History of the Kilt

**kiltedscot** · 26th June 04, 07:54 PM

I was chuckling for the past twenty minutes as I read through this thread, because I suspected from dan's opening question that he might be trying to be provocative just for fun - a conclusion that Alaskan Celt seems to have reached, too. Surely, these statements are prime examples of wicked humour: Given the highland clearances, proscription etc and the general persecutuon of the Scots by the english and their move out of Scotland or to the towns (early 1800's???) do you think there is any connection between this and the huge numbers of "sink estates" in Edinburgh and the like.. ie is there a cultural link? There does seem to be an incredibly high level of poverty and helplesness in the very large underclass in Scottish cities... what do you think is the root of it? (ie is Wester Hailes Scotland's equivalent of an american indian reservation??) [I would venture to suggest that Wester Hailes is about as much Scotland's equivalent of an American Indian reservation as Thamesmead is in London.]

I cannot believe that someone who purports to live in London (let alone someone with access to the internet) has not managed to call in either to a branch of Waterstone's to purchase or to his local library to borrow one of the several histories of Scotland which are currently available. Moreover, while it is unlikely that English libraries or bookshops carrry stocks of books on the history of the kilt, staff at either can readily order copies for any reader. There are available several publications of varying depth which deal with the history of tartan, and, by association, the kilt - for example, Hugh Cheape's Tartan: the Highland Habit (pub: National Museums of Scotland, 1995) and Alexander Fulton's Clans and Families of Scotland: the History of the Scottish Tartan (pub: Chartwell, 1999); and I would heartily recommend Loudon MacQueen Douglas's monograph The Kilt: a manual of Scottish National Dress, whose bibliography encompasses nearly two-hundred relevant textual references.

More seriously, I am concerned that nearly everyone who responded to dan seems to attribute the start of the revival of interest in Highland Dress to Victoria. In fact, the efforts of the Highland Society of London, formed in 1778, brought about the repeal of the Disarming Act in 1782, and stimulated the re-birth of interest in tartans and Highland Dress (one of the first developments after the lifting of the ban was the creation of new tartans for the Highland Regiments). By 1815 The Highland Society had asked all the clan-chiefs and heads of families to send samples of the "tartans of their clans" to be "officially registered".
The major surge in interest came well before Victoria's reign with the visit to Edinburgh of George IV in 1822. This visit was stage-managed by Sir Walter Scott, whose assistant and 'technical consultant' was Colonel David Stewart of Garth, who had founded the Celtic Society of Edinburgh, one of whose aims was to "promote the general use of the ancient Highland Dress", which its memebers wore to club dinners. (Scott was the president and once commented on the happiness of the members at being "liberated from the thraldom of breeches".)
The King appeared in Highland Dress himself at a reception in Holyrood Palace in an outfit of what has come to be known as Royal Stewart tartan - yes, it was invented in 1822. (There is a highly flattering portrait of William IV in his outfit which does not feature the flesh-coloured tights he modestly wore to cover the gap between the top of his hose and the bottom of the kilt.) When invitees to the functions during the Royal Visit were asked to wear full Highland Dress, the rush was on to acquire tartan regalia. This was when the Wilsons' book of tartan-patterns came into its own, and the revival of interest in Highland Dress was well into its swing long before Victoria made her first visit to Scotland in 1842. (It was Prince Albert who devised the Balmoral tartan which is exclusively for the use of the Royal Family.)

As for documentation of Scottish history, there is not quite the dearth that dan appears to think. Universities are always good repositories of historical information, and it should be remembered that for more than three centuries Scotland had four (five, strictly speaking) universities when England had only two!

My parthian short is this: England still owes Scotland the sum of money which was promised as one of the terms of the Act of Union in 1707. Paid now with three hundred years' interest, perhaps "the incredibly high level of poverty and helplesness in the very large underclass in Scottish cities" could finally be eliminated.

**Blu (Ontario)** · 26th June 04, 08:07 PM

Pardon me for being nosey Dan... but, just what is it you're trying to establish here? In short... what's your real M.O.?

**dan** · 27th June 04, 04:25 AM

Thanks all for your interesting replies,.....

no particular "m.o" (at least to begin with) but intersting how difficult it is to get to the bottom of these things... so many disparate views (generally taken as "facts" by the view-holder)but so few discernable "valid assertions" and that includes the "assertions" in the literature (ie books etc.). As some-one said earlier history is written by those who were there after!! (and they generally had some axe to grind).

The original question was driven by my recent renewed interest in my Scottish roots and a feeling that what is taken as Scottish culture is rather superficial (and rather tacky).

My own view (or feeling, at this time, and based on limited info) is that the romanticized views held by so many and glibly accepted as Scottish history cheapens Scotland and has fuelled a kind of commercial pop-culture. eg the commercialisation of the little-kilt, and Scotland as a new-year "super destination" etc.

Now that I have got some ideas and book references, to at least get me started, I'll do some off-line reading to try to get a little further to the bottom of this to see if there are any real "facts" to be discerned.

Cheers all

Dan

**Blu (Ontario)** · 27th June 04, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by dan

Thanks all for your interesting replies,... no particular "m.o" (at least to begin with)... etc. etc. etc.... The original question was driven by my recent renewed interest in my Scottish roots and a feeling that what is taken as Scottish culture is rather superficial (and rather tacky)....

That certainly is a fact with reference to Hollywood's version of history. Unfortunately, most people tend to accept Hollywood fantasy as fact.

Originally Posted by dan

the romanticized views held by so many and glibly accepted as Scottish history cheapens Scotland and has fuelled a kind of commercial pop-culture. eg the commercialisation of the little-kilt,...

If anyone is taking advantage of the commercialization of the little kilt , it's the Scots, God bless 'em. I say, "good for them!"

Originally Posted by dan

...I'll do some off-line reading to try to get a little further to the bottom of this to see if there are any real "facts" to be discerned...

Good luck with your research.

blu

**bubba** · 27th June 04, 08:08 AM

History is, by and large, written by the winners to put themselves in the best light and their adversary in the worst. Facts are really few and far between. Honestly, I doubt we'll ever know for certain where the little kilt came from. It's fun to speculate and read the different views though.

**phil h** · 27th June 04, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by bubba

History is, by and large, written by the winners to put themselves in the best light and their adversary in the worst. Facts are really few and far between. Honestly, I doubt we'll ever know for certain where the little kilt came from. It's fun to speculate and read the different views though.

good point bubba,also another good point was that so called facts are put about by people with an axe to grind,most scots still have a chip on their shoulder over things the English did.even if rawlinson did invent the small kilt(with proof),most scots would ever admit to it.it's about time we all got over things that happened hundreds of years ago.
just wear your kilt.lets all just be friends.
brothers in kilts,no matter where you are from or what god you follow, or in what way you follow that god.just wear your kilt with pride.

**g koch** · 27th June 04, 09:39 AM

I think alot of us here like that sense of history we get when wearing the kilt (that feeling might have been a contributing factor in starting) and all this talk of it not being as "ancient" as we thought kinda screws with that sense.
Look at it this way, ten generations of men since Culloden wore the kilt as a daily piece of clothing in (and out of) the military of the British Empire. Many times more have worn it since the Proscription ended than ever had when it was enacted.
How ever old "clan tartans" REALLY are is besides the point. They are THE refrence now. The number of registered tartans is still increasing. In twenty years this period of kilt development, with its new cuts and materials, will be history and you'll have been there.
ALL "Traditions" are arbitrary contrivinces at some point.