asked if i was irish

[JockInSkye]

Of course, Republicans (Irish nationalists, not the GOP) adopted the kilt more than a century ago, which IMHO gainsays all the 'no historical basis' folk, i.e. it's their basis for saying that which is actually a bit lacking. I'd say there's no basis atall for saying that the events of the 19th century aren't old enough to be history in the 21st.

I have had debates about Irish historical kilt wear, I have to say though that the Royal family whom are English have been wearing kilts and other Scottish attire in Scotland (more notably balmoral) since the early 19th century, yet you could not say that this constitutes England having a history of kilt wearing. The same goes for English officers in the Scottish regiment.

A handful of Irish naitonalists wearing kilts is just that, a small handful of people and does not constitute (in my opinion) a historical legacy of kilt wearing.

[Jock Scot]

I have had debates about Irish historical kilt wear, I have to say though that the Royal family whom are English have been wearing kilts and other Scottish attire in Scotland (more notably balmoral) since the early 19th century, yet you could not say that this constitutes England having a history of kilt wearing. The same goes for English officers in the Scottish regiment.

A handful of Irish naitonalists wearing kilts is just that, a small handful of people and does not constitute (in my opinion) a historical legacy of kilt wearing.

I think if you took a look at our Royal family's pedigree you would find it hard to describe them as English.Which is useful for them as Her Majesty is also the Queen of Scotland, amongst other places.

[JockInSkye]

I think if you took a look at our Royal family's pedigree you would find it hard to describe them as English.Which is useful for them as Her Majesty is also the Queen of Scotland, amongst other places.

Well their ancestry is from all of Europe - Greece, Holland, Germany etc. However ethnically they are English.

But I take your point.

[Jock Scot]

Well their ancestry is from all of Europe - Greece, Holland, Germany etc. However ethnically they are English.

But I take your point.

Not forgetting a good dollop of Scots blood too, of course.

[Mike_Oettle]

Jock from Skye, while the British royals have a fair dollop of Danish blood (not Greek – remember the Greek royal family is actually Danish) and a good deal of German, they have no Dutch ancestry.
You may be thinking of William III, but remember that he left no legitimate descendants.
The German predominated after the accession of the Hanovers, and even more so since Victoria’s day, but Diana had more Stewart ancestry than Charles, and the Queen Mum was very much a Scot.
King George V was half Danish.
But you are right about the English culture. Philip, as a boy and a young man, felt himself to be English, not Greek or Danish. His maternal grandfather might have been German, but his maternal grandmother belonged to Victoria’s brood.
Regards,
Mike

[JockInSkye]

Jock from Skye, while the British royals have a fair dollop of Danish blood (not Greek – remember the Greek royal family is actually Danish) and a good deal of German, they have no Dutch ancestry.
You may be thinking of William III, but remember that he left no legitimate descendants.
The German predominated after the accession of the Hanovers, and even more so since Victoria’s day, but Diana had more Stewart ancestry than Charles, and the Queen Mum was very much a Scot.
King George V was half Danish.
But you are right about the English culture. Philip, as a boy and a young man, felt himself to be English, not Greek or Danish. His maternal grandfather might have been German, but his maternal grandmother belonged to Victoria’s brood.
Regards,
Mike

Thanks for that Mike, you've encouraged me to do a bit of reading on that topic.

Not forgetting a good dollop of Scots blood too, of course.

Oh Aye, how could I forget .

[McClef]

For the British Royal Family, marrying within the country, has been a relatively rare phenomenon until modern times.

The expectation was that members would marry other royals, of which there would be a limited supply outside of the limitations of consanguinity.

So, especially for royal males, it was necessary to look abroad for royal brides.

In time that choice became limited to countries that were Protestant, especially after 1688 and that meant Germany, with its many states and princedoms became the prime supplier. In that respect, Queen Alexandra (a Dane) was an exception.

Those who were down the Line of Succession often could marry within the country but even then it had to be to aristocrats.

Many, though technically German with German names titles and ancestry were born and raised in the UK.

When he married a member of the Scottish nobility (though she was actually born in England), the Queen's father did not expect to become King.

Yes a fascinating subject to read up on JockInSkye!

[O'Callaghan]

I have had debates about Irish historical kilt wear, I have to say though that the Royal family whom are English have been wearing kilts and other Scottish attire in Scotland (more notably balmoral) since the early 19th century, yet you could not say that this constitutes England having a history of kilt wearing. The same goes for English officers in the Scottish regiment.

A handful of Irish naitonalists wearing kilts is just that, a small handful of people and does not constitute (in my opinion) a historical legacy of kilt wearing.

So, how many people have to do something before you think it's part of history? Many of the most important historical events revolved around the actions of just one person. It's hard to take your argument seriously.

Besides, the pipers in the Irish regiments of the British Army also wore kilts dating back to the 19th century.

[macwilkin]

Besides, the pipers in the Irish regiments of the British Army also wore kilts dating back to the 19th century.

The early 20th century...I still haven't found any reliable sources for the late 19th century...

T.

[JockInSkye]

So, how many people have to do something before you think it's part of history? Many of the most important historical events revolved around the actions of just one person. It's hard to take your argument seriously.

Besides, the pipers in the Irish regiments of the British Army also wore kilts dating back to the 19th century.

The vast majority of those in the Irish regiments are ulster Scots (albiet a minority of Irish from the republic).

I have an Irish father and have lived in Ireland for several extended periods of time, the fact is that the kilt is not viewed as an Irish form of dress by any stretch, let alone accepted as a historical sense of dress. Respectfully I dont think your argument holds water.
The kilt is seen as Scottish in Ireland, and if you wore the Kilt in Ireland you would be assumed to be Scottish not Irish.
As I stated before the English Royal family have worn the kilt since the early 19th century, that does not constitute the English have a history of Kilt wearing.
And I would not regard Irish nationalists adopting the kilt (which never actually took off) as an important historical event.

I think your personal sentiments want the kilt to be historically Irish more than it is.