Ghillie brogues - why the dislike and resentment..?

[Ivor]

I have no dog in the ghillie brogues fight, but they're not a form of footwear that I'll wear. Regular brogues, never oxfords, though! However, can we talk about how awful buckle brogues are?! lol!

I wonder how typical this attitude towards different styles of footwear is among contributors here. I have noticed previous controversy concerning shoe types, particularly those described as “Mary Janes” which seems to hint at a certain gender dysphoria in the wearer’s choice. Could this perhaps be at the root of attitudes towards ghillie brogues also and the consequent preference for a fully conventional type of footwear such as Oxfords or Brogues?

[Tomo]

I have a pair of Ghillie brogues - although seldom worn these days (in fact I'm not sure where they are - prob back home in the UK). My preferences is for regular brogues - but I have nothing against the ghillie brogues, I just find them a bit OTT for most occasionswhen I wear a kilt.

To be fair they where included in the package when I bought my first kilt - back in 2000. So not entirely my choice. It was cheaper than buying everything separately and included ecru hose (soon replaced with green, black and charcoal ones), a PC (which I haven't worn for some years now) and a decent WS Scott sealskin sporran (which still gets an outing to more formal occasions). At the time. I attended quite a few back tie events per year - so as a package it has its uses. These days, I tend to wear my kilt mainly to less formal events.

In terms of their history - I wouldn't rule out some historic influence - many folk shoes and traditional national dress look similar - here in Estonia (a pretty boggy country by any stretch) the traditional shoes look very similar to Ghillie brogues - albeit a softer construction and these days use mainly for folk dancing.

[figheadair]

which seems to hint at a certain gender dysphoria in the wearer’s choice[/B].

I'm not sure I follow as the Buckle Brogue style was around long before the Ghillie Brogue came in in the 1850s. The latter almost certainly being from the romanticised reimagining of the Allen Brothers.

[OC Richard]

I'm not sure I follow as the Buckle Brogue style was around long before the Ghillie Brogue came in in the 1850s. The latter almost certainly being from the romanticised reimagining of the Allen Brothers.

That's an interesting topic, buckle brogues.

The 18th century buckle shoes, which came high over the instep and had a complex functioning buckle system, by the 1840s had become quite low-cut, the buckle now almost at the toes, and obviously non-functional.

In other words they had become slip-on loafers with decorative buckles.

What I don't know is when they started putting a strap over the instep, which had a small functional buckle.

[Alexander Labhran]

There has to be a lineage connection with the Pampooties of the Aran Islanders of Inis Mór, Inis Meáin, and Inis Oírr in Co Galway? They were worn into living memory.
cropped_Ireland-inis-mor-pampooties.jpg

Pampooties were orginally fastened using a leather tong/lace and this simple shoe design appears to have been popular for millennia. A pair was found preserved in a bog in Ireland.

early-medieval-shoe.jpg

[OC Richard]

There has to be a lineage connection with the Pampooties of the Aran Islanders of Inis Mór, Inis Meáin, and Inis Oírr in Co Galway?

For sure there's almost certainly a connexion between the Aran pamputai and the deerskin moccasin-like foot-coverings which John Elder vividly describes in his 1542 letter to the King.

However AFAIK there is zero evidence for a continuance of use during which the 1542 foot-covering evolved, through stages of development documented in iconography, into the heavy-soled hobnailed brogue which suddenly appears in Victorian times.

And as I've mentioned shoes which have echoes of Ghillie-moccasins are still being worn in Eastern Europe, the Carpathian Krpec and the Balkan Opanak being only two of many. (I wonder if the Allens had seen any of these.)

[OC Richard]

I've noticed over the years that many people simply accept that Ghillie-type shoes of some sort have always been around, that they're "traditional" in the sense of continuous documented use to earliest times.

So...where do modern ideas of "ancient Highland dress" come from?

We know it well: the brawny Highlander, with skimpy pirate-ish shirt (or sometimes shirtless), Ghillie-moccasin footwear, or barefoot with calves covered by footless hose, targe on his back, brandishing a big sword.

