Comprehensive Guide to Kilted Faux Pas

[OC Richard]

True that we can't get everyone to agree.

Nevertheless if you look back over 150 years of photos of men in Highland Dress you'll see that there have always been norms or idiomatic practices which experienced Scottish kiltwearers seldom depart far from.

My comments are confined to traditional kiltwearing. Utilikilts and their ilk, and the manners of dress that go with them, are scarcely a quarter-century old, so any talk of traditional norms regarding them is meaningless.

Departures from traditional norms I often see include:

-wearing the kilt too low, both at the bottom of the kilt, and at its top.

-wearing socks too high.

-wearing a belt underneath a waistcoat (evidently an attempt to get an ill-fitting kilt to stay up. Correctly made kilts don't require such Saxon imports.)

-wearing waistcoats that are too short.

-wearing sporrans too low, or too high.

-wearing the kilt off-centre.

-lacing ghillie brogues too high.

-wearing the flashes too low.

-having the necktie all ahoo.

-wearing an excessive number of accessories (or doo-dads as I call them).

-mixing various modes and periods of Highland Dress.

-wearing a mode of Highland Dress which is not appropriate to the occasion.

Well I'm sure there are more but those come to mind at the moment.

Note that the majority of these non-idiomatic practices involve how things are worn rather than what things are worn.

[Jumpmonkey]

-wearing socks too high.
-wearing the flashes too low.

Forgive a novice for prying further, could you clarify these a bit more? I'm wondering if I tend to wear my socks a tad high. In the current cold weather I'm wearing the tops of the hose just below the knees (keeps me warm). For the flashes I wear those as high up as the roll at the top of the hose will allow.

Thanks!

[Baeau]

-wearing socks too high.
-wearing the flashes too low

Richard, being new to the brethren.....err, rabble (?), I would like to know what is considered traditional. With reference to the above.

[tpa]

Richard, being new to the brethren.....err, rabble (?), I would like to know what is considered traditional. With reference to the above.

With regard to hose height, I think you'll find that two to three fingers width below the knee cap is what is recommended. As that is dependant on hand size, just leave a gap below the knee which looks reasonable in relation to your leg length.

As for flashes, the garter element goes at the top of the turnover. How much flash shows then depends on the length of your lower leg in relation to the length of the hose, but try not to show too much. I have a number of pairs of hose and I doubt any two are the same length. As I have short legs many have to have the turnover doubled back on itself so as not to extend too far down the leg. So the amount of flash shown depends on hose length and of course flash length, though if you are talking about tie as opposed to elasticated garter flashes, you can make adjustments to suit.

[Kylahullu]

Some thoughts that came to my mind reading this.

True that we can't get everyone to agree.
....
-wearing the kilt too low, both at the bottom of the kilt...

-wearing socks too high.

-wearing a belt underneath a waistcoat (evidently an attempt to get an ill-fitting kilt to stay up. Correctly made kilts don't require such Saxon imports.)
....

Agree to everyone will not agree.

Kilt hem too low:
One or two inches lower feels sometimes astonishingly warmer (see socks below) when wearing a heavy woollen kilt.

Socks too high:
If the weather is cold I do not think it is any tradition to froze your knees or feel cold. I find it pretty hard to believe that any outdoorish person would not cover his knees and/or lower thighs if the weather demanded it. Not today or in the past, so longer socks pulled even up to the thighs if necessary. Just up to the kneecaps helps often.
I just refuse to believe that tradition demands anyone to freeze, even wearing a kilt in a colder surroundings.

The belt:
Saxon import? Didn't the kilting begin with the belted plaid and only after a lot of development came it possible to wear a kilt without a belt?
All my kilts have a tendency to stretch at the upper end of the aprons if worn without a belt and tighten enough not to wander "south" during the day. This same tendency to stretch is in my only bespoken kilt too (made by a known kiltmaker praised at this forum, but not an active member), so to keep kilts in shape, to me, it looks like one should always wear a belt to take the tension of the fabric. (Maybe Freedom kilts all-around stabilizer might make this unnecessary.)

Just some personal opinions.

[Baeau]

With regard to hose height, I think you'll find that two to three fingers width below the knee cap is what is recommended. As that is dependant on hand size, just leave a gap below the knee which looks reasonable in relation to your leg length.

As for flashes, the garter element goes at the top of the turnover. How much flash shows then depends on the length of your lower leg in relation to the length of the hose, but try not to show too much. I have a number of pairs of hose and I doubt any two are the same length. As I have short legs many have to have the turnover doubled back on itself so as not to extend too far down the leg. So the amount of flash shown depends on hose length and of course flash length, though if you are talking about tie as opposed to elasticated garter flashes, you can make adjustments to suit.

