Father of the bride.........

[Uncle Ricky]

Howdy,
I'm here just to give my two cents as my Father and I have been involved in weddings for quite a long time. (We're those guys at the back of the church that just stand there that nobody ever notices) Anyways, my comment is about the sgian dubh. It would be absolutely proper to ask the minister/priest permission and don't be surprised if no is the answer as it is an unwritten rule that weapons (show or otherwise) are not allowed in the Lord's house. I've dealt with military, police and plenty of Scottish/Celtic weddings in the past where there is an area disignated for the "keeping" of the weapons. The surprising thing is at 90% of the kilted weddings the men ask for an area to "lay down their arms" on a traditional standpoint.

Anywho, do what you want.

Cheers,
T.R. Matthews

If I was going to be involved in a fight, a sgian dubh would not be my first choice. Calling it a weapon seems to be a bit of a joke. (Unless you are hoping your opponent will die laughing) Most pocket knives have bigger sharper blades and more useful handles. What would Crocadile Dundee think? "You call that a knife?" I can hear his peals of laughter now.

[Rigged]

I thought that the idea of the sgian dubh was that it was hidden in a convenient location and used as a weapon of last resort. Wearing it in plain view (in the top of a sock) symbolizes that you trust those around you (showing that you don't need a "secret weapon").

I've had a small bit of edged-weapon training, and a knife of any size is quite deadly in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

[macwilkin]

thought that the idea of the sgian dubh was that it was hidden in a convenient location and used as a weapon of last resort. Wearing it in plain view (in the top of a sock) symbolizes that you trust those around you (showing that you don't need a "secret weapon").

Like many "totems", what was once practical has now become largely ceremonial, although Rigged is quite right in saying that any weapon can be dangerous in trained hands.

A similar item is the kirpan, which is carried by members of the Khalsa, an order of Sikhism. At one time, Sikhs were expected to use the kirpan to defend their religion; nowadays it is largely a symbolic defence, for the kirpan is worn beneath the shirt.

Cheers,

Todd

[Shane]

To add to the discussion of blades and churches...

I got married about two and a half years ago. Being an officer in the Canadian Naval Reserve I decided to wear my ceremonial uniform, which includes a sword. I ran it past the priest beforehand and he had no problems with it. In fact, there were half a dozen friends of mine in our sword party that were similarily armed. Any reasonable priest or minister should have no problem with an item of uniform or national dress.

Shane

[Uncle Ricky]

I've had a small bit of edged-weapon training, and a knife of any size is quite deadly in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

I Agree Rigged. I just think that you would be hard pressed to call a sgian dubh an ege weapon. Most are too dull to cut butter.

[Matthews]

Once again, I will stress the point. "ask".
As a weapon of ceremony or trust is still, in effect, a weapon. I've worked with ministers that allowed "weapons" in the church and those who didn't. And it really has no bearing on whether or not that particular clergyman is "reasonable". Some clergyman are just more, let's say, adament about weapons inside the church. By the way, when I say church, I mean sanctuary. One of the ministers who didn't allow weapons in the sanctuary couldn't care less if you walked around the rest of the building with an M-16. I've also worked with another one that wouldn't allow sgian dubhs to be worn at the front of the church. One that wouldn't allow any weapons to be worn with blade pointed downwards so the kilted groomsmen laid them at their feet before the cermony. Other clergymen had them lay there sgian dubhs on a separate table. Others wouldn't have them anywhere near the inside of the sanctuary. And others didn't give a dang about the knifes. I'll also point out that they are from a plethora of denominations and perhaps that has something to do with it. I personally wouldn't care either way but I'm not clergy I just clean the place and lock the doors when the festivities are done.

Just a heads up,
T.R. Matthews

[macwilkin]

Some clergyman are just more, let's say, adament about weapons inside the church. By the way, when I say church, I mean sanctuary. One of the ministers who didn't allow weapons in the sanctuary couldn't care less if you walked around the rest of the building with an M-16.

Very good point, Matthews. Our church has a sanctuary (the area behind the altar rail), and the rest of the church is composed of the choir, the nave and the narthex.

Cheers,

Todd

[akaussie]

just thought I'd put in my 2cents worth in. Over here in australia we have very strict weapon laws. one of them is that you are not allowed to carry a blade longer than 2 inches (I think). However I have been told by the highland society that if you are in full highland attire it is perfectly legal to wear you skean
dhub (hope I spelt it right). Apparently that goes for any traditional dress, so if you are Turkish (for example ) you can wear the long sabre (i thin thats what it is). Congrats Blu. Cheers Andrew

[glenmac52]

Greetings All!
First time poster, hope to have more in the future.
But i have a question for this topic. My eldest daughter is also getting married in July, and I will be wearing my kilt with her full blessing. I will be the only one in the wedding party and probably the wedding, wearing a kilt. My question is, should I dress regimental?, or bow to my wifes horror of a gusty wedding ceremony and wear some skivies?
Let me set the scene, outdoor wedding, let someone try to take my dirk and sgian dhub, mountain top, Oregon, July.
My vote is to go commando, but I will bow to the collected wisdom here...

[bubba]

All things considered, I'd wear skivvies. Your daughter might get upset if you accidentally flashed the guests