tights ?

[jfellrath]

There is some evidence that Highlanders stationed in North America during the French & Indian War wore Native American wool leggings under their kilts (these leggings are knee-high with braided "flashes" to hold them up); there is a picture of such an outfit in Stuart Reid's "18th Century Highlanders" by Osprey Publishing.

The leggings in question would most certainly allow for the ventilation properties of the kilt. Even longer versions were simply that - LEGGINGS - not pants of any kind. The Native Americans would wear them with their loincloths, with the leggings tied to the "belt" that held the loincloth in place, so there was no need for any sort of coverage of the nether regions.

Anyone know of a vendor for this sort of thing? Might be nice to try out.

[Ranald]

[QUOTE=jfellrath]The leggings in question would most certainly allow for the ventilation properties of the kilt. Even longer versions were simply that - LEGGINGS - not pants of any kind. The Native Americans would wear them with their loincloths, with the leggings tied to the "belt" that held the loincloth in place, so there was no need for any sort of coverage of the nether regions.

This was exactly my point, there are other options!
It is my belief that the trousers originally started off as two legging with socks built in and attached to a belt under a tunic, some bright spark just took it a bit further and came up with what we know as roughly trousers, albeit quite squarely cut.
Necessity is the mother of all invention.
I also hear that some builders wear tights to keep warm while laying bricks!
Blu your comments are noted thanks.

[Scotus]

In spite of supposed historical evidence of Highlanders in the French & Indian War, this is quite bizarre. Tights under a kilt is bizarre. I'm sorry. I am completely not open to the idea at all. That's my opinion only, but I'm sticking with it.

[Colin]

In spite of supposed historical evidence of Highlanders in the French & Indian War, this is quite bizarre. Tights under a kilt is bizarre. I'm sorry. I am completely not open to the idea at all. That's my opinion only, but I'm sticking with it.

I agree completely.

[macwilkin]

In spite of supposed historical evidence of Highlanders in the French & Indian War, this is quite bizarre. Tights under a kilt is bizarre. I'm sorry. I am completely not open to the idea at all. That's my opinion only, but I'm sticking with it.

Same here, Scotus & Colin -- I was just mentioning the evidence that leggings were worn, not tights (apart from George VI!)

I'm wi' you both on this!

Cheers,

Todd

[Dreadbelly]

The Blackwatch wore leggings. Wool ones. I've seen pictures.

Pretty sure they didn't wear tights though. That's Nancy.

[macwilkin]

The Blackwatch wore leggings. Wool ones. I've seen pictures.

Pretty sure they didn't wear tights though. That's Nancy.

See my earlier post. (no. 6)

Only in North America during the French & Indian (Seven Year's) War, and then, not every ranker in the regiment did -- Reid mentions that field modifications were documented in standing orders, given the heavily forested region where the majority of the campaigns took place. These "field expedient" modifications were not stanard uniform issue. It was not my intention to mislead anyone into thinking that these were part of the uniform.

btw, I should point out that the Royal Highland Regiment's (the old 42nd Regiment of Foot) nickname is "The Black Watch", referring to their nickname in the Gaelic, "Am Frieceadan Dubh".

Cheers,

Todd

[James]

Can I suggest that there is a point of principle here-first though, I've never felt the need or desire to wear tights-so it is principle: not what I do or might do.

For a formal event one would look to a traditional kilt worn in the conventional manner.

However if we accept all the variations for day to day wear-be it the new style purported kilts-high boots and rolled down socks-all sorts of variations which will be entirely alien to the traditionalist: how can we then oppose anyone who wants to wear tights for practical/preference, rather than cross dressing reasons?

Quite simply we cannot have it both ways: either we accept the variations-or all variations are banned and kilt wearing is only for the traditionalist who observes all the conventions. In which case my propensity to wear a side sporran-the various variants such as the Utilikilt and so on must be stopped.


James