ready to join a rebellion at a moment's notice

[bowser]

Found this on the times web site, its talking about the ban of highland dress following the 1715 rebellion, I thought the argument interesting and wondered what is says about those who wear tartan today


The advocates of the ban argued that the Highland dress distinguished the Highlanders from the rest of British subjects and bound them together in a narrow introverted community: that the plaid, in particular, encouraged their idle way of life, “lying about upon the heath in the daytime instead of following some lawful employment”; that, being “composed of such colours as altogether in the mass so nearly resemble the heath on which they lie, that it is hardly to be distinguished from it until one is so near them as to be within their power”, it facilitated their robberies and depredations; that it made them, “as they carry continually their tents about them”, ready to join a rebellion at a moment's notice.

[Jock Scot]

Are they talking about the Highland dress ban after the rising of 1745/46, I wonder? I am not aware of a ban after the 1715 rising.

[McFarkus]

The tartan ban officially went into effect on August 1, 1747 and was lifted June 17, 1782.

From and after the first day of August one thousand, seven hundred and forty-seven, no man or boy within that part of Great Britain called Scotland, other than such as shall be employed as officers and soldiers in His Majesty's forces, shall, on any pretence whatsoever wear or put on the clothes commonly called Highland clothes, (that is to say) the plaid, philibeg or little kilt, trowse, shoulder belts, or any part whatsoever of what peculiarly belongs to the Highland garb: and that no tartan or partly-coloured plaid or stuff shall be used for great coats, or for upper coats: and that if any such person shall presume, after the said first day of August, to wear or put on the aforesaid garments, or any part of them, every such person so offending, being thereof convicted by the oath of one or more credible witness or witnesses before any court of justiciary, or any one or more justices of the peace for the shire or stewartry, or judge ordinary of the place where such offenses shall he committed, shall suffer imprisonment, without bail, during the space of six months, and no longer: and being convicted for a second offense before a court of justiciary, or at the circuits, shall be liable to be transported to any of His Majesty's plantations beyond the seas, there to remain for the space of seven years.

From http://www.kinnaird.net/tartan.htm

[bowser]

I was more interested in the fact that the wearing of the tartan was identified with Work sky, idleness, criminal behaviour and rebellion.

However a bit more of the article shows that the ban was considered after 1715, but was put to one side and not revisited until after 1745

After the suppression of the Jacobite rebellion of 1715, proposals had been made to ban this dress. So the “Disarming Act”, presented to the British parliament by Duncan Forbes of Culloden, had originally included such a ban. However, it had been resisted, and - since the rebellion had been so easily dispersed - had not been pressed. But the discussion had continued, and Burt records the arguments used on both sides. The advocates of the ban argued that the Highland dress distinguished the Highlanders from the rest of British subjects and bound them together in a narrow introverted community: that the plaid, in particular, encouraged their idle way of life, “lying about upon the heath in the daytime instead of following some lawful employment”; that, being “composed of such colours as altogether in the mass so nearly resemble the heath on which they lie, that it is hardly to be distinguished from it until one is so near them as to be within their power”, it facilitated their robberies and depredations; that it made them, “as they carry continually their tents about them”, ready to join a rebellion at a moment's notice.

It is ironical that, if the Highland dress had been banned after the “Fifteen” instead of 30 years later, after the “Forty-Five”, the kilt, which is now regarded as one of the ancient traditions of Scotland, would probably never have come into existence. It came into existence a few years after Burt had made his observations - and very close to the area in which he had made them. Unknown in 1726, it suddenly appeared a few years later; and by 1745 it was sufficiently well established to be explicitly named in the Act of Parliament which forbade the Highland dress.

[Jock Scot]

Well, well I dd not know that the tartan ban was considered in 1715. Thank you for that.On the subject of the actual 1700's tartans, they were not as colourful as the modern tartans as we know them and I imagine that they would have blended into the natural scenery well, very much like "estate tweeds" do today.

[macwilkin]

It is ironical that, if the Highland dress had been banned after the “Fifteen” instead of 30 years later, after the “Forty-Five”, the kilt, which is now regarded as one of the ancient traditions of Scotland, would probably never have come into existence.

This doesn't take into account, though, of the raising of the Highland Regiments. A number of scholars credit this with "saving" Highland attire after the proscription, and civilian Highland attire certainly has been influenced over the years by military fashion.

Regards,

Todd

[O'Callaghan]

This doesn't take into account, though, of the raising of the Highland Regiments. A number of scholars credit this with "saving" Highland attire after the proscription, and civilian Highland attire certainly has been influenced over the years by military fashion.

Regards,

Todd

Influenced? A couple of 'tartan police' on this board, who shall remain nameless, told me that I have to wear my kilt at military regulation length or otherwise I would be disrespecting the highland regiments.

[macwilkin]

Influenced? A couple of 'tartan police' on this board, who shall remain nameless, told me that I have to wear my kilt at military regulation length or otherwise I would be disrespecting the highland regiments.

I cannot speak to the length of kilts in regards to the regiments, sir -- my point was that the regiments did most certainly preserve Highland dress after the Proscription, and civilian Highland attire owes a great deal to the regiments.

Regards,

Todd

[Frank McGrath]

Influenced? A couple of 'tartan police' on this board, who shall remain nameless, told me that I have to wear my kilt at military regulation length or otherwise I would be disrespecting the highland regiments.

I have never made such a statement while sober. I would never tell another man how to wear his kilt unless he be a candidate for the don't file. Those of you I have not met will only be judged when I am sampling the liquid refreshment of a local liquid dispensing house. And if said refreshments are purchased in my behalf, whatever I have to say means nothing anyway.

Maryland Unit
Kilt police.

[bowser]

Influenced? A couple of 'tartan police' on this board, who shall remain nameless, told me that I have to wear my kilt at military regulation length or otherwise I would be disrespecting the highland regiments.

At which particular point in history are you referring, I have seen a number of pictures of length well above the knee and several of just below the knee, one being the late 17 something and the other late 18 something.
So just pick the particular point in history that suits you, and you will never be wrong.
Its just a fashion after all and the current fashion is for just below the centre of the knee cap but it was never always that way, so you are just respecting a different period in history.