RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Dumfriesshire => Topic started by: Mojo47 on Thursday 23 April 20 08:08 BST (UK)
-
I'm just asking for opinions of those better informed than myself regarding border reivers. My questions are as follows.These are NOT necessarily my opinions, just questions:
where the border reivers clans or just riding surnames as they appeared to call themselves?
Did the border reivers ever actually wear kilts, use clan crests, tartans etc?
Lots of the 'clan' societies etc that exist seem to be twisting reality to suit there romantic notions of what border reivers were. Is this accurate?
Opinions greatly welcomed. Please remember I am only trying to gather opinions and not upset anyone or cause arguments.
-
I think you have the right of it Mojo! ;D
Skoosh.
-
No, the Border Reivers were not clans, historically speaking.
The clan system was a social feature of the Gaelic-speaking Highlands and Islands.
The modern clan system has its roots in the early 19th century. It is only since then that Lowland and Border families have reinvented themselves as clans and adopted all the tartanalia.
In the 16th and 17th centuries most Lowlanders would have regarded the Highland clans as a bunch of dangerous savages, and would have been horrified at the notion that they had any connection with them.
Things began to change in the 18th century, with the movement of people away from the Highlands to the towns, and to England and overseas, and especially with the clearances in both Highlands and Lowlands from the middle of the 18th century onwards. There was also a deliberate policy by the government to destroy the clan system, which was seen as being at the root of the various Jacobite Risings against the Hanoverian king and government.
Unfortunately the Brigadoon industry has managed, by romanticising the Highlands and the clans, to peddle successfully the idea that every Scot belongs to a clan, and that all Scots are passionately attached to their clan. This is untrue, but it tends to distort how people from other countries, and especially the descendants of those who were forced to leave Scotland in the 18th and 19th centuries, imagine that their displaced ancestors lived.
-
Border Reivers were simply murderous thugs who had no allegiance to anyone.
The Reivers were a battle-hardened from endless wars which embroiled the countries of England and Scotland.
Caught between armies from each side of the Border they learned to trust no-one and might is right.
They took what they wanted by force and feared only those who were stronger than themselves.
Cheers
Guy
-
Border Reivers were simply murderous thugs who had no allegiance to anyone.
The Reivers were a battle-hardened from endless wars which embroiled the countries of England and Scotland.
Caught between armies from each side of the Border they learned to trust no-one and might is right.
They took what they wanted by force and feared only those who were stronger than themselves.
Cheers
Guy
+1
Unless I find Reivers in my Family Tree in which case they will become an entrepreneurial band of misunderstood individuals where history has painted the opposite picture of their wealth gathering skills.
-
I can recommend “The Border Reivers” by Godfrey Watson, publ 1974, as a very good account of the Reivers backgrounds, lives and social customs.
As Guy has already explained, they were pretty lawless, often spending years pursuing mafia like feuds with each other. Hence the Crown’s determination to finally control them, which it ultimately did. Part of the solution was to send large numbers of them to Ireland.
-
Hi all,
Some great opinions! Please keep them coming.
I must admit, the other day online, I was horrified to see pictures a certain border clan(overseas) at a Highland Games(also overseas) in which some of the members looked like Austin Powers in kilts!
I think the barbaric history of the border clans is far more interesting than this modern Disneyland type recreation of families histories than never existed.
Anyway, as already mentioned, my intention is not to upset or cause arguments, only to sort the wheat from the chaff.
I need to research this further I think.And get a copy of that recommended book too!
-
Hi Glasgow University has a superb ón-line course on the Clans, The basic course ís free with further paid courses if desired, https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/the-highland-clans?fbclid=IwAR01WSifO6cQVQRErd8YkeXCjwlS2vvsPv2zGjqAUCP8zT5Ylrz1iJUKRvE
-
Hi Glasgow University has a superb ón-line course on the Clans, The basic course ís free with further paid courses if desired, https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/the-highland-clans?fbclid=IwAR01WSifO6cQVQRErd8YkeXCjwlS2vvsPv2zGjqAUCP8zT5Ylrz1iJUKRvE
Imchad
Thank you. I look forward to getting for better quality understanding than the family myths.
I have signed up for the Glasgow University course and also bought the the Border Reivers book on Ebay for starters!
