Ghillie brogues - why the dislike and resentment..?

[MacKenzie]

Thing is, they don't offer any evidence to prove a continuance of use during which the foot-covering of unknown appearance described in the 1542 John Elder letter evolved, through stages of development documented in iconography, into the heavy-soled hobnailed brogue which appears in Victorian times.

Like I said, by the mid-1600s we had a shoe with a heel, a sole and a tongue.

For sure there's plenty of folk shoes from the Carpathian Krpec to the Balkan Opanak to the Aran Islands' Pamputai but these do not constitute iconographic evidence of use of something similar in the Highlands.

Didn't say there was. What I said was, how did it come to pass that the "traditional highland shoe" would be a devolved shoe?

[OC Richard]

Like I said, by the mid-1600s we had a shoe with a heel, a sole and a tongue.

Do you mean the old moccasin thing ceased to exist, and was replaced by ordinary European shoes?

What I'm trying to figure out is whether some sort of moccasin thing continued to exist in the Highlands, and through evolutionary processes became the Victorian Ghillie brogue.

Because if the moccasin thing fell out of use, and Highlanders began wearing ordinary shoes (like the ones we see in the 18th century portraits) I don't see a connexion between the moccasin thing and the Victorian Ghillie brogue.

The only precursor to the Victorian Ghillie brogue I've come across in iconography are the things worn by a certain pair of brothers.



They knew of the 16th century letter; they quoted it in one of their quasi-historical books.

Could they be the ones who invented Ghillies?

[FossilHunter]

Do you mean the old moccasin thing ceased to exist, and was replaced by ordinary European shoes?

What I'm trying to figure out is whether some sort of moccasin thing continued to exist in the Highlands, and through evolutionary processes became the Victorian Ghillie brogue.

Because if the moccasin thing fell out of use, and Highlanders began wearing ordinary shoes (like the ones we see in the 18th century portraits) I don't see a connexion between the moccasin thing and the Victorian Ghillie brogue.

The only precursor to the Victorian Ghillie brogue I've come across in iconography are the things worn by a certain pair of brothers.



They knew of the 16th century letter; they quoted it in one of their quasi-historical books.

Could they be the ones who invented Ghillies?

I wouldn’t be terribly surprised.

[MacKenzie]

Do you mean the old moccasin thing ceased to exist, and was replaced by ordinary European shoes?

That's what the part of the article I quoted seems to be saying. And to me it makes perfect sense. Like everything else, the shoe evolved.

The only precursor to the Victorian Ghillie brogue I've come across in iconography are the things worn by a certain pair of brothers.

They knew of the 16th century letter; they quoted it in one of their quasi-historical books.

Could they be the ones who invented Ghillies?

Could be. Perhaps after the Dress Act was repealed and Highland dress was in it's "revival" (so to speak) they - or someone - thought that "modern" footwear wasn't appropriate so they invented the Ghillies in an attempt to "go back".

[OC Richard]

The reasons I suspect the brothers (them of numerous aliases) are:

1) iconographic evidence. The pictures of them are AFAIK the earliest representation of things akin to the Victorian Ghillie brogues

2) timing. Ghillie brogues appear in photos appear around the time that the brothers' tartans are seen being worn.

3) Modus Operandi. The brothers were known to come across old references and use them as inspirations for their creations. With circuitous logic they could then point to the historic reference to support the historicity of their fraud.

With tartans, they came across a reference of cloth payable as feu-duty by a MacLean in 1587, the requirement being for black, white, and green cloth. Assuming that this meant tartan (and not three separate pieces of plain cloth) the brothers quickly invented a tartan to match https://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/ta...tails?ref=2617 squeezing the MacLean listing into a margin of their fake manuscript. (Evidently it would have been too much work to re-write the whole page.)

They then bring attention to this 16th century document in their Introduction. What could go wrong? They have a 16th century document to prove the authenticity of their bogus manuscript! Unfortunately for the brothers, Sir Thomas Dick Lauder had already made his own transcription of the brothers' manuscript in which the MacLean listing doesn't appear in that sequence. MacLean originally appeared elsewhere, but the brothers crudely changed MacLean into MacIan to try to cover their tracks.

Just as they got Clan Chiefs to appear at functions in tartans invented by the brothers, lending their creations a false air of authenticity, I assume that the brothers appeared at functions wearing their pseudo-ancient Highland footwear (which they're seen wearing regularly) which inevitably led to others adopting it.

