Fit Check - Burns Supper 2026

[Jock Scot]

Nort Americans visualize Elmer Fudd in Camo, not scared foxes and Toffs on mounts.

Steady on! Some could take real offence from what you say above. As a friendly suggestion, perhaps you could rephrase your post?

[Canadian Vet]

Steady on! Some could take real offence from what you say above. As a friendly suggestion, perhaps you could rephrase your post?

Which part? Who mis offended and why?

[Jock Scot]

Which part? Who mis offended and why?

I am sure that you meant no harm, but sometimes the journey across the Atlantic does alter the meaning of words more than somewhat. As in this case.

[Troglodyte]

Which part? Who mis offended and why?

Your comment is offensive because it is incorrect and the choice of words can be seen as intended as an insult or slight.

Only a small proportion of those who follow field sports (hunting, shooting, fishing and racing) are what you would call a 'Toff' and the vast majority are either white-collar or blue-collar workers. In other words, field-sports are egalitarian and the upper-classes (your Toff) tends to follow the lead of his less well-heeled fellow. Hunting clothes are manual work-wear.

When hunting was banned in the UK more than 20 years ago, the strongest argument against field sports was that 'It is only Toffs in red coats' who will feel the ban. That showed then, and continues to show, how little understanding there is by those not involved. Those who lost their jobs, income and livelihood were working-class.

Singling out 'Toffs' as a target is the weapon of choice for those who like to engage in class warfare, as if this form of prejudice is to be applauded and encouraged.

Those of us who are not hunstmen, or do not ride to hounds, and who take no pleasure in killing for sport, see no reason to allow rudenes and insult to those that do. There are plenty of other forums where such views and comments might be welcomed, but this is not one of them.

Let's stick to the topic and stay well away from politics and mistakenly perceived social injustices. Dressing nicely for a Burns' supper is the discussion here.

[Jock Scot]

Your comment is offensive because it is incorrect and the choice of words can be seen as intended as an insult or slight.

Only a small proportion of those who follow field sports (hunting, shooting, fishing and racing) are what you would call a 'Toff' and the vast majority are either white-collar or blue-collar workers. In other words, field-sports are egalitarian and the upper-classes (your Toff) tends to follow the lead of his less well-heeled fellow. Hunting clothes are manual work-wear.

When hunting was banned in the UK more than 20 years ago, the strongest argument against field sports was that 'It is only Toffs in red coats' who will feel the ban. That showed then, and continues to show, how little understanding there is by those not involved. Those who lost their jobs, income and livelihood were working-class.

Singling out 'Toffs' as a target is the weapon of choice for those who like to engage in class warfare, as if this form of prejudice is to be applauded and encouraged.

Those of us who are not hunstmen, or do not ride to hounds, and who take no pleasure in killing for sport, see no reason to allow rudenes and insult to those that do. There are plenty of other forums where such views and comments might be welcomed, but this is not one of them.

Let's stick to the topic and stay well away from politics and mistakenly perceived social injustices. Dressing nicely for a Burns' supper is the discussion here.

An excellent explanation Trog., thank you.

Just one minor correction though. Hunting with hounds is still legal South of the border(with a few adjustments). In fact, I was delighted to watch the Berkeley Hunt "drawing" the covers(woods) with the hunt "servants" wearing their lemon hunting (yellow) jackets at my sons' farm in Gloucestershire only a few weeks ago.

Now, lets get back to kilts!

[OC Richard]

...field sports (hunting, shooting, fishing and racing) ...the vast majority are either white-collar or blue-collar workers. In other words, field-sports are egalitarian...

Speaking just of hunting, wouldn't that traditionally have been confined to the landed gentry, people who owned large enough estates to hunt in, and had enough wealth to maintain a stable of horses?

Having come from endless generations of Cornish miners, I can't imagine a miner inviting some of his work-mates over to his estate for a hunt.

(In West Virginia, 90% forest and it teeming with millions of deer, hunting is a blue-collar sport, deer hunting that is. Not that some people don't spend thousands of dollars kitting themselves out.)

[Troglodyte]

Speaking just of hunting, wouldn't that traditionally have been confined to the landed gentry, people who owned large enough estates to hunt in, and had enough wealth to maintain a stable of horses.

Only really when you go back to the Norman Conquest, and the introduction of the feudal system - so that all land was the property of the monarch, and lesser mortals (ie, nobles) held land in fue to be paid in kind or service.

In more recent centuries, country sports have been followed by the gentry in the style of their tennents who knew how to do things properly - particularly with angling, coursing and following hounds on foot. Mounted followers would have been gentry and nobility originally (which is why the 'only toffs in red coats' attack still has value) but the vast majority of hunters on horse-back these days are blue- or white-collar workers. There was a time when farm-workers would take a cart-horse out hunting - nothing 'toff' there. The ones I know are stable-hands, farmers, fencing-contractors, hair-dressers, farriers and mechanics. 'Toffs' of the old-fashioned sort no longer have the money to hunt!