Mark
-
Hi, Although I agree that clans were a 'highland thing' there was a Johnstone clan based at Gretna, not too sure of the dates but they were quite early. They would have been Reivers, certainly. The modern romantic idea of the clans was really a Victorian invention, or perhaps a re-invention. The real clans were outlawed after Culloden in 1746, along with kilts, tartans and bagpipes.
-
Thanks again for more input.The online course mentioned looks interesting and there is also a free geneology course that might be worth a look at.
I’m aware of the Johnstone ‘clan’ and these along with others are part of the original question.Did these people call themselves clan? From answers so far, doubtful.Did they have a chief? So far looks doubtful.From what I’ve read(so far),the leaders were referred to as ‘heidmen’.
Then comes all the other regalia of kilts, tartans, crests etc.Did these border people use bagpipes? I am really curious to separate fact from fiction.Of course, if people want to dress up, that’s fine.When they claim it as part of their heritage, it appears to be a kind of historical fraud.
Keep the thoughts coming!
-
Here's some information on Borders Pipes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_pipes
Different from Scottish Small pipes which are a re-invention based on the Northumbrian Pipes and much smaller than the Great Highland Bagpipe
I've been to family gatherings and wee folk clubs and it's quite pleasant to hear the Small pipes played ... but my mate Dennis has to cross a field just to practise his Highland pipes although one guy I knew used to carry just the chanter and practise his fingering techniques but without the drones for harmony it sounded dreich and every tune sounded like the one he had just played. As someone used to say, Gie the piper a penny to play, and sixpence to shut up. We always asked the piper if he could play ' O'er the hills and far awa'. We weren't kidding. 3 tunes max, nae wonder they used them upfront in battles.
-
Did the Glasgow University course on the clans last year. It was excellent, you can pay for a fancy certificate but I declined that! ;D
Mojo, what you want on the Border Reivers is George Macdonald Fraser's work "The Steel Bonnets!" pub' Barry & Jenkins. 1971. Checked online, as little as £5, shop around. A good map attached!
Bests,
Skoosh.
-
Did these border people use bagpipes?
Keep the thoughts coming!
Godfrey Watson’s book makes no mention of bagpipes, Northumbrian or otherwise. There is mention of them writing poetry and gloomy songs. Quoting George Macaulay Trevelyan (himself a Borderer): “The Border people wrote the Border ballads. Like the Homeric Greeks, they were cruel, coarse savages, slaying each other as beasts of the forest, and yet they were also poets who could express in the grand style the inexorable fate of the individual man and woman. It was not one ballad maker alone but the whole cut-throat population who felt this magnanimous sorrow…”
One Border song that is still sung regularly today, started life as “Armstrong’s Lament.” Part of it runs:
“This night is my departing night
For here nae longer maun I stay
There’s neither friend nor foe o’ mine
But wishes me to stay.
What I hae done through lack o’wit
I never, never, can recall
I hope ye’re a my friends as yet.
Goodnight and joy be with ye all.”
Reportedly written by Sandy Armstrong on the eve of his execution (14th November 1600), nowadays it’s often known as The Parting Glass. According to one source, prior to Burns writing “Auld Lang Syne”, it was the most popular song in Scotland. Sung here by Tommy Makem & Liam Clancy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chOiVoScz8A
-
Nice YouTube video and another book to search for.So many opinions regarding different aspects of the reivers and border life.
The Reivers by Alistair Moffat is the only book I’ve read on the subject so far and it looks like I need to read a lot more.
Keep the opinions , suggestions etc coming.They’re all great!
-
I also recommend The Steel Bonnets by George MacDonald Fraser; I'm descended from the Little family. If you're fictionally inclined then PF Chisholm's series on Sir Robert Carey (real life deputy warden of the East March and later Warden of the Middle March) and his attempts to subdue the lawlessness is excellent.
-
In todays National, John Purser debunks a couple of myths about the tartan in the first of two essays. "The cloth has been associated with Scotland for at least 2000 years!" using archaeological evidence & cloth's not a great survivor! Looking forward to next week's. ;D
Skoosh.
