Military Tartans?

[macwilkin]

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.

Of course, one can argue that you are talking mostly about "battle dress", i.e. camo jackets, trousers, webbing, etc. Which can be bought in many surplus stores.

Regimental tartans have a great deal more tradition and symbolism behind them than a surplus camo jacket.

Regards,

Todd

[Erisianmonkey]

Of course, one can argue that you are talking mostly about "battle dress", i.e. camo jackets, trousers, webbing, etc. Which can be bought in many surplus stores.

Regimental tartans have a great deal more tradition and symbolism behind then a surplus camo jacket.

Of course they do, and I don't deny that. What I am arguing against is the snooty attitude about someone wearing surplus. Then there's also the fact that in more than one case, the tartans that we are talking about are not only tartans of that regiment, but also of one or more clans. (Government sett serves as the "base" for multiple tartans, as well as being a Campbell tartan just as it is. Todd, you as a historian have pointed this out youself a time or two on this board.) There's a lot of things like that people forget about when they set out to be snooty.

[macwilkin]

Of course they do, and I don't deny that. What I am arguing against is the snooty attitude about someone wearing surplus. Then there's also the fact that in more than one case, the tartans that we are talking about are not only tartans of that regiment, but also of one or more clans. (Government sett serves as the "base" for multiple tartans, as well as being a Campbell tartan just as it is. Todd, you as a historian have pointed this out youself a time or two on this board.) There's a lot of things like that people forget about when they set out to be snooty.

Just for the record: I'm not being "snooty", just pointing out a difference between a regimental symbol and "army surplus". When I think of surplus, I think of old kit which has been discarded and is sold to civilians to use for hunting, hiking, etc.

Now granted, a lot of surplus stores sell unit/rank insignia as well, mostly to collectors, reenactors, etc., but again, there is a difference, at least in my perspective.

And yes, many clan tartans have their lineage in regimental ones -- good point. Several clans use the Black Watch tartan as a clan tartan, like the Grant Hunting. But, for the ex-Jock who served with one of the regiment, it is a clan and family tartan both, as KKCB mentioned, and one that is earned.

Personally, I wouldn't wear a regimental tartan, unless I was participating in a reenacting/living history organization portraying a specific regiment, but that's just me. Again, for the record, I'm not being "snooty"...more of a "devil's advocate".

T.

[Erisianmonkey]

I'm not claiming you were snooty, I'm saying that kiltykiltycauldbum was snooty (the "silly sod" comment). But I'm glad you don't set the "tartan rules" because then I wouldn't be able to wear my clan tartan, as it has been adopted by a Canadian regiment. Indeed, there would be a great many MacGregors out there who couldn't wear their kilts. And that's only one example. If the regiments want to be snooty about who can wear their tartan, then they shouldn't adopt tartans that have any kind of history outside the military as clan tartans. I don't mean that with any disrespect either.

[Nanook]

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)

That's like saying don't wear a t-shirt with the name of a rock band unless you are a member (or ex-member) of the band..! :-)

Regimental kilts (and for that matter nearly all regimental ceremonial garb) are not "surplus" but highly sought after and prized souvenirs or bits of "fan" kit. A not insignificant number of kilts are made in regimental patterns and tartans. Government-1(aka Black Watch) is one of the most popular tartans alongside Royal Stewart (Black Watch pipers).

Is wearing hackles or even badges disrespectful? Of course not, no more than any fan gear. Its called "flattery"!
(and all the regimental associations sell an assortment of fan kit including buckles, badges and hackles)

The ceremonial kit of the various regiments is an integral part of popular culture.

[macwilkin]

I'm not claiming you were snooty, I'm saying that kiltykiltycauldbum was snooty (the "silly sod" comment). But I'm glad you don't set the "tartan rules" because then I wouldn't be able to wear my clan tartan, as it has been adopted by a Canadian regiment. Indeed, there would be a great many MacGregors out there who couldn't wear their kilts. And that's only one example. If the regiments want to be snooty about who can wear their tartan, then they shouldn't adopt tartans that have any kind of history outside the military as clan tartans. I don't mean that with any disrespect either.

You misunderstand my meaning, Sir. I was simply offering an explanation as to why some members of a particular regiment might by protective of their tartan. You're putting a different meaning behind my words, with your comment about "tartan rules". That's what a devil's advocate does -- presents the other side in an arguement. All I was simply trying to do was explain that. I personally have my own opinions on the subject, but I wouldn't dare force them on anyone.

Many clans do indeed wear "regimental" tartans, such as the Camerons & Mackenzies. Other clans have given regiments and corps permission to wear their tartan, like the 3rd Battalion of Sikh Regiment of the Indian Army (Rattray's Sikhs) that wears the Rattray tartan in honour of the regiment's founder. The Sikhs and the Clan Rattray have developed a "friendship" of sorts, just as other clans and regiments have as well. In the 1950's, when the old Lake Superior Regiment became the Lake Superior Scottish, permission was sought of the Commander of the Clan McGillivary for the regiment to wear their tartan, since a McGillivary was involved in the old Northwest Company trading post at Ft. William near Thunder Bay. I personally think that is a good thing.

The regiments, especially in the British system, have always maintained close ties with their local area.

Sorry to have offended you.

T.

[McMurdo]

How would a kilt from the fifties hold up nowdays too? Is there anything else I'm missing?

Thanks,
James

As far as a kilt from the fifties holding up, I think it all depends on the workmanship of the garment the first kilt I got was my Dad's old kilt it is 57 yrs old now here it is:


Dressed up

and

Dressed down
It holds up great as far as I am concerned and it was for a long time my only kilt, it was made by Alex Scott and co. Aberdeen.