From "Normal" to "Formal" - the kilt's place as a Highland garment

[Micric]

Going back to your original questions Woodshiel;

I'd think kilts may have died out quite rapidly after the '45.
To wear one after that time, could mark a man as a "Highland rebel" ...even if he'd never been 'out'.
So, If a man Was a jackobite, he'd have a vested interest in concealing the fact, and if he Wasn't he'd not want to be implicted by dressing like one.
Makes sense to me, even if I'm wrong!

The very good question you ask has had me thinking, and Charles St John's book, "A tour of Southerland" has I believe some reference to 'Highland laddies' wearing the kilt in his time.
Also, If I remember right, Osgood Mackenzie in his book "A Hundred Years in the Highlands" makes reference to the kilt as well.
I must go back and check these references out.

[Woodsheal]

Going back to your original questions Woodshiel;

I'd think kilts may have died out quite rapidly after the '45.
To wear one after that time, could mark a man as a "Highland rebel" ...even if he'd never been 'out'.
So, If a man Was a jackobite, he'd have a vested interest in concealing the fact, and if he Wasn't he'd not want to be implicted by dressing like one.
Makes sense to me, even if I'm wrong!

Again, the topic is the decline of the kilt as every-day wear in the Scottish highlands, not N. America...!

I don't think the above-mentioned "Highland rebel" theory works. The majority of highlanders either opposed or sat out the '45. The Jacobites' sense of grievance made out the Proscription to be worse than it was. There are plenty of Proscription-period portraits, drawings, paintings, etc. that reveal that highland dress was alive and well even before the repeal. The Act was not vigorously enforced beyond cities and towns, and non-Jacobite or neutral clans were pretty much left alone. Might an ex-Jacobite wish to conceal his past transgressions? I suppose, but that couldn't be a significant factor during the following decades.

I also find the notion odd that the kilt declined due to its impracticality. In towns and factories, sure, but in the remote and rustic Highlands themselves? Celts - known throughout Europe for their trousers! - arrived in the Scottish Highlands and switched to going bare-legged there because of the unique terrain conditions encountered, not in spite of them....

[ThistleDown]

Again, the topic is the decline of the kilt as every-day wear in the Scottish highlands, not N. America...!

I don't think the above-mentioned "Highland rebel" theory works. The majority of highlanders either opposed or sat out the '45. The Jacobites' sense of grievance made out the Proscription to be worse than it was. There are plenty of Proscription-period portraits, drawings, paintings, etc. that reveal that highland dress was alive and well even before the repeal. The Act was not vigorously enforced beyond cities and towns, and non-Jacobite or neutral clans were pretty much left alone. Might an ex-Jacobite wish to conceal his past transgressions? I suppose, but that couldn't be a significant factor during the following decades.

With regards to your first point, Brian, you are quite right. The vast majority of Highlanders did not participate in the last Jacobite rebellion. Your second point is not quite as accurate. Certainly the chiefs who supported the rebellion suffered greater repercussions -- initially -- than those who did not support it. but the common clansman of a non-supporter was treated just as horrifically as the clansman of a supporter.

After the initial loss of estates by supporters there were changes to the laws of the land that impacted all chiefs and, therefore, all clansmen. In effect, the new laws separated chiefs from clanspeople and put "done" to a process that had been underway and gaining momentum for well over a century: the conversion of estate owners from chiefs to landlords.

Paintings done during the years of the proscription are a fine indicator of two things: that the Proscription Act was not generally enforced, and that the wealthy whose portraits were painted were making statements. The prime one was that they were ignorant of the ultimately devastating effect other laws than the Proscription Act would have on their future.

It is important to remember, too, that these were paintings commissioned by the individuals painted, with all the implications that carries with it.

Rex