One hunt-follower I used so see regularly was an American dentist, who flew over from the States to the UK on a Wednesday, would hunt on Thursday, Friday and Saturday over different country and with different packs, before flying home again on Monday. Although he wore expensively-tailored traditional hunting clothes and had fine mounts, you could hardly call him a toff - but plenty of money he did have.

What are now considered smart gentlemen's sporting clothes - tweeds and hunt-coats - are really country labourers' work-wear. Before about 1950, no gentleman would have dared be seen in public wearing corduroy (least of all out hunting on horseback) as it was the cloth navvies and unskilled labourers wore. When you see the old portraits and early photos of gentlemen shooting or fishing, they were dressed as gentlemen - but they soon came to appreciate the rough-and-ready advantages of easy-fitting tweeds and adopted them very wisely. Your 'rod' or 'gun' might now buy his sporting tweeds from a smart London or Edinburgh outfitter, but his style is that of his working-class ghillie. It's odd to think that what we now consider smart and exclusive really has the same sartorial status as denim jeans!

There is half-joke advice given for when getting a new tweed suit: the gentleman should give it to his gardener to wear for a year before it is suitable for his own use. I remember seeing tradesmen (carpenters, plumbers) wearing collar and tie for work, with a tweed jacket over their overalls - shirts and ties of the sort now thought of as dressing-up and worn when a-kilted at Highland Games. How times change...

As for estate ownership and restricted hunting or fishing, that is still very true, of course, as no land-owner wants hoi polloi trailing a line up his best fishing beats or coursing lurchers over his fine grazing or newly sowed fields. At the start of a hunt, the master will instruct 'the field' which land to avoid, but most of what is a no-go zone is that which is in public ownership.

Mounted hunting follows a strictly-enforced set of rules, as the mounted followers are really there to watch the huntsman and his whippers-in control the hounds as they find a fox and make him run - it is a mistake to think that the chase is simply to kill it. Followers are mounted as that is the only way they can keep up with the hounds, but foot-packs like beagles and bassets, or those that hunt in hill-country, are much more egalitarian.

Much of hunting is about dispersal and culling to sustainable numbers - but since the hunting ban 20 years ago, the fox has been eradicated in many areas. Where I live is perfect fox country, but I have seen no trace of one for years when I would see a fox a couple of times a week at one time. One of the pro-hunting arguments was that a ban would lead to eradication as the public service duties of a hunt (ditch-digging and clearing, fence and hedge maintenance, road repairs, etc) was worth the loss of a few lambs or poultry, or whatever.

Now huge swathes of rural Britain seems to be owned by investment banks in Stutgart, New York or Tokyo, or by agri-businesses with giant land portfolios whose managers never visit the land they own (think of the German owners of Scottish islands), a fair amount of sentiment or responsibility for local traditions or activities has been lost. But that is not to say the old ways are all gone. Here in the Highlands there are many lairds and clan chiefs who enjoy and maintain the traditions, despite the hunting ban if it even ever affected them.

Many land-owners across the UK do not hunt themselves, but allow hunting (especially drag) across their land for various reasons. These will include small-holders or tenant farmers or those who would never describe themselves as gentry and certainly not a toff!

[Jock Scot]

Only really when you go back to the Norman Conquest, and the introduction of the feudal system - so that all land was the property of the monarch, and lesser mortals (ie, nobles) held land in fue to be paid in kind or service.

In more recent centuries, country sports have been followed by the gentry in the style of their tennents who knew how to do things properly - particularly with angling, coursing and following hounds on foot. Mounted followers would have been gentry and nobility originally (which is why the 'only toffs in red coats' attack still has value) but the vast majority of hunters on horse-back these days are blue- or white-collar workers. There was a time when farm-workers would take a cart-horse out hunting - nothing 'toff' there. The ones I know are stable-hands, farmers, fencing-contractors, hair-dressers, farriers and mechanics. 'Toffs' of the old-fashioned sort no longer have the money to hunt!

One hunt-follower I used so see regularly was an American dentist, who flew over from the States to the UK on a Wednesday, would hunt on Thursday, Friday and Saturday over different country and with different packs, before flying home again on Monday. Although he wore expensively-tailored traditional hunting clothes and had fine mounts, you could hardly call him a toff - but plenty of money he did have.

