Where to get a high quality Ghillie Shirt (100% cotton)

[OC Richard]

The problem is that it gives the unknowing the opportunity of gaining a false impression.

What about the Braveheart syndrome? What about the Highlander syndrome? What about the many romantic books and films made about Scotland in the past? What about the misguided posts on this website? They ALL lead the unknowing astray.

I fully agree, and I spend a large amount of time online fighting this very thing.

I also spend time fighting another false impression, which is that re-enactors confuse the past with the present, or that they believe that when they put on historical clothing that they're living in the past, or even that they believe that they're actually becoming a personage from history.

This is all nonsense. Re-enactors more than anyone are acutely aware of time, of all the elements that existed in a historical period which serve to make it so distinct from today. The serious ones are serious historians. They do meticulous research into their chosen period of interest and do their best to re-create the look of that specific time and place. They have a trained eye which can spot the smallest anachronism. They're the last people to wear goofy mashups of bits from various time-periods and places. They're the last people to have romantic notions of the past.

So yes for that Renaissance banquet I grabbed some random "close enough" things out of my closet and did the gig. It has a tinge of Brigadoonery.

But if I were do pipe for such things regularly I would do my research, almost entirely based on the two paintings I posted above (the best evidence that exists) and come up with a historically correct costume, a costume which would be the diametric opposite of Brigadoon, of Braveheart, of Outlander.

[Jock Scot]

I fully agree, and I spend a large amount of time online fighting this very thing.

I also spend time fighting another false impression, which is that re-enactors confuse the past with the present, or that they believe that when they put on historical clothing that they're living in the past, or even that they believe that they're actually becoming a personage from history.

This is all nonsense. Re-enactors more than anyone are acutely aware of time, of all the elements that existed in a historical period which serve to make it so distinct from today. The serious ones are serious historians. They do meticulous research into their chosen period of interest and do their best to re-create the look of that specific time and place. They have a trained eye which can spot the smallest anachronism. They're the last people to wear goofy mashups of bits from various time-periods and places. They're the last people to have romantic notions of the past.

So yes for that Renaissance banquet I grabbed some random "close enough" things out of my closet and did the gig. It has a tinge of Brigadoonery.

But if I were do pipe for such things regularly I would do my research, almost entirely based on the two paintings I posted above (the best evidence that exists) and come up with a historically correct costume, a costume which would be the diametric opposite of Brigadoon, of Braveheart, of Outlander.

Personally I would prefer the present day musician to be clad in a more up to date outfit. That way the spectators will get an idea what more modern kilt attire is about and in consequence, the audience get a reminder that modern kilt attire is relevant to today.

[Janner52]

The problem is that most people’s connection with the kilt is via television, or seeing pipe bands or highland games and so forth. In these instances the wearers are in uniform or some sort of attire relevant to their activity. The do not see the kilt wearer in what we would consider as everyday, casual, upper body clothing. I have been out and about in a kilt and polo shirt and asked if I was going to a wedding! I was also told by a shop assistant the it was the first time she had seen a kilt in real life. Don’t even remind me about the numbers of kilt wearers, and this includes pipe bands and country dancers who look like they got dressed whilst tied up in a coal sack.

[Jock Scot]

I'll answer that neither OC Richard nor I have made such a claim. I suspect that the three of us would all agree that "history" itself is in so many ways many "stories" about how we got to where we are. Telling those stories can improve or distort accuracy, and the latter is abundant everywhere, depending only partly on the intent of the storyteller.

Relating to my FAR TOO FEW visits to the European countries where my ancestors lived, prime examples are monuments from war. I've mentioned here that my very first visit to Scotland followed by only a day several disturbing hours at one of THE most sobering "historical" monuments of the last century, the WWI Verdun War Memorial, which just SCREAMS "let's remember this horror so we never repeat it." That message, while SO vividly presented (the very earth of the rolling hillsides surrounding the monument is pockmarked by gigantic acneiform craters from year upon year of senseless two-way artillery bombardment). One of the REAL tragedies, of course, is that no matter how sobering and troubling the story, we managed to deny it less than a decade after the memorial was erected.

And, one of the things that made my first visit to Scotland troubling was that, barely 24 hours later, the Edinburgh Castle Museum, taking a MUCH longer view of CENTURIES of "history" told ME a story that I've summarized as "yeah, we know them English have almost exterminated us SO many times, but just give us one more chance with our Claymores and Dirks and Sgian dubhs against their Nukes, tanks, and missiles, and we'll SLAUGHTER 'em all." (I know that's not the REAL intended message, but that inference is hard to escape).

Then there's the crown jewel of Edinburgh tourism, the Royal Military Tattoo. Is it not curious that most of the performer groups that come together at the Castle's outdoor promenade come to Scotland from other places around the globe that were once subjugated by the English?

"Fashion" changes for a reason—more accurately, for a jumble of competing reasons. If sartorial accuracy about the kilt required faithful and never-changing reproduction of what came before, we'd all lie down on the grass next to our sheep, bunching up last night's scratchy wool protection against the elements into the ancient predecessor of pleats. On the other hand, the telling of the HISTORY of tartan and the kilt can include fascinating "stories" of its evolution (factual AND ridiculous) just in the way we wear it, because the only thing that's certain is that if we as cultures or even as a species are around 100, 50, or even 10 years from now, we won't be telling exactly the same story in exactly the same way as we do today. And, I'll wager we'll never surmount that tension between the real and the fabricated.

