Ghillie brogues, yes or no?

[DWFII]

This thread is starting to border between ignorant and obnoxious. Ghillie Brogues are Scottish shoes. They are as Scottish as a tartan knife pleated, three buckled kilt. They do not represent some 17th century battle nor are they meant to. Like it or not, they're in style and part of the wardrobe of many kilt wearers.

Please excuse my ignorance (or further ignorance) but what "17th century battle" are you referring to? What "17th century battle" has been mentioned in this thread?

If it is Culloden that you are referring to, I have for some time laboured under the assumption that it occurred in 1746...which would make it 18th century. Have I been misinformed?

I referenced Culloden in my previous post because it kind of represents both an end and a beginning of the history of the kilt. After Culloden, the wearing of highland clothing was proscribed in the highlands. So to some extent, highland dress might be said to have been frozen in time until the British upper classes became enamored of the romantic figures of the Highlander and the battles for independence, and revived it.

What happened after Culloden in terms of Scottish style is perhaps even more important than what went before.

As to whether ghillie brogues are rightfully part of a Scottish wardrobe...I think almost to a man the people who have posted here have acknowledged that they are. But many have preferences that slide over into dislike for them...and for (to hear them tell it) very good reasons.

In my, now well established, ignorance I was under that impression that everyone was entitled to their own opinion.

I might add that, from the perspective of this professional shoemaker, ghillie brogues as they are made today, are pretty far removed from brogues, ghillies and/or the shoes depicted in the 1869 painting.