At what point doe's a Kilt ....

[Sir Robert]

Because you asked, not because I know anything, I would say the med/heavy weight wool and a front full width apron are the defining caracteristics of a kilt.

I have an all black "manskirt" That is wool and is made with apron front pleited in back but I will never wear it to the highland games. It meets my definition of kilt but....

[Hamish]

Matt,

Yours is a superb response to Derek's question. Thank you for it.

For most of my life, and I've been wearing kilts for 55 years now, I thought of the kilt as being woollen, tartan, roughly 8 yards, hand-sewn, pleated save for the overlapping aprons at the front (and the top one wrapping to the right), fitted tightly to the waist with a 2" rise above that point and held in place by two or possibly three buckles and leather straps.

In the past six years or so, I have been honoured and privileged to witness an explosive step forward in the evolution of that kilt. Firstly, with Howie Nicholsby's "21st Century Kilts" (machine-stitched, 'hipsters' tailored by experienced traditional kiltmakers, using fabrics and materials other than tartan but otherwise following the 'established' kilt pattern). Then, almost immediately after Howie came Steven Villegas with his American Utilikilt - a totally different but, oh so practical leisure or work kilt, with capacious and wonderful pockets, that could be tossed into the washing machine (something one would never dream of doing with a kilt previously). These two gentlemen opened the flood-gates to the amazing diversity from which we may now chose: variations on the 'traditional' tartan kilt, and variations on the non-tartan newcomers too.

Today, just about every long-established kiltmaker of repute offers, in addition to his stock-in-trade 'traditional' kilts, contemporary machine-sewn garments worn on the hip in solid colours and reduced yardage.

The kilt is evolving, as it has always done. Of course, it must and will retain its traditions, but it is also rightly moving forward as an everyday garment of our time, and this continuing progress will ensure that our beloved kilt does not simply stagnate as a costume to be worn on special occasions - which is how most of us treated it until comparatively recently.

Here's to Tradition! But here's also to Progress!

[James]

It might be well not to be too adventurous, and look to a traditional kilt, rather than some of the variants.

For it is a garment that can be justified, and accepted.

Here there is a very delicate point, manners. For it is a sad fact that individuals wearing some of the variants, will be treated with good manners, and so be certain that their 'kilt' is accepted. However what is actually being said about them and their choice of attire can be very different: and without doubt their nether wear is not being seen as a kilt.

Probably things are very different in America, with it's tradition of fairs and the like where variant costumes are accepted: or amongst populations who not being used to seeing the kilt-will more readily accept the variants.

However here in the UK both above and below the highland line, there are many who take the kilt-it's making and wearing very seriously indeed.

Therefore it will probably be easiest to follow present conventions when first venturing into the kilted world. Having said that, there is a dynamic at work, so such things as ties can be discarded for day to day wear, and the tweed jacket replaced by a leather jerkin and so on.

Too the durability and comfort of a traditional kilt is without doubt: too it will stand up to the British weather and rough wear in a way that many of the variants could not match. So though expensive, a good kilt is a good investment.

The root of the entire problem lies in he fact that for natural reasons, garments that are not seen by many as being a kilt, are being sold and worn as a kilt. Here I can well appreciate that those breaching convention are seeking to justify their entirely laudable choice of attire. However there is no point in avoiding the fact that to many such garments are not a kilt, and certainly are not indicative of a highland connection.

Again I regret being contentious, but there is little point in avoiding a problem: which unless addressed will without doubt one day cause some innocent soul great embarrassement.

James

[Blu (Ontario)]

It might be well not to be too adventurous, and look to a traditional kilt, rather than some of the variants.
For it is a garment that can be justified, and accepted.
Here there is a very delicate point, manners. For it is a sad fact that individuals wearing some of the variants, will be treated with good manners, and so be certain that their 'kilt' is accepted. However what is actually being said about them and their choice of attire can be very different: and without doubt their nether wear is not being seen as a kilt.

A very valid point, James. The wearing of the traditional kilt is obviously less "risky" than the modern variants. I should add, however, that the rules of justification and acceptance change over time. Women today wear trousers because they took the bull by the nads and decided collectively to do it. For men, why should the modern variant be any different. Only by wearing it often and with abandon and confidence, will it be accepted without some pretext or justification for doing so. Nothing ventured... Nothing gained.

...there are many who take the kilt-it's making and wearing very seriously indeed.

Very important indeed, for the health and survival of the tradition and all it represents.

