Formal Buckle Shoes

[DWFII]

for Creagdhubh:

George IV 1822 by Sir David Wilkie



Victoria and Prince Albert polka circa 1840. Notice the near identity of their shoes. There is a small ornamental buckle on Albert's shoe and a small lace bow on Victoria's. Except for colour they are otherwise identical in shape and style:

[DWFII]

One other note about kilt shoes...

Al Saguto, the head shoemaker at Colonial Williamsburg, a protege' of Dame June Swann, the editor/translator of the very recent re-publication of M.De Garsault's 1767 Art du Cordonnier and arguably the foremost authority on shoes in the US, sent this to me referring to a piece he and Marc Carlson (?) wrote:

"Ghillies are a whole 'nother beast. They have the advantage that they are easy to make. There are some surviving shoes from the British Isles that vaguely resemble our ghillies, but they date to before AD 900 (Saguto, p.1, and Carlson). According to leading shoe scholars, ghillies as we know them are a modern invention based roughly on some surviving early medieval shoes, apparently a result of a combination of wishful thinking and a desire to come up with something for renaissance fairs, rendezvous, and such that is cheap, easy to make, and does not look obviously modern.

Even home made shoes in the 17th century were shaped to the foot – unlike ghillies, which are essentially a leather bag.

The term ghillie, itself, is a modern construct (Saguto, p.1). In 1894, Mackay listed about sixteen varieties of Celtic footwear from the Middle Ages to the early modern period; nothing resembling ghillies, nor even the term itself, appears (pp.141 ff.).

There is NO documentation for anything resembling ghillies anywhere approaching our period and place. Obviously, ghillies - or anything else that predates our period by seven or more centuries - are not the ideal to which we should aspire."

[OC Richard]

PS...I don't have time this morning but give me a day or two and I'll match you pic for pic with paintings of 18th century shoes and, if I recall correctly, all on the feet of Highlanders.

Oh yes, I'm sure there are plenty!

But images of people wearing one kind of shoe don't cancel out images of people wearing another kind of shoe; they just show that both kinds of shoes were worn.

Likewise posting 50 images of women from that time period doesn't prove that all people of that time were women (if I may resort to a bit of reductio ad absurdum).

Your claim was that ONLY buckled shoes were worn, and that claim is dispelled by showing images of men wearing other styles.

About this quote about Ghillies, the author might know a lot about American Colonial footwear but he's wrong here:

"There are some surviving shoes from the British Isles that vaguely resemble our ghillies, but they date to before AD 900 (Saguto, p.1, and Carlson). According to leading shoe scholars, ghillies as we know them are a modern invention based roughly on some surviving early medieval shoes, apparently a result of a combination of wishful thinking and a desire to come up with something for renaissance fairs, rendezvous, and such that is cheap, easy to make, and does not look obviously modern."

Had he looked outside of Britain, in the Aran islands he would have found the ancient traditional Gaelic footwear, pampooties, still being made and worn.

And a 1542 letter clearly describes pampooties being made and worn in the Highlands.

Now, what I've NOT found are any pre-19th century images showing Highlanders wearing pampooties or ghillies.

[DWFII]

Oh yes, I'm sure there are plenty!

But images of people wearing one kind of shoe don't cancel out images of people wearing another kind of shoe; they just show that both kinds of shoes were worn.

Likewise posting 50 images of women from that time period doesn't prove that all people of that time were women (if I may resort to a bit of reductio ad absurdum).

Your claim was that ONLY buckled shoes were worn, and that claim is dispelled by showing images of men wearing other styles.

That's simply not true. I would not expect such distortion from someone as well read and knowledgeable as yourself. I said that buckle shoes were the man's shoe during the 18th century.

Beyond that it is nearly self-evident that "both kinds of shoes were worn." "Other kinds of shoes" as I said in another post. There is no shortage of photos of people wearing buckle shoes in the 21st century...or cowboy boots, for that matter...but that doesn't make them the man's shoe for our time.

Having said all that I would stipulate that I'm not an historian (are you?), I'm a shoemaker with access to bona fide historians and material relating to shoe history. History isn't about speculation and wishful thinking...not even history as I imagine it. We can concoct scenarios all day long about how pirate shirts might have been worn with kilts somewhere, sometime; or how kilts could possibly have been worn in the 14th century in some remote and forgotten glen (Brigadoon?) where no records were kept.

But as the saying goes "if there is no photos, it didn't happen" If there is no evidence, or so little evidence as to suggest anomaly, then we cannot call it history. It begins to drift into the realm of fantasy and Renaissance Faires.

