History of Scotland series online

[BruceBC]

here is the youtube link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQCaJ4u6lO4

worthwhile to eventually watch the whole series or at least the whole episode for the context.

cheers

[BoldHighlander]

here is the youtube link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQCaJ4u6lO4

worthwhile to eventually watch the whole series or at least the whole episode for the context.

cheers

Here's episode 9 as posted on youtube:

History of Scotland - Episode 9 - (1/ 6)



History of Scotland - Episode 9 - (2/ 6)



History of Scotland - Episode 9 - (3/ 6)



History of Scotland - Episode 9 - (4/ 6)



History of Scotland - Episode 9 - (5/ 6)



History of Scotland - Episode 9 - (6/ 6)



I think eventually (soon) I'll post the whole series in its own thread

UPDATE: I posted the whole series here.

[tripleblessed]

Read the above and went straight to the section on Scott and THE VISIT.
I did not hear what the OP cited, or more properly, what I THINK I heard would not be accurately summarized in the manner in which I THINK I read. I am not surprised, nor do I think there was deliberate misleading going on, this happens a great deal, and is why I am always skeptical of history and science as
commonly taught and popularly understood. I intend to run it again, but I think
what it said is that the common working man in the Highlands did not wear
the small kilt on a daily basis. It was, however, worn by gentry, which is why
people had it to wear to Edinburgh for the festivities. That is not the same as saying it was not Highland attire. It also did not say that Scott invented clan affiliations with specific tartans; rather that at the time, that had not yet fully evolved into how it is understood today.

[BruceBC]

It is safe to say that the small kilt was not evolved by the common highlander nor used as typical highland wear. Many of the clan chiefs were in all but name English or sucking up to the English during the period the episode covers.

I do not think it is by pure chance that in a 10 hour series about Scotland that kilts are seen for about 2 minutes. A few seconds on soldiers putting down an uprising, a pipe band playing Bruce's address (30 seconds), modern footage of the gathering of the clans on the Royal Mile , and by the host when covering the period around King George's visit and Sir Walter Scott's creation of the highland myth.

The small kilt is now seen as a highland garment - something it was not pre King George's visit. This is not a bad thing because the kilt has become a symbol of Scotland and the Highlands . May be in some way this is the golden era of the small kilt. I like the thought that the small kilt is not a musty old relic of bare legged Highlanders running around with an 8 yard knife pleat to the sett but rather a way to make a statement relevant today.

As for tartans - some have a longer linage that most. Many of today's tartans have at best very week connections to a clan. Then there is the issue of what a clan was - but will leave that subject for another time.

As stated in the intro to the series it set out to tell a history of Scotland while cutting through the myth and flights of fancy. I feel the series succeeded in doing so. I am not a formally trained historian of Scottish history but did spend too many years hanging out in campus pubs with the likes of Scottish historian, Ted Cowan. The series rings true to the historians' view of Scotland.

Too often I have seen folks overly worry as to what clan they belonged to - or if they could wear a given tartan. This is sad given how the history of both is so much more complicated. The series has a fitting end. It takes the history in stride - but more importantly it looks forward.

[DougC]

Thanks for posting these videos. I'm about half way through and learning tons.

[BoldHighlander]

Wow! Tell us what you really think Bruce.....I think it'd be best to let the kilt/tartan historians like Matt Newsome or Peter MacDonald answer this, however just a couple of observations.....

It is safe to say that the small kilt was not evolved by the common highlander nor used as typical highland wear. Many of the clan chiefs were in all but name English or sucking up to the English during the period the episode covers.

So who was wearing them in the early 18th century highlands? Who was wearing them in the iron works / Rawlinson story? It certainly wasn't the Highland Chiefs but the local Highland iron workers....

I do not think it is by pure chance that in a 10 hour series about Scotland that kilts are seen for about 2 minutes. A few seconds on soldiers putting down an uprising, a pipe band playing Bruce's address (30 seconds), modern footage of the gathering of the clans on the Royal Mile , and by the host when covering the period around King George's visit and Sir Walter Scott's creation of the highland myth.

