Talk:Kilt

I'm a bit unhappy about the "nationalist statement" bit. Scottish Unionists are quite as likely to wear a kilt as Scottish Nationalists are. It's more of a national statement than a nationalist one (if that makes sense). In fact it's not even that much of a national statement really. I have English, Irish, American and Canadian colleagues who hire one for the company Christmas dance. Most people just wear one because it's formal dress, they're in Scotland, and it's normal to wear one at certain events. They could wear a dinner jacket and bowtie but they don't. -- Derek Ross 22 Oct 2002

had a look for any "nationalist statement" bit and not sure what you mean, so have tried tweaking the bit I found that mentioned nationalist. There's also a link to Scottish national identity that was quickly cobbled together because someone linked that phrase in the visit of King George IV to Scotland to Scottish nationalism which redirected to Scottish independence, both of which are not at all what I meant. In line with your thoughts, have added a bit to the kilt today section. Have also deleted a US link about kilts that had some interesting comments as well as inaccuracies, but seems to demand a password. -- dave souza 06:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My comments about nationalism referred to a much earlier version of the article. I should have dated the comment at the time. -- Derek Ross | Talk 10:49, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Contents

1 Scottish Highlander/Bagpipers at St. Patrick's Day Parades 2 What is worn under the kilt 2.1 Sorting it out 3 Cornish and Welsh Tartans and Kilts 4 Modern use of the kilt 5 Photographs

Scottish Highlander/Bagpipers at St. Patrick's Day Parades

Forgive me for asking a question rather than contributing to the discussion, but I've always wondered why in America we always see Highland Bagpipers leading the parade procession at St. Patrick's Day parades. If I am not mistaken, Highlanders are historically not Catholic? Even though St. Patty's Day has become synomynous with celebrating Irish-American culture, I've always wondered about this.

After the reformation some clans (particulary the Campbells of Argyll) became Presbyterian Covenanters while others remained Catholic, then after the Restoration many Catholic clans became Episcopalian, but the reason for the pipe bands is probably just that they're military bands with some historic links between the Scots and the Irish at various times ..dave souza 01:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Saint Patrick is (often claimed to be) Scottish. Scots and Irish are both Celtic. Bovlb 04:48, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

No doubt he was Celtic but he lived at a time before the Scots or the English invaded Britain, so it makes more sense to say that he was British. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:39, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

What is worn under the kilt

I'm surprised to see that such vehement comments have been added to this part of the discussion. "It is a total misconception that Scots don't wear any" indeed. From my personal experience I know that some Scots habitually wear underwear with the kilt and that some don't, so it can't be a total misconception. It really is a matter of personal choice. What does User:217.227.21.116 base their certainty on ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:16, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

And in fact the following Internet poll tends to support the theory that, for whatever reason, the majority of kilted men and about a third of kilted women, do not generally wear anything under their kilts ...

Kilt wearers, Scots and Non Scots (http://www.misterpoll.com/results.mpl?id=3173104769)

... so the statement "The myth that underwear is not normally worn, is just that..." also appears to be wrong. While I agree that it is a good idea to wear dark or black underwear when dancing (unless you are a complete exhibitionist), I would suggest that it would be a big mistake to wear a kilt and underwear to a Scotland rugby or football match, if you want to avoid ridicule (or in extreme cases, loss of said underwear)! -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:39, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

I'd like to put my hand up and say that it was me who edited the article to remove the "It is a total misconception that Scots don't wear any" line (23:51, 17 Jan 2005). I didn't realise I'd done it anonymously. Nevertheless I reckon that the current state of this contentious part of the article is still way off. How can it be a myth when the vast majority of kilt-wearers I know (occasional or otherwise) don't wear underwear? Are we all, as the article currently states, 'exhibitionists'? Is there anything to be said for the idea that this is a generational thing? I'm in my early twenties myself and have always, along with my friends, taken it as gospel that underwear-wearing is to be frowned upon. Could this not be a case of a myth, repeated often enough, becoming the true state of things? Unicorns are mythical, the widespread non-wearing of underwear under the kilt is a fact. -- gantlord