-
It’s drifting slightly from the subject of the Reivers, but Hugh Trevor-Roper’s “The invention of Scotland” adeptly deals with some of the great claims and myths about Scotland. There is an excellent chapter called “The sartorial myth” which deals with the origins of the kilt and some claims by clans to have worn specific tartans for a thousand years or more. Many paintings depict various different tartans allegedly worn at Culloden and elsewhere. Trevor-Roper says: “Contemporary evidence concerning the rebellion of 1745 – whether pictorial, sartorial or literary – shows no differentiation of clans, no continuity of “setts.” The only way in which a Highlander’s loyalty could be discerned was not by his tartan, but by the cockade in his bonnet.” All the Highlanders on both sides of the conflict wore more or less the same plaid, and couldn’t tell each other apart by their clothing at all. Hence the cockade.
-
In the 16th and 17th centuries most Lowlanders would have regarded the Highland clans as a bunch of dangerous savages
We still do.
-
I see a lot of references here to the Jacobite uprising of the Clans and mentions of the Highlanders, neither of which have anything to do with the Border Reivers who predated all that stuff by many centuries, by the time the Battle of Culloden came around the Border Reivers were long gone.
I am a Kerr, a famous Border family who arrived in Scotland in the 14th Century in the form of two brothers Ralph & John, the family split in two, one using the long form name Kerr, and established Ferniehirst Castle, the other used the shorter Ker and established first of all Cessford Castle then a greater place called Floors Castle in Kelso, both of which still exist, where the 11th Duke of Roxburghe, Charles - Innes Ker lives today in the largest inhabited house in the UK. and that includes all the places owned by Her Maj. Charles & Diana used to come there to hide themselves away.
The Ker's were Wardens of the Middle March right on the Border with England. It pains me to read statements like this "Border Reivers were simply murderous thugs who had no allegiance to anyone." written by poorly educated and illinformed persons simply quoting what others have said before them, without knowing anything about what the Border population on both sides faced on a daily basis. If people want to call the Kerr's - Ker's a Clan or a Border Family or a Reiver that's fine with me, but please, not Murderous Thugs, I'm sure the present Duke of Roxburghe would take issue with that. and with this post, Foreversearchingforanswer
James Kerr.
-
Richard Nixon - 37th President of the United States 1969-1974
One wonders if he ever knew about his Scottish background.
-
Hi again all,
Thank you again for all you opinions.And as stated already, the intention of this thread is not to upset or cause arguments.
With view to Mr Kerr’s comments, I’m sure nobody is intending to insult you or your ancestors.
However, these views I believe have also been expressed by authors who I presume have some level of education and have done their research.Or are they uneducated?
As for people calling themselves clans or whatever, surely if this is in fact historically wrong they are also guilty of being uneducated ? And saying you’re ok with such things is ignoring your own heritage and in doing so also acting the same?
I am, as I have already mentioned, no expert on the subject and hope to gather enough opinions to then go on to form my own.
Certainly on the subject of the ‘clans’, author Alistair Moffat seems horrified enough to mention it one of his books.
This question all started due to my own internet searches to clan societies which have raised some degree of suspicion.And a desire to find out some degree of truth.
Using William Wallace as an example.You don’t have to search very far before you hit a bunch of people claiming direct decent.Despite the fact (as far as I am aware), he never had children.
I am just aiming to discover some truth.Nothing more.Finally.Thank you for your opinion.All are welcome!
-
and with this post, Foreversearchingforanswer
But, to your point, did the Kerrs seize a lot of land (including church lands) during the reformation.
-
I see a lot of references here to the Jacobite uprising of the Clans and mentions of the Highlanders, neither of which have anything to do with the Border Reivers who predated all that stuff by many centuries, by the time the Battle of Culloden came around the Border Reivers were long gone.
I am a Kerr, a famous Border family who arrived in Scotland in the 14th Century in the form of two brothers Ralph & John, the family split in two, one using the long form name Kerr, and established Ferniehirst Castle, the other used the shorter Ker and established first of all Cessford Castle then a greater place called Floors Castle in Kelso, both of which still exist, where the 11th Duke of Roxburghe, Charles - Innes Ker lives today in the largest inhabited house in the UK. and that includes all the places owned by Her Maj. Charles & Diana used to come there to hide themselves away.
