[Bugbear]

Originally Posted by M. A. C. Newsome

The way I define "contemporary" or "non-traditional" kilts, they have their modern-day origins with the Utilikilt in America and the 21st Centery Kilts in Scotland. I'm not sure which company originated their product first, but I believe all of the other companies making contemporary styles of kilts have come after, and in some way or another been influenced by those fashions.

But as for simply "non-tartan" kilts, those have been around for as long as the kilt itself, and are very traditional. It has never been a requirement that a kilt be made from tartan, and though tartan has always been the most popular cloth for making kilts, other options have always been there.

The earliest evidence we have of a solid color kilt is in a portrait of Sir Duncan Campbell of Lochow painted in 1635 (recently posted in the historic portrait thread). He's wearing a solid red feilidh-mor.


When artist R. R. MacIan illustrated his figures for James Logan's The Clans of the Scottish Higlands, in 1845-48, he depicted a few of them in solid kilts. Some, like his Ferguson and MacArthur, were his renditions of historic dress (as he understood it), but others, like this MacIntyre in a solid blue kilt, were contemporary depictions.


When we are in the Victorian era, solid kilts, either worsted or tweed, are not hard to come by. John Brown was famous for wearing a solid black kilt.


The ghillies are Balmoral from this era are frequently pictured in tweed kilts.

And some military regiments, such as the London Scottish and the Toronto Scottish, have made solid kilts a part of their uniform.

So solid kilts have always been with us, and I don't really think of them as either "contemporary" or "non-traditional."

I wasn't sure how to respond to your post, Matt, in the contemporary and non-traditional forum, but it is a very important post. You are saying that the solid color kilts, made as traditional kilts, are traditional. I don't have any issues with that, and don't know what others will have to say. That is why I am bringing the quote over here.

However, it has been stated to me that if the kilt is not worn in a traditional way; for example, without a sporran in front and center, that it is not a traditional kilt. I'm not qualified to debate that, but I would like to know where the lines and boundries of definition are.

Thank you.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

As far as I am concerned a traditional kilt is a traditional kilt no matter how it is worn. One may be wearing it in a "non-traditional" manner, by wearing accessories that are outside the norm, or wearing them in an unusual manner. But none of that changes the kilt itself. I'd still consider a kilt made from traditional materials, by traditional techniques, in a traditional style to be a traditional kilt. You could wear it backwards, inside out, and upside down if you like, but the kilt itself will still be a traditional kilt.

[Bugbear]

That makes sense to me, and I am asking because I do not want to disrespect Highland traditions.

If a kilt is made of tartan, but is not made in a traditional way, does that move it out of the realm of traditional Highland attire?

In other words, if I had a tartan Freedom Kilt made up with the low "jeans" cut and pockets, how is that regarded in relation to Highland attire.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Ted, as far as this traditionalist is concerned, it would be a contemporary kilt. Traditional kilts are higher waisted, don't have pockets, and are tailored to be worn with traditional Highland attire.

[Bugbear]

Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown

Ted, as far as this traditionalist is concerned, it would be a contemporary kilt. Traditional kilts are higher waisted, don't have pockets, and are tailored to be worn with traditional Highland attire.

All right, the tartan alone does not draw the garment into the traditional Highland attire realm. I guess tartan fabric is used for all kinds of things Scottish and non-Scottish, so that makes sense.

And again, I'm asking this to avoid disrespecting Highland attire; that is keep the non-traditional separate from the traditional etc.

[The Wizard of BC]

Ted, from a Contemporary Kilt maker I have to agree that just because it is made from 16oz wool in a Tartan pattern does not make it a Traditional Style Kilt.

In you example a Freedom Kilt Tartan Model is not a Traditional Kilt. It is a Contemporary Style Kilt because of how it is made.

[Bugbear]

Thanks Wizard.

Here is where I am going with this.
If I have a non-traditional, contemporary kilt, it is not disrespectful to the traditions of Highland attire to wear the contemporary kilt, assuming it has pockets, without also wearing a sporran front and center, or with sandals or something like that.

I'm sure somewhere there is a line where if it looks too much like a traditional kilt, then it does become disrespectful to not wear it in a traditional way.



As Matt says, there is a tradition of solid color kilts in Highland attire, and that is good to know. They just need to look like they are traditional kilts before they are considered traditional.

[Bugbear]

And by the way, a solid navey blue kilt with the traditional cut and weight sounds really nice... Maybe with a gray tweed Argyle.

Or even better, a gray tweed traditional kilt with a navy blue Argyle jacket.

[JelicoCat]

It seems to me that this is a "shades of grey" sort of thing. A 16oz wool kilt made in the traditional technique is the white and Utilikilts with its low waist, narrow apron etc is black. USAk semi-traditional is on the whit side of grey and sport kilt is on the black side of grey. From what I understand, solid color (i.e. saffron) kilts made in a traditional manner is...well...traditional. Please correct me if my thinking is wrong.

[Bugbear]

Originally Posted by JelicoCat

It seems to me that this is a "shades of grey" sort of thing. A 16oz wool kilt made in the traditional technique is the white and Utilikilts with its low waist, narrow apron etc is black. USAk semi-traditional is on the whit side of grey and sport kilt is on the black side of grey. From what I understand, solid color (i.e. saffron) kilts made in a traditional manner is...well...traditional. Please correct me if my thinking is wrong.

Yes, that is part of what I am trying to figure out.

However, according to Matt's post, which is what I am going by, a kilt like I brought up made from navy blue, sixteen ounce wool, in one of the traditional styles would be traditional.

I think the traditional styles are the five to eight yard, knife pleated kilts, or the four yard box pleated kilt; as offered at the Scottish Tartans Museum, for example.
The same navy blue materiel made into a Freedom kilt model would probably not be considered traditional because it has pockets and a different construction design.