I stand by what I said...and what I believe the history clearly shows: Buckle shoes had little or nothing to do with the early 17th century (Pilgrims) and everything to do with the 18th century.

[creagdhubh]

Really? Why has this topic of buckle brogues and other types of Highland style shoes, caused such a row? I will continue to wear buckle brogues for evening attire, because in my honest opinion and viewpoint, I believe they look the best with diced or tartan hose! Period!

Slainte,

[creagdhubh]

for Creagdhubh:

George IV 1822 by Sir David Wilkie



Victoria and Prince Albert polka circa 1840. Notice the near identity of their shoes. There is a small ornamental buckle on Albert's shoe and a small lace bow on Victoria's. Except for colour they are otherwise identical in shape and style:

What's your point here? I think the shoes look great and true to the time period. Today's buckle brogues are somewhat 'heavier duty' with thicker soles, heels, and smart rounded toe. I do know some who wear formal pumps with their Highland evening attire (Brooks Brothers sells them) and I tend to think that look quite smart as well - perhaps more 'feminine' than their buckle brogue counterparts, because they are not as 'heavy duty' in construction and appearance, but nonetheless, still quite smart with diced or tartan hose.

Slainte,

[DWFII]

What's your point here? I think the shoes look great and true to the time period. Today's buckle brogues are somewhat 'heavier duty' with thicker soles, heels, and smart rounded toe. I do know some who wear formal pumps with their Highland evening attire (Brooks Brothers sells them) and I tend to think that look quite smart as well - perhaps more 'feminine' than their buckle brogue counterparts, because they are not as 'heavy duty' in construction and appearance, but nonetheless, still quite smart with diced or tartan hose.

Slainte,

As I recall...as much to reinforce your own POV as anything else. But also to indicate the genesis of pumps and Mary Janes...and suggest an original context for them.

PS. You suggest that there is a row here...I'm not feeling it.

[creagdhubh]

As I recall...as much to reinforce your own POV as anything else. But also to indicate the genesis of pumps and Mary Janes...and suggest an original context for them.

PS. You suggest that there is a row here...I'm not feeling it.

Oh I see, cheers mate. No disrespect at all, suppose I was 'feeling' a different vibe from reading the above conversations - no worries!

Cordially,

[DWFII]

Oh I see, cheers mate. No disrespect at all, suppose I was 'feeling' a different vibe from reading the above conversations - no worries!

Cordially,

I would like to make one comment as an addendum to what I said above, and not directed at you or anyone else specifically.

I feel I have been responding, for the most part, to contrary remarks from others. And that's fine...that's what discussion is about. If we agreed with each other all the time we soon wouldn't have anything to talk about.

At the same time I don't think the "right to refute" can be reserved for a selected few. If someone takes issue with something I've posted, I believe I have...and should have...the right to respond.

I merely point this out to illustrate that discussion forums are by nature disputatious. The trick is to respect the other guy--disagree without being disagreeable.

[DWFII]

About this quote about Ghillies, the author might know a lot about American Colonial footwear but he's wrong here:

Had he looked outside of Britain, in the Aran islands he would have found the ancient traditional Gaelic footwear, pampooties, still being made and worn.

Again, I am not an historian and make no pretense in that regard. Nor can I speak for him to clarify or correct. The only thing I can say is that he was writing to me with regard to footwear that had been worn, and might be appropriate to wear, with kilts

However, I would simply ask you to re-read that quote again...in its entirety and for content not simply for weakness.

He does say quite clearly ghilllies "as we know them" are a modern invention. And he does reference "surviving shoes from the British Isles."

Beyond that, and in a similar vein as my remarks above, I suspect one reference in one letter in the 16th C. may not qualify as documentation to a historian. There are so many apocryphal interpretations and mis-identifications regarding kilts themselves documented in both historical and contemporary texts that it ought to serve to give us pause if not caution.

Our own Matt Newsome says, or implies...if I am reading him correctly...that ghillies (as we know them) were "invented" for pipers.

I might add just for the entertainment in looking at a similar impasse, that there is, according to the most respected and foremost shoe historians in the world, NO documentation and NO evidence for heels (as we know them) on shoes prior to the third quarter of the 16th century. About the time of kilts, actually. Yet pseudo-historians, less-than-stringent re-enactors, and Hollywood, insist on depicting 11th century knights in heeled boots, or early 19th C. British Royal Navy captains wearing riding boots at sea.

Might as well be wearing a wristwatch.