The Highland Wedding, 1780 by David Allen

[Woodsheal]

Are the hose pulled up over the knee breeches, or do the legs go over the hose?

Neither. In these images you can see the gap between the two, because the hose look to be the same type of tartan "short hose" that would be worn with a kilt, not the over-the-knee stockings typically worn with knee-britches....

[Bugbear]

Neither. In these images you can see the gap between the two, because the hose look to be the same type of tartan "short hose" that would be worn with a kilt, not the over-the-knee stockings typically worn with knee-britches....

Oh, that's right the cadadh were shorter at one time...

That's interesting.

[BoldHighlander]

I couldn't help but note the gap appearing up the thigh between the front/apron of the kilt & the rear/pleated section (if I'm seeing it right) on the dancing figure in blue to the right.

[Tartanraven]

I see people still dancing like that.....lol
A very excellent painting to get plenty of historical information on wearing of the kilts.... I am sure there is a law somewhere preventing the likes of me squeezing my large uhhhh yeah, into skin tight trews like these.

Its nice tae see the sporran worn that high. Being a possesseur of an ample belly, a high riding sporran helps tae prevent the dreaded "Front butt".

[Galician]

The tartan worn in this picture was done so illegally, for highland dress had been proscribed after the Jacobite rising of 1745 in an Act not repealed until 1782.

So the wearing of the kilt shown on the other dancer and on the elderly gentlemen seated to the far left would also have been illegal?

I couldn't help but note the gap appearing up the thigh between the front/apron of the kilt & the rear/pleated section (if I'm seeing it right) on the dancing figure in blue to the right.

I guess this shows the value of having those two buckles on the right hip!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

David Allan
Highland Wedding at Blair Atholl1780
The tartan worn in this picture was done so illegally, for highland dress had been proscribed after the Jacobite rising of 1745 in an Act not repealed until 1782.

http://www.nationalgalleries.org/col...Allan&submit=1

It has been suggested that the gentleman taking a pinch of snuff is none other than Atholl, himself. Although technically illegal, by the time this was painted there was little interest in enforcing the Act of Proscription.

[Dixiecat]

It has been suggested that the gentleman taking a pinch of snuff is none other than Atholl, himself. Although technically illegal, by the time this was painted there was little interest in enforcing the Act of Proscription.

As evidenced by the presence of a soldier seated with a lady in the right of the painting.


(At least I assume he's a soldier with the red coat and all)

[Wompet]

Weren't the soldiers of the highland regiments the only ones who could legally wear kilts under the law?

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Weren't the soldiers of the highland regiments the only ones who could legally wear kilts under the law?

Technically, yes. But in reality by the time 1780 rolled around the British government was more concerned with what was going on in North America, while at the same time keeping an eye on France and that other outpost of Empire, India. Enforcing the proscription would have been (and was) counter-productive. Tartan, the pipes, kilts, and weapons of all sorts quietly returned to their rightful place in society beginning (at the latest) in the 1760s.

[wvpiper]

Tartan, [b/]the pipes[/b], kilts, and weapons of all sorts quietly returned to their rightful place in society beginning (at the latest) in the 1760s.

Pipes were never banned by the Act.