Ghillie brogues - why the dislike and resentment..?

[FossilHunter]

Troglodyte, I think you make a lot of reasonable points.

For myself, there are a few reasons I do not wear ghillies. First, most that are available in the US are rather chunky and inelegant. I would not take issue with fine ghillies like you sometimes see George VI wearing in photos. But with their connection to pipe bands and hire, chunky soles and cheap construction are quite common.

Ghillie brogues are also inexorably linked to the kilt, meaning they cannot be worn with other clothes without appearing eccentric. As an American kilt wearer, I admit that I should probably be used to that by now but it is what it is. On the other hand, I can easily wear oxfords, captoe or brogued, with my suit trousers and cords. I would much prefer one or two pairs of quality shoes that perform double duty to a slew of cheaper pairs filling every niche.

I do agree that the objection to ghillie brogues can be overstated. They obviously have a pedigree as long as some other more respected elements of traditional highland dress. I think the association with bands and hire has damaged their reputation in general but that doesn’t mean they cannot or should not have a place in the discussion of traditional civilian highland dress.

[figheadair]

I can't provide a definitive answer to the OP. Personally, l'm not not a fan and prefer a full brogue.

[Troglodyte]

Troglodyte, I think you make a lot of reasonable points.

For myself, there are a few reasons I do not wear ghillies. First, most that are available in the US are rather chunky and inelegant. I would not take issue with fine ghillies like you sometimes see George VI wearing in photos. But with their connection to pipe bands and hire, chunky soles and cheap construction are quite common.

Ghillie brogues are also inexorably linked to the kilt, meaning they cannot be worn with other clothes without appearing eccentric. As an American kilt wearer, I admit that I should probably be used to that by now but it is what it is. On the other hand, I can easily wear oxfords, captoe or brogued, with my suit trousers and cords. I would much prefer one or two pairs of quality shoes that perform double duty to a slew of cheaper pairs filling every niche.

I do agree that the objection to ghillie brogues can be overstated. They obviously have a pedigree as long as some other more respected elements of traditional highland dress. I think the association with bands and hire has damaged their reputation in general but that doesn’t mean they cannot or should not have a place in the discussion of traditional civilian highland dress.

What you say is pretty much what I have come to assume - and that ghillies have an unwanted negative cachet due to association with bands and kilt-hire.

I guess people are fearful that others will draw the wrong conclusions, and judge them badly.

But it seems odd to me, that a shoe style that is uniquely Highland in style and origin, and intended for kilt-wear, is shunned in favour of (and I have seen this often) slip-on loafers and other styles that are not.

Each to their own, and all that, but it does seem a pity that, after hundreds have been spent on kilt, jacket, sporran, hose, etc, the outfit is topped-off (or rather footed) with the shoes already in the wardrobe. But then ghillies are not the only kind of brogue, and brogues are aguably the 'only' shoe for kilt-wear.

Interestingly, I can think of no time of ever hearing anti-ghillie sentiment here in Scotland, with only personal taste or preference being the deciding factor in favour of a closed brogue or ghillie-style. But I would say that ghillies are probably more common in the evening, or when the outfit needs to be dressed-up a bit, which is when the kilt gets worn most often here.

If the long laces are the problem, perhaps we should start a short-lace ghillie-brogue fashion...

[Troglodyte]

I can't provide a definitive answer to the OP. Personally, l'm not not a fan and prefer a full brogue.

I am somewhat with you there...

Although they are showing age and use, my old Sanders' army-style full brogue get worn, I guess, 90 per cent of my kilt-wearing time. The distinctive grain and heavy sole sets tham apart from other makes, and they seem tough enough to kick down doors, should the need arise.

But, once in a while, mood or occasion sees me shod a-la-ghillie...

[Father Bill]

Okay, so… I own a pair that were given to me and never have been worn. Should I ever choose to wear them some evening, then rather than lacing them up to my… whatever, as has been sktated here, what’s the recommended lacing method?

[Tobus]

If the long laces are the problem, perhaps we should start a short-lace ghillie-brogue fashion...

As I mentioned, this is the only way I wear ghillie brogues. In honesty, I rarely wear them, as I prefer my Sanders brogues. I invite others to join the dark side!

[EagleJCS]

Okay, so… I own a pair that were given to me and never have been worn. Should I ever choose to wear them some evening, then rather than lacing them up to my… whatever, as has been stated here, what’s the recommended lacing method?

Some time ago (2 Jan 2012) I posted how I tie my ghillies, and reposted it here (post #7) 22 Nov 2016. I'm not sure where I learned it now, but it seems to follow what most of those in the know appear to do.


"I wrote this up a long time ago in this thread (post #12, copied & pasted here, and edited just a bit):

'I wear the long-laced ghillies when piping (part of the band uniform). Here's how I do it:

Start out as if you were tying a regular shoe, including the initial half-hitch (wrap one lace over the other). (First snug the laces down to tighten the shoe).

Twist (cross the laces over one another) three times and snug the twists down. This should make a short 'line' in the middle front of your ankle, just above the top of the shoe where the top of the shoe's tongue would normally be.