The Ker's were Wardens of the Middle March right on the Border with England. It pains me to read statements like this "Border Reivers were simply murderous thugs who had no allegiance to anyone." written by poorly educated and illinformed persons simply quoting what others have said before them, without knowing anything about what the Border population on both sides faced on a daily basis. If people want to call the Kerr's - Ker's a Clan or a Border Family or a Reiver that's fine with me, but please, not Murderous Thugs, I'm sure the present Duke of Roxburghe would take issue with that. and with this post, Foreversearchingforanswer
James Kerr.
As a well educated (in one of Scotland's best performing independent schools) and a very experienced researcher, I stand by what I wrote.
You must be reading a very sanitised family history if you do not think the Kers were murderous thugs. They even fought amongst each other!
It is well documented the bitter Ker feud only ended with the marriage of William Kerr of Ferniehurst to Anne Kerr of Cessford.
Those days were savage to say the least, people were tortured and killed and revenge reaped in a similar manner. The Kers did not sit back and behave like 21st century gentlemen writing in disgust to the Times they knew it was kill or be killed, no matter what you may like to think.
After the recapture of Ferniehurst Castle do you think the Kers allowed their English prisoners to leave under a flag of truce?
Cheers
Guy
-
I agree with James Ker's sentiments. All too often we judge past generations with the standards of today. The Reivers were living a precarious life in a time when the law was not upheld as today. However, it was not all about murder and mayhem. Most of the time the Reivers stole cattle and other belongings and then gave the owners the opportunity to buy them back. At times history has confused the Reivers with 'authorized' raids conducted by one side against the other. Scotland and England were at loggerheads many times during the centuries.
-
Most of the time the Reivers stole cattle and other belongings and then gave the owners the opportunity to buy them back
Wouldn’t this be considered as thuggish behavior at the very least?
Anyway, we all seem to be getting away from the original question or questions:
Reiving families:
Tartan?
Chiefs?
Bagpipes?
All the regalia associated with the above ?
The general opinion seems to be a fairly big NO to the above.
Who benefits from the above?
To be continued
-
Unfortunately it is very popular in the USA to search for clan affiliations, wear kilts and other tartan goods and erroneously claim coats of arms for their Scottish ancestors. These misunderstandings of clan history have also spread to include the Border Reivers. A rather prolific industry has been built up to supply such whimsical approaches to family history.
-
Mojo, you have to take things in the context of an expansionist England which was killing people wholesale in Ireland, Wales & Scotland then tried their hand in the Hundred Years War in France, where of course they got gubbed.
Not content with the foreign adventures they made a fair stab at annihilating one another in their so-called Wars of the Roses, burning one another alive in their so-called Reformation then embarking on a Civil War which saw carnage of the peeps in these islands not matched again until the Great War!
The Scottish Borders by comparison sounds a haven of peace & tranquillity! ;D
Bests,
Skoosh.
-
I was at a meeting with an official of the Lyon office. One exchange went like this. In USA, if (for example) the Clan Armstong did not attend a Highland Games, the question might be asked "where are Clan Armstrong?". In Scotland, if Clan Armstrong were to attend games at Inverness, the question would be "Why are Clan Armstong here?" As I said earlier, bagpipes, kilts and clans were outlawed in 1746, only to be re-invented by their ancestors in USA.
-
I was at a meeting with an official of the Lyon office. One exchange went like this. In USA, if (for example) the Clan Armstong did not attend a Highland Games, the question might be asked "where are Clan Armstrong?". In Scotland, if Clan Armstrong were to attend games at Inverness, the question would be "Why are Clan Armstong here?"
It might even be, "What are the Armstrongs doing here?" - avoiding the word 'clan' altogether.
As I said earlier, bagpipes, kilts and clans were outlawed in 1746, only to be re-invented by their ancestors in USA.
The ban on kilts, tartan, bagpipes and so on was repealed in Scotland in about 1792, and tartanalia was reinvented in Scotland in the 1820s, partly after the visit of King George IV in 1822, when Sir Walter Scott had a hand in popularising the idea of the Highlands as romantic. He even persuaded the king to wear a kilt, though the king wore flesh-coloured tights with it to preserve his modesty.
-
Hi Forfarian, OK, I agree with your post. Maybe I was a bit hard on our American cousins.
