What level of dress would you classify this?

[Jock Scot]

Bobs Your Uncle.

Ghillie's, stalkers, estate staff were in the employ of wealthy men who, much like today in Scotland provide estate staff with clothing,---- Estate tweeds. Even today few could afford a three piece shooting suit that is provided for estate staff as part of their wages . If you look at the picture of Willie Duff you will see plainly a Crest on his sporran--I doubt very much the either was his! In fact, no it was not! It was his employers(the Duke of Atholl's if I am not mistaken) who could well afford to have his staff attired in a "cut above" the rest of the local population attire----its an estate pride and estate owners power thing. As I say it still happens today and is common estate practice.

Now, I have told this story a couple of times here before,so I won't repeat it in full. To cut a long and very illuminating story short, I had occasion to be in the presence of two men who were born in the 1870's/80's who saw paintings of "romantic" Scotland in an art gallery----they at first laughed and then they cried with intense anger at the lies that those pictures portrayed--------it was not the harsh, real, Scotland that they grew up in. I was born 70 years after them and even I can remember some pretty dire sights too.

So apart from estate staff being kitted out by their wealthy employers and in Cahoots with romantic artists with commercial romantic ideas, the life and attire of the common Highlander was nothing like the life and attire of those portrayed posing in the pictures.Sorry.

[Tobus]

Tobus.

In those days most Highlanders went barefoot so hose and sporrans were not likely to be much of a concern, in fact they were so poor that they probably did not even know they existed! Why are there no pictures?Well the true highlander would not be much of a sale pitch for the romantic sales dream of an astute artist, with his subject dressed in rags, now would he? Sorry you are really barking up the wrong tree here.

...

So apart from estate staff being kitted out by their wealthy employers and in Cahoots with romantic artists with commercial romantic ideas, the life and attire of the common Highlander was nothing like the life and attire of those portrayed posing in the pictures.

Well, I suppose if that's the case (which I have no doubt that it is), then none of us are being at all accurate in wearing a kilt to represent what "most Highlanders" wore. Otherwise we'd all wear rags and run about barefoot at our local Highland Games. It's important to note, though, that all our modern conventions of kilt-wearing are handed down not from the poorest of peasants or the "common Highlander", but from the men who did wear shoes and hose, sporrans and jackets, etc.

And those who did, even if they were being "kitted out by their wealthy employers" or wearing their old military kit, seem to have worn what BobsYourUncle described below. At least for one part of Scotland's history, anyway. Would you not agree?

This has been an excellent discussion, and I appreciate everyone's input thus far. I suppose the relevant questions here are:

(1) Whether hair sporrans and tartan/diced hose have any historical basis as daywear, or whether they were fictional romantic figments of one person's imagination. It seems to me that the evidence does suggest that some men, though they may be high in station compared to the general public-at-large, did indeed wear such attire during the day.

(2) Did they wear it while fishing, hunting, and other common daily 'dirty' activities? I don't know. Does it matter? Obviously when I'm wearing the outfit shown in my original post, I'm not about to shoot a deer or net a fish. Even if the historic Highlanders portrayed in MacLeay's works only wore them for nice occasions like having a portrait done, how is it historically inaccurate for me to do the same - i.e. wearing them for nice occasions like a wedding or party?

(3) Isn't kilt-wearing in general based on a bit of "romanticism" anyway?

I actually like this look. Yes, as Jock has pointed out, it is more than likely what one would have seen at Balmoral rather than else where in 19th century Scotland (look at the photos of John Brown for a comparison). But it does have a formality that I think looks rather nice, especially compared to a lot of the (slovenly?) informal attire one sees to today.

Where would I wear it? Well, it is rather somber, so definitely to funerals and to weddings of less-than-favored nieces. Dinners at my club, meetings with my banker, and pretty much any where else where I had to present a no-nonsense appearance.

Like I said, I like it. I think the outfit looks good. It's eccentric in a very personal way, which in my mind is a good thing-- I think it can best be summed up with the word "style", which is different than stylish.

Thank you. That was an interesting way of putting it: "style" versus "stylish". There's a huge gap between the two. As "stylish" or "in-style" seems to change from year to year, decade to decade (witness the new fashion of 'black-out' and ruche ties), one needn't necessarily worry about being in-style to be stylish. This look may be slightly eccentric amonst traditionalists, but I think it's an excellent look.

I find it curious that you described it as "somber", which I take as gloomy or depressing. If I may ask, what is it about the outfit that makes it somber to you? And how would you recommend livening it up?

The main theme I see from the excellent responses in this thread is that if I were to wear this outfit to a traditional Scottish event, I should go with plain hose and a daywear sporran. Those points are well taken. I can certainly switch over to plain hose easily enough. I don't have a plain 'daywear' sporran, though.

