Military Tartans?

[Jim H.]

What is the general consensus of wearing ex-military kilts around? I know they can be had on ebay for some cheap cash but is it disrespectful to do so? Would wearing one be akin to wearing a military uniform around as a civilian? How would a kilt from the fifties hold up nowdays too? Is there anything else I'm missing?

Thanks,
James

[Fearnest]

Would wearing one be akin to wearing a military uniform around as a civilian?

Not unless you decided to wear the tunic and/or other uniform parts. If you can find one in your size at a price you like, go for it!

The only thing I've heard negative about "ex-mil" kilts is sometimes the fabric can be a rougher finish than a civilian kilt.

[Nanook]

Not unless you decided to wear the tunic and/or other uniform parts.

Standard garb for regimental pipe bands.

The only thing I've heard negative about "ex-mil" kilts is sometimes the fabric can be a rougher finish than a civilian kilt.

The fabric is (was) from Noble and is a different but not rougher. I would argue that they are among the finest cloths made for kilts. They have more of a sheen than any of the standard 16 oz worsted wool tartans. The availability of tartans to military specifications, however, is quite limited. Despite a limited selection military tartans are not cheaper but actually a bit more expensive than House of Edgar heavyweight or Loch Carron Strome.

Military kilts, however, are not just made of regimental tartans cloth but also made to patterns that are quite different from current "traditional" kilts. They are intended to sit not just (no less than 1") higher (up against the rib cage) but also more snugly (nearly like a corset). They also don't tend to have fringes and their belts have 2 prongs (I said "snug" about the fit!).

[Chef]

I personally don't like the wearing of any uniforms in civilian situations particularly if it has identifying traits like a kilt.

[Erisianmonkey]

I personally don't like the wearing of any uniforms in civilian situations particularly if it has identifying traits like a kilt.

I don't think he's talking about wearing the whole uniform, just the kilt. Speaking as one who used to do a lot of shopping at surplus stores, I think it is fine. The only way I can see it as disrespect is if you are wearing insignia or trying to make it look like the uniform. I would make sure that it doesn't have a kilt panel or the like if it is from a regiment that uses such. Also, I would suggest learning some history about the regiment whose tartan you are wearing. That way, you can be sure to let those who have served in that regiment know that you respect it and know what they stand for.

[An t-Ileach]

Although I didn't serve in a Scottish regiment (they move too slowly for mine, after the disbandment of the Cameronians), I have lots of family who were in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. And the Government Tartan was meant to be a general tartan anyway, rather than a specifically military one (I know that's splitting hairs as the Disarming Act 1746 banned the wearing of tartan for anyone other than gentry and serving military).

Since the present government has killed off the six Scottish regiments and hasn't come up with the (taxpayers') money to weave a new tartan for the Royal Regiment of Scotland, I think wearing the Government Tartan (i.e. the 'Black Watch') is an important gesture to make a point, if nothing else, and to show solidarity with all those who did serve - in many people's minds it still is the Black Watch Tartan although it, strictly speaking, is no longer a military tartan.

However, if the government did the sensible thing (what's the odds on that?) and adopted the Government Tartan for the RRS, then of course it would become an active military tartan again.

[macwilkin]

Although I didn't serve in a Scottish regiment (they move too slowly for mine, after the disbandment of the Cameronians), I have lots of family who were in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. And the Government Tartan was meant to be a general tartan anyway, rather than a specifically military one (I know that's splitting hairs as the Disarming Act 1746 banned the wearing of tartan for anyone other than gentry and serving military).

Since the present government has killed off the six Scottish regiments and hasn't come up with the (taxpayers') money to weave a new tartan for the Royal Regiment of Scotland, I think wearing the Government Tartan (i.e. the 'Black Watch') is an important gesture to make a point, if nothing else, and to show solidarity with all those who did serve - in many people's minds it still is the Black Watch Tartan although it, strictly speaking, is no longer a military tartan.

However, if the government did the sensible thing (what's the odds on that?) and adopted the Government Tartan for the RRS, then of course it would become an active military tartan again.

The RRS is wearing the Government sett, which caused great (and justified) consternation among members of the other regiments who had their own specific regimental tartans.

Also, when referring to the Government Sett/Black Watch as a "universal" one, it doesn't necessarily mean "universal" in the most general sense, but a "universal" military tartan to be worn by all Scottish regiments, Highland and Lowland. The Royal Scots, for example, wore trews in Black Watch in 1881 before adopting the Hunting Stewart tartan in 1907 (Henderson, "The Scottish Regiments").

Regards,

Todd

[Seaforth Piper]

my first thought when I see someone in an Army kilt is "Oh, look at the silly sod in surplus"..unless he's a current or ex soldier (and if you've been 'in', you can tell one another - in any order of dress - from a long way off) in which case I think "oh, that's allright then" - I remember one CO of mine chiding me for wearing my MacDonald kilt at a 'do' in the Mess, because I was now a Seaforth and that was now my family tartan! Advice that I'm still giving to new soldiers 30 years later....

All of the Highland and Lowland Regiments initially were authorised to wear the Government sett, which they later 'differenced' by adding overstripes. Permission was not sought -- they just did it.

The Royal Regiment is the latest (unhappy) chapter in the history of the regiments - but it's not the last chapter.

The quote most relevant to our cause (both in Scotland and the 16 kilted Regiments in Canada) is from the book "Tunes of Glory":

"A soldier does not need arms to fight with, or legs to run with, as much as he needs teeth to hold on with"

Cabar Feidh

[An t-Ileach]

Thanks Todd and KKCB for bringing me up-to-date (I did really mean 'universal' in the way you described, Todd).

I make a gesture to sentiment by having a dark green argyll coat with my surviving black horn buttons on it for smarter day wear.

[Erisianmonkey]

my first thought when I see someone in an Army kilt is "Oh, look at the silly sod in surplus"

I can't speak for British military surplus, but despite the complaints you might hear from soldiers, US military surplus goods tend to be some of the best stuff you can buy. Before I got to be the size of a small car, I often dressed in surplus for the simple fact that my dollar went a hell of a lot further. From everything I've read about military surplus kilts on this board, I am guessing that the value thing would still hold. Indeed, if I could afford, and could fit into a surplus kilt, I'd be right in line for one. Silly sod? No, smart shopper.