Ghillie brogues - why the dislike and resentment..?

[FossilHunter]

From an interested observer’s view, my consideration is that highland dress is a distinct form of dress, not a divergence from what some may call “Saxon dress” i.e. a suit, 2 or 3 piece, with shirt and tie and usually black shoes, sometimes described here in American terms as “wingtips”. Presumably this distinctiveness derived from a separate source and a truly representative form of distinctive Scottish dress would be a kilt(obviously) with Doublet and jabot, patterned hose perhaps to match the tartan of the kilt and footwear of a distinctive Scottish kind. Anything else becomes a parody of English or “ Saxon” clothing and, while perfectly acceptable and perhaps even more practical, detracts from the purpose of dressing in an authentic way. A great deal of scorn is expressed here from time to time about dress choices, particularly when it comes to footwear but also socks and even shirts, but if Scottish dress is to continue as a unique and distinctive form then ghillie brogues and even buckle brogues must remain an integral part.

I think your statement misses a few points. The most important of which is the strong possibility, discussed already in this thread, that the open topped shoe, laced around the ankle, that eventually became known as the ghillie shoe, may well have been invented whole-cloth by a pair of charlatans. There seems to be ample evidence that buckle shoes were quite popular at one point but they were not uniquely Highland or even Scottish. George Washington wore buckle shoes.

On the other hand, brogued shoes of any kind seem to have originated in Scotland and have a unique position in Highland formal wear since brogues are emphatically in the realm of informal shoe when it comes to Saxon dress. In fact, far from simply being a simple divergence from Saxon dress, traditional highland dress has a number of elements of what is acceptable for a given formality level that make it unique from Saxon dress. That doesn’t mean there hasn’t been cross pollination over the last 200 years but I think it’s incorrect to simply attribute wearing a tie and real shoes with a kilt to a Saxonization of Highland dress. These are two counties sharing a small island and a long shared, if often rocky, history. It’s almost amazing that Highland dress has managed to stay as unique as it is.

[Ivor]

Forgive me for missing any abstruse historical points which, although perhaps interesting to those of an historical bent, have absolutely nothing to do with Scottish dress as it is worn today. None of it significantly pre-dates the late 18th century and what we see today is mostly a later creation, encouraged greatly by the influence of “Balmorality” where the influence of Victoria and Albert led to the aristocratic and moneyed classes enthusiastically embracing everything Scottish. They bought large tracts of Scottish land, built extravagant castles and spent the season there trying to wipe out the local wildlife and the evenings dressing up in every possible tartan outfit imaginable.
The passage of time has mellowed these excesses to a large degree to the extent that we can now define highland dress much as we now see it as in the earlier post with a kilt, doublet of some design, jabot, coloured hose and ghillie or buckle brogues.
There are, of course, variations on this but this is essentially highland dress as a distinctive form of dress in Scotland.

[FossilHunter]

Forgive me for missing any abstruse historical points which, although perhaps interesting to those of an historical bent, have absolutely nothing to do with Scottish dress as it is worn today. None of it significantly pre-dates the late 18th century and what we see today is mostly a later creation, encouraged greatly by the influence of “Balmorality” where the influence of Victoria and Albert led to the aristocratic and moneyed classes enthusiastically embracing everything Scottish. They bought large tracts of Scottish land, built extravagant castles and spent the season there trying to wipe out the local wildlife and the evenings dressing up in every possible tartan outfit imaginable.
The passage of time has mellowed these excesses to a large degree to the extent that we can now define highland dress much as we now see it as in the earlier post with a kilt, doublet of some design, jabot, coloured hose and ghillie or buckle brogues.
There are, of course, variations on this but this is essentially highland dress as a distinctive form of dress in Scotland.

If that’s your argument then the tweed coat and black oxfords or perhaps ankle boots with a tie of some sort seems to have nearly as long a pedigree. The owners of balmoral have been dressing that way for as long as they’ve owned it. Prince Albert seemed to favor Mary Jane type shoes in his portraits.



