Quote Originally Posted by FossilHunter View Post
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.
I think you have missed my point again.

What you say about no shoe being unique to Scotland is incorrect, as the range of well-known documented accounts and obervations of Highland dress from the 15th century onwards show. Such accounts make no significant record of similarities to what the writer or reader are familiar with, but the differences.

It is these differences that give us the clue to the appearance of Highlanders of old, and why they were remarkable. Footwear is usually mentioned, along with a description - a description which seems to have been used as the basis for the ghillie-brogue during the Revival era 200 or so years ago. If ghillies are not Scottish Highland, what are they?

As for the Oxford shoe, they are most definitely English in both origin and style, being a derivative of the boot once the fashion of Oxford University students (hence the name), and now modified (the upper ankle section removed) to meet fashionable 20th century use with trousers. What confuses people now, is the wide-spread use of English-origin styles - so common are they, that their history is never questioned, and manufacturers' own naming policies do much to confuse the issur further.

The same is true of the suit that you show the French president wearing. Anyone familiar with European fashions can plot the switch of influence from Paris to London, and with profound results. We could use your argument with denim jeans - and claim that they have no American origin as they are worn now almost all the time by people on every continent. But jeans remain American even if they are made and worn in Thailand, Japan, Italy or Nigeria.

As for ghillie-brogues, if they are not distinctly Scottish and Highland in particular, when, other than with Highland dress, are they ever seen worn?

If we put the same question to Oxfords (or other styles kilt-wearers favour) we get a completely different answer. Being seen and acceptable with the kilt makes them no more a part of Highland dress than the pith-helmet, of which there are countless pictures of the two together.

The old how-to style guides usually recommend a brogue, or even Highland brogue (assuming the reader will know the difference), style of shoe for the kilt, or, failing that, a similar stout shoe. I frequently see Veldtschoen being worn with the kilt, when all other elements of dress are as you might expect. So does that make Veldtschoen traditional Highland (and more or less so than Oxfords) - or just a preferred alternative in the same way?