Tintin Forums

Sorry if I'm bringing back up this topic after too long.

Ranko, why would you think that Tintin wasn't wearing any underpants to begin with? Gross!!

Err... You asked the original question: if the subject is so "gross", why did you ask it? Ranko didn't make any comment that wasn't in your first post, so it would seem that you are protesting your own comment...

In the words of Captain Haddock, "It's quite simple really, but also rather complicated".

For some reason (I don't know why) but I find it more gross for someone not to wear undies under their pants, than for someone not to wear them under their kilt...?

I have a Scottish friend who got married, and not one man at the wedding was wearing any underwear.

I won't ask why you thought to check, or keep score...?

As I said before, in the Army that wouldn't be acceptable in mixed company.

It also neglects the fact that, traditionally, men would have used the tails of the sark as a loin-cloth: the concept of wearing nothing at all is a modern misunderstanding of Highland dress.

OK, so I'm not an expert on the history of kilts, but I'd like to think I know Tintin.

Whether or not it's a misunderstanding, the tradition is now to not wear anything under kilts.
And Tintin, ever since Lotus, adapts quite easily to local traditions and dressing styles (unlike, say, the Thom(p)sons).

GC

PS: I don't know about the British army. But my ex used to work at the Canadian Department of Defense.
A co-worker of hers, whose husband was in a Canadian regiment where the uniform included kilts, told us tales of the regiment having to walk over a mirror to prove that they were not wearing anything underneath.

No, it may be a fashion amongst some of those who misunderstand, but it certainly isn't a tradition in any sense of the word.
It is also a fashion to wear (when at a formal function) evening dress with a kilt at any time of day (black "mess style" jacket, black bow-tie and (shudder!) a wing-collar), in place of a tweed or barathea jacket and tie, but this wasn't the case twenty years ago, and may not be in the next twenty.

Old soldiers love tall tales!
Ususally the mirror is said to be on the RSM's baton, in the manner of the mirrors used to check under vehicles, and used when the soldiers are on parade, rather than marching. It'd be quicker just to have the soldiers raise the hems of their kilts, as seen in Carry on Up the Khyber (not to be taken as a documentary, by the way - it's a joke in the film...).
Can you really imagine that a regiment of soldiers would be made to march in single-file over a mirror, with someone sitting looking up their kilts...?
Not even in Canada could that pass as anything other than boring, surely? ;-)