[figheadair]

The reasons I suspect the brothers (them of numerous aliases) are:

1) iconographic evidence. The pictures of them are AFAIK the earliest representation of things akin to the Victorian Ghillie brogues

2) timing. Ghillie brogues appear in photos appear around the time that the brothers' tartans are seen being worn.

3) Modus Operandi. The brothers were known to come across old references and use them as inspirations for their creations. With circuitous logic they could then point to the historic reference to support the historicity of their fraud.

With tartans, they came across a reference of cloth payable as feu-duty by a MacLean in 1587, the requirement being for black, white, and green cloth. Assuming that this meant tartan (and not three separate pieces of plain cloth) the brothers quickly invented a tartan to match https://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/ta...tails?ref=2617 squeezing the MacLean listing into a margin of their fake manuscript. (Evidently it would have been too much work to re-write the whole page.)

They then bring attention to this 16th century document in their Introduction. What could go wrong? They have a 16th century document to prove the authenticity of their bogus manuscript! Unfortunately for the brothers, Sir Thomas Dick Lauder had already made his own transcription of the brothers' manuscript in which the MacLean listing doesn't appear in that sequence. MacLean originally appeared elsewhere, but the brothers crudely changed MacLean into MacIan to try to cover their tracks.

Just as they got Clan Chiefs to appear at functions in tartans invented by the brothers, lending their creations a false air of authenticity, I assume that the brothers appeared at functions wearing their pseudo-ancient Highland footwear (which they're seen wearing regularly) which inevitably led to others adopting it.

Richard,

I think you are very probably right and that the brothers invented Ghillies as part of their wider Highland myth creation. I have no doubt that they would have had access to some historical portraits, such as those belonging to the Laird of Grant and others. The ones of the Champion and Piper to the Laird of Grant by Richard Waitt, 1714, show the old Highland style of shoes (brogan) that had no heel. There are several references to the Highlanders' preference for these, they being more suitable for rough Highland terrain, rather than a shoe with a heel.

437505101_939468127969564_3791419125805554562_n.jpg

With tartans, they came across a reference of cloth payable as feu-duty by a MacLean in 1587, the requirement being for black, white, and green cloth. Assuming that this meant tartan (and not three separate pieces of plain cloth) the brothers quickly invented a tartan to match https://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/ta...tails?ref=2617 squeezing the MacLean listing into a margin of their fake manuscript. (Evidently it would have been too much work to re-write the whole page.)

They then bring attention to this 16th century document in their Introduction. What could go wrong? They have a 16th century document to prove the authenticity of their bogus manuscript! Unfortunately for the brothers, Sir Thomas Dick Lauder had already made his own transcription of the brothers' manuscript in which the MacLean listing doesn't appear in that sequence. MacLean originally appeared elsewhere, but the brothers crudely changed MacLean into MacIan to try to cover their tracks.

Just as they got Clan Chiefs to appear at functions in tartans invented by the brothers, lending their creations a false air of authenticity, I assume that the brothers appeared at functions wearing their pseudo-ancient Highland footwear (which they're seen wearing regularly) which inevitably led to others adopting it.

There are no margins in the CM, it's a small hand-written document and the writing fills the whole of the page. The MacLean entry is at the bottom of p.13

CM - MacLean entry.jpg

Sir Thomas Dick Lauder didn't make a copy of the Cromarty Ms, the brothers made one for him which Charles Allen illustrated with plates, something missing from the Cromarty version. Alas, whilst I have examined the Lauder Transcript and have some photos of it, I don't have one of the MacLean entry. I must go back and re-shoot the hole thing at some point.

[Troglodyte]

Hay Bros. Highland Promotions Inc. are no doubt responsible for a good portion of what has become accepted as Highland style, and their illustrations of ghillie-brogued characters must help the shoe-department sales nicely.

But predating them by more than a century are the 'Letters' in which Edmund Burt noted his first-hand experiences - and had this to say on the subject:

The Highland Dress consists of... and Brogues or Pumps without Heels. By the way, they cut Holes in their Brogues, though new made, to let out the Water... this they do to preserve their Feet from galling.


I feel the use of the word pumps is significant, being a low-vamped lightweight form of shoe, as Burt makes a distinction when he sees one. Had the footwear of the Highlander been what we generally think of as 18th century shoe, he would have said so, as he does in other Letters with other similarities in dress. If only he had drawn pictures...