[Redshank]

I am going to chime in here and offer my support to Jock with regards the Kenneth MacLeay watercolours, My opinion of most of the paintings is one of pure make believe, pure folly, granted a few of the subjects could have, and probably did wear the attire they are depicted as wearing on a daily basis especially if they where under the employment of Queen Victoria, John Brown is a prime and obvious example, (why does John Brown always remind me of Billy Connolly) but take a look at the Campbells painting, it features Colin Campbell, now this subject was a tenant farmer, meaning he paid rent for his patch of land, he didn't own it, he was also a fisherman, probably both at the same time, such was the harsh way of life at that time, he lived at Kenmore on the shores of Loch Fyne (Scotlands longest sea loch) just to the south of Inveraray, now this is a place I know well, I pass it regularly on my way to and from my place of work, and I can tell you it's an idylic location.... NOW, but back in the late 1800's, well I don't think Colin Campbell would have felt the same way, he would have considered it home yes, a place to bring up a family, but with no modern ammenities, only a small patch barely a few acres to grow crops and a steep mountainous backdrop behind the farmstead only fit for a few sheep to graze, his life would have been hard, subsistence living almost, no government handouts, no charity, he had to live on his wits and make the most of everything, so could he have afforded such a splendid outfit, could he hell as like, few today in this buy on credit cards age can afford or justify such finery, I strongly suspect it was provided on loan by the Duke of Argyll himself who choose who he wanted to sit for these portraits himself, and the same with all the other clansmen depicted.
Do I think these paintings are indicative of the dress of the period, Obviously the wealthy could have afforded such attire, but I think the falsehood lies within the dipiction of ordinary folk wearing clothing above and beyond what they could have afforded or suited the nature of the work.
No it's pure Victorian Fantasy, eye candy for the Queen.

[xman]

<<(why does John Brown always remind me of Billy Connolly) >>

Perhaps because he played John Brown opposite Judy Dench's Victoria in Her Majesty, Mrs. Brown. I've not seen the whole movie, but the lion's share and a fine film it is. I must recommend it to anyone with such tastes.

I would also like to commend the participants of the discussion. You are cracking the nut of using terms such as 'average highlander' which I think, if we define that as the average crofter then it is a style nearly none of us would wish to emulate. By saying 'average highlander' I'm sure we generally mean the average portraited highland gentleman or something similar and that this is exactly the style most of us would like to have influence our traditional kilt wear.

On that note, Tobus I think you look smashing. Alter it a little here and there as you like. I hope to get some argyle hose myself for just such a look.

[Cygnus]

I think Jock's comments are quite useful in bringing us dreamers back down to Earth and reminding us of how harsh life was at a highly romanticized time.

However, to the majority of people living at that time, we would each be considered incredibly wealthy and privileged - after all, each of us has access to a computer and most of us probably even own one! I think that is much of the reason that we look to these pictures for inspiration; not because we think they're what everyone was wearing, but because the clothing depicted is (or could be with a little saving) within our means.
Is it perpetuating the romantic myth of the Victorian age? Most certainly. But that myth was being lived (at the expense of those less fortunate) by all those who could afford to, and in this age of comforts and technology, why not us?
I do think the reminder of the difficult life of the average Highlander of the time compared to the "social elite" can (and should) be seen as reminder that there are many in the world who are living in similar conditions today and perhaps lead us down more philanthropic paths than the elite of MacLeay's day... At least, that's the thought I had reading Jock's comments.

After all, I think we'd all agree that dressing in whatever rags we can manage to find isn't quite as much fun...

[MacGuffin]

I think this kit looks quite dashing. It is not the same hum drum cookie cutter style seen in catalogs. It makes a statement and still fits the image of an Highland gentleman. Also, the sporran is great looking.

[Urchurdan]

[QUOTE=
[Redshank]Do I think these paintings are indicative of the dress of the period, Obviously the wealthy could have afforded such attire, but I think the falsehood lies within the dipiction of ordinary folk wearing clothing above and beyond what they could have afforded or suited the nature of the work.
No it's pure Victorian Fantasy, eye candy for the Queen[QUOTE]

I think Redshank has a telling point here, I mentioned in my earlier post that the Gentlemen at Braemar in the present day still view this as perfectlly acceptable attire, and as the Queen normally attends this event annually, they are hobnobbing with Royalty, and are still acting as eye candy for the present Queen.
I have to say, in the setting they are in, they look dare I say, quite Majestic - however, I still won't be rushing out to buy a long hair sporran.

[freddie]

To me this is either formal daywear or smart evening wear (not full formal). For me the outfit works wonderfully well. I love the 'Victorian look' of hair sporran and tartan hose, which I feel should be revived