The small kilt is now seen as a highland garment - something it was not pre King George's visit.

Really? (see the accompanying article below)....just because it was on the BBC doesn't make it always correct. Even history shows make mistakes from time to time, no matter how well produced...

This is not a bad thing because the kilt has become a symbol of Scotland and the Highlands . May be in some way this is the golden era of the small kilt. I like the thought that the small kilt is not a musty old relic of bare legged Highlanders running around with an 8 yard knife pleat to the sett but rather a way to make a statement relevant today.

No, the early small kilts were generally 4 yard box pleats, and typically pleated to no particular sett....

I do not wish to seem combative or anything, I'm genuinely mystified why your so adamant in your belief that the small kilt was of fairly recent origin or had no Highland connection?

It reminds me of the revisionist Sassenach history of the origin of the small kilt (again, see the accompanying article, which I'm posting for yours & everyones edification below).

And remember, the events depicted in the article pre-date the events in Episode 9 by almost 100 years or so!


Is The Kilt An English Invention?
by Matt Newsome copyright 2008
originally published in The Scottish Banner, April 2008

The kilt is recognized universally as the Scottish national garment; yet there have been some to suggest that the kilt, in its modern form, is not Scottish at all, but rather English. I expect that my gentle readers will now be raising an eyebrow in skepticism. The kilt, an English garment? Who would believe such a thing?

There is historic precedent for those who make this claim. In fairness, let us look at their argument and see what can be made of it. Those who like to claim an English origin for the kilt invariably mention the Rawlinson story from the early eighteenth century. Thomas Rawlinson was an Englishman who came to the Glengarry and Lochaber region of the Scottish Highlands to conduct an iron work. While there, he employed many local Highland workers, and became himself quite enamored with their native dress, which at that time consisted of the feilidh-mór, or belted plaid (called in modern parlance a “great kilt”).

The belted plaid was a length of woolen cloth some four plus yards in length and wide enough to reach from the wearer’s knees to above his head, gathered into folds and worn belted at the waist. It was a versatile and sensible garment for trekking about the glens and vales, to be sure, but not the most convenient apparel for iron smelting.

Rawlinson supposedly abbreviated the garment for his workers, cutting the feilidh-mor in half along the waist, so that the bottom portion would form the feilidh-beag (literally, “small wrap”), and the upper mantle could be worn as a separate piece and cast aside at will. And thus the modern kilt is born, an Englishman for the midwife!

The best documentation for this is a letter written by Mr. Ivan Baillie of Aberiachan, dated 1768. He claims to have known Rawlinson for over 40 years, and states that his “inventing” of the small kilt occurred 50 years previous (c. 1718). The Sobieski Stuart brothers, infamous for their great forgery, the Vestiarium Scoticum, recount the story with slightly different details in their 1845 work, Costumes of the Clans. They date the event to 1715 and give the credit to a Mr. Pinkerton, a regimental tailor who visited Rawlinson and had the idea to separate the upper and lower portions of the plaid for ease of use.

(It must be mentioned at this time that the belted plaid actually consisted of two lengths of cloth, some 25” to 30” wide, sewn together along their length. Therefore the “invention” here was not so much cutting apart the belted plaid, but opting not to join the two lengths together).

Regardless of the details, there have always been those who have questioned the legitimacy of this story. Some, no doubt, object to it out of a sense of Scottish national pride. But others point to evidence that would seem to show the wearing of the feilidh-beag (the lower part of the belted plaid) from a period before Rawlinson. The Arms of Skene of that Ilk, c. 1672, seem to depict a figure in the feilidh-beag. Highland dress historian Bob Martin (an accomplished painter himself) is of the opinion that a portrait of Kenneth Sutherland, Lord Duffus, c. 1700, shows the feilidh-beag.

So the Rawlinson story is not universally acknowledged as the origin of the small kilt. But let us, for the sake of argument, accept it as true. What would that tell us? Would that make the kilt an English garment?