David Morier's well-known painting of Culloden is held in high regard for its accuracy of the regimental uniforms and the details included, so it it more than likely that the artist would have been just as accurate with the Highlanders' clothing also.

The Highlanders are said to be post-Culloden prisoners, and painted from life in their own clothes. Precise detail of what footwear can be seen sadly prevents close scrutiny, although the bent-legged casualty in the centre appears to have a low-vamped form of pump (such as would fit Burt's description) but the lacing is far from clear.

These shoes resemble modern dancers' ghillie-style lightweight pumps, and are considerably thinner-soled and simpler in construction that any kind of production shoe of the last 150 years or so, but if these pass for 'ghillie-brogues' then the style can be put precisely into the pre-Dress Act era, and onto a Jacobite to boot.

See what I did there..?

Morier - Culloden 2.jpg

[OC Richard]

There are no margins in the CM, it's a small hand-written document and the writing fills the whole of the page. The MacLean entry is at the bottom of p.13

CM - MacLean entry.jpg

Sir Thomas Dick Lauder didn't make a copy of the Cromarty Ms, the brothers made one for him which Charles Allen illustrated with plates, something missing from the Cromarty version.

Thanks for the clarifications, I've not seen the originals and I'm depending on whatever sources I can find.

In Scotland's Forged Tartans Donald C Stewart writes

It is worthy to remark that the entry for this tartan had been crowded into the lower margin of p13 of the Cromarty MS...the writing is more cramped and in a weaker ink that the rest of the page; the reference to "the quhite sett" will have been a slip.

When Sir Thomas Dick Lauder was transcribing the Cromarty MS in 1829 he passed directly from MacLauchlan to Gordon as if MacLean had not at that time been inserted.

About Lauder doing a transcription, in an 1829 letter Lauder wrote to Sir Walter Scott, quoted in The History of Highland Dress, he says

...as I wished to possess myself of a copy of the manuscript (which I wrote out myself) Mr Charles Stuart Hay with very great politeness agreed to illuminate it for me...

Which leaves two possibilities: there were two Lauder manuscripts (one in his own hand and one written by Charles Allen) or Lauder had a faulty memory.

One wonders why, if Charles Allen was the sole author of the Lauder manuscript, he would pull the rug out from under the Vestiarium Scoticum by forgetting to insert MacLean.

[figheadair]

Thanks for the clarifications, I've not seen the originals and I'm depending on whatever sources I can find.

In Scotland's Forged Tartans Donald C Stewart writes

It is worthy to remark that the entry for this tartan had been crowded into the lower margin of p13 of the Cromarty MS...the writing is more cramped and in a weaker ink that the rest of the page; the reference to "the quhite sett" will have been a slip.

When Sir Thomas Dick Lauder was transcribing the Cromarty MS in 1829 he passed directly from MacLauchlan to Gordon as if MacLean had not at that time been inserted.

About Lauder doing a transcription, in an 1829 letter Lauder wrote to Sir Walter Scott, quoted in The History of Highland Dress, he says

...as I wished to possess myself of a copy of the manuscript (which I wrote out myself) Mr Charles Stuart Hay with very great politeness agreed to illuminate it for me...

Which leaves two possibilities: there were two Lauder manuscripts (one in his own hand and one written by Charles Allen) or Lauder had a faulty memory.

One wonders why, if Charles Allen was the sole author of the Lauder manuscript, he would pull the rug out from under the Vestiarium Scoticum by forgetting to insert MacLean.

So far as I know, there is/was only one copy of the Lauder Transcript, that which Charles Allen illustrated, and I'm happy with the idea that Lauer transcribed it himself. What is not clear is whether he transcribed directly from the CM, or whether the brothers had already produced a refined version by 1829 which he then copied. I don't know whether Thompson and Stewart actually examined the CM or worked from the Microfiche version. Either way, the CM is now in relatively poor condition and it is difficult to read it completely.

CM extract p.jpg

I don't have a full digital version of the LT but the Index certain includes MacLean (Makleane) between MacLeod and Campbell.

Lauder Transcript Index extract.jpg

In terms of undermining the published VS, Charles Allen's drawing of the Duke of Rothesay tartan in the LT is akin to what became Victoria, and is nothing like the red sett in the published VS.