My experience matches yours although I'm twenty years older than you. So the current edits look more like a "wishful thinking thing" than a "generational thing" to me. The editor concerned seems determined to report what "should be the case" rather than what "is" the case. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:22, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

I’m in my mid fifties and my experience matches both those of gantlord and Derek Ross. As has been noted by Derek whether or not underwear is worn is a matter of personal choice where some Scots choose to normally wear underwear with the kilt and some don’t. The vast majority of kilt-wearers I know don’t wear underwear unless on potential revealing occasions such as dancing when dark (black, navy or green) self coloured underwear, usually briefs, are worn. Accordingly it also looks to me that the practice of not wearing underwear under the kilt is not a “generational thing”. In my opinion those who choose to wear nothing under their kilts do so partly due to tradition but primarily as they find that the most comfortable way to wear a kilt is without underwear – highlander 22.

Well, in my opinion, this part of the article reads more like a discussion comment than part of a NPOV article. Obviously this issue needs resolved, but who is there to discuss it with? Can anyone put their name to these edits? I'm fairly new to this stuff, so does anyone have any ideas of what approach should be taken to get this article into an acceptable state? -- User:Gantlord

Sorting it out

The current text says

Underwear is and should normally be worn under the kilt. It is a myth that Scots don't and it is usually part time kilt wearers that suggest otherwise i.e. for weddings etc. It stems from the fact that one Highland regiment don't wear underwear. It is extremely difficult to wear a kilt and remain decent. It is exibitionists that suggest nothing should be worn. If you look up one of the oldest kilt makers and the oldest mail order company for highland attire in Scotland you will indeed find underwear designed for the kilt. Traditionally a long tailed shirt was tied underneath keeping the wearer respectable.

A good rule of thumb is that kilts should be worn with underwear for dancing (when a light kilt may fly up). In practice, underwear may not be needed for a fully lined kilt, but may be preferable for an unlined woollen kilt. In the end whether or not underwear is worn on any particular occasion, is up to the weather, the company, and the individual wearer.

Whatever decision is made, what a Scotsman wears under his kilt is, traditionally, his own business and generally, Scotsmen will be at pains to keep it so. Thus the reply to a question on the topic may hint at the answer but should never state it outright. A good standard reply when asked, is that, "Nothing is worn under the kilt. It's all in perfect working order".

We should probably start off by stating that there are differences of opinion on whether underwear should be worn or not and that people can feel quite strongly on both sides of the argument -- I doubt that anyone would argue with that -- then recast the rest of the text in that context. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:45, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

What would you add to this?:

The question of what is worn under the kilt of a Scotsman is a source of great mystery to non-Scots and of heated debate among Scots. The legend, well-known worldwide, has it that it is tradition for Scotsmen to go naked beneath their kilts.

However, many argue that the wearing of underwear goes against tradition rather than with it. Certainly, for highland dancers, the wearing of underwear is strongly advised for reasons of modesty, as much as the wearing of a sgian dubh is advised against for reasons of safety.

It has been said that the tradition of not wearing underwear under a kilt has its origins in the practice of a Scottish regiment (need to know which regiment here, I reckon it's the Black Watch, but I've nothing conclusive to go on so far).

In spite of these ongoing arguments about the traditionality of not wearing underwear, it has now become commmonplace for a great many kilt-wearers to go without underwear.

Meant to write more than this but life's logistics have reared their ugly head. I suppose it's a start though... -- Gantlord

I like Gantlord's version. It's better that some of the stuff that keeps getting inserted anonymously. Some suggestions for improvement:

1. Menion term regimental;
2. Mention long shirt tied up;
3. Cite internet poll; and
4. Don't say "advised" wihout a citation.