A generation later, his sons seemed to exclusively favor smooth oxfords for daywear.

[Ivor]

You are, of course, referring to a German individual whose only connection to Scotland was by buying up land there and who created a pseudo german schloss at Balmoral, complete with turrets just like back home. Unfortunately Scotland has undergone many such pastiches over many years at the hands of many from outwith Scotland eager to create an imagined Shangri La populated by compliant vassals to cater to their every whim. It is reported that Albert’s descendants continued to converse among themselves in German until fairly recently although they did change their family name after World War I due to negative feedback at the time. So all in all perhaps not the best of examples when discussing things Scottish.

[FossilHunter]

You are, of course, referring to a German individual whose only connection to Scotland was by buying up land there and who created a pseudo german schloss at Balmoral, complete with turrets just like back home. Unfortunately Scotland has undergone many such pastiches over many years at the hands of many from outwith Scotland eager to create an imagined Shangri La populated by compliant vassals to cater to their every whim. It is reported that Albert’s descendants continued to converse among themselves in German until fairly recently although they did change their family name after World War I due to negative feedback at the time. So all in all perhaps not the best of examples when discussing things Scottish.

Cheese and crackers. Fella, you’re the one who used the term Balmorality and said the actual history of highland dress was abstruse. I gave you the original owner of Balmoral and his immediate descendants but now he’s just a German.

If wearing the bloody things helps your sense of national pride, go right ahead.

[Troglodyte]

It is reported that Albert’s descendants continued to converse among themselves in German until fairly recently although they did change their family name after World War I due to negative feedback at the time. So all in all perhaps not the best of examples when discussing things Scottish.

By all accounts, this speaking German thing is quite true and well-documented.

There is a famous interview with a former member of the Royal Household staff, who records in amusing terms how the various members of the Royal Family would turn up speaking English, but that their German accent would come out almost immediately in their conversation, and they would then soon relapse into their natural German.

Despite his distinctive clipped tones, the late Duke of Edinburgh is understood to have been brought up speaking German, and English was his second language - which is the excuse he used for his frequent awful gaffs that the tabloid media loved so much.

Using the Royals as sartorial role-models is all very well, and sometimes they dress very well - but the charge has been often levelled at them for failing to dress like a gentleman. So care needs to be taken when following their example - particularly when using 19th century German-origin Royals holiday-making as your example.

Using illutrations and photographs to show certain garments - shoes, hats, etc - being worn with Highland dress does not make those items elements of Highland dress as it is understood. If English styles of footwear and headwear are seen as authentic Scottish Highland dress (as opposed to items being worn simply for their convenience) because they are seen in old photos, then the same is true of baseball caps, fleeces, flat-caps and everythig else that is seen with the kilt.

Here is a test: if you see English country boots or a baseball cap being worn with, say, a Japanese kimono outfit, or Indian kurta, are the boots and cap traditional Japanese and Indian forms of dress? You see plenty of this sort of thing being done, and can be seen in historic photos, too.

If your answer to the test question is no, why is it different for Scottish Highland dress?

When I started this thread, I was not seeking views on the percieved antiquity of ghillie-brogues, or their historical authenticity, but why so many seem to dislike them with a passion.

The responses have been interesting. Rejecting them for reasons of comfort or fit is understandable, but shying away from them through fear of others' dislike is questionable. Denying their 200 or more years of history in favour of more modern 'cultural appropriation' alternatives seems very curious.

Having been developed from ancient styles, along with all other forms of post-Revival Highland dress, if ghillies are not traditional Highland dress, what are they?

[Jock Scot]

Oooops!Dual post and deleted. Sorry.

[Jock Scot]

I remember hobnail boots and metal studded brogues for country wear and deer stalking(see person in the centre of the picture). They were not the best compared with what we have now, but it was what we had at the time. They were the very devil on flagstone and tiled floors! For the unwary, one could go "base over apex" in a flash, sometimes with serious consequences and was a fairly common experience.

