"Jacobite" garb

[Sir William]

I'll second this recommendation. Kass McGann really does her research well. We try to keep all of their patterns pertaining to Highland dress in stock in our gift shop.
http://giftshop.scottishtartans.org/patterns.htm

I'll also third the recommendation. And if she doesn't have exactly what you're looking for she will offer assistance in modifying one of her already existing patterns.

[Sir William]

thay twa must hae been lairds thay wir weel dressed maist ordinari clansmen didnae hae say fanci claithes nor shin on thair feet nor hae a musket ,maist highlanders wir jist workin men fer a laird ain wid hae thair faimli sword fundit bi thair faithir ait anithir battle in amangst thi thatch bit moni just yaised thair workin shuchs maybi a axe aur a scyth wi a woodin handel, Thi Highland regali seen here ain maist picturs is part militari kit

All too true. Most of the recreated 1745 Jacobites that I've seen, both here in the US and in Scotland as well, would pass for the lairds and his close kin - not the average crofter. Plenty of swords, targes, firelocks, and all that - but then that "look" is also what catches the interest of the average spectator/visitor, which is what we're there to do.

[Woodsheal]

All too true. Most of the recreated 1745 Jacobites that I've seen, both here in the US and in Scotland as well, would pass for the lairds and his close kin - not the average crofter. Plenty of swords, targes, firelocks, and all that - but then that "look" is also what catches the interest of the average spectator/visitor, which is what we're there to do.

Some times the guys new to reenacting look the proper "humbly" part: shirt and belted plaid only, occasionally barefooted, armed with a simple polearm, etc. But then they see all the pretty swords, guns, and clothes - and they want 'em! Give them a couple of years and they've acquired all the "stuff." Luckily, a few cling to the common look.
It should be remembered, though, that lots of "stands of arms" - muskets, bayonets, cartridge boxes, infantry swords - were issued to many of the clansmen who did not have them....

[macwilkin]

All too true. Most of the recreated 1745 Jacobites that I've seen, both here in the US and in Scotland as well, would pass for the lairds and his close kin - not the average crofter. Plenty of swords, targes, firelocks, and all that - but then that "look" is also what catches the interest of the average spectator/visitor, which is what we're there to do.

And that's the $64,000 question when it comes to reenacting -- do we give the the spectator what they expect to see, or do we give them "just the facts", to paraphrase Jack Webb.

This is exactly why I always preferred living history events, where the public could interact with us via interpretive programs and learn with the "myth" was shattered, so to speak.

I remember doing an event years ago where a reenactor Union artillery crew came to a NPS living history event at a Civil War era sites. The crew in question had more red braid and brass on jackets, trousers and hats, while the crew from our battlefield were dressed in plain sack coats and unadorned forage caps and slouch hats. A visitor's son asked his dad, "Why do all of those guys on the left have so much red on?" The reply: "They haven't learned it's a target."

T.

[dfmacliam]

I find that to be true with a lot of things.. I have seen the public disappointed with the living history groups, because of preconcieved notions. I have seen it in the Native American side too... Now everyone is expected to have full bonnet headdresses while the simple attire and meager possesions are a disappointment.

[Kilted Rogue]

I will chime in here for .02 . we can all give a hearty THANK YOU!! to Hollywood. They dont like to portray the low man. All the frills look much better on camera. Since most peoples first view of history is on the big screen. when they get to a Real Battlefield and it doesnt jive with there notions. they tend to get a little disappointed. Then the education can begin

[Jack Daw]

Latter-day movies are showing the grittier side of history. Even those in the nice, braided and brocaded uniforms got awfully filthy in the field. Take a look at some of the ACTUAL 18C uniforms hanging in museums - not so pretty and clean.

[jmercier]

That's actually the Ulster Weathered tartan, so named because the well-preserved remains of a ca. 1600 Scottish fighting man were pulled from a bog in Ulster some years back, wearing that particular sett. So, the tartan is early, but it's not really an authentic garment because it's a tailored Matt Newsome box-pleated kilt! I cheated and wore it because I'm currently waiting for the actual 18th C. style philabeg that Matt will be sewing for me in a couple of months' time....

Now my question for you here, is what is the particular style / distinguishing features of the kilt that you're having made? I'm attempting to portray a persona at the end of the Jacobite rebellion and much prefer the philabeg to the plaid when wearing waistcoat, jacket, bonnet, etc. Right now i've been wearing a slightly tailored philabeg, 3.75 yards of single width fabric with 8 large (around 3 inch wide) pleats sewn at just the very top in the back, held in place just by a belt. I know that, unfortunately, we have no surviving examples of a philabeg from the time, but I'm always on the look out for how others are interpreting it.

Thanks,
-Justin

[Woodsheal]

Think of the philabeg worn by Rob in the film Rob Roy: unpressed box pleats, narrow front aprons, no fringe, etc. Highland dress historian Peter MacDonald was the costume consultant for that movie, and that's what he believes early "little kilts" were like.
The notion that the first philabegs were hand-pleated each time by the wearer is a "reenactorism" unsubstantiated by any period documentation or image. Did they have a drawstring or belt-loops? Were the pleats stitched into place from the get-go? We simply don't know, as none survive from the period of earliest use. The earliest surviving philabegs date to the 1790's and feature sewn-in box pleats. Does this represent earlier practice? Probably, but again,we don't know for sure....

[Sir William]

All too true. Most of the recreated 1745 Jacobites that I've seen, both here in the US and in Scotland as well, would pass for the lairds and his close kin - not the average crofter. Plenty of swords, targes, firelocks, and all that - but then that "look" is also what catches the interest of the average spectator/visitor, which is what we're there to do.

To come back to my original statement - which received lots of good follow on comments I might add - my Jacobite unit realizes that we have far too many of the "gentry" in the ranks and not enough "humbly."

Part of the problem of course is that not all of us turn out for our living history events at any given time, so many of us have acquired much of the stuff we display for the tourists. Also, as I said, most of our visitors are drawn by the full Highland regalia and so its a good crowd drawer. Consequently, when more than a few of us get together we have multiple swords, targes, pistols, etc and most of us are dressed in the full belted plaid, tartan wesket and jacket.

Some of us are starting to move away from this general impression and do the Highland crofter, the Lowland volunteer, or even some of the Scots and Irish in French service so that we can give a more accurate idea of who marched with BPC and what they wore and carried. Up to now we've mostly been talking about it rather than demonstrating it.

Sadly, if we all turned out as we probably should we wouldn't get the "visitor" interest that we get as few are interested in the humble crofter. Its difficult finding the right balance point.