Your post would be rather more accurate if you changed “English” to “ British”. I am sorry to say that the Scots often have an unfortunate habit of blaming the English for everything bad in their history. For example more Scots fought on the BRITISH side than English at the battle of Culloden. I am not for one second saying that the English were entirely blameless in forming parts of Scottish history though! But again it’s another example of the starry eyed “ biscuit tin” version of Scottish history that our Country churns out on a daily basis.

Yes the First World War battlefields are a sobering sight , particularly if you have relatives lying there with no known graves. One can only but hope that the human race would learn from these dreadful events. A forlorn hope it seems!

[Janner52]

Then there's the crown jewel of Edinburgh tourism, the Royal Military Tattoo. Is it not curious that most of the performer groups that come together at the Castle's outdoor promenade come to Scotland from other places around the globe that were once subjugated by the English.

It should be noted that these performer groups came from countries that were a part of the British Empire, not English, and the soldiers, including the senior officers, who built that empire came from all of the countries which made up Britain. The British Army Regiments which include those of England, Scotland, Ireland (as it then was) and Wales all won battle honours and gallantry medals fighting in countries of the empire.

[Jock Scot]

It should be noted that these performer groups came from countries that were a part of the British Empire, not English, and the soldiers, including the senior officers, who built that empire came from all of the countries which made up Britain. The British Army Regiments which include those of England, Scotland, Ireland (as it then was) and Wales all won battle honours and gallantry medals fighting in countries of the empire.

Exactly so.

[jsrnephdoc]

more Scots fought on the BRITISH side than English at the battle of Culloden. I am not for one second saying that the English were entirely blameless in forming parts of Scottish history though! But again it’s another example of the starry eyed “biscuit tin” version of Scottish history that our Country churns out on a daily basis.

Far be it from me to attempt (foolishly) to "teach" Scottish history to a Scot! However, I think on this topic we're using different words and different slants to say much the same thing. For example, I'd guess that if you asked Americans in possession of commercial Pipes and Drums recordings, most would have no idea whether the Royal Scotts Dragoon Guards and the Black Watch are the same thing or different. And if you asked the same folks (with their record collections indicating their interest in Scottish history) what the role of the Black Watch was at Culloden, a majority would answer that they were among Prince Charlie's warriors, attempting to terrify the "English" with their most fearsome weapons, the Pipes, rather than a British infantry regiment attempting to keep the Jacobite rebels in line.

Perhaps another reason for such confusion is that people in one country may tend to look at the histories (plural intended) of another through the lens of their own. Here in the USA, we've traditionally thought of our "Civil War" as our greatest disruption, and because it pitted one region against another, Jacobite rebellions must have been much the same thing. But of course, the goals were FAR different. The Confederate States weren't intending to replace the government in Washington D with another. They wanted complete secession (and a way of life that included subjugation of one race by another, but that was at least partly a convenient substitute for different economics). And yet, while the Jacobites were motivated in part by their religion, and here in America we claim that from the outset, our constitution declared that religion was not a battlefield in Politics, our first Roman Catholic president was elected only recently in our history, and a good bit of opposition to his candidacy came from people who feared his allegiance would be foremost to the Holy Father in Rome.

But, stories sell tickets, hence the popularity of movies like "The Stone of Destiny."

A related question might clarify things for me (or muddle them up still more). My guess is that QE2 was revered as an extraordinarily nice person, and that because of that the "story" of the British Monarchy sold just as well at higher latitudes than it did in London. Does that remain true to this day? From this great distance it appears that King Charles devotes considerable time and effort to convincing his subjects in the highlands of his affection for the Scottish portion of his realm, yet regional political differences; e.g., regarding the wisdom, or lack thereof, of BREXIT, may conflate differences in attitudes towards maintaining the monarchy. (I know that's a long way way from flat caps vs. Balmorals), but, I thought it at least curious that the last tune played by pipers outside St. George's Chapel as QE2 was brought to her final place of internment was The Skye Boat Song (after all, supposedly, she chose the music)!

[Janner52]

Dare I comment that we are a tad off track from the subject of ghillie shirts?

[jsrnephdoc]

Of course, you're correct, and I've pushed those boundaries, but I think it was a natural progression from "there IS no history of the history of Ghillie Shirts" to "how much of 'history' really ever happened," and I don't know whether or even how to divert people asking such questions as a group into a new and very different topic.

Nevertheless, my sincere apologies.

[OC Richard]

The problem is that most people’s connection with the kilt is via television, or seeing pipe bands or highland games and so forth. In these instances the wearers are in uniform or some sort of attire relevant to their activity.

Exactly so, to us pipers a smart outfit is expected, required, whenever we perform on the pipes.

It's parallel to the orchestra musician's tuxedo. It's very common for musicians to be expected to look a certain way, not only clothes but hair styles etc.

You're not going to wear a tuxedo and have business-style grooming and perform on stage with a Metal band.

Add to that the ethnic thing. Here Mariachi bands are all over the place and they always perform in specific outfits. The people hiring them demand that they do.

Most pipers I know detest having to wear their outfits. It's like that with mainstream musicians, they call their tuxedo a "monkey suit".