Answer to "Why the Kilt?"

**macwilkin** · 31st December 07, 06:11 PM

Highland gentlemen did not wear kilts whilst riding. That's what trews were for. In the 18th century, trews were more like riding breeches. I have a wonderful illustration in Mike Chappel's The Canadian Army at War by Osprey that shows an officer in the Black Watch of Canada wearing riding breeches in the Government Sett.

T.

**Nick the DSM** · 31st December 07, 06:47 PM

why not the kilt?

**Bugbear** · 31st December 07, 07:01 PM

Let me just make sure I'm clear on this. I am not saying that gentalmen rode with or without kilts. I'm only saying that it is quite possible to ride a horse with a skirt-like garment on and not show... things. And I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT SIDESADDLE EITHER. So I'm pulling myself out of the history argument.

Originally Posted by cajunscot

Highland gentlemen did not wear kilts whilst riding. That's what trews were for. In the 18th century, trews were more like riding breeches. I have a wonderful illustration in Mike Chappel's The Canadian Army at War by Osprey that shows an officer in the Black Watch of Canada wearing riding breeches in the Government Sett.

T.

**macwilkin** · 31st December 07, 07:54 PM

My apologies -- I assumed you were asking about precedence.

T.

**Bugbear** · 31st December 07, 08:07 PM

Sorry everybody, I just found out that all of this has been covered in an old thread, and it isn't important anyway.

Originally Posted by cajunscot

My apologies -- I assumed you were asking about precedence.

T.

**Bugbear** · 2nd January 08, 04:44 PM

******

**Ian.MacAllan** · 3rd January 08, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Ted Crocker

. . . would protect their legs from the saddle and all. . .

The real problem is not the saddle, it's the "and all", especially the stirrup leathers. They pinch the insides of the thighs (and calves if not booted). Of course, if one does not bother with stirrups . . .

.