Ghillie brogues - why the dislike and resentment..?

[OC Richard]

Good questions!

That's the problem with Ghillies- there are always more questions than answers.

Are they traditional? (That is, having an unbroken lineage of use and evolution of form as far back as our sources allow us to trace.)

Or are they a Revival? (That is, a thing not in current use which is freshly created, either copied from a relic or an invention based on imagery, textual reference, or mere conjecture.)

If a Revival, when did they appear?

How were they regarded in times past?

To make a case for them to be traditional, that is, having an unbroken chain of use, one would have to produce a series of images of them being worn covering every period from the mid-19th century back to our earliest clear images of men wearing Highland Dress (around 1700).

We can do that with the kilt, the sporran, the bonnet, the dirk, etc. But as far as I know Ghillies don't show up in images of men wearing Highland Dress until Victorian times.

Which leaves us with Ghillies being a Revival.

A revival of what? Yes we have a verbal description of Highlanders making their own deerskin moccasins, and we have a survival of something possibly akin to that with the pamutai of the Aran Islanders. And we could throw into the mix the footwear similar to the pamutai which are traditional in the Balkans.

But the Ghillies which seem to appear out of nowhere in the Victorian period aren't like any of those things. They're built-up ordinary shoes, but are open-topped with one to four pairs of tabs holding the shoestrings.

I do wonder if the Allen Brothers, the very men who in the second quarter of the 19th century were whispering into Clan Chiefs' ears "just to let you know, you're not wearing the true ancient tartan of your clan. If you would like, we will share with you our unique knowledge and provide you with a sketch of your true tartan you can take to a weaver" the sketch actually being of a tartan entirely from the imagination of the brothers, were also appearing at Highland functions wearing Ghillies which they themselves devised and had made, explaining to all who asked that these were the true ancient Highland shoes.

What to me smacks of Revival is how the earliest large-scale record we have of Ghillie wearing, The Highlanders of Scotland, show nearly all the Ghillies being tan roughout hide, indicating that they're thought to be a rustic rural shoe. There's one pair of black Ghillies and they have decorative buckles attached at the toes.

There are plenty of photos of men in the mid 19th century wearing Ghillies, however these are invariably black (or possibly dark brown).

The only photos I've ever been able to find of tan roughout hide Ghillie Brogues are the pair made for the future King Edward VII as part of his quasi-historical Highland costume.

[OC Richard]

Why are Ghillies hated?

In Pipe Band circles Ghillies are generally hated

1) because they're part of the band costume that everyone has to wear to compete in. The whole costume is hated, not just the shoes.

2) because so many band people are wearing uncomfortable Ghillies. It's always been puzzling to me why people who would never wear a pair of uncomfortable shoes of any other sort do purchase and wear uncomfortable Ghillies. (They come in regular, wide, extra wide, and orthopedic.)

Traditional kiltwearers hate them because they're tinged with the dual stink of Kilt Hire Shops and Pipe Band costumes.

Both things are recent: Pipe Bands started wearing Ghillies only in the late 1970s/early 1980s which is the same time that Kilt Hire began booming.

[Troglodyte]

Why are Ghillies hated?

In Pipe Band circles Ghillies are generally hated

1) because they're part of the band costume that everyone has to wear to compete in. The whole costume is hated, not just the shoes.

2) because so many band people are wearing uncomfortable Ghillies.

Traditional kiltwearers hate them because they're tinged with the dual stink of Kilt Hire Shops and Pipe Band costumes.

But is this not true of all elements of Highland dress?

It is human nature to dislike or resent what we are 'forced' to do, so the opposition to ghillie-brogues is probably more the association the individual gives to them than careful reasoning.

The so-called Traditional Kilters' stance on various elements of Highland dress is curious to me - being what seems to be based on the inter-war years catalogue ideal that the prevailing fashions and trends lent to it.

It could be said that nothing about the upper-body garments have any real historic value to them, and the tweed-coatee-and-weskit that we all now love so much is essentially English leisure styles adapted to kilt-wear.

Certainly by the 1940s, this Traditionl Kilters' style was being heavily criticised in print, for its continual dulling-down of Highland style to match more closely the prevailing Lowland fasions. Lord Lyon condemned it as a desire of the self-concious, and called it un-Scottish and contemptible.

MacIan's portraits from the 1840s show various representatives of the clans in ghillies - or, as the descriptions usually say, Brog - so they have been appearing in illustrations for almost two centuries, even if not in modern production form.

All of which makes me wonder about the ghillie-brogue. The style and antiquity is at least double that of the 'contemptible' tweed-and-Tattersall of the TKs, and far more appropriate than any English shoe style.

As for comfort, is that not a matter of fit? Any badly-fitting shoe will be uncomfortable, whatever the style I should say.

Myself, I have formed the impression that anti-ghillie views are based less on historical evidence than on what they have come to represent to some out-spoken individuals, who then influence the unwitting.

It would be easy to argue that the anti-ghillie hostility could just as easily (and possibly more rightly) be directed at the tweed coatee, and show it up as a kind of 1930s cos-play. Surely the true traditionalists ought to be arguing for the far more authentic twin waistcoat style that was frequently noted prior to the Dress Act.

Perhaps the use of 'Traditional' with kilters is the problem - surely only what was habitually worn prior to the ban on Highland dress is authentic, and everything that has come after the Act is Revivalist. If mid-20th century styles are acceptable as traditional, why not the footwear that evolved a century or more before from the original 'Brog'?

[OC Richard]

The so-called Traditional Kilters' stance on various elements of Highland dress is curious to me - being what seems to be based on the inter-war years catalogue ideal...

The history of Highland Dress displays the "punctuated equilibrium" manner of evolution, which features relatively long periods of stability and brief periods of rapid change.