What are now considered smart gentlemen's sporting clothes - tweeds and hunt-coats - are really country labourers' work-wear. Before about 1950, no gentleman would have dared be seen in public wearing corduroy (least of all out hunting on horseback) as it was the cloth navvies and unskilled labourers wore. When you see the old portraits and early photos of gentlemen shooting or fishing, they were dressed as gentlemen - but they soon came to appreciate the rough-and-ready advantages of easy-fitting tweeds and adopted them very wisely. Your 'rod' or 'gun' might now buy his sporting tweeds from a smart London or Edinburgh outfitter, but his style is that of his working-class ghillie. It's odd to think that what we now consider smart and exclusive really has the same sartorial status as denim jeans!

There is half-joke advice given for when getting a new tweed suit: the gentleman should give it to his gardener to wear for a year before it is suitable for his own use. I remember seeing tradesmen (carpenters, plumbers) wearing collar and tie for work, with a tweed jacket over their overalls - shirts and ties of the sort now thought of as dressing-up and worn when a-kilted at Highland Games. How times change...

As for estate ownership and restricted hunting or fishing, that is still very true, of course, as no land-owner wants hoi polloi trailing a line up his best fishing beats or coursing lurchers over his fine grazing or newly sowed fields. At the start of a hunt, the master will instruct 'the field' which land to avoid, but most of what is a no-go zone is that which is in public ownership.

Mounted hunting follows a strictly-enforced set of rules, as the mounted followers are really there to watch the huntsman and his whippers-in control the hounds as they find a fox and make him run - it is a mistake to think that the chase is simply to kill it. Followers are mounted as that is the only way they can keep up with the hounds, but foot-packs like beagles and bassets, or those that hunt in hill-country, are much more egalitarian.

Much of hunting is about dispersal and culling to sustainable numbers - but since the hunting ban 20 years ago, the fox has been eradicated in many areas. Where I live is perfect fox country, but I have seen no trace of one for years when I would see a fox a couple of times a week at one time. One of the pro-hunting arguments was that a ban would lead to eradication as the public service duties of a hunt (ditch-digging and clearing, fence and hedge maintenance, road repairs, etc) was worth the loss of a few lambs or poultry, or whatever.

Now huge swathes of rural Britain seems to be owned by investment banks in Stutgart, New York or Tokyo, or by agri-businesses with giant land portfolios whose managers never visit the land they own (think of the German owners of Scottish islands), a fair amount of sentiment or responsibility for local traditions or activities has been lost. But that is not to say the old ways are all gone. Here in the Highlands there are many lairds and clan chiefs who enjoy and maintain the traditions, despite the hunting ban if it even ever affected them.

Many land-owners across the UK do not hunt themselves, but allow hunting (especially drag) across their land for various reasons. These will include small-holders or tenant farmers or those who would never describe themselves as gentry and certainly not a toff!

I hope many from outwith these shores read and digest what you have said in your post above, Trog.. It will save many misunderstandings! I have a mildly amusing story that illustrates the point.

Years ago, I invited an American couple to stay with us for a couple of days days hunting---------horses and hounds------ they arrived at Heathrow Airport, clad rather like Elmer Fudd! Imagine their surprise when they learned that they were expected to be sat on horses for a couple of separate days with not a firearm in sight! We followed the horses and hounds for two days in a Landrover and on foot. To blunt their disappointment we managed to lay on a days driven pheasant shooting for them, that in passing, was another culture shock for them too! But that is another story!

Back to kilts.

[CBH]

Hunting legality in the UK is interesting.

Can you easily summarize what is legal and what's not ?

Is it uniform over the entire UK or does it vary by country (England, Scotland...)

I don't really plan to hunt there soon, but it is interesting to know.

Does the ban on hunting correspond to fear of public gun ownership ?

If so, is bow hunting, or other non-firearm hunting allowed ?

Even though firearms are nearly universally allowed across the US, bow hunting is still popular. Bow hunters are usually rewarded with a season that opens earlier than the season for firearms.

[Jock Scot]

Hunting legality in the UK is interesting.

Can you easily summarize what is legal and what's not ?

Is it uniform over the entire UK or does it vary by country (England, Scotland...)

I don't really plan to hunt there soon, but it is interesting to know.

Does the ban on hunting correspond to fear of public gun ownership ?

If so, is bow hunting, or other non-firearm hunting allowed ?

Even though firearms are nearly universally allowed across the US, bow hunting is still popular. Bow hunters are usually rewarded with a season that opens earlier than the season for firearms.

ERRRRR, I am not sure how long the mods., will allow this conversation to continue. But, you have not understood what Trog., and me have been saying. In UK terms hunting has nothing to do with firearms, or bows. I stand to be corrected, but I think it is illegal to use a bow, of any sort, to take deer or wild boar in the UK.

Unfortunately the American term "hunting" is used by those that don't understand and is creeping into UK terminology, which unhelpfully causes confusion.