The original kilt was the feilidh-mor, which developed quite organically from the native Gaelic dress of the Highland Scots during the latter part of the sixteenth century. Its Scottish origins are undisputed. The later adoption of the feilidh-beag is not the end-all and be-all of Highland attire. Nor was this to be the last modification of Highland dress. The feilidh-beag, as worn in the early eighteenth century, was no more a modern kilt than the belted plaid of old! Like the belted plaid, it was an untailored garment. At most, keepers or perhaps a drawstring would be added to facilitate wear, but the pleats were not sewn down from waist to hips as in a modern tailored kilt. That development would have to wait till the end of that century.

So even if the stories are true, we still could not say that an Englishman invented the kilt. At most we could say that an Englishman had an idea that helped to progress Scottish Highland fashion and contributed to the development of the modern kilt. (And if we are to believe some of the counter-evidence presented, it was a development that the kilt was undergoing already).

And even then, we would be giving this credit to an Englishman, in the singular, whether Rawlinson or Pinkerton – certainly not to “the English,” as some are wont to put it. Your average Englishman had about as much to do with the kilt as he did with kimonos or the Aztec tilma.

The story recounts an Englishman who journeys to the Gaelic Scottish Highlands, observes and adopts the indigenous dress, and suggests an adaptation that apparently proved to be very popular with the native wearers. The chief of the MacDonells of Glengarry is said to have enjoyed wearing the feilidh-beag, and thus helped to spread the fashion. The kilt developed the way that it did, into the form we know today, because those developments were accepted and thought useful by those that wore the kilt – the Highland Scots.

Nowhere in all the annals of recorded history did the English ever claim that the kilt was their own. Everywhere it is identified as the garb of the Highland Gael that was later (after the Union of the Parliaments) adopted as the symbolic clothing of all of Scotland.

I suspect that those who today suggest the kilt is actually an English garment may have ulterior motives. Perhaps they enjoy acting like someone “in on the secret” at Scottish gatherings. People like believing that they have privileged knowledge. These ideas could also be attractive to those non-Scots tempted to wear the kilt, but who assume one must have Scottish blood in order to do so. If the kilt is really an English garment, then the question of ethnicity doesn’t matter so much.

To them I say, go ahead – wear the kilt! But don’t feel the need to justify it with false history. We have much to learn from Rawlinson in that regard. He was an Englishman who felt at ease adopting the Highland dress as his own. And if we are to believe John Taylor, another Englishman who visited the Highlands one hundred years before Rawlinson, the tradition of non-Scots adopting the Highland garb is a long one. In his account of his visit to Braemar in 1618, he wrote, “As for their attire, any man of whatsoever degree that comes among them must not disdain to wear it; for if they do then they will disdain to hunt… but if men be kind to them, and be in their habit, then they are conquered with kindness, and sport will be plentiful.”

So non-Scots certainly may wear the kilt. But when you do so, remember that you are wearing the Scottish National Dress!

For more articles on the historical origins of Highland dress see here.

[tripleblessed]

The de- celtisization(I know, it's not a word)began when David became king.
Raised in the Norman court, he was taught that Scots were uncultured savages. he brought with him to Scotland Norman knights who were mostly landless and were hoping for a shot at a position or an estate. Many came later. David began consolidating his position and instituting the Norman system of administration, which was also a way of weakening the position of clan chiefs. Court-wise Scots looked to marry into the families of the king's favorites, most of whom were Norman. The newly created positions of authority went to them, creating a power base for him and a wedge to begin moving all power to the throne. Clan chiefs owed their position to the clan, which benefited from able leadership that knew the lands were those of the clan; all stood to gain by standing together. The Norman view was that all land and all that was on it, including the people, belonged to the throne. The heraldry and sumptuary laws grew out of this effort to control first, govern when convenient, and crush or remove resistance. Clan chiefs and their tacksmen began to believe they were better than the clanspeople,
and that their authority was a gift from the king. The clans suffered increasingly, coming to a head in the clearances. These "common classes"
as some refer to them, could not afford so-called Highland Dress, and as you say did not commonly wear it. The gentry did have it, and did wear it, and that's why Scott was able to put out a call for people to show up wearing
it for his reception for the king. And on short notice. They didn't have to pay 1300 pounds for it, they already owned it and wore it. It was in use in the Highlands, in common use, just not by the common man. Perhaps in many cases not EVERY day wear, but seen. No question that it owes much of it's longevity to that visit, and to its' use by the military. Those uses were
based on its' prior existence, but without those uses might have disappeared.
Only conjecture is possible. What is not conjecture is that tartan has been in
use for a very long while, and kilt-like garments as well. Their evolution into what most think of as THCD did come later and does owe much to the visit.
My folks were already gone by then. This is why I do not wear the "rose-coloured spectacles" decried in prior threads. I don't have a dog in this hunt.
I only have interest in how it all went down, I don't gain or lose by it's being this way or that. History is a fabulous (deliberate usage) spectacle, and I take joy in it, warts and all.

