Quote Originally Posted by Troglodyte View Post
Authenticity and historical references are kind of irrelevant, I feel.

Certainly, there are many references and descriptions to Highlanders' footwear of the past - and significantly from before the somewhat despised Revival era.

But authenticity of the ghillie-brogue is not what I was getting at, rather why the dislike of them.

My reason for asking is, that over the past 40 or 50 years, I have noticed a certain dislike or disdain for them - with advice being that a good Oxford or Derby is far preferable for kilt-wear.

It would be easy to argue and demonstrate that nothing about what we now consider as Highland dress has anything other than a passing resemblance or similar role to those that would have been common before the Dress Act. Even the kilt itself is now a highly-modified version of what went before, and the same kind of revival process and moderisation as a result of manufacturing and technological advances in footwear and other garments is to be expected.

Not liking the ghillie-brogue for reasons of comfort or style is one thing, but encouraging others to shun them is something quite different.

My curiosity is why a style of shoe that is so uniquely and distictly Highland, that has evolved from ancient styles into its present from over the past 200 years or so, is thought by some to be so unsuitable for kiltwear, and so undesirable on others.

I suspect the 'kilt-cops' have been at work again...
I can’t think of any other reason besides the hire element. Lots of guys have been burned by hire companies and outfitters telling them what they must have that certain elements, which are not untraditional in and of themselves, have become tells.

This was the first sponsored photo I found with a google search for “kilt hire for wedding.” Ghillie brogues are featured prominently. In fact they are featured in nearly all photos for the query. I really think it’s a simple as hire companies poisoning the well.