Would you ever wear a feather in your cap, particularly in the U.S.?

[macwilkin]

Then lets find some facts. There are more educated people than me on here so surely someone knows if they took the tradition from the native americans or not.

Harold,

As I mentioned earlier, I am not sure as to whether there are any hard & fast sources that document this theory. That's what we need.

UPDATE: I just requested a book by Thomas Abler, Hinterland warriors and military dress : European empires and exotic uniforms. It has a chapter on Highlanders, as well as one entitled: "North America: Feathers and Leathers", so we'll see what we can turn up. I also need to look and see what Colin Calloway may say about the subject in White People, Indians and Highlanders.

T.

[Oldhiker]

I was thinking of a handfull of peacock feathers,,,,

nah just kidding.

[Harold Cannon]

Cajunscot please let me know what you find.

[Bugbear]

I'm finding tons of discussion in some of my history books showing that wearing feathers was not the exclusive right of many of the leaders or chiefs of Native American tribes; including in, First Peoples: A Documentary Survey of American Indian History, by Colin G. Calloway (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1999), and This Land Was Theirs: A Study of Native North Americans, Eighth Eddition, by Wendell H. Oswalt (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
* In other words, Native Americans, other than tribal chiefs or leaders, wore feathers, eagle feathers and war bonnets etc.

So I very much doubt that the exclusive right of the Highland chiefs et al to wear eagle feathers came from the leaders of American tribes. Perhaps from the myths of the "noble savage" about Native Americans? It makes a significant difference as far as I'm concerned...

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

On the whole, I tend to agree with the thesis that we know surprisingly little about what clansmen wore prior to 1745. However, what we do know from original sources dating from the 16th, 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries-- without bothering to read the opinions of others writing in the mid-20th century-- is that it seems highly unlikely that the Scots "imported" the custom of wearing feathers to denote social/military rank from the aboriginal peoples they may have come into contact with in North America in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Logic, as well as a careful reading of original sources, would seem to suggest that:

1) Despite the influx of Scottish settlers to North America in the 17th century, (some undoubtedly of Highland extraction) very, very few returned to Scotland.

2) The same would apply to Scottish soldiers serving in Highland regiments who found themselves in North America during the Seven Years War (aka: The French & Indian Wars). In fact, many of these regiments were disbanded in North America in 1764 and the soldiers encouraged (with bounties of land) to settle there. True, not all stayed, but it is equally true that fewer returned to Scotland then originally left.

3) At the time the greatest number of Scottish soldiers were serving in North America (prior to the American War of Independence), at least as many-- if not not more-- were serving in France, India, and the Caribbean and yet no one would would seriously suggest that service in any of these theaters of operations had much of an impact on 18th or 19th century Highland dress and customs. (Suttee was, and virtually is, unknown throughout the Highlands in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, despite the Highlander's love of gathering around a bonfire [as depicted in the film Rob Roy]. )

4) In 1822 Major General David Stewart of Garth published his book Sketches of the Character, Manners and Present State of Highlanders of Scotland, with Details of the Military Services of the Highland Regiments. On the subject of the dress of pre-1745 Highlanders he wrote the following:

"The coat or jacket was sometimes of green, blue or black cloth. The waistcoat and shortcoat were adorned with silver buttons, tassels, embroidery or lace, according to the fashion of the time or the taste of the wearer...A large purse of goat's or badger's skins answering the purpose of a pocket, and ornamented with a silver or brass mouthpiece and many tassels, hung before... The bonnet which gentlemen generally wore with one or more feathers completed the national garb.

The dress of the common people differed only in the deficiency of finer or brighter colours and of silver ornaments, being otherwise essentially the same, a tuft of heather, pine, holly, oak, etc., supplying the place of feathers in the bonnet."

Now Stewart of Garth makes several important points. One, is that a 'gentleman' wore one or more feathers in his bonnet (based upon his rank within the society of his clan). Another point made is the clear difference between classes of society in pre-1745 Highland Scotland, and that the "common folk" wore a plant badge in lieu of feathers. The final point is that he refers to "feathers" not specifically "eagle feathers". This is not an oversight, but rather an acknowledgment of the fact that a gentleman of the clan-- the duine wasail, whose ranks would include the chief, chieftains, barons, tacksmen, and a good many others in the clan as well, might-- or might not-- wear the feathers of an eagle. Even today, not all chiefs wear eagle feathers. Those of pheasants and other birds (hawks, ospreys, etc.) are worn according to the taste and tradition of the wearer. The same applies to others who are accorded the heraldic right to feathers.

