Ghillie brogues - why the dislike and resentment..?

[EagleJCS]

well maybe I'm not the only one. I could never get them tied up. they would always came apart. The intricate detailing would also make it impossible for me to shine them up as well

The first couple of times I polish brogues (any brogued shoe, not just ghillies), I use an old toothbrush to work the polish into all the nooks and crannies. Just be sure not to leave it caked in there. Use a toothpick on the small holes if necessary.

Then it's just my polish-application rag for the broad areas and a fine brush to buff.

Touch up the broad areas when they get scuffed, and maybe use the toothbrush occasionally (one a year or less) after that.

[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".

[OC Richard]

The reasons I suspect the brothers (them of numerous aliases) are:

1) iconographic evidence. The pictures of them are AFAIK the earliest representation of things akin to the Victorian Ghillie brogues

2) timing. Ghillie brogues appear in photos appear around the time that the brothers' tartans are seen being worn.

3) Modus Operandi. The brothers were known to come across old references and use them as inspirations for their creations. With circuitous logic they could then point to the historic reference to support the historicity of their fraud.

With tartans, they came across a reference of cloth payable as feu-duty by a MacLean in 1587, the requirement being for black, white, and green cloth. Assuming that this meant tartan (and not three separate pieces of plain cloth) the brothers quickly invented a tartan to match https://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/ta...tails?ref=2617 squeezing the MacLean listing into a margin of their fake manuscript. (Evidently it would have been too much work to re-write the whole page.)

They then bring attention to this 16th century document in their Introduction. What could go wrong? They have a 16th century document to prove the authenticity of their bogus manuscript! Unfortunately for the brothers, Sir Thomas Dick Lauder had already made his own transcription of the brothers' manuscript in which the MacLean listing doesn't appear in that sequence. MacLean originally appeared elsewhere, but the brothers crudely changed MacLean into MacIan to try to cover their tracks.

Just as they got Clan Chiefs to appear at functions in tartans invented by the brothers, lending their creations a false air of authenticity, I assume that the brothers appeared at functions wearing their pseudo-ancient Highland footwear (which they're seen wearing regularly) which inevitably led to others adopting it.

[figheadair]

The reasons I suspect the brothers (them of numerous aliases) are:

1) iconographic evidence. The pictures of them are AFAIK the earliest representation of things akin to the Victorian Ghillie brogues

2) timing. Ghillie brogues appear in photos appear around the time that the brothers' tartans are seen being worn.

3) Modus Operandi. The brothers were known to come across old references and use them as inspirations for their creations. With circuitous logic they could then point to the historic reference to support the historicity of their fraud.

With tartans, they came across a reference of cloth payable as feu-duty by a MacLean in 1587, the requirement being for black, white, and green cloth. Assuming that this meant tartan (and not three separate pieces of plain cloth) the brothers quickly invented a tartan to match https://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/ta...tails?ref=2617 squeezing the MacLean listing into a margin of their fake manuscript. (Evidently it would have been too much work to re-write the whole page.)

They then bring attention to this 16th century document in their Introduction. What could go wrong? They have a 16th century document to prove the authenticity of their bogus manuscript! Unfortunately for the brothers, Sir Thomas Dick Lauder had already made his own transcription of the brothers' manuscript in which the MacLean listing doesn't appear in that sequence. MacLean originally appeared elsewhere, but the brothers crudely changed MacLean into MacIan to try to cover their tracks.

Just as they got Clan Chiefs to appear at functions in tartans invented by the brothers, lending their creations a false air of authenticity, I assume that the brothers appeared at functions wearing their pseudo-ancient Highland footwear (which they're seen wearing regularly) which inevitably led to others adopting it.

Richard,

I think you are very probably right and that the brothers invented Ghillies as part of their wider Highland myth creation. I have no doubt that they would have had access to some historical portraits, such as those belonging to the Laird of Grant and others. The ones of the Champion and Piper to the Laird of Grant by Richard Waitt, 1714, show the old Highland style of shoes (brogan) that had no heel. There are several references to the Highlanders' preference for these, they being more suitable for rough Highland terrain, rather than a shoe with a heel.

437505101_939468127969564_3791419125805554562_n.jpg

With tartans, they came across a reference of cloth payable as feu-duty by a MacLean in 1587, the requirement being for black, white, and green cloth. Assuming that this meant tartan (and not three separate pieces of plain cloth) the brothers quickly invented a tartan to match https://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/ta...tails?ref=2617 squeezing the MacLean listing into a margin of their fake manuscript. (Evidently it would have been too much work to re-write the whole page.)

