Boots versus Ghillie Brogues

[RGM1]

Acquired a pair of Ghillie Brogues to go with my new Scottish attire that at best fit, but aren't particularly comfortable in contrast to my hiking boots that are the most comfortable pair of shoes I own. They have served me well over many years as a scout leader of backpackers. They cleaned up quite nice and have a pretty good shine as well. They are black.

I plan to attend a wedding as a uncle this Fall and am inclined to wear them instead of the Ghillie Brogues. I am not the in any form the guest of honor.

Any advice on the subject?

My family is waking up to the reality that I plan to wear a kilt at special occasions in the future.

[Father Bill]

Frankly, I wouldn't wear either.

Boots, no matter how shiny are very, very informal, particularly at a wedding, and Gillies are simply unneccesary.

Do you not have a pair of comfortable Oxfords or wing-tips? ...possibly even brogued wing-tips? If you have to purchase new ones, make sure they are not too tight, and then wear them around the house for a couple of weeks to break them in.

[OC Richard]

I'm with Father Bill.

For one thing, I wouldn't wear any shoes that weren't comfortable, Ghillies or boots or dress shoes or trainers or anything.

My Ghillies are extremely comfortable and they have to be. At Highland Games with a Pipe Band I'll be on my feet for 10 straight hours. (Solos start at 8am and Massed Bands/March Past/Closing Ceremonies are done around 6pm.)

In any case a nice pair of Oxfords, Bluchers, or Derbys would be perfect, wingtip, captoe, or plain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAidGZyvwaM&t=233s

[Tobus]

This is of course just my opinion, but hiking boots are not appropriate at a wedding with any outfit, especially a kilt. I do realise that social dress protocols have changed over the years, trending toward the casual/comfortable end of the spectrum, but I still find it a tad disrespectful to wear casual items in any sort of church function that takes place in the sanctuary (assuming this is a church wedding). Even if the hiking boots are clean and have a bit of shine, they're still hiking boots. These are not dress shoes, and a wedding calls for dress shoes. I am assuming it's a daytime wedding with no stipulation for dress code? What about the reception afterward?

The other relevant point here is that if you're trying to establish yourself as a kilt-wearer to your family (who, if I understand your post, may be quick to judge), you would be well-served to put in the extra effort to look sharp and presentable when you do. Not too casual for the venue, and not overdressed, but well within the midrange. The kilt equivalent of a suit and tie, but stopping well short of any "formal" appearance (tux equivalent).

I'm not a huge fan of ghillie brogues, but if I had to choose between the hiking boots and the ghillie brogues, I'd have to go with the ghillies. That said, I'm not one who thinks that all boots are inappropriate here. A dressy ankle boot with hard soles, shined and well presented, would be an option that I would likely choose. This has fallen out of style in modern days amongst the kilted, but has a well-established provenance in the mid- to late-1800s and looks quite nice in my opinion. But it really, really depends on the boot and how it fits the overall aesthetic. I would not pair any boot with a black Argyll jacket that had silver buttons, for example. But with a tweed jacket and waistcoat, standard day dress, it could work for a non-wedding-party guest.

[OC Richard]

This is of course just my opinion, but hiking boots are not appropriate at a wedding with any outfit, especially a kilt. I do realise that social dress protocols have changed over the years, trending toward the casual/comfortable end of the spectrum...

A dressy ankle boot with hard soles, shined and well presented...with a tweed jacket and waistcoat, standard day dress, could work for a non-wedding-party guest.

Sound advice.

You're in Texas so I'm sure you see cowboy boots at weddings, funerals, and other functions where elsewhere the men would be wearing dress shoes. So the location, the culture has a part to play as well. (Certainly a Texan wearing a Western suit and nice boots is every bit as dressy as a man in ordinary suit and dress shoes.)

As I've mentioned, here in Southern California the unspoken dress codes allow probably a greater range of acceptable outfits than elsewhere. At any wedding funeral etc there will be men in Aloha shirts with white cotton slacks and zorries, men in the ubiquitous Hollywood outfit of jeans, plain black t-shirt, and sportcoat, and so forth while most men will be in suits or "business casual".

[Jock Scot]

OCR.

I see you that mention "Zorries", in your post above, which I assume are some form of footwear? Could you confirm to this "old boy" from the other side of the Atlantic that they are and, what do they they look like, please?

[Ivor]

Unless I’m mistaken I think he means “flip-flops”.

[Jock Scot]

Unless I’m mistaken I think he means “flip-flops”.

Oh right! Thank you.

[RGM1]

Just remembered that at a Spring wedding in Memphis, groom had Texas connection and cowboy boots and Stetson s were seen which may be why I started thinking about my hiking boots. Expect I will avoid for wedding, but keep.as option for casual settings.

[JPS]

Unless I’m mistaken I think he means “flip-flops”.

"Thongs" if you like, though when speaking about how people in California dress, I can understand why he didn't choose that term.