The period c1820-1840 was one such period, followed by relative stability during the Victorian period. The next such period was c1905 to c1920 which established our Traditional Highland Dress that's still with us today.

Time will tell whether the serious challenge to this tradition which has been mounted by Kilt Hire (which took off in the 1980s) and their black Prince Charlie + black leather sporran + white hose + black Ghillies costume will be looked back upon by future Highland Dress historians as another brief rapid sea-change in Highland Dress, or merely a blip.

I do follow Kilt Hire trends and they have steadily been going away from the costume mentioned above and turning back towards Lovat tweeds and coloured hose and brown sporrans, in other words the Day Dress costume established immediately following World War One.

I do have to address your mention of "catalogue ideal". It's puzzling why in ordinary fashion circles, say people studying the dress of the 1920s, vintage catalogues are heavily relied upon, while in Highland Dress circles the assertion is often made that catalogues don't show what people actually wore.

I believe that this assertion can be dismissed on two grounds. First, vast numbers of photos show men wearing exactly the outfits shown in the catalogues.

The second thing is simple logic. Firms making and selling Highland Dress have one goal: to turn a profit. They're not going to make fanciful stuff that sits on the shelves. It wastes production capacity and valuable shelf space. Also quite valuable is catalogue space. Catalogues are expensive to print (colour printing in the 1920s wasn't cheap) add to that the expense of posting the catalogues to Australia, America, etc. Adverts often mention that the catalogues are posted free. Catalogue space is devoted to items expected to sell.

So yes vintage catalogues are an excellent guide to what people are going to purchase, and presumably wear.

Certainly by the 1940s, this Traditional Kilters' style was being heavily criticised in print, for its continual dulling-down of Highland style to match more closely the prevailing Lowland fashions.

This is something I'd love to learn more about. Were they advocating a return to tartan jackets? To the breacan-an-feileadh?

For sure, as you mentioned, above the waist Highland Dress has tended to follow prevailing European fashion. This seems to have always been around, witness the "slashed doublets" seen in both Highland and non-Highland portraits. (True that these doublets continued in fashion longer with Highland Dress.)

On the other hand we see in 18th century Highland Dress a love for tartan jackets and waistcoats that's uniquely Highland. In the Regency period tartan jackets remained popular though the cut of these jackets followed the prevailing European fashion.

In the 1840s tweed jackets began becoming very fashionable for gents' outdoor wear and they were quickly adapted to Highland Dress. So yes tweed jackets aren't traditionally Highland, but if people were criticising them in the 1930s I'm sorry to say that the horse had left the barn.

MacIan's portraits...

People may find it nitpicking, but the difference between portraits and illustrations is critical to the subject at hand.

Portraits are paintings of living persons posed in front of the artist. They attempt to capture the person, the clothing, and the lighting present at the time the painting is executed.

Illustrations can be based on verbal descriptions, pictorial sources, or imagination.

The MacIan illustrations are just that, illustrations. Is there any record of where he got his ideas about the costumes of earlier periods? For sure the Western artist Frederick Remington had quite a collection of Native American and Cowboy costume in his studio for his models to wear. Did MacIan have access to a surviving centuries-old pair of Highland moccasins? Or had he seen an image of such? Or was he himself part of the Revival process?

All of which makes me wonder about the ghillie-brogue. The style and antiquity is at least double that of the 'contemptible' tweed-and-Tattersall of the TKs, and far more appropriate than any English shoe style.

I love wearing Ghillies precisely because they're specifically Highland.

About antiquity, who can say. If one wanted ancient Highland footwear they could follow the old verbal description and make a pair out of deer-hide. We have no idea what these looked like other than by referencing footwear from other places like the Aran Isles.

We can only trace Ghillie-brogues to perhaps to around 1850, the same time that tweed was becoming the standard outdoor wear with kilts.

It is interesting that the Army never issued Ghillie brogues to its Highland Soldiers, but rather the ordinary period shoes seen in so many 18th century Highland portraits, either laced or buckled.

[bdkilted]

In answer to the earlier query. I just I am fine with them, but since I could never find any that fit I went with wingtip. Having worn out a couple pair of those I now where a wingtip lace up boot. I guess this is to say I try to be as traditional as I can.

[GlenaladalePiper]

One reason for their not so great rep would be people wearing the laces so far up the leg they look like a gladiator. This seems to come from the kilt hire industry especially with the bright white socks.

[FossilHunter]

Troglodyte, I think you make a lot of reasonable points.

For myself, there are a few reasons I do not wear ghillies. First, most that are available in the US are rather chunky and inelegant. I would not take issue with fine ghillies like you sometimes see George VI wearing in photos. But with their connection to pipe bands and hire, chunky soles and cheap construction are quite common.

Ghillie brogues are also inexorably linked to the kilt, meaning they cannot be worn with other clothes without appearing eccentric. As an American kilt wearer, I admit that I should probably be used to that by now but it is what it is. On the other hand, I can easily wear oxfords, captoe or brogued, with my suit trousers and cords. I would much prefer one or two pairs of quality shoes that perform double duty to a slew of cheaper pairs filling every niche.

I do agree that the objection to ghillie brogues can be overstated. They obviously have a pedigree as long as some other more respected elements of traditional highland dress. I think the association with bands and hire has damaged their reputation in general but that doesn’t mean they cannot or should not have a place in the discussion of traditional civilian highland dress.

[figheadair]

I can't provide a definitive answer to the OP. Personally, l'm not not a fan and prefer a full brogue.

[Patty Logan]

well maybe I'm not the only one. I could never get them tied up. they would always came apart. The intricate detailing would also make it impossible for me to shine them up as well

[timemeddler]

people dislike brogues? why? I'd wear them, they look like they'd be great for those who have sweaty feet problems.