They then bring attention to this 16th century document in their Introduction. What could go wrong? They have a 16th century document to prove the authenticity of their bogus manuscript! Unfortunately for the brothers, Sir Thomas Dick Lauder had already made his own transcription of the brothers' manuscript in which the MacLean listing doesn't appear in that sequence. MacLean originally appeared elsewhere, but the brothers crudely changed MacLean into MacIan to try to cover their tracks.

Just as they got Clan Chiefs to appear at functions in tartans invented by the brothers, lending their creations a false air of authenticity, I assume that the brothers appeared at functions wearing their pseudo-ancient Highland footwear (which they're seen wearing regularly) which inevitably led to others adopting it.

There are no margins in the CM, it's a small hand-written document and the writing fills the whole of the page. The MacLean entry is at the bottom of p.13

CM - MacLean entry.jpg

Sir Thomas Dick Lauder didn't make a copy of the Cromarty Ms, the brothers made one for him which Charles Allen illustrated with plates, something missing from the Cromarty version. Alas, whilst I have examined the Lauder Transcript and have some photos of it, I don't have one of the MacLean entry. I must go back and re-shoot the hole thing at some point.

[Troglodyte]

Hay Bros. Highland Promotions Inc. are no doubt responsible for a good portion of what has become accepted as Highland style, and their illustrations of ghillie-brogued characters must help the shoe-department sales nicely.

But predating them by more than a century are the 'Letters' in which Edmund Burt noted his first-hand experiences - and had this to say on the subject:

The Highland Dress consists of... and Brogues or Pumps without Heels. By the way, they cut Holes in their Brogues, though new made, to let out the Water... this they do to preserve their Feet from galling.


I feel the use of the word pumps is significant, being a low-vamped lightweight form of shoe, as Burt makes a distinction when he sees one. Had the footwear of the Highlander been what we generally think of as 18th century shoe, he would have said so, as he does in other Letters with other similarities in dress. If only he had drawn pictures...

David Morier's well-known painting of Culloden is held in high regard for its accuracy of the regimental uniforms and the details included, so it it more than likely that the artist would have been just as accurate with the Highlanders' clothing also.

The Highlanders are said to be post-Culloden prisoners, and painted from life in their own clothes. Precise detail of what footwear can be seen sadly prevents close scrutiny, although the bent-legged casualty in the centre appears to have a low-vamped form of pump (such as would fit Burt's description) but the lacing is far from clear.

These shoes resemble modern dancers' ghillie-style lightweight pumps, and are considerably thinner-soled and simpler in construction that any kind of production shoe of the last 150 years or so, but if these pass for 'ghillie-brogues' then the style can be put precisely into the pre-Dress Act era, and onto a Jacobite to boot.

See what I did there..?

Morier - Culloden 2.jpg

[Tobus]

We all are a product of our age, and for my first decade of kiltwearing Ghillies had yet to acquire the dual stink of Kilt Hire and Pipe Bands.

I must admit, I chortled at that "dual stink" quip. And then I reflected upon it a bit. Perhaps part of my aversion to the aesthetics of ghillie brogues comes not only from the hire industry, but from pipe bands as well. I want to be careful here not to insult anyone in a pipe band (or who dresses in that style for solo piping), but in my opinion it is not an ideal look for civilian kilt-wearers who are not pipers. It's such a generic presentation of Highland wear - indeed, this may be the whole point for a band uniform - but I don't want to look like I'm wearing a uniform. In thinking about my own choices, I tend to avoid the Glengarry because it's so iconic of pipe bands. Wearing a waistcoat without a jacket (especially with a plain-coloured shirt like white or blue) also looks like a pipe band member. Even wearing a black Argyll and waistcoat during the day, to me, looks like a pipe band uniform. And that "logic" (as it were) follows down to the ghillie brogues, especially the chunky rubber soled versions.

I'm perfectly aware that pipe bands don't all wear the same thing. But when I think of the typical pipe band uniform, it looks like this (photo below of one of the local pipe bands I see performing at Highland Games in my area). And I naturally gravitate away from the things that give it that look, ghillie brogues included.

[MacKenzie]

Fish or fowl?

https://sportkilt.com/product/ghillie-boots/

[ShaunMaxwell]

Fish or fowl?

https://sportkilt.com/product/ghillie-boots/

I’m all for ankle boots with a kilt, but maybe not those… Something more like these:



Cheers,

SM