-
Quote:
The ban on kilts, tartan, bagpipes and so on was repealed in Scotland in about 1792, and tartanalia was reinvented in Scotland in the 1820s, partly after the visit of King George IV in 1822, when Sir Walter Scott had a hand in popularising the idea of the Highlands as romantic. He even persuaded the king to wear a kilt, though the king wore flesh-coloured tights with it to preserve his modesty.
[/quote]
What Forfarian has said is covered in some detail in the “Sartorial Myth” chapter of Trevor-Ropers’ book I mentioned previously.
The modern kilt was invented in 1727 by an Englishman, Thomas Rawlinson, a Quaker from Lancashire. He had hired a load of Highlanders to chop down trees. They were dressed in a full plaid.
“During his stay at Glengarry, Rawlinson became interested in the Highland costume; but he also became aware of its inconvenience. The belted plaid might be appropriate to the idle life of the Highlanders – for sleeping in the hills or lying hidden in the heather. It was also conveniently cheap, since, as all agreed, “the lower classes could not afford the expense of trousers or breeches.” But for men who had to fell trees or tend furnaces, it was a cumbrous, unwieldy habit. Therefore, being a man of genius and quick parts, Rawlinson sent for the tailor of the regiment stationed at Inverness and, with him, set out to abridge the dress and make it handy and convenient for his workmen. The result was the “felie beg”, philibeg or small kilt, which was achieved by separating the skirt from the plaid and converting it into a distinct garment, with pleats already sown.” Rawlinson wore it, as did Ian MacDonell of Glengarry, after which the clansmen obediently followed their chief. It was “found so handy and convenient that in the shortest space the use of it became frequent in all the Highland countries and in many of the Northern Lowland countries also.”
All this is really just to highlight that in the late 1500s/early 1600s, Border Reivers were not wearing kilts as we know them today. And there were no tartans. According to Trevor-Roper, sixteenth century writers who noted Highland dress describe chiefs as wearing coloured cloth, and their followers brown. Any differentiation in colour indicated your status not your clan. Martin Martin (1716) noted some stripes and colours. He assigned these differences to localities eg a whole island, and not as something that differentiated clans.
My understanding is that the average weaver in the 1500s and 1600s didn’t have the skills, time or technology to create subtle patterns either.
-
Trevor-Roper & his fanciful notions is set to be de-bunked in an article in next weeks National. Cannae wait! ;D
Skoosh.
-
The modern kilt was invented in 1727 by an Englishman, Thomas Rawlinson, a Quaker from Lancashire. He had hired a load of Highlanders to chop down trees. They were dressed in a full plaid.
Indeed, but I was under the impression that it was about 1772 (after the '45) rather than 1727 (before the '45).
-
The modern kilt was invented in 1727 by an Englishman, Thomas Rawlinson, a Quaker from Lancashire. He had hired a load of Highlanders to chop down trees. They were dressed in a full plaid.
Indeed, but I was under the impression that it was about 1772 (after the '45) rather than 1727 (before the '45).
Trevor-Roper dates it to 1727 (pp 198/9 of his book). According to Wikipedia (yes I know!), it seems to have been discussed in the Edinburgh Magazine for March 1785. In a letter reportedly written some years earlier, in 1768, Ivan Baillie of Aberiachan, Esq. asserted that the new form of the kilt was the creation of Thomas Rawlinson, an entrepreneur who had established an iron works in the Highlands (specifically, in woodland at Invergarry). According to Baillie, Rawlinson, observing how the great kilt was "a cumbersome unwieldy habit to men at work. . ." decided to "abridge the dress, and make it handy and convenient for his workmen". This he did by directing the usage of the lower, pleated portion only, the upper portion being detached and set aside. The full text of the letter of Ivan Baillie is reproduced in John Telfer Dunbar's History of Highland Dress. Dunbar quotes the letter approvingly, at the same time citing McClintock's Old Irish and Highland Dress in support of the story, stating that "many attempts have been made to produce proof of the little kilt (Gaelic feilidh beag) before that date (i.e., before about 1725 – ed.) but nothing so far published can substantiate such claims." He goes on to say that "some of the most popular 'evidence' has been examined and refuted in McClintock . .".
However, since the publication of Dunbar's book, the Baillie version of events has been disputed. Matthew Newsome, director emeritus of the Scottish Tartans Museum in North Carolina, for instance, has stated that ". . . we have numerous illustrations of Highlanders wearing only the bottom part of the belted plaid that date long before Rawlinson ever set foot in Scotland", going on to assert that "there is some suggestion of its use in the late seventeenth century, and it was definitely being worn in the early eighteenth century".
