The Highland Wedding, 1780 by David Allen

**figheadair** · 2nd January 10, 10:19 AM

I wonder how many respondants have been fortunate enough to read the acual Act (well a published copy of the time at any rate)?

It's been many years since I read it but the following is the section most often quoted...."That from and after the first day of August, one thousand seven hundred and forty seven, no man or boy, within that part of Great Briton called Scotland, other than shall be employed as officers and soldiers in his Majesty's forces, shall on any pretence whatsoever, wear or put on the clothes commonly called Highland Clothes (that is to say) the plaid, philibeg, or little kilt, trowse, shoulder belts, or any part whatsoever of what peculiarly belongs to the highland garb; and that no tartan, or partly-coloured plaid or stuff shall be used for great coats, or for upper coats; and if any such person shall presume, after the said first day of August, to wear or put on the aforesaid garments or any part of them, every such person so offending, being convicted thereof by the oath of one or more credible witness or witnesses before any court of justiciary, or any one or more justices of the peace for the shire or stewartry, or judge ordinary of the place where such offence shall be committed, shall suffer imprisonment, without bail, during the space of six months, and no longer; and being convicted for a second offence before a court of justiciary or at the circuits, shall be liable to be transported to any of his Majesty's plantations beyond the seas, there to remain for a space of seven years....."

As has been said eslewhere, there is no specific mention of the pipes and as such they were not banned under the Act. More interestingly for the perspective of this thread are the other exclusions on who may wear the kilt, tartan etc.: women and gentry who could command more that three servents were also excluded in addition to members of the Army. Thus, the Act was only really effective against the poor (hasn't it always been thus!) and would account in part for why so many gentry were able to be painted in tartan during the Proscription. It may be that many of those in the wedding picture were either gentry or in/ex-army and therefore exempt. One must also remember, as again has been pointed out, that by 1780 the effectiveness of the Act was much less that in the first few years.

**Lachlan09** · 3rd January 10, 03:33 AM

It's possible as you say about the revelers in the painting, but of course Niel and Donald Gow certainly weren't any sort of gentry.

**figheadair** · 3rd January 10, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Lachlan09

It's possible as you say about the revelers in the painting, but of course Niel and Donald Gow certainly weren't any sort of gentry.

They wern't but they were certainly well regarded and supported which may have been a factor as may the fact hat the Duke of Atholl was one of the major movers in getting the Repeal Act passed and so no doubt would have been supportive of a local man.

**macwilkin** · 3rd January 10, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by figheadair

They wern't but they were certainly well regarded and supported which may have been a factor as may the fact hat the Duke of Atholl was one of the major movers in getting the Repeal Act passed and so no doubt would have been supportive of a local man.

Not to mention that the Duke of Atholl entertained Robert Burns at Blair Atholl on his visit in 1787. Atholl must have thought highly of Burns, as he responded to the latter's petition in "The Humble Petition of Bruar Water" to plant trees along the falls.

Burns visited Gow as well on his 1787 tour of the Highlands.

T.