Formal Buckle Shoes

[DWFII]

Buckle shoes don't do anything to forward Scottish independence...they are just associated (for Scots) with aspirations for Scottish independence simply because during the time period of Jacobite uprisings the buckle shoe was the shoe that was worn. It was the men's fashion throughout the 18th and very early 19th century. It was buckle shoes or barefoot at Culloden.

There's really no other style of shoe that can be said to have similar associations. Especially not with a kilt.

In my opinion...YMMV

[OC Richard]

during the time period of Jacobite uprisings the buckle shoe was the shoe that was worn. It was the men's fashion throughout the 18th and very early 19th century. It was buckle shoes or barefoot at Culloden.

The evidence does not support this.

In 18th century Highland portraits simple laced shoes are common.





The image below is too small, but in larger photos it can be seen that the shoes have decorative flaps rather than buckles:



And speaking of Culloden, the only painting done based on actual participants seems to show plain shoes:

[DWFII]

The evidence does not support this.

In 18th century Highland portraits simple laced shoes are common.

Of course there were other styles...there were also boots such as jack boots, etc. Latchet shoes were common at all levels of society from the time of Charles II to George the III.

Interestingly enough, both Charles II and George I were painted wearing buckle shoes of the style I mentioned.

But Dame June Swann, former curator of the Shoe Collection at the Northhampton Shoe Museum, and widely considered the leading authority on shoe history, says in her book Shoes (speaking about the 18th century)

With the wars, the growing empire, and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, men's shoes suddenly became staid, in practical dark colours, the only flamboyance being buckles.

There are two other aspects of this: when a buckle was lost...and they were often lost...the latchets could be cut short and eyelets punched into the ends, thus converting a buckle shoe into a lace shoe. Parenthetically, it might also be noted that shoes were a lot like swords in some respects--they were all handmade and relatively expensive. Buckles no less so. Shoes could not be tossed aside even if they were out of fashion (or the buckles lost). So we see lots of paintings where common folk are wearing older styles of shoes in the same scene as more prominent individuals wearing newer fashions.

So perhaps my remark about barefoot or buckles at Culloden is a bit of a stretch but it remains true that buckles shoes were the fashion on both sides of the pond. Whether soldiers would have worn their best shoes to battle is questionable, I concede it.
And Ms. Swann says...

The cost of a pair of shoes was high in proportion to a week's wages. Nonetheless, though there are many illustrations of poverty, few show the English barefoot, other than children who naturally prefer that condition. where different conditions prevail underfoot, i.e. Scotland, Wales, Ireland, there are more barefoot adults, but anyone who has walked through bogs in wet shoes will understand.

One of the things I would look at in all these paintings, however (and this has been mentioned before on XMS) is the date of the representation. No few non-portraiture paintings are done at some remove from the actual scene being depicted. Often the artist imposes his own costume on people of an earlier age.

In passing, I note upon further re-reading of Shoes that buckles placed low on the the shoe (typically more in the style of a pump) began to appear in the 18th century for formal events, the drawing room, etc., in order to expose more hose. Suggesting that the genesis of the Mary Jane is there in the 18th century, as well.