Notwithstanding: when Baillie's account was published in the Edinburgh Magazine in March 1785, it was not contradicted, and was on the contrary confirmed by the two greatest authorities on Scottish custom of the time, Sir John Sinclair and John Pinkerton and by the independent testimony of the Glengarry family, whose chief, Ian MacDonnell was Rawlinson's business partner.
I am well aware that Trevor-Roper came unstuck having incorrectly authenticated Hitler’s diaries but my understanding is that he was generally a pretty respected academic. Worth taking account of what he says, anyway. The tone of his book is not particularly negative but he does comment on a tendency for some to re-write Scottish history from time to time. Brig O’Doon versions of Scotland, as others have commented before.
-
Thanks, Elwyn. I stand corrected.
-
@ Elwyn, as to the average weaver of the 15/1600's not having the time, skills or technology to create subtle patterns. The Glasgow Incorporation of Weavers, founded 1514, required the apprentices to learn the use of the four different looms of the trade & produced an assortment of cloths including plaidings in stripes, checks & cross-stripes. Linnen weaving was a distinct craft & made in different types but joined to the guild by 1600. Lynchie-winchie, with the warp in wool & the weft of linnen was also made. This would be the same in every Scottish town with a weavers guild. Bad-workmanship was punished by expulsion from the trade & town & letters sent to Edinburgh & Co warning them against the offender. No doubt country homespun lacked this sophistication but the weavers textiles were on sale throughout the country & exported!
Skoosh.
-
@ Elwyn, as to the average weaver of the 15/1600's not having the time, skills or technology to create subtle patterns. The Glasgow Incorporation of Weavers, founded 1514, required the apprentices to learn the use of the four different looms of the trade & produced an assortment of cloths including plaidings in stripes, checks & cross-stripes. Linnen weaving was a distinct craft & made in different types but joined to the guild by 1600. Lynchie-winchie, with the warp in wool & the weft of linnen was also made. This would be the same in every Scottish town with a weavers guild. Bad-workmanship was punished by expulsion from the trade & town & letters sent to Edinburgh & Co warning them against the offender. No doubt country homespun lacked this sophistication but the weavers textiles were on sale throughout the country & exported!
Skoosh.
Fair comment.
-
Hi all,
Still a lot of great information coming. I have ordered copies of the two reiver books recommended earlier.
Next question. When the average reiver was at home, safe in his own territory, what did they wear?
Presumably, they weren’t always dressed in steel bonnets etc. would they have worn mauds?
Mojo
-
Only if Maud wasn't away to the dancing Mojo! ;D You're confusing Border Shepherds with Border Reivers. Another author you might include in this is the novelist James Hogg the Ettrick Shepherd. "Confessions of a Justified Sinner!" He wrote both in Scots & English. "Tales & Sketches" very good.
Maud = a shepherds plaid with one end sewn into a pocket for carrying a lamb, a flask & his piece! ;D
https://www.jameshogg.stir.ac.uk/james-hogg/
Bests,
Skoosh.
-
Hi Skoosh,
I’ll have to add that book to my future reading list.I’ve already got a small pile building up at home!
As for the question.I don’t really have a clue what the reivers would wear and was just guessing. What do you think the average reiver would wear when he’s at home sat by the fire(with or without Maud!)???
Mojo
-
According to Watson, page 103:
“Patten, when he accompanied Somerset’s expedition against the Scots, took particular notice of similarity in dress of Scottish lairds to that of their followers. Lairds and barons, he remarked, wore not only the same jacks, covered with white leather, as their men, but the same white leather or fustian doublets, and usually white hose.”
The Duke of Somerset invaded the Borders in 1547.
Fustian = thick, hard-wearing twilled cloth with a short nap, usually dyed in dark colours
-
Hi Elwyn,
The contemporary account is great!
Would they have worn this clothing all the time or only when out riding?
I have read that many of these families also had coats of arms.Some registered, some not.Would these have been used to identify individuals (as is the norm), or to identify an entire family??
