) doesn't annoy me, either.

No, I'm not annoyed when someone with Irish ancestry wears a kilt. And I hope they're not annoyed if the people in Ireland suppress a chuckle at the sight. As I've said before this is really all about the diaspora looking for a visual cue to their identity. It is of little or no importance (or interest) to the vast majority of the Irish people who live in the 21st century, not the century before last.

[Bugbear]

Oops, never mind. I guess the Irish did wear knee breeches up to the early nineteen-hundreds...

[Jock Scot]

I have never heard of the Scots being annoyed by the Irish, or anyone else for that matter, for wanting to wear the kilt. Quite the opposite in fact ,we find it rather flattering. What does mildly upset the Scots, is to see the kilt worn incorrectly, however, what is guaranteed to annoy the Scots is to be told by others how to wear the kilt properly------ even if some of them are not!!!