Formal Buckle Shoes

[OC Richard]

during the time period of Jacobite uprisings the buckle shoe was the shoe that was worn. It was the men's fashion throughout the 18th and very early 19th century. It was buckle shoes or barefoot at Culloden.

The evidence does not support this.

In 18th century Highland portraits simple laced shoes are common.





The image below is too small, but in larger photos it can be seen that the shoes have decorative flaps rather than buckles:



And speaking of Culloden, the only painting done based on actual participants seems to show plain shoes:

[DWFII]

The evidence does not support this.

In 18th century Highland portraits simple laced shoes are common.

Of course there were other styles...there were also boots such as jack boots, etc. Latchet shoes were common at all levels of society from the time of Charles II to George the III.

Interestingly enough, both Charles II and George I were painted wearing buckle shoes of the style I mentioned.

But Dame June Swann, former curator of the Shoe Collection at the Northhampton Shoe Museum, and widely considered the leading authority on shoe history, says in her book Shoes (speaking about the 18th century)

With the wars, the growing empire, and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, men's shoes suddenly became staid, in practical dark colours, the only flamboyance being buckles.

There are two other aspects of this: when a buckle was lost...and they were often lost...the latchets could be cut short and eyelets punched into the ends, thus converting a buckle shoe into a lace shoe. Parenthetically, it might also be noted that shoes were a lot like swords in some respects--they were all handmade and relatively expensive. Buckles no less so. Shoes could not be tossed aside even if they were out of fashion (or the buckles lost). So we see lots of paintings where common folk are wearing older styles of shoes in the same scene as more prominent individuals wearing newer fashions.

So perhaps my remark about barefoot or buckles at Culloden is a bit of a stretch but it remains true that buckles shoes were the fashion on both sides of the pond. Whether soldiers would have worn their best shoes to battle is questionable, I concede it.
And Ms. Swann says...

The cost of a pair of shoes was high in proportion to a week's wages. Nonetheless, though there are many illustrations of poverty, few show the English barefoot, other than children who naturally prefer that condition. where different conditions prevail underfoot, i.e. Scotland, Wales, Ireland, there are more barefoot adults, but anyone who has walked through bogs in wet shoes will understand.

One of the things I would look at in all these paintings, however (and this has been mentioned before on XMS) is the date of the representation. No few non-portraiture paintings are done at some remove from the actual scene being depicted. Often the artist imposes his own costume on people of an earlier age.

In passing, I note upon further re-reading of Shoes that buckles placed low on the the shoe (typically more in the style of a pump) began to appear in the 18th century for formal events, the drawing room, etc., in order to expose more hose. Suggesting that the genesis of the Mary Jane is there in the 18th century, as well.

[DWFII]

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.

[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,

[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.

[Woodsheal]

A minor point: "ghillies", with their carefully cut out tabs, are NOT synonymous with the moccasin-like pampooties or cuarans, which are basically rough ovals of rawhide (often with the hair left on) simply drawn up around the feet with thongs. There is no "tailoring" of symmetrical tabs with pampooties/cuarans:

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Our own Matt Newsome says, or implies...if I am reading his 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 knights in heeled boots, or early 19th C. ship's captains wearing riding boots at sea.

Might as well be wearing a wristwatch.

Spot on.

[DWFII]

More coming...