Royal Regiment of Scotland

[Jock Scot]

I have nothing but respect for Jock, and the other members in Scotland.. I have learned a lot and made choices based on their opinions..one of which, I will only wear one tartan, the other is my newly aquired Marine Corps Regimental tie... I expect to continue to learn and grow with the input of all on this site and hope I can be a positive influence on others because of it..
I hope I was not sounding disrespectful in any way because that was/ would never be my intentions. I do feel a bit bad, because it was the answer to my question that cause the bit of dissention on here.

Don't worry about it ,my dear chap. Actually I don't think it was you that set off my train of thought, in fact no one in particular is responsible and even if they were, it would not be right to single them out. In truth, it is a combination of what is going on in another couple of threads plus what was being said here that brought about my thoughts gelling and being posted. Thank you for your kind words by the way!

[Tartan Hiker]

Well. I can assure everyone that I, too, maintain the utmost respect for all our members. However, since I'm the one that was being accused of impertinence, here is the historical reference to which I was referring. You can all take from it what you will:

Here is a quote from kilt historian Bob Martin in his book "All About Your Kilt":

"The turn of the century saw the kilt growing once again. The novel form of 'pleating to the sett' combined with a narrow knife pleating (which had recently become acceptable), produced a kilt with 6, then 7 then 8 or more yards of tartan. Though knife pleating had it's advent ca. 1853 in the military (the Gordon Highlanders), acceptance was so slow that in 1880 it was still being considered an 'incorrect' form of pleating. In 1901, 'Pleating to Sett' was so new that it had no name to describe it, other than a novel idea, the pleats showing the same pattern as that of the apron."

No doubt Mr. Martin was referring to the next document when he wrote the passage above, quoted from "The Kilt and How to Wear It" (1901) by Stuart Erskine:

"This pleat (to the sett) is comparatively rarely practiced; but I am pleased to observe that it is becoming more popular; for though it may not have age and precedence to recommend it...it is undoubtedly more becoming than the other."

I do have to apologize for my error...this was written in 1901 rather than 1902 as I previously posted. Mea culpa.

[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.

[Jock Scot]

I hear what you say Matt. I have started a new thread "theory and practice" in general kilt talk.

[Phil]

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.

As you say, Matt, this subject has strayed well off the beaten path. I was not aware of any particular regional variations in kilt fashion within Scotland apart, of course, from the likes of 21st Century Kilts who are perhaps more avant-garde in their outlook than the majority of Scots. I think you will find that my approach to kilt-wearing, coming from Edinburgh but originally Glasgow, is no different to that of Jock Scot in the Highlands. Oh all right, I have been known to wear white hose very occasionally but when in Rome.....! Sadly kilt wearers in the Highlands and Islands are an endangered species nowadays as it is a form of dress many cannot justify the expenditure for. And no, before you say that there are lots of cheaper versions available, the majority would never consider anything but a proper, full 8-yard kilt in their family tartan or else simply forego a kilt altogether.
You see, it is a matter of tradition and heritage and not something to be regarded lightly or second best.

[JSFMACLJR]

As you say, Matt, this subject has strayed well off the beaten path. I was not aware of any particular regional variations in kilt fashion within Scotland apart, of course, from the likes of 21st Century Kilts .

Hi Phil,

I am aware of a few regional variations, but even those aren't widespread within that region.

Take for example, the wearing of white tie by gentlemen from Perth. Not seen on everyone, of course, but see even less in other parts of the highlands.

And my favourite, tartan jackets. Certainly they are not common, and one can usually find somebody wearing one almost anywhere, but you really do stand a greater chance of seeing one worn to a ball or party in the Western Highlands. I don't know why.

Jabots, too. I know you wear one. My friends, and my experience, tell me that they are much more in evidence in the Western Highlands.

[Panache]

Sandford and Matt,

Perhaps one of you would be kind enough to start a separate thread about regional variations on highland dress in the Traditional forum.

I for one would be fascinated to learn about this.

Cheers

Jamie

[Kid Cossack]

I don't mean to be contentious, and I hope this will not be mistaken, but in reading this thread I thought of two very different kilts that I have owned. The first was a Stillwater heavyweight in weathered Lamont tartan. This was (I have since sold it) an eight yard tartan kilt pleated to the sett. I hasten to point out that it was also machine-sewn in Pakistan.

The second kilt is (I still have it!) a Matt Newsome box pleated tweed kilt. It was made from four yards of Harris tweed, and hand sewn.

Both, in my view, are kilts.

Common perception, certainly here in America, and doubtless also in Scotland, would be that the SWK weathered Lamont was the "real kilt." I.e., it conforms to the popular understanding of "eight yards, tartan, knife pleated."

However, by any "traditionalist" measure the Newsome box pleat is far more a "real kilt." The wool is from the Isle of Harris. I believe the Harris Tweed Authority defines Harris tweed as "cloth that has been handwoven by the islanders of Lewis, Harris, Uist and Barra in their homes, using pure virgin wool that has been dyed and spun in the Outer Hebrides." My understanding and belief after reasonable inquiry is that Matt Newsome sews all his kilts by hand.

I only offer this comparison to point out the cognitive dissonance that may go hand in hand with any attempt to place absolute definitions on what a thing is.