Ghillie brogues - why the dislike and resentment..?

[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Authenticity and historical references are kind of irrelevant, I feel.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...

[FossilHunter]

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.

[OC Richard]

Wow, that's better than I usually see!!

No big fat chrome belt buckle bulging out from under the waistcoat, no nasty cheap white hose.

It does feature a ghastly ruche tie, made even uglier being white with a black shirt.

And the five-button high waistcoat with a Prince Charlie (which I admit I did once, before I got a proper waistcoat).

These all-black outfits do nothing for me.

[kilted2000]

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.

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...

It's possible that whatever the actual history of the various elements of Highland Dress, if the perception is that they are 'made-up' then that might taint them. Some people just avoid whatever they see as kilt hire style. Since when has fashion been completely rational?

[OC Richard]

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.

Thing is, they don't offer any evidence to prove a continuance of use during which the foot-covering of unknown appearance described in the 1542 John Elder letter evolved, through stages of development documented in iconography, into the heavy-soled hobnailed brogue which appears in Victorian times.

And various articles have shown that same old shoe which has a seam down the top. I looked it up, it was found in a cave in Armenia. Why multiple articles about the history of Ghillies shows an Armenian shoe, who can say.

For sure there's plenty of folk shoes from the Carpathian Krpec to the Balkan Opanak to the Aran Islands' Pamputai but these do not constitute iconographic evidence of use of something similar in the Highlands.

[MacKenzie]

Thing is, they don't offer any evidence to prove a continuance of use during which the foot-covering of unknown appearance described in the 1542 John Elder letter evolved, through stages of development documented in iconography, into the heavy-soled hobnailed brogue which appears in Victorian times.

Like I said, by the mid-1600s we had a shoe with a heel, a sole and a tongue.

For sure there's plenty of folk shoes from the Carpathian Krpec to the Balkan Opanak to the Aran Islands' Pamputai but these do not constitute iconographic evidence of use of something similar in the Highlands.

Didn't say there was. What I said was, how did it come to pass that the "traditional highland shoe" would be a devolved shoe?

[OC Richard]

Like I said, by the mid-1600s we had a shoe with a heel, a sole and a tongue.

Do you mean the old moccasin thing ceased to exist, and was replaced by ordinary European shoes?

What I'm trying to figure out is whether some sort of moccasin thing continued to exist in the Highlands, and through evolutionary processes became the Victorian Ghillie brogue.

Because if the moccasin thing fell out of use, and Highlanders began wearing ordinary shoes (like the ones we see in the 18th century portraits) I don't see a connexion between the moccasin thing and the Victorian Ghillie brogue.

The only precursor to the Victorian Ghillie brogue I've come across in iconography are the things worn by a certain pair of brothers.



They knew of the 16th century letter; they quoted it in one of their quasi-historical books.

Could they be the ones who invented Ghillies?

[FossilHunter]

Do you mean the old moccasin thing ceased to exist, and was replaced by ordinary European shoes?

What I'm trying to figure out is whether some sort of moccasin thing continued to exist in the Highlands, and through evolutionary processes became the Victorian Ghillie brogue.

Because if the moccasin thing fell out of use, and Highlanders began wearing ordinary shoes (like the ones we see in the 18th century portraits) I don't see a connexion between the moccasin thing and the Victorian Ghillie brogue.

The only precursor to the Victorian Ghillie brogue I've come across in iconography are the things worn by a certain pair of brothers.



They knew of the 16th century letter; they quoted it in one of their quasi-historical books.

Could they be the ones who invented Ghillies?

I wouldn’t be terribly surprised.

[MacKenzie]

Do you mean the old moccasin thing ceased to exist, and was replaced by ordinary European shoes?

That's what the part of the article I quoted seems to be saying. And to me it makes perfect sense. Like everything else, the shoe evolved.

The only precursor to the Victorian Ghillie brogue I've come across in iconography are the things worn by a certain pair of brothers.

They knew of the 16th century letter; they quoted it in one of their quasi-historical books.

Could they be the ones who invented Ghillies?

Could be. Perhaps after the Dress Act was repealed and Highland dress was in it's "revival" (so to speak) they - or someone - thought that "modern" footwear wasn't appropriate so they invented the Ghillies in an attempt to "go back".