Quote Originally Posted by cajunscot View Post
I've never understood the connotation that "rural" people somehow resent all manner of "proper" attire. I've heard this a lot here in SW Missouri, but if you look at photos from the late 19th century/early 20th century, people simply knew the levels of attire for certain functions. Robert Burns was a puir ploughman frae Ayr, but he also could socialise with the gentry, and benefited from it through patronage.

My grandfather and great-grandfather, for example, were Iowa farmers, but both owned suits (not just one), French-cuff shirts and other kit. Sure, they wore overalls in the fields, but when it was time to go to church or lodge, they wore their best, as they respected those institutions.

Yes, the kilt may have been "work" clothes at one time, but the kilt also could be "formal" attire as well -- the pedigree isn't really a good excuse for rejecting formal attire.

I'm afraid this post is just as judgemental of those of us who take pride in our formal attire as the people who judge those who do not wear it.

Regards,

Todd

And you misread my intent. The apparent judgemental voice was to make a point--that too many who wear formal attire who look down their noses at those of us who cannot justify the expenses involved in wearing the stuff. In general, I simply find that because I don't "fit in" for such formal occasions, I just don't go.