Archive for the ‘kilt’ Category

Scottish Haka

I’m still trying to find out which episode of Chewin’ the Fat the Scottish Sobriety Test is on.  That had me over at Youtube.

OK, this is funny.  I’ve seen the Maoris doing the Haka up close and personal at a hangi.  I have to admit its funnier than threatening.  I was a guest which meant I wasn’t going to laugh.

Or do what these lads do…

The Scottish Tartans Museum

Alas, this is in Franklin, NC, USA, but it’s the thought that counts!

You can find the Museum’s Website here:

This is different from the Scottish Tartans Authority

john barrowman dogs kilt

If you are wondering what “john barrowman dogs kilt” has to do with anything–so do I.

It seems that was the search term which brought someone to this blog. JOhn Barrowman in a kilt

John Barrowman, while I think he’s cute–he’s not my type (Sorry, John!).   Still, I would give anything to catch John in a Panto (He’s doing Aladdin at the Clyde Auditorium in Glasgow this year). Sorry, John, but you take a second to Stephen Fry’s Cinderella at the Old Vic, which I was able to catch. Still, John in a panto is on my list of things to catch–and hope to some time in the future. Now, if John WROTE and starred in a panto, well, Stephen Fry can take a back seat!

Laci is female and doesn’t wear a kilt, or clothes. Unlike her hairless relatives, she doesn’t need clothing. Well, she does wear coats in wintertime or when it rains, but other than that.

I do wear a kilt. But, I didn’t have a pic of John Barrowman in one: until now.  Here he is!

John is also a dog owner, which is yet another reason to like him. Unfortunately, I can’t (won’t?) come up with a picture of him wearing a kilt with his dog(s).

More on Justice Scalia’s comment about Scottish arms.

The 1746 Act of Proscription (19 Geo. 2, c. 39) banned more than just Scottish arms, it banned wearing of the Kilt. Of course, had the Scotsman been loyal to King George the Second, AKA the Kraut, they were still able to wear the kilt and bear arms (e.g., the Black Watch). It was basically an extension of the Dress Act of 1746 (19 George II, Chap. 39, Sec. 17, 1746).

Anyway, what brought this about was that I was thinking about the fact that Highlanders never wore the kilt when they fought. No, I am not joking. As one friend pointed out, just think about a few hundred highlanders chasing you with swords and no kilt on. Part of the reason for their success, I bet you’d run too if you were being chased by THAT!

I wish I had known Justice Scalia would ask questions about this. If I had I would have liked to have argued the case wearing formal highland dress. This is especially true since my family were Jacobites.

“Justice Scalia, the British had reasons for barring the highlanders and Catholics from bearing arms. This was due to the Jacobite Risings by the Highlanders between 1689 and 1746 where they attempted to restore the Stuart Monarchy. The Catholics were seen to be working against the established order due to religious wars, e.g., the Civil War.”

Anyway, I have attached a picture of me bearing arms. In this case, it is a two handed claymore sword. I was holding a targe and claymore broadsword in the previous post on this topic. So, I have nothing against “keeping and bearing arms” as long as it is within a well regulated militia, such as my Pennsylvania Loyalist Highlanders.

One does not “bear arms” for private purposes. One bears them for the common defence. I bear my arms in service of my monarch: Queen Elizabeth the First (She’s the First in Scotland).

The state has an interest in seeing who bears arms and that they don’t bear arms in detriment of public order.

When one takes off the kilt though, one is baring something totally different.

Scalia’s Comments about the Highlanders and the Catholics

I am not sure where Justice Scalia was going with his legislation against Scottish highlanders and Roman Catholics forbidding them to keep and bear arms, but both were vanquished foes.

The Highlanders were forbidden to keep and bear arms after the Second Jacobite rising of 1745 unless they were in service to the king. This makes sense as they had risen against the British authority and had been defeated. In the “Proscription Act, or the ‘Black Act’ of 1746, as it was known to the Highlanders and Islanders, Scottish Highlanders were forbidden to own arms, which might be reasonable so soon after a war, but also to wear the kilt or any garments of tartan cloth. Offenders could and were transported to Botany Bay (Modern Day Sydney OZ) or imprisoned.

Of course, the arms the highlanders had were not modern. The Highlanders charged the English lines at Prestonpans using broadswords. So, we are discussing swords in regards to the highlanders and arms.

Likewise, there were religious wars in Europe since the establishment of protestantism (as opposed to heresies). England had the Anglican Church established outside of Roman Authority. Talk of “Papism” and “popish plots” were common in 16th and 17th Century England. These would have been contrary to English law. Any owning of arms was to prevent the possibility of revolt.

SO, there was a policy reason for barring both groups from ownership of arms just as there would be if we wished to bar terrorist groups from owning weapons. Given the Constitutional prescription against treason and the Militia’s role of “executing the Laws of the Union, suppressing Insurrections, and repelling Invasions” it makes perfect sense to prevent the ownership of arms in this case.

Posted 20/03/2008 by lacithedog in Heller oral arguments, kilt, scotland