Mojo
-
Mojo,
I really don’t know whether that was typical clothing or not. I only reported what Watson says. The average Reiver clearly wasn't very wealthy (that’s why he went reiving) so how many changes of clothing would he have? Probably not too many. Watson lists about 50 research sources. You could try some of them to see if there are contemporary accounts of what folk wore. And the other books mentioned in this thread might likewise contain information.
One of the problems of history is that we hear what the leaders did, said or wore, but the average foot soldier doesn’t get studied to the same extent. There’s mention of what Sir George Heron left in his will in 1575: “a damask gown, a velvet jerkin, a pair of velvet breeches and a satin doublet.” (No kilt, you’ll notice). But there’s not a lot of detail about the average reiver’s clothing in Watson’s book though I think we can be pretty clear that none wore a kilt. However that hasn’t stopped tartan manufacturers inventing a wide range of tartans and kilts supposedly linked to Border names. They are all just based on fantasy, in my opinion.
Coats of arms also probably fall into the nonsense trap. There’s certainly no mention of them in Watson’s book. The Borders in the 1400s through to the early 1600s were lawless. The church couldn’t function and Ministers were harried out of the area. Couples got together by handfasting, because there was no church to marry in. That was the social world prevailing at the time. Would anyone bother with a coat of arms? Who would have any interest in such a thing? A coat of arms suggests law abiding behaviours that would not have been recognised by the average person in that region at the time. (But again that’s just my opinion).
My (limited) understanding of coats of arms is that they are not issued to a family but to an individual. But I really don’t know that much about them. Just it’s my opinion that the average reiver wouldn’t have one any more than the average labourer or mill worker would. Nor would they be remotely interested in one, I would have thought. But maybe someone reading this can add some information?
TV & films create false history at times. I was on the Hebridean Island of Islay last year and spoke to a weaver whose company provided kilts used in Braveheart. The film company had asked him to provide some suitably stimulating tartans for the actors to wear. He had pointed out that they didn’t have any tartans in the 1300s. He was asked to come up with some anyway. And obviously it was in his commercial interest to do so. Now half the planet believes that was typical dress at that time.
Elwyn
-
I was going to suggest you try searching for some contemporary illustrations of fashions of the time, however “artistic license” might have been used to some extent.
I stumbled across this which may be of interest (I did not read it, only glanced at the couple of illustrations):
https://albanach.org/early-history-of-the-kilt-e0c5b0101b5
You will find loads of information and illustrations via google searches using a combination of search terms. Pinterest is showing a number of illustrations so it might be worth wading through to see if any are relevant or contemporary.
-
https://clancarrutherssociety.org/2018/11/12/clan-carruthers-how-to-wear-highland-and-lowland-dress/amp/
Hi,
Thanks for the input.I found this interesting article regarding Highland, lowland and border dress.I think we are pretty much all agreed on no kilts, no tartans etc.
The article does mention the 1500s document on the ‘unruly’ clans.Or Clannis of the borders. In my opinion, it was probably worded so out of convenience or lack of knowledge of border families.Of course, many of these border clans now use this document as proof of their clan status.Thoughts?
I will endeavor to do more research on the clothing front!
As for coats of arms, I have seen some evidence of these, but wonder if they were used by the heidmen only? This made me wonder whether or not these clan societies would be better using something based on these as an identifier, rather than the highland style clan crest?
As for movies.Although good fun to watch, people so often believe what they see as true. The same for the works of Sir Walter Scott etc.Some people never seem to raise questions about what they see or hear, which is really where this discussion grew out of!!
Mojo
-
A fair amount of Brigadoonery here, nothing to prevent yourself from getting the "Mojo" tartan made up! ;D
The bonnets, for example, worn in some of these tartan drama productions look totally unfit for purpose. Scots bonnets were worn at least from the 16th century & the earliest bonnet-makers Incorporation dates from around that time. Kilmarnock & Stewarton were noted for their bonnets & are probably still at it?
A good source for info' on Scots stuff is,
https://electricscotland.com/
Bests,
Skoosh.
-
Thanks Skoosh,
I think I’ll hold fire on the Mojo tartan.Maud mightn’t like it!
I’ve just had a quick look at the Electric Scotland site and it seems to have lots of useful info.Thanks!!
I think I’ve got enough opinions, reading recommendations etc to keep me busy for some time to come.It is probably best to draw this topic to a close for the time being.