Obviously this image doesn't come from actual 17th and 18th century portraits, because the dress seen in the actual sources doesn't look anything like that.

And for all their influence with Clan Chiefs and all their success at getting their newly-invented tartans accepted as genuine and ancient, not the Allen Brothers.

Because, in my opinion, the outfits they show in their 1845 book The Costume of the Clans were just too bizarre and absurd to be taken seriously.



As it turns out the Allen Brothers weren't the only Englishmen adopting Scottish aliases and impacting the course of the public's perception of Highland Dress.

Behold the London-raised actor, set background painter, and costume designer Robert Jones. In 1834 he joined the Gaelic Society of London, met the Allen Brothers, and restyled Robert Ranald McIan began painting and exhibiting works concerning Scottish mythology and folklore.

I believe that it's his illustrations for James Logan's 1845 book Clans of the Scottish Highlands which have had the greatest influence on how "ancient Highlanders" looked. (They've been cited more than once in this thread.)



Thing is, the first appearance of the things he shows is in this very book. Where did they come from? Possibly the Allen Brothers had some influence, but most of it probably comes from Jones' background in acting and designing costumes for the English stage. (Jones was famous for his stage "Highlander" character.)

[OC Richard]

Leap forward to the early 20th century and the first edition of The Scottish Tartans published by W & AK Johnston.

I have three copies, all having identical text, the internal evidence indicating a date between 1916 and 1921.

However the illustrations evidently showing modern current Highland Dress are rather out-of-date, showing the fully-laced doublets popular in the 1890s. (I haven't been able to identify the artist.)

More germane to this discussion are the illustrations apparently purporting to show "ancient" Highlanders. As we can see they're often wearing a mix of the then-current styles and imagined "ancient" styles seemingly derived from McIan.



The illustrations showing the current modern Highland Dress were already seriously out of date by WWI, so sometime in the interwar years new illustrations by William Semple were commissioned.

Up until after WWII these books didn't carry publishing dates, so it's impossible to know when the Semple illustrations were done. The illustrations showing current modern Highland Dress show the dress of the 1920s and 1930s though it appears the book's publishing was delayed until 1945.

Concerning us here are the illustrations purporting to show "ancient' Highlanders, which appear to show more McIan influence than the illustrations of the first edition.

This book, with these interwar illustrations, has gone through numerous editions and is probably still in print. I think it's these, and the McIan illustrations, which have had the greatest influence on the public imagination.

[FossilHunter]

I wonder how typical this attitude towards different styles of footwear is among contributors here. I have noticed previous controversy concerning shoe types, particularly those described as “Mary Janes” which seems to hint at a certain gender dysphoria in the wearer’s choice. Could this perhaps be at the root of attitudes towards ghillie brogues also and the consequent preference for a fully conventional type of footwear such as Oxfords or Brogues?

My impression is that most find buckle brogues traditional regardless of whether they wear them or not.

I expect that derision towards buckle brogues would not be common among most of the traditionalists I know.

[Jock Scot]

My impression is that most find buckle brogues traditional regardless of whether they wear them or not.

I expect that derision towards buckle brogues would not be common among most of the traditionalists I know.

I quite agree.

I posted these words below on another thread a wee while ago and they are also pertinent and appropriate for this thread too. So in case anyone missed that thread, here is what I wrote( with a few clarifications):-

"I was brought up(1940's) by my large family of experienced kilt wearers who were of the opinion that brogue shoes -----preferably black, but brown would do for the less formal day events --------- were the way to go for kilt day attire. For the more formal events , particularly the evening events, a pair of light(in weight) black Oxfords, or Derby shoes are then the way to go.

Anything else such as ghillie brogues or "Mary Janes" were considered to be unnecessary and frivolous.

Over the many following years I see no reason to change those views. What others choose to do is entirely their affair."

This is a kilt website where polite discussion is encouraged, assorted views are offered and often, very experienced helpful comment and sound advice is given. I have rarely seen advice given with hidden ulterior meanings offered here. Firmly held opinions are most certainly held and voiced on occasion as is right and proper in a discussion. But rarely is there anything sinister contained within those discussions.