[FossilHunter]

By all accounts, this speaking German thing is quite true and well-documented.

There is a famous interview with a former member of the Royal Household staff, who records in amusing terms how the various members of the Royal Family would turn up speaking English, but that their German accent would come out almost immediately in their conversation, and they would then soon relapse into their natural German.

Despite his distinctive clipped tones, the late Duke of Edinburgh is understood to have been brought up speaking German, and English was his second language - which is the excuse he used for his frequent awful gaffs that the tabloid media loved so much.

Using the Royals as sartorial role-models is all very well, and sometimes they dress very well - but the charge has been often levelled at them for failing to dress like a gentleman. So care needs to be taken when following their example - particularly when using 19th century German-origin Royals holiday-making as your example.

Using illutrations and photographs to show certain garments - shoes, hats, etc - being worn with Highland dress does not make those items elements of Highland dress as it is understood. If English styles of footwear and headwear are seen as authentic Scottish Highland dress (as opposed to items being worn simply for their convenience) because they are seen in old photos, then the same is true of baseball caps, fleeces, flat-caps and everythig else that is seen with the kilt.

Here is a test: if you see English country boots or a baseball cap being worn with, say, a Japanese kimono outfit, or Indian kurta, are the boots and cap traditional Japanese and Indian forms of dress? You see plenty of this sort of thing being done, and can be seen in historic photos, too.

If your answer to the test question is no, why is it different for Scottish Highland dress?

When I started this thread, I was not seeking views on the percieved antiquity of ghillie-brogues, or their historical authenticity, but why so many seem to dislike them with a passion.

The responses have been interesting. Rejecting them for reasons of comfort or fit is understandable, but shying away from them through fear of others' dislike is questionable. Denying their 200 or more years of history in favour of more modern 'cultural appropriation' alternatives seems very curious.

Having been developed from ancient styles, along with all other forms of post-Revival Highland dress, if ghillies are not traditional Highland dress, what are they?

I think that what I’ve been trying to say is that there is no unique shoe to Scotland. I also don’t think that oxfords, in spite of the English sounding name, are uniquely English. They are a common style of shoe across Europe and Scotland has seemed to follow the same footwear trends that all of Europe has (broadly speaking, you still have unique folk shoes like clogs or those shoe they where with lederhosen in the alps). Scots wore buckle shoes when those were popular across Europe and European colonies and wore ankle boots in the 1800s when those were popular. Nowadays many Scots wear trainers like many in the western world. One wouldn’t wear oxfords with a kimono or other Asian cultural dress, but Scotland isn’t in Asia and shares much culture with other parts of Britain, the British isles, and the rest of Europe. The French wear suits but no one would say they are dressing like Englishmen (or would at their peril!).

Here is the president of France in plain, cap toe, oxfords. I doubt he thinks of England in particular when he puts them on in the morning.



I guess I’m a little confused as to why one needs a particularly Scottish shoe to wear with the kilt? Brogues are of Scottish extraction already and you can can buy the best shoes your budget will allow in that style and it won’t require buying into some sort of fantasy.

I’m also trying to wrap my head around this bit. You and the other poster whom I don’t want to continue arguing with as I’ve been flagged once already, both seem to claim this 200 year legacy for the ghillie brogue, while also decrying the inauthenticity of the royals and aristocrats who are responsible for the highland revival of which those same shoes are a part. It seems incongruous to me.

[Jock Scot]

This is a perennial discussion about ghillie brogues that goes around this website from time to time and appears to go round and round without any sensible conclusion. Frankly, it gets rather tiresome. To my mind one either likes them or one doesn't, its that simple.

If you like them, then wear them. If you don't then, well, don't!

I am sorry to repeat a post and the discussion has moved on a tad, but perhaps its still appropriate?