Bonnets and badges at Burns dinners.

[Kayne792]

There were more than a few "Russian Generals" (as my father and I refer to them) at a dinner last week. As to the appropriateness of it I cannot speak, but I can understand the desire to want to wear the awards.

[MacEanruig]

I personally believe that no headgear is to be worn for formal or evening events (meaning anything 1800 or later). I am retired army, so old habits die hard. As for medals, I think many Americans wear them without knowing what's proper. For a Burns Supper, I would not consider wearing any medals or awards. For me, less is more.

[Macman]

At our pipe band's recent Burns Supper, some gents were wearing decorations. Typically, they were in their formal police uniforms (local police and RCMP; we are a police band); I don't think I saw any medals on attendees wearing civilian garb. As far as headgear goes, I'd say that glens and balmorals were not worn at all, although there are always a couple of attendees who wear covers through the whole evening.

[Liam]

At our pipe band's recent Burns Supper, some gents were wearing decorations. Typically, they were in their formal police uniforms (local police and RCMP; we are a police band); I don't think I saw any medals on attendees wearing civilian garb. As far as headgear goes, I'd say that glens and balmorals were not worn at all, although there are always a couple of attendees who wear covers through the whole evening.

It is fortunate for those gents who chose to wear their hats that they were not at a Royal Canadian Legion, or they would have been required to buy a round for all present.

[Jock Scot]

Thanks for the replies chaps and I understand instantly the decoration mindset described for significant military events/General's/Admiral's birthdays, whatever . But I am a bit stuck on understanding why wear military decorations for one of the most un-military civilians that ever walked this earth one Mr R Burns who is not even part of anyone's nation other than Scotland. OK I can see the argument that Mr Burn's words have spread across the world, but why the military connection with decorations being worn?

Also, looking at the current batch of Burns night pictures posted here the glengarry outnumbers the balmoral by many times, is this I wonder, part of the civilian/ military thinking that shows itself by the wearing of decorations? I am really not criticising or wanting to cause offence, but I am trying to get to grips with the thinking that is very different to how most of us think here. Let me stress that I am not talking about one mode of thinking is better than the other, but different they are.

[JohntheBiker]

I think that you will find that the Canadian traditions tend to follow the British ones in such circumstances.

No decorations at the Burns Dinner hosted by the St. Andrews Society - clearly a civilian function. No headgear in evidence at all.

Our St. Andrews Charity Ball is an entirely different event. Decorations are encouraged, but the ball is jointly hosted with the 48th Highlanders of Canada and there is a clear and longstanding military connection.

[Liam]

My son and I were discussing this very subject at the Burn's supper we attended. There were quite a few gentlemen wearing Glengarries and my son asked me why I wasn't wearing mine. My answer was that 20 years in service had programed into me NOT to wear a hat indoors unless under arms. Also, formal events after 6PM headgear is traditionally not worn. I have no issue with those that choose to wear them, I just don't think I could do it.

While I own a number of Balmoral bonnets, I have never owned a Glengarry.

[tpa]

Thanks for the replies chaps and I understand instantly the decoration mindset described for significant military events/General's/Admiral's birthdays, whatever . But I am a bit stuck on understanding why wear military decorations for one of the most un-military civilians that ever walked this earth one Mr R Burns who is not even part of anyone's nation other than Scotland. OK I can see the argument that Mr Burn's words have spread across the world, but why the military connection with decorations being worn?

I can see where you are coming from Jock, there is no obvious connection. It probably comes down to individual preference and perhaps expectations are different in other parts of the globe. I can understand people wearing their medals to certain events such as the D-day reunion as it shows that they were actually involved and there is no other way of knowing. I cannot speak for myself but I can recollect my father being reluctant to wear his own ship re-union. There was no need, he would not have been there if he had not been involved. He was reluctant to discuss his war experiences with his nearest and dearest never mind announcing it to outsiders. As for wearing them with his kilt - no way - there was no connection.

[OC Richard]

Below is how I appeared at a Burns supper a couple years ago. I am in most things a 'less is more' person, and I wore no hat and not even a kilt pin.

Other than myself, the even was, pretty much, a sea of black Prince Charlies, and there were bonnets and badges galore.

Jock, it seems to me (and I'll have to post that little 'run and hide' icon for saying things like this) that here in the USA there are at least two factors working which help create the sorts of things you've been seeing in those photos...

1) The "if ya got it, flaunt it!" mindset. Yes, the Ugly American who drives the most expensive car he can afford, gaudy jewellery, $300 sunglasses, etc etc. When I was in Scotland my wife and I, trying our best to fly under the radar, dressed plainly, soft-spoken, were horrified to see an enormous obese Texan, complete with cowboy hat, bolo tie, huge blingy rings on all eight fingers, a belt buckle the size of some towns, and ornate cowboy boots made of some exotic creature, waddling into the shop on The Royal Mile that we happened to be in. He was bellowing loudly. We escaped out a side door quickly as possible. Well how would you expect this same guy to dress for a Burns supper?

2) The mystifying (to me) way in which, in the minds of many Americans, Highland Dress exists in some fourth dimension outside of the ordinary rules of time and space. So one sees, at our local Highland Games, things like a person wearing a "Jacobite" shirt, High Victorian sporran and dirk, diced Glengarry with big feather, hose-tops without spats, moccasins on the feet, huge claymore strapped across the back, and topped off with big sunglasses and a cell phone. (No, really, I've seen this exact thing.) Highland Dress is very often depicted, and worn, in a quasi-18th century style, as if time stopped around 1776. Likewise, if someone wears Highland Dress to a 'colonial ball' or 'Napoleonic ball' or 'Civil War ball' their outfit invariably includes 20th century items. (Sorry, a pet peeve of mine.) Well how might you expect such a person to dress to a Burns supper?

I'll run and hide now

(next stop, the Cooling Off Corner...)

[plaid preacher]

I'm afraid that after this comment I to may have to go over to the corner with Richard and sit on a "naughty chair". I wonder, however, if part of what Jack is observing is really quite simple to understand. for many people the only reference they have for highland dress are the highland regiments. Therefore, we get a variety of "orders of dress", military-style short=sleeved shirts with epaulettes and pocket flaps, and the glengarry.

It may also explain why they wear military decorations with their civilians attire - because their only reference is military.

I have no basis for the above, save the same observations that Jock has made.