What would the Victorians think?

[Jock Scot]

Alright, imagine that I ,somehow, went back to, say 1890 wearing what I am wearing in my oft used( I must get a few more new ones) picture. Would I slide into the accepted mode of dress of the time, or, would I be picked out as some "modern type" who really ought to know better? For sure I would be criticized for not wearing a bonnet of some sort and of course we all know that flat caps worn with the kilt were in fashion in those days. I think a deer stalker for me, although my balmoral would not look out of place. My style of shirt collar might raise an eyebrow too, as might the hue of my kilt.

Observations please?

[acaig]

I think you would be entirely accepted in the late Victorian era, in that form of dress. A tweed jacket and waistcoat is very traditional wear with the kilt. I agree with you that you would be taken for a trendy kilty and full marks for doing so.

You would suit a Balmoral, I think.

By the way you do look splenid in that oufit.

[Bugbear]

* Oops, I just noticed this is the traditional forum instead of the historical forum. Sorry, never mind. *

[Paul]

THE TIE!

Joking You look very victorian indeed and I like this outfit in modern dress. The tweeds a nice colour for the kilt.

[Phil]

Looking at photos from that era, a gentleman would have felt naked without some form of headgear so, as you say, a cap of some sort would be essential. Also the shirt collar would have been the stiff, detachable, variety and I don't know if regimental ties were worn in those days. Jacket styles tended to be a little more elaborate such as the Norfolk style and yours would probably have defined you in society then as a gillie or stalker with your choice of headgear being spot on. I seem to recall that sporans worn in those days were mostly the long, hairy variety or else some poor animal such as a badger, preserved for all time as a sporan. So again the Victorians would think that a plain leather sporan denoted an estate worker of some description. Of course the Victorians were extremely class-conscious and everyone was expected to know their place.

[BoldHighlander]

Jock, I would say with very minor modifications you'd fit into the era well

Like Phil said a hat of some sort & the hairy sporran being the two major items missing, otherwise you wear it well my friend

p.s. -- I'll add some photos I have for comparison later in the day.
For some reason photobucket seems to be down right now

[Paul]

Jock, I would say with very minor modifications you'd fit into the era well

Like Phil said a hat of some sort & the hairy sporran being the two major items missing, otherwise you wear it well my friend

p.s. -- I'll add some photos I have for comparison later in the day.
For some reason photobucket seems to be down right now

try tinypic.com or imageshack.us

[BoldHighlander]

try tinypic.com or imageshack.us

Thanks but I don't want to go hunting thru my files to upload to yet another host (I already had to go thru that)

[M. A. C. Newsome]

I can't tell how your kilt is pleated, but if it is pleated to sett, they may marvel at this wonderful new pleating style that reveals the whole tartan in the pleats.

And they also would likely wonder where you got that tartan woven with such light colors.

Oh, you trendsetter, you!

[McMurdo]

Yes indeed the fact that a bonnet is not in evidence would no doubt raise an eyebrow or two, the shirt collar would alarm some, and as Matt has noted, the "Ancient" tartan would shock all. No doubt they might be wondering just what you did to your kilt to achieve that. Another thing is the plain cut of your waistcoat, and placement of the kilt pin, the devil is in the details as they say. Though I think you are closer to Henry of Battenburg here:


Than the Ghillies of Balmoral