My thanks, for the guidance. Being on the slightly shorter side, hose height was a minor concern. 'She' gifted me a pair of pseudo cable stitch top (inexpensive, yet comfortable) dark hose for the past weekend. They ended up about 2 fingers from the base of the patella / knee cap. Reads as if I may have been accidentally acceptable? In observing the kilted, I saw every thing from two different heights, to looking like thigh highs. Garters at the top of the turn down, logic says the correct spot. Minimal flash showing.

[OC Richard]

As for flashes, the garter element goes at the top of the turnover.

Exactly so!

So how much flash shows depends on the length of the flashes and the width of the turnovers.

I see all the time people evidently thinking that the entire length of the flash should show. They put on their socks, pull down the wide turnovers, then strap on the garter at the very bottom of the turnover.

[OC Richard]

Kilt hem... lower feels sometimes astonishingly warmer...

Socks... longer socks pulled even up to the thighs if necessary.

For sure having the kilt long and the socks high so that the knees are covered makes everything warmer.

The topic, as it seemed to me, was about what was traditional/idiomatic. We have imagery of men in Highland Dress going back a few hundred years and the knees have always been exposed. I suppose if one searched long enough one could find a couple images, among thousands, which show covered knees. But it's safe to say that exposed knees have always been the norm.

The belt:
Saxon import?

It's not the belt itself, but the use of the belt to hold up an incorrectly made or improperly fitting kilt, by way of analogy with trousers, and putting belt-loops on the kilt to facilitate this use, that is the Saxon import.

I'm talking tailored kilts which are fitted to the wearer by the kiltmaker. Of course the ancient belted plaid, being simply a large piece of fabric, required a belt to keep it fastened around the body.

[Kylahullu]

I do not think we basically disagree but we look the issue from a different angle.

For sure having the kilt long and the socks high so that the knees are covered makes everything warmer.

Having the kilt long doesn't look good, but having the hemline a bit lower is wormer. The question is does that make being warm a Faux Pas?

The topic, as it seemed to me, was about what was traditional/idiomatic.

The topic was a "Faux Pas". My angle of observation is that a kilt can be used outside the warm Ballroom in situations that need a bit "bending of the rules" without it being a Faux Pas.

We have imagery of men in Highland Dress going back a few hundred years and the knees have always been exposed. I suppose if one searched long enough one could find a couple images, among thousands, which show covered knees. But it's safe to say that exposed knees have always been the norm.

Always? Well, those pictures exist.
But what makes the norm? From my experience, I think that the norm comes after practicality. If you want to walk a long distance in a kilt (that is possibly a bit dump) the hem shouldn't reach to (and scratch) the (bare) calves, so the length of exposed knees. In some other occasion, the lower hem makes things more comfortable.
Shouldn't the practicality dictate the norm? And is there a possibility that a blind following of a norm is a Faux Pas sometime?

It's not the belt itself, but the use of the belt to hold up an incorrectly made or improperly fitting kilt, by way of analogy with trousers, and putting belt-loops on the kilt to facilitate this use, that is the Saxon import.

Interesting point of view. The belt does not need belt loops in a kilt. Without loops, one can adjust the kilt to hang higher or lower tightening the belt at the waist. This way a bit too long (maybe a "hand me down" or an e-bay find) kilt can be used according to the situation.

I'm talking tailored kilts which are fitted to the wearer by the kiltmaker.

The fitting doesn't make a fabric unstretchable. This might not be an issue if you wear the kilt once a year but having it on every day a couple of weeks is another story. Maybe I tighten my garments too tight but every single one (even that fitted one) has the tendency to stretch without a sturdy belt.

Of course the ancient belted plaid, being simply a large piece of fabric, required a belt to keep it fastened around the body.

And it gave the wearer a wide range of adjusting the hemlines height.

Still just some rebellious thoughts against the idea that a kilt is only "the Sunday Best" garment. Why not go fishing wearing a kilt?

And of course, to effectively break a rule without getting a Faux Pas, one must know the rule (and why the rule exists).

[tpa]

The belt does not need belt loops in a kilt. Without loops, one can adjust the kilt to hang higher or lower tightening the belt at the waist.

As today's kilts are designed not to require a belt to hold them up, there is no need for the belt to be clinched tightly to the waist, in fact doing so can ruck the kilt material. The loops at the back simply stop the belt riding up above the back of the kilt or dropping down. Apparently people of certain body shape also find them useful for keeping the sporran straps in place, but I find them a hindrance if the sporran straps are passed through them.

fitting doesn't make a fabric unstretchable. This might not be an issue if you wear the kilt once a year but having it on every day a couple of weeks is another story. Maybe I tighten my garments too tight but every single one (even that fitted one) has the tendency to stretch without a sturdy belt.

It is the internal construction, if any, that prevents stretching.

just some rebellious thoughts against the idea that a kilt is only "the Sunday Best" garment. Why not go fishing wearing a kilt?

I don't go fishing.