|
-
4th August 22, 02:12 PM
#1
The picture of the Mcdonald Brothers one wearing trews the other a phillabeg was painted during the period when Highland Dress was still proscribed.
I'm pretty sure there's other images of Highland clothing painted as part of a portrait before the 1782 repealment of the act.
Perhaps if it was the belted plaid that was banned but not other forms of Highland Dress as the richer members of society could afford tailored clothes whereas the poorer members could not?
Last edited by Allan Thomson; 4th August 22 at 02:37 PM.
-
-
4th August 22, 06:00 PM
#2
Both Johnson's and Boswell's account of their trip through the Highlands in 1774 tell of several (3?) gentlemen in highland dress.
"There is no merit in being wet and/or cold and sartorial elegance take second place to common sense." Jock Scot
-
-
4th August 22, 11:15 PM
#3
 Originally Posted by DCampbell16B
Both Johnson's and Boswell's account of their trip through the Highlands in 1774 tell of several (3?) gentlemen in highland dress.
Including Allan MacDonald of Kingsburgh, husband of Flora MacDonald.
-
-
5th August 22, 04:14 AM
#4
Bear with me for using my memory rather than actually checking the facts, but I think all were gentry (as figheadair described), and one was described as a "blueish philabeg" so perhaps it was a solid color material, which would have been a way around the Act.
By the way, figheadair, thank you for the letter of Erkine in 1748. I was not aware of that. Access to material like that wasn't possible 30-40 years ago on this side of the pond. I haven't followed much of clothing in that period since that time, and I'm guessing there must be more available on-line now.
"There is no merit in being wet and/or cold and sartorial elegance take second place to common sense." Jock Scot
-
-
5th August 22, 09:38 AM
#5
 Originally Posted by DCampbell16B
Bear with me for using my memory rather than actually checking the facts, but I think all were gentry (as figheadair described), and one was described as a "blueish philabeg" so perhaps it was a solid color material, which would have been a way around the Act.
A solid colour philabeg would still have been covered by the Act; remember, it was the clothing, not the pattern.
By the way, figheadair, thank you for the letter of Erkine in 1748. I was not aware of that. Access to material like that wasn't possible 30-40 years ago on this side of the pond. I haven't followed much of clothing in that period since that time, and I'm guessing there must be more available on-line now.
There has been, and continues to be, a lot of research over the past 30 years and lots of interesting information coming to light.
-
The Following 2 Users say 'Aye' to figheadair For This Useful Post:
-
7th August 22, 05:55 PM
#6
[QUOTE=figheadair;1400156]Including Allan MacDonald of Kingsburgh, husband of Flora MacDonald.[/QUOTE
Speaking of Allan MacDonald of Kingsburgh, beautiful tartan!
https://www.tartanregister.gov.uk/ta...tails?ref=2364
Last edited by Patty Logan; 7th August 22 at 07:23 PM.
Clan Logan Representative of Ontario
https://www.instagram.com/clanlogan_ontario_canada/ (that's where i post my blogs)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVgTGPvWpU7cAv4KJ4cWRpQ
-
-
7th August 22, 11:28 PM
#7
[QUOTE=Patty Logan;1400213]
 Originally Posted by figheadair
As the note says 'Stewart’s reconstruction was woefully inaccurate.' The correct setting is discussed here - https://www.scottishtartans.co.uk/Ma...Kingsburgh.pdf
-
The Following User Says 'Aye' to figheadair For This Useful Post:
-
4th August 22, 11:14 PM
#8
 Originally Posted by Allan Thomson
The picture of the Mcdonald Brothers one wearing trews the other a phillabeg was painted during the period when Highland Dress was still proscribed.
I'm pretty sure there's other images of Highland clothing painted as part of a portrait before the 1782 repealment of the act.
Perhaps if it was the belted plaid that was banned but not other forms of Highland Dress as the richer members of society could afford tailored clothes whereas the poorer members could not?
The MacDonald Boys were effectively 'Wards of the State' at the time and so the portrait probably had the permission of the government. Add to this the fact that under the terms of the original Act (which followed the '15) the gentry were allowed to carry arms and employ armed men to protect their property. This exception also applied to the Dress Act meaning that it did not apply to the gentry and which accounts for the majority of portraits painted during the early years of Proscription. Like so often is the case, and was far more the case in the mid-18h century, the poor and less well off always suffered more. In the case of the Act, it would have had a major effect of them whereas the gentry would have had more clothes, including Lowland clothes, meaning that they could adjust more easily.
-
The Following 4 Users say 'Aye' to figheadair For This Useful Post:
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks