-
20th July 16, 03:02 AM
#11
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/01fa0/01fa01748f66dbe7e358dcbfdd626e558c8dec22" alt="Quote Quote" Originally Posted by Jimmy the Celt
I am such a stickler for tradition that I can never see myself wearing anything under the kilt.
So you are a private soldier on active service (pre-1940) !
-
-
20th July 16, 08:02 AM
#12
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/01fa0/01fa01748f66dbe7e358dcbfdd626e558c8dec22" alt="Quote Quote" Originally Posted by neloon
So you are a private soldier on active service (pre-1940) !
I can only say that it seems quite unthinkable--to me--to wear anything under the kilt as that is the perennial consensus. Everyone makes their own choice and I would not say it is wrong to wear anything under the kilt precisely. For me it just seems unnatural and to some degree takes away the freedom of movement that comes with the kilt. If one is careful, accidental exposure will almost never occur unless something happens that cannot be controlled (sudden high wind, collapse, etc.).
James
Templeton sept of Clan Boyd
-
-
21st July 16, 06:28 PM
#13
Someone didn't listen when their NCO told them NOT to lock their knees.
-
The Following 2 Users say 'Aye' to Mechamaniac For This Useful Post:
-
22nd July 16, 05:50 AM
#14
My son and daughter-in-law got married at Homewood Castle in Asheville, NC on July 30, 2005. They had the ceremony outside in a kind of amphitheater. It was warm but not excessively so but the humidity was awful. The piper was soaking wet the whole time and could not keep his pipes going very well. The groomsmen, none of who had ever worn the kilt, were about to pass out but, I am happy to say we all survived and got into the great hall of the castle before anyone passed out. So, I can sympathize with the young bandsman in the photos. The choice of undergarments - not so much but had he actually been regimental you would not have seen that photo.
-
-
22nd July 16, 11:28 AM
#15
Here in Canada the tradition may have been a bit different.
I had the honor to speak to one of the last surviving soldiers from WWI just before he passed. We spoke of his time in the war while serving in a kilted regiment. The unit he was with was the 16th Battalion (Canadian Scottish) now called The Canadian Scottish Regt. (Princess Mary's) Their home is right here in Victoria. For those of you who do not know this is the unit that conducted the counter-attack in the aftermath of the world's first gas attack. (The battle of Kitcheners' wood)
The story he related to me was that, at the time, the entire military uniform was made of wool. When uniforms were issued they included wool underwear. Large, and loose, fastened with a tie at the waist.
However, while in the trenches the soldiers were not able to bathe regularly. Lice was just one of the many problems among the troops. Crab lice were a constant problem.
So to combat the lice the soldiers cut all their hair very short or shaved it all off. Yes, even pubic hair was shaved.
And they also dispensed with the woolen underwear because it was the perfect breeding ground for lice.
According to this soldier's memories, while actually in combat, or when sanitary amenities were not available, were the only time that they went "regimental". At all other times they worn the uniform properly as it was issued. That included the underwear.
According to this old soldier, the time of the RSM and the mirror, came in the late 1950' and early 60's. Well after the last time the kilt was worn in combat and only in some regiments.
While we were talking, this old gentleman related an interesting side story. According to him it was very common while serving at home, for the young soldiers to exchange the woolen underwear for something more comfortable. Many wore bright red silk. His belief was that it was very uncommon not to wear some form of underwear. But to attract the attention of young ladies they would wear these 'special' things hoping that the lasses would take a peek to get a glimpse of the bright red silk.
-
The Following 3 Users say 'Aye' to Steve Ashton For This Useful Post:
-
22nd July 16, 11:48 AM
#16
Thanks for sharing that, Steve. I had heard that about lice as well. I also recall reading somewhere that one of the reasons underwear are not worn is because the kilt can cause them to slide downward, requiring frequent adjustment.
James
Templeton sept of Clan Boyd
-
-
22nd July 16, 11:56 AM
#17
That's just the thing Jimmy. From everything I am hearing and reading the regimental thing is not traditional or true. It appears to be recent, and today limited to civilians who seem to derive some sort of sexual titillation from the idea.
So if you truly want to adhere to tradition - wear underwear.
And in almost all of the rental companies underwear is required. This just makes common sense. Human bodies leak. I personally value my kilts too much to chase a myth.
-
The Following 5 Users say 'Aye' to Steve Ashton For This Useful Post:
-
22nd July 16, 12:44 PM
#18
Good point Steve, but I just can't imagine undergarments being commonly worn in the 18th century, maybe not even in the 19th. It could be simple ignorance on my part as I know undergarments did exist at the time. I have also heard kiltmakers in Scotland vehemently declare that nothing is to be worn under the kilt, but it does make sense for rental companies to require them.
Also, I think it takes a certain kind of person to derive any sort of titillation merely from not wearing underwear. For me it was the received wisdom (mistakenly/mythical or not) to go regimental. If one has good hygiene habits it should impact the cleanliness of the kilt to a very little degree, especially if they are frequently rotated. The few times I have been asked about what is worn under the kit, I usually smile and say something about it being impolite to ask or another suitably vague answer. As mentioned above, I have a high degree of modesty and propriety.
I must admit though . . . I wonder if it is more common to wear something underneath or not? Is the Regimental Myth just that and nothing more? Or is it really just down to choice?
James
Templeton sept of Clan Boyd
-
-
22nd July 16, 03:28 PM
#19
When ever you put on any garment you make choices. What color socks? What hat? Do I button this jacket or leave it open?
It really is your own choice. The thing we have to remember is that unless you are on active duty in a kilted regiment, or in a pipe band, the kilt is not a uniform. Even with uniforms there are very few constants. You see wide differences between units. In the British tradition each Regimental Sergeants Major can set their own uniform standards. Each pipe band is different.
For civilians there are no rules written down somewhere.
And no one can tell another person that they are wrong for wearing their clothes a particular way.
About the only constants that I can think of are - "The pleaty part goes in the back." & "I have to wear my kilt. If I don't I get arrested."
-
The Following 2 Users say 'Aye' to Steve Ashton For This Useful Post:
-
22nd July 16, 06:48 PM
#20
In the recent blistering heat having the option of cotton kilts has been a lifesaver - wet cotton is cold - oh bliss.
It has been possible to cook just by placing a cast iron frying pan in the full sun - it being black with age it heats up so no need to use the cooker.
tradition is all very well but with the heat building as it is and records being broken - it seems - every year, the cotton option is going to be the sensible one for at least two months of every year.
Anne the Pleater
I presume to dictate to no man what he shall eat or drink or wherewithal he shall be clothed."
-- The Hon. Stuart Ruaidri Erskine, The Kilt & How to Wear It, 1901.
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|