Now there are strong cultural reasons for wearing eagle feathers, but a duine wasail is no less a duine wasail if he elects to wear the feathers of some other kind of bird. Obviously, showing up wearing a feather (not some small hackle, but a large feather) in one's bonnet still gives the impression that one is a duine wasail. If this is done out of a lack of knowledge, then it can be excused, or at least overlooked. On the other hand, if one is aware of the cultural importance attached to feathers, but still chooses to wear feathers "because they can", then they really are not only ignorant, but beneath the contempt of gentlemen.

I hate the phrase "cultural sensitivity", but, unfortunately, it applies here. Out of respect for the cultural nuances of aboriginal North Americans I can't imagine that anyone would attend a pow-wow wearing a feathered head dress to which they were not 100% entitled. But for some reason this "cultural sensitivity" seems to be lacking in a few individuals when it comes to respecting the cultural nuances of the Highland Scots. These people, with no cultural entitlement to the "feathered head dress" of a duine wasail, show up at a Highland games or gathering and insist on their "right" to do as they please.

Their cultural sensitivity is overwhelming.

[Bugbear]

3) At the time the greatest number of Scottish soldiers were serving in North America (prior to the American War of Independence), at least as many-- if not not more-- were serving in France, India, and the Caribbean and yet no one would would seriously suggest that service in any of these theaters of operations had much of an impact on 18th or 19th century Highland dress and customs. (Suttee was, and virtually is, unknown throughout the Highlands in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, despite the Highlander's love of gathering around a bonfire [as depicted in the film Rob Roy]. )...

According to this site, Location of last witch-burning in Scotland:: OS grid NH8089 :: Geograph Britain and Ireland, the last witch-burning in Scotland was of Janet Horne in 1722 or 27. Just for the record...

[Zardoz]

According to this site, Location of last in Scotland:: OS grid NH8089 :: Geograph Britain and Ireland, the last witch-burning in Scotland was of Janet Horne in 1722 or 27. Just for the record...

Just for the record, 'suttee' is/was the custom of the widows of certain Brahman and royal castes in India, burning themselves on the funeral pyre of the dead husband soon after his death.

It has nothing to do with witch-burning, Ted.

[Bugbear]

Just for the record, 'suttee' is/was the custom of the widows of certain Brahman and royal castes in India, burning themselves on the funeral pyre of the dead husband soon after his death.

It has nothing to do with witch-burning, Ted.

And Scottish feather wearing probably has nothing to do with Native American feather wearing.

Not sure what the picture is, so I am probably missing part of your intent. MOR was clearly joking in bringing up suttee and bond fires.

* Zardoz, I have pondered your post for a while because I don't understand your reaction. The only cause I can think of for your reaction to my post is perhaps that you have taken my post to be calling the women of India witches. This was not my intent; I apologize. I will be more careful in the future.

[McClef]

Honestly, if the mods shut down the thread because I or anybody else is being rude, well...that's their prerogative.

Not a prerogative we exercise lightly. It does not have to be a thread, however, as it might be individual posts that require action with an infraction being recorded against the poster.

A reminder of this rule could be apposite here:

Rule #2
– Posts by ‘Trolls’, posts known as ‘Feeding the Troll', any ‘Flaming’, direct attack against another member, or inciting a Vendetta, are serious disruptions of pleasant discussion and cannot be tolerated.

Some posts have skirted pretty close.

By all means disagree and challenge what people write but if some members really stick in your craw then put them them on ignore without making a big public song and dance about it.

Thanks.

[Alan H]

Not a prerogative we exercise lightly. It does not have to be a thread, however, as it might be individual posts that require action with an infraction being recorded against the poster.

A reminder of this rule could be apposite here:

Rule #2
– Posts by ‘Trolls’, posts known as ‘Feeding the Troll', any ‘Flaming’, direct attack against another member, or inciting a Vendetta, are serious disruptions of pleasant discussion and cannot be tolerated.

Some posts have skirted pretty close.

By all means disagree and challenge what people write but if some members really stick in your craw then put them them on ignore without making a big public song and dance about it.

Thanks.

Oh I'd say I was more than "close". I'd say I was all over it, and transparent as glass about who I was referring to, without actually writing a name. However, I like your suggestion to re-use the "ignore" feature and will do so, again.