My 7x great grandfather was a Little and I think there are connections to Johnstones through a great aunt. My reading into the Littles(what little available!)is what started off all these questions about clans, kilts etc.
Anyway, I want to thank everyone again for their opinions.I’ve found them all very useful. Thank you.
Mojo
-
Good luck with that kid!
Slainte'
Skoosh.
-
My roots are from Middlebie in Dumfriesshire. I suppose being a Bell I am descended from serious Reivers. "The Bloody Bells of Middlebie" as they were known.
Border Reivers were completely fair minded. They always stole the same amount of sheep from both the Scots and the English!
I would commend the Dumfries and Galloway Family History Society. They have very useful archives.
https://dgfhs.org.uk/
Membership online is only a few quid and the newsletter has some interesting articles.
GGGGfather was a Weaver from Middlebie moving to Carlisle. The family were a few generations there then my grandfather moved to Sanquhar to work as a miner.
deebel
-
Hi Deebel,
I have just joined the family history society you mention. At the moment they're on lockdown like everyone else, so I'll have to wait a while for more info.
Thanks for your help!
-
The clan system was just another name for 'family' but went that bit further by standing by one another. The reivers would join forces against an enemy and would also fight alongside their own enemies. The Johnstone's were my ancestors and married into the Armstrong family, the Armstrongs and Johnstones were great enemies, My x5 great grandfather was an Armstrong, his wife my x5 great grandmother was a Johnstone. The Johnstone's and Armstrongs certainly had chiefs, or lairds. Gilnockie Castle was the seat of the Armstrongs of Liddesdale and Lochwood Tower was the seat of the Johnstones. The Johnstone's became lairds, a marquis and members of parliament.
The sites below give a little more info.
http://www.scotlandinoils.com/clan/Clan-Johnstone.html
http://www.greatscottishclans.com/clans/armstrong.php
-
Hi,
Thanks for your response.You have a heritage that you can be proud of.
Regarding opinions etc. It does seem that these days many people are running around in tartan kilts with clan crests and so on.
If I’m not mistaken clan means something like children of and not family.These original question was to try and get a consensus of opinion to help me sort the wheat from the chaff.
These are some conclusions:
The border reivers would have not referred to themselves as clans.They were ‘riding families’.Some people appear to cling to the ‘17 unruly clans’ document as proof.Surely there would be hundreds if they were clans like the Highland ones?
They had ‘Heidmen’, which yes functioned like chiefs but we’re not chiefs in the ‘clan’ sense.
Lairds existed without a doubt.These appear to have been probably large scale land owners and not have the same powers as English Lords.I could be wrong on this though.
I feel part of the problem is that post Walter Scott’s recreation of What Scottishness is, the culture of the peoples of the border has been replaced with tartans,kilts and bagpipes etc.These were all Highland Scottish customs.The highlanders we’re often feared hated and certainly not trusted by Lowland Scots.
With this in mind, wouldn’t be better to try and remember and preserve the border culture as it was rather than replace it with something that would have been quite alien to these folk?
If you think about it, isn’t it a kind of cultural appropriation to adopt Highland culture as a Lowland one? And in doing so betraying the very ancestry we are trying to uncover and preserve?
Some people also have romantic notions of what reivers actually were.These days they would be called gangsters.Extortion, blackmail (protection rackets) theft and murder.All hallmarks of top class gangsters?
I think in our quest to find out about our ancestry we also want to find some sense of belonging.In doing so, there seems to be a danger of distorting the truth of the past and using historical bias in our judgment.Trying to gather lots of opinions to help form my own has been part of this question.Not to offend or upset.These opinions should not be set in stone either as when more information and new ideas come to light.Opinions should be adjusted taking everything into account.
-
What an excellent summary. Very well said.
-
Thanks for the kind words Forfarian!!
-
My lot were the Ker/Kerr family, Wardens of The Middle March who own the largest inhabited house in the UK, Floors Castle where Prince Charlie & Diana got to know one another away from the public eye before Marriage.
James Kerr.
-
Hi James,
How interesting! Just out of interest.Are you left handed???
Mojo
-
Hi James,
How interesting! Just out of interest.Are you left handed???
Mojo
I am indeed and handy with a Sword........JK
-
Interesting! Like the HANDY pun too!!