Bovlb 13:57, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Photographic evidence! - http://www.scottishwebcamslive.com/humour.htm

A couple of points: I've heard (from a totally unverifiable source, as I can't remember where exactly) that the non-wearing of underwear is fine in the company of men, but considered rude when women are present. This would probably bear out the military origin. Also, one can acquire plastic or similar sgian-dubh for situations where carrying a dagger (even a blunt one) would be a Bad Idea. They're still likely to be confiscated while boarding a plane, though... -CamTarn

From my period of service in a Canadain highland regiment, it was considered regimental not to have underwear, in recognition of the use of underwear against gas (urine on underwear and breath trough it). I was always told that in the presence of royal, underwear would be worn; however, there is a picture of a highland Col that did not follow this with the Queen.

A safety sgain-dubh is a bladeless one for airports, etc. Glenlarson 04:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who it is suggesting that most men in kilts wear underwear and are worried about preserving their modesty and so on, but I suspect it is a "weekend wallace" who only wears the kilt to Scottish games, or perhaps is a wedding outfitter. As one who wears the kilt daily and associates with many men who do the same, I can assure you that the norm among those of us who wear it daily is to omit the underwear. Any lass that's done "kilt checks" at the pubs can verify this. yonderway 18:18, 10 Apr 2005 (GMT-5)

Cornish and Welsh Tartans and Kilts

Just added a few brief words and links about the modern Cornish and Welsh Tartan Kilt phenomena. Bretagne 44 1/3/05

Modern use of the kilt

I'm sort of ruminating over how to best include this bit. While there is no doubt that the kilt is a proud symbol of Scotland, it is no longer really a garment worn daily by most highland scots. It's been sent to the closet to be brought out for special occasions, church, etc. I would go out on a limb and say the vast majority of people who wear the kilt on a daily basis are outside of Scotland now. Go to cities like Seattle or Vancouver and you'll see what I mean. Additionally, the evolution of the kilt must be considered as it applies to modern solid colored kilts or camoflage kilts. I made some small edits today to at least make mention of these but I'd like to go into greater depth. Bringing it up here in the hopes of getting some of the anticipated debates out of the way now before making big changes. yonderway 21:48, 10 Apr 2005 (GMT-5:00)

I've no objection to the addition of information on non-Scottish kilts. The article as it stands was mostly written by Scots and that explains its current emphasis. However there's no reason why the article shouldn't be extended to cover the foustanela or other forms of kilt. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:21, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ah but the fustanella is not a kilt. It is an unbifurcated male garment, and a national dress, but that's about all it has in common. I was thinking more along the lines of the use of sewn-down pleats, modern synthetic materials, solid colors, odd patterns, etc. as well as the more common use of the kilt as it fits in a casual ensemble. Most of the content about kilts is more strictly related to its use as formalwear so it would be nice to round that out as there are quite a few of us who wear it daily and with many differences in construction and appearance from what you would see in a formal ensemble. It's a lot to bite off and I'm sure it will be controversial with the traditionalists but the kilt has always been an evolving garment and, like it or not, continues to evolve today for those who still wear it every day. yonderway 14:13, 11 Apr 2005 (GMT-5:00)

Well you've got my support for what it's worth. I've had to edit previous attempts to add stuff about modern kilts because they seemed to be more advertising than information but then I've had to do that for the traditional item too, so edit away! -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:09, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'll put myself behind any reasonable edits along the lines outlined above, as these are trends I'm noticing quite clearly - and I'm a Norwegian, these days in the process of aquiring my first kilt. Camo-pattern canvas, hot-pink latex, kilts come as these (for the record, mine is neither. I'm a hopeless traditionalist.) - so they ought to have solid mention, possibly photographs (from a neutral source so as to prevent advertising) as well to illustrate... Just airing my POV ;) --TVPR 22:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Photographs

Could we perhaps put up a better example of black tie wear than the David MacLeod photograph? One of his kilt hose has apparently quit on him and it's a shame as he's looking pretty dapper otherwise. But an undermotivated kilt hose is killing the usefulness of this photograph. - yonderway 22:00 (GMT-5:00) 14-APR-2005.

Oh I don't know. It gives him a sort of whimsical appearance. If you are going to replace the photo, I would suggest that it be replaced with a photo of someone less formally dressed (for hiking or sheep dog trials or something), since there are already two photographs of formally dressed people (Argyle and Piper). -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:19, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)