BTW, take a look sometime at the seals of 12th century seals of Scottish
kings, at how they are garbed.

[BoldHighlander]

The clans suffered increasingly, coming to a head in the clearances. These "common classes"
as some refer to them, could not afford so-called Highland Dress, and as you say did not commonly wear it. The gentry did have it, and did wear it, and that's why Scott was able to put out a call for people to show up wearing
it for his reception for the king. And on short notice. They didn't have to pay 1300 pounds for it, they already owned it and wore it. It was in use in the Highlands, in common use, just not by the common man. Perhaps in many cases not EVERY day wear, but seen. No question that it owes much of it's longevity to that visit, and to its' use by the military. Those uses were
based on its' prior existence, but without those uses might have disappeared.
Only conjecture is possible. What is not conjecture is that tartan has been in
use for a very long while, and kilt-like garments as well. Their evolution into what most think of as THCD did come later and does owe much to the visit.
My folks were already gone by then. This is why I do not wear the "rose-coloured spectacles" decried in prior threads. I don't have a dog in this hunt.
I only have interest in how it all went down, I don't gain or lose by it's being this way or that. History is a fabulous (deliberate usage) spectacle, and I take joy in it, warts and all.

I don't dispute any of this, but as a historian what I object to is the idea that the small kilt (a different garment from the tailored one we know today) was not worn or very common prior to Scott & the royal visit he organized, when the historical record shows it was worn in the Highlands prior to the '45 (though not by everyone, even I wouldn't go that far). After the '45 I acknowledge it did fall out of fashion by most, other than the gentry & the military, and thank God the military kept it alive or otherwise it might be viewed today as some quaint historical costume of old rather than Scotland's national costume.

That's my dog, and he does hunt!

Edit: if I come across as an Auld Crabbit in all this, please forgive me. I pinched my sciatic nerve in my left hip/leg & I'm rather grumpy

Cheers!

[tripleblessed]

My dog seems to get distracted by the side trails. It's way late in the night here, Terry. Your more on-point post went up while I was typing mine(I'm excruciatingly slow). On re-reading I was attempting to agree with that position, while allowing that many wore other dress, as station, purse, and taste dictated. I was not as clear as I intended to be that what people wore to receive the king was in reasonably long and wide-spread usage, and that what came out of the visit was clearly based in that usage.
That said, it is clear that Scott had his own agenda, and he clearly did put his
own spin and direction on all he did around this.

I think it was Jock that said most were just trying to stay warm, and wore whatever they get, my very poor paraphrase, but I think
that heads in the direction of reality. Those who could did wear these types of garments. Before Scott. Before Culloden and the ban.

[BoldHighlander]

My dog seems to get distracted by the side trails.

Mine has been known to follow another scent too, from time to time!

It's way late in the night here, Terry. Your more on-point post went up while I was typing mine(I'm excruciatingly slow). On re-reading I was attempting to agree with that position, while allowing that many wore other dress, as station, purse, and taste dictated. I was not as clear as I intended to be that what people wore to receive the king was in reasonably long and wide-spread usage, and that what came out of the visit was clearly based in that usage.

No worries mate!

That said, it is clear that Scott had his own agenda, and he clearly did put his own spin and direction on all he did around this.

Indeed!