Who designed Ghillie shoes

**Phil** · 17th February 09, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown

Hold on. Steady there. You have overlooked the fact that the Spanish, Portuguese, German, Dutch, French, Belgians, and even the Italians, all had empires of varying sizes and shapes over the years, and all of them referred to the "natives" by nick-names, not always politically correct. To ascribe this practice soley to the English, is way out of court.If, as you say, the modern day kilt, and all that goes with it, is an English invention, and clearly that English connection seems to bother you greatly, might I suggest you abandon the kilt in all of it's forms and find some mode of dress that will be less distressing to your feelings regarding the English?

I am glad that you are comfortable with these racial epithets. It does not, however, condone their use because other colonial nations have followed suit. To be considered as a "colonial" and by implication a lesser individual is not always agreeable. After all the inhabitants of you adoptive (I say that as I do not know your true origins) country put their lives on the line to remove such imperial rule. Perhaps the English are diminished in not having a specific derogatory epithet to describe them.

**English Bloke** · 17th February 09, 02:10 PM

What? like Pomme(Aus), Limey(US), Les Rost Beufs(Fr) and Sassanach/Guffie(Scot) to name but a few, and wasn't it the British Empire rather than the English Empire... Phil. I don't agree with you at all but I'm not going to argue with you. By the sound of your vitriol it's unlikely I'd change your opinion of the English anyway so let's leave it at that and not steal the thread.

**macwilkin** · 17th February 09, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Phil

I am glad that you are comfortable with these racial epithets. It does not, however, condone their use because other colonial nations have followed suit. To be considered as a "colonial" and by implication a lesser individual is not always agreeable. After all the inhabitants of you adoptive (I say that as I do not know your true origins) country put their lives on the line to remove such imperial rule. Perhaps the English are diminished in not having a specific derogatory epithet to describe them.

Phil,

Ever here of the term Pommie? Limey? Both are used as perjorative terms against the English, mostly by Australians and Yanks, former colonials. It runs both ways, mate.

I think Scott raised a very valid point that the British (and let's remember there were many Scots, Welsh and even Irish who administered and defended the Empire) were not alone -- the other European powers didn't follow suit, they were equals, and in some cases, much worse.

But, this is going way OT, and the Mods did ask that this thread stay germane to the original subject...

T.

**Panache** · 17th February 09, 02:36 PM

Last warning folks, if we can' t stay on topic here we will have to close this thread.

Respectfully

Jamie

**English Bloke** · 17th February 09, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by fortcollinsjerry

Who designed Ghillie shoes and why are they made with such long laces?

Perhaps this goes someway to answer the original question.

**MacMillan of Rathdown** · 17th February 09, 06:45 PM

Actually, I think the most telling "history" of the ghillie brogue can be found by examining paintings of Highlanders in the period 1570-1840. In virtually none of the paintings I've looked at that pre-date 1830 (and it could hardly be called an exhaustive sample) show a shoe similar to today's ghillie brogue.

A brief chronology of the highlights may be in order:

1570: an illustration of a Highlander in the Ghent Library, as reproduced on page 3 of Lady's Hesketh's book, TARTANS.

1660: the portraint of Highland Chief (possibly Lord Breadalbane) painted by Michael Wright c. 1660.

These pictures span 100 years, and both show a low cut shoe. In the Ghent picture the shoe appears to be tied, but only at the instep. The "Breadalbane" portrait clearly shows the shoes to have a flap (over the laces?) and a small strap and buckle at the ankle-- exactly like full dress highland shoes today.

Moving forward another half century or so the famous painting of the Piper to the Laird of Grant, done in 1714 by Richard Waitt, clearly shoes a pair of shoes with laces over the instep, and tied with bows, exactly like modern shoes. In Waitt's painting of Lord Duffus (c. 1710) the same style of shoe is seen, leading one to the conclusion that neither the well born or lowest man wore wrap around laces at, or previous to, this time. The portrait of Lord Abercairney, executed by Jeremiah Davison c. 1745 shows his noble lordship in the buckled shoes of a mid-18th century gentleman, as indeed do almost all portraits of Scots dating from this period.

An excellent engraving from 1793 of two Scottish soldiers, a Serjeant and a Highland Officer (Hesketh, pgs. 50-51) clearly shows the men to be wearing shoes laced over the instep with a flap over the laces. The same style of shoe is clearly to be seen in the stipple engraving of piper Neil McLean done c. 1800 by William Craig.

In fact, prior to 1830 I have been unable to find any reliable evidence that wrap around laces were worn by Highlanders.

Unfortunately for historical "purists" the first accurate picture that I can find of wrap around laces dates from c.1835-45. This is a water colour self-portrait of the Sobieski-Stuart brothers in the great hall of Eileen Aigas and Charles (or is it John?) can clearly be seen to be wearing shoes with laces that wrap around his ankles numerous times and tie in front of the leg, almost exactly like the present day ghilile brogue.

In the Highland portraits done by Landseer (mostly painted in the early to mid-1850s), ankle-high spats cover the shoes, but no laces appear to "twine about the leg".

Contemporary with the Sobieski-Stuarts and Landseer was R.R.McIan-- he of McIan's prints fame-- and having just leafed through my copy of his work, COSTUMES OF THE CLANS, of the 73 clans represented, only seven are wearing long lace brogues-- and, with the exception of the illustration of the Chisholm, all of them could best be termed fanciful. Chisholm, on the other hand, is a perfect a likeness of an 1840's Victorian Highland gentleman as one could hope to find. And his shoes clearly show the sole, and heel of a modern shoe, albeit with the uppers laced in a stylized version of the old Highlanders brogan. Not only that, but we see the laces crossed over the instep, brought around the ankle and tied in the front of the leg in the same way ghillie brogues are worn today. In his description of the illustration McIan notes that: "The brogs (sic) are of a pattern frequently worn by gentlemen."

So, I'd suggest that, based on the pictorial evidence, "ghillie brogues" may possibly be the "invention" of the Sobieski-Stuart brothers, probably dating from sometime around 1830. I think they slowly gained acceptance as formal wear (they are depicted as part of formal attire in the picture of the Chisholm, published by McIan in 1845) and day wear (as seen in Lery's watercolour of a "Highland chief" dated 1868-- these shoes, by the way, are in almost all respects identical to those worn today). From c. 1870-80 on the ghillie brogue evolved, along with shoe technology, and seems to have become a standard item of Highland dress in the period following WWI.

I although I have no hard evidence to back up what I am about to suggest, I believe that the ghillie brogue may hold a near-unique place in the evolution of Highland attire as being one of the few items worn that did not migrate to the civilian world from the shelves of the army Quartermaster Corps.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of uniform regulations can correct me if I am wrong in my assumption?