...Therefore it will probably be easiest to follow present conventions when first venturing into the kilted world....

I followed this route as did many on this board. I must admit though, I have to give much credit for blatant cheek and audacity to those who venture directly into wearing a modern variant that has no tradition for a buffer.

... Again I regret being contentious, but there is little point in avoiding a problem: which unless addressed will without doubt one day cause some innocent soul great embarrassement. James

The degree of embarrassment felt will be proportional to the degree of importance we place on tradition, personal connection, and justification. It would seem that some people are incapable of knowing when to feel embarrassement. (Look at Sportkilts "Wall of Fame" for example.)

I think J. Carbombs basic rules pretty much nails it home. Until the wearing of kilts becomes much more common place, there will be a degree of blurring to the definition and hence a reason for discussions such as this.

[bear]

I can't say it any better than Matt, either.

As to finding a kilt in his tartan, find a kiltmaker he likes, (style/price/yardage), and see if that kiltmaker can get the right tartan.

Now, someone mentioned a cold beer?

[Derek]

Thanks for your comments so far guys. I did ask my wife yesterday this question and she said ... ' when it starts looking like a girly thing'. I will get her to explain further later today .. she was watching Big Brother at the time ... sad I know.
While I'm here .. Derek hands Bear a pint of cold welsh beer.
Come to that I'll hand everyone on this thread a cold welsh beer.
Thanks again guys
Derek

[KMacT]

While I'm here .. Derek hands Bear a pint of cold welsh beer.
Come to that I'll hand everyone on this thread a cold welsh beer.

I hope I'm not too late to get in on that beer?

Kevin

[motorman4life]

I am in total agreement with Matt and Ham.

I certainly do not speak with the authority that either of them can, but in an effort to answer the question, as Matt stated, the definition of a kilt would probably be too broad to be of any real use. And, as Ham stated, the kilt is evolving, as it has done for centuries.

I think you could pretty easily classify different types of kilt styles; military, traditional, ancient, modern/casual, modern/dress, high fashion, sport and utility. Each could be pretty clearly defined and of course, as with most things in life, there may be the occasional exception to the rule.

Over all the various and specific definitions you may derive for each type of kilt, you will probably find many commonalities among a majority of the styles.

I think a broad definition would be something along these lines:
“A pleated skirt of masculine appearance designed and intended to be worn by men at or above their hips, that fastens or closes at or near the right hip.”

Of course, as I stated, there may be the occasional exception to the rule, but this very broad definition would probably fit about 99% of what we accept as kilts today.

Any takers?

[bikercelt1]

While I appreciate everthing that has been said in an effort to define "kilt", it seems fairly straight foreward to me. If it looks masculine it's a kilt, if it looks feminine it's a skirt. Frills and lace? Look at some of the jabots, they don't look feminine. Vin Diesel didn't look like he was in drag wearing one of Howie's solid kilts. Madonna didn't look masculine even though she was wearing the same skirted USA Kilts garment that the piper was wearing on her recent tour.

I appreciate the opinions of traditionalists as well as the avant-garde. There's room for all of us. In the final analysis though a kilt is a skirted garment for men and if it's obviously a man wearing the garment in a manly way it's a kilt.

Jamie

[cavscout]

With so many new members I thought it might be fun to revisit this thread since several other threads are touching on this issue.

I've recently been thinking that the definition of a kilt has to address the spirit of the kilt as a masculine garment. MM4L's definition is good. Perhaps it could incorporate the wearers intent to be percieved as masculine.

A woman, wanting to be viewed as a woman, wearing a "kilted skirt" would, to the uneducated, would be perceived as feminine simply because she's wearing a skirt.

A woman, wanting to be viewed as a man, wearing a "kilted skirt" would, to the uneducated, would be perceived as feminine simply because she's wearing a skirt.

A man, wanting to be viewed as a man, wearing a "kilt" would, to the uneducated, would be perceived as feminine simply because he's wearing a "skirt".

A man, wanting to be viewed as a woman, wearing a "kilted skirt" would, to the uneducated, would be perceived as feminine simply because he's wearing a skirt.

Since the uneducated society is going to think of a Kilt and a Kilted Skirt in the same way regardless, should the wearers intent be factored in to whether it is a kilt (Masculine) or a kilted skirt (Feminine)? The guidelines mentionied in earlier posts would still apply, but because anyone can really wear anything they want, the wearers intent has to come into play.

I know my logic on this is rough and maybe circular but it's only intended as food for thought and discussion.