Momma is in her mid-60's, so this phenomena has been around for at least that long. I've spoken to her since I posted for her further thoughts. She states that the tradition of belt wearing stems from the kilt becoming civilian clothing other than regimental. She sites that regimental kilts should rise to the arc of the rib cage to accommodate the military doublet, and the belt being fastened around the doublet. Her thoughts are that when the kilt left the regimental arena and began to take popularity in the populace, the waist came down to the navel for comfort sake, and accessorizing meant non-military style coats that could remain open if need be (Argyll jackets, etc.). THe belt and its buckle gained whole new meaning from this. Belts were not needed to carry swords or pistols. She stated that lowering the length to near the waist creates issues with the small of the back (Military cut kilts are 2-3 inches above this area, thus not affected). Dr.Tewks talks about this issue in her book, but my mother feels that inevitably a kilt losses that perfect fit and a belt is necessary. I told her about the sagging "U" thats created by this, and she said that if that is happening then both end of the kilt loops are sewn to the pleat and not one end up into the top band. She even challenged me to find a picture of a kilt that has "proper" loops done that has the sag. ANyone?