Bring the laces around each side of your ankle at an angle just above the ankle bone (probably 5-10 degrees from horizontal).

Tie another half-hitch in the back, and three more twists, snugged down to make a short line up the back of the leg.

Bring the laces back around each side of your leg, this time parallel to the floor. Tie off as you would tie your regular shoe laces (a half-hitch and the bows). You can tie them off directly in front or just off to the side. I tend to tie mine around 10 o'clock (left leg) and 2 o'clock (right leg), with the knot ending up pretty much in line with the middle of the flashes. (The front edge of the flashes are just to the outside of the center line of my shinbone. The back edge is then just forward of the midline of my calf.)

This should result in a knot no higher than about 2" or so above the top of the shoe, just above the ankle bone.

I double-knot the bows to make sure they don't come undone when I'm marching. I also try to get the bows and tassels hanging at about the same height, just brushing the top edge of the shoe. That way neither are dragging the ground. As I'm sure you've experienced, it's sometimes difficult to untie shoe laces once they've gotten wet and dried again - the knot tends to tighten up some.' "


Hope you can follow that clearly enough.

[FossilHunter]

What you say is pretty much what I have come to assume - and that ghillies have an unwanted negative cachet due to association with bands and kilt-hire.

I guess people are fearful that others will draw the wrong conclusions, and judge them badly.

But it seems odd to me, that a shoe style that is uniquely Highland in style and origin, and intended for kilt-wear, is shunned in favour of (and I have seen this often) slip-on loafers and other styles that are not.

Each to their own, and all that, but it does seem a pity that, after hundreds have been spent on kilt, jacket, sporran, hose, etc, the outfit is topped-off (or rather footed) with the shoes already in the wardrobe. But then ghillies are not the only kind of brogue, and brogues are aguably the 'only' shoe for kilt-wear.

Interestingly, I can think of no time of ever hearing anti-ghillie sentiment here in Scotland, with only personal taste or preference being the deciding factor in favour of a closed brogue or ghillie-style. But I would say that ghillies are probably more common in the evening, or when the outfit needs to be dressed-up a bit, which is when the kilt gets worn most often here.

If the long laces are the problem, perhaps we should start a short-lace ghillie-brogue fashion...

The thing about leather shoes is that they usually become more comfortable the more they’re worn. So that’s a good argument, in my opinion , for wearing one pair of brogues. For me this would also extend to Saxon dress. I would prefer to wear my polished captoe oxfords over brand new patent leather shoes with a tuxedo, simply because I already have the shoes and they are broken in.

I don’t judge anyone who chooses to wear ghillies. It’s not really that difficult to gauge whether they’re in the know or not based on the other parts of their outfit. If they wear ghillies with tartan hose and a well cut doublet I expect they know what they’re doing. If they are wearing them with white hose and a pirate shirt one could reasonably infer what the situation is.

For the record I almost exclusively wear black, brogued oxfords when kilted. I believe they have a pretty strong highland pedigree as well in spite of their wider acceptance throughout the UK and abroad. Enough so that the Highland regiment is still issued brogued oxfords.

[MacKenzie]

But as far as I know Ghillies don't show up in images of men wearing Highland Dress until Victorian times.

Which leaves us with Ghillies being a Revival.

A revival of what? Yes we have a verbal description of Highlanders making their own deerskin moccasins, and we have a survival of something possibly akin to that with the pamutai of the Aran Islanders. And we could throw into the mix the footwear similar to the pamutai which are traditional in the Balkans.

But the Ghillies which seem to appear out of nowhere in the Victorian period aren't like any of those things. They're built-up ordinary shoes, but are open-topped with one to four pairs of tabs holding the shoestrings.

I'm certain I have linked to this page before. The part about the early evolution of the shoe, from the "deerskin moccasins" to what we know today is interesting.

Early 1600’s saw references to ghillie brogues and the name Pampooties. Pampooties are raw-hide shoes, which were formerly made and worn on the Aran Islands of County Galway, Ireland.


In the 17th century the Squirarchy had heels added and merged the styles of the Cuaran and Ghillie. These hardier shoes were ideal for deer stalking, hunting and fishing. Circa 1640 a shawl tongue was added with a fringe to lend a touch of elegance. It was thought Irish landowners started to decorate their shoes with patterned sequence of holes. In the original shoes the holes served a pragmatic purpose i.e. to allow water to flow through. For good luck the designs incorporated coded symbols. As soon as the style became associated with the gentry the holes became more decorative features (Vass & Molnar, 1999). Later when the holes only served for decorative purposes leather uppers were rubbed with melted candle wax (or tallow) to improve waterproofing. The brogue became refined without losing its sturdiness as the style crossed over into main fashion.

So by the mid 1600s we have a shoe with a heel (and I'll assume a sole to mount it to) and with a tongue in it. So why did what became known as the "traditional highland shoe" (the "ghillie brogue") devolve? Why did the tongue get removed? Was it the MacLeay prints? Or was it, as OCR said, the Allen bros. - or someone - deciding & declaring that, in order to be/look "traditional" you need to yank the tongue out of your brogues and wrap the laces around your ankles?

[Troglodyte]

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...