Ghillie brogues - why the dislike and resentment..?

[FossilHunter]

By all accounts, this speaking German thing is quite true and well-documented.

There is a famous interview with a former member of the Royal Household staff, who records in amusing terms how the various members of the Royal Family would turn up speaking English, but that their German accent would come out almost immediately in their conversation, and they would then soon relapse into their natural German.

Despite his distinctive clipped tones, the late Duke of Edinburgh is understood to have been brought up speaking German, and English was his second language - which is the excuse he used for his frequent awful gaffs that the tabloid media loved so much.

Using the Royals as sartorial role-models is all very well, and sometimes they dress very well - but the charge has been often levelled at them for failing to dress like a gentleman. So care needs to be taken when following their example - particularly when using 19th century German-origin Royals holiday-making as your example.

Using illutrations and photographs to show certain garments - shoes, hats, etc - being worn with Highland dress does not make those items elements of Highland dress as it is understood. If English styles of footwear and headwear are seen as authentic Scottish Highland dress (as opposed to items being worn simply for their convenience) because they are seen in old photos, then the same is true of baseball caps, fleeces, flat-caps and everythig else that is seen with the kilt.

Here is a test: if you see English country boots or a baseball cap being worn with, say, a Japanese kimono outfit, or Indian kurta, are the boots and cap traditional Japanese and Indian forms of dress? You see plenty of this sort of thing being done, and can be seen in historic photos, too.

If your answer to the test question is no, why is it different for Scottish Highland dress?

When I started this thread, I was not seeking views on the percieved antiquity of ghillie-brogues, or their historical authenticity, but why so many seem to dislike them with a passion.

The responses have been interesting. Rejecting them for reasons of comfort or fit is understandable, but shying away from them through fear of others' dislike is questionable. Denying their 200 or more years of history in favour of more modern 'cultural appropriation' alternatives seems very curious.

Having been developed from ancient styles, along with all other forms of post-Revival Highland dress, if ghillies are not traditional Highland dress, what are they?

I think that what I’ve been trying to say is that there is no unique shoe to Scotland. I also don’t think that oxfords, in spite of the English sounding name, are uniquely English. They are a common style of shoe across Europe and Scotland has seemed to follow the same footwear trends that all of Europe has (broadly speaking, you still have unique folk shoes like clogs or those shoe they where with lederhosen in the alps). Scots wore buckle shoes when those were popular across Europe and European colonies and wore ankle boots in the 1800s when those were popular. Nowadays many Scots wear trainers like many in the western world. One wouldn’t wear oxfords with a kimono or other Asian cultural dress, but Scotland isn’t in Asia and shares much culture with other parts of Britain, the British isles, and the rest of Europe. The French wear suits but no one would say they are dressing like Englishmen (or would at their peril!).

Here is the president of France in plain, cap toe, oxfords. I doubt he thinks of England in particular when he puts them on in the morning.



I guess I’m a little confused as to why one needs a particularly Scottish shoe to wear with the kilt? Brogues are of Scottish extraction already and you can can buy the best shoes your budget will allow in that style and it won’t require buying into some sort of fantasy.

I’m also trying to wrap my head around this bit. You and the other poster whom I don’t want to continue arguing with as I’ve been flagged once already, both seem to claim this 200 year legacy for the ghillie brogue, while also decrying the inauthenticity of the royals and aristocrats who are responsible for the highland revival of which those same shoes are a part. It seems incongruous to me.