Highland Jackets

[6RRF]

Looking into a totally different query anent the London Scottish in 1918, I got distracted [as you do] looking at photies of the regiment and noticed something interesting.

Bear with me... kilted regiments in full dress wore a scarlet doublet with Inverness flaps, separated at the front to make room for the sporran. In 1873 this was supplemented by a lighter frock, cut more like a tunic but but away at the front with an elegant curve, again to accommodate the sporran. Originally this frock was also scarlet but became khaki as part of service dress.

Normally it serves as a useful way of identifying a soldier of a kilted regiment even if he's wearing trousers for some reason, but it then gets complicated when kilted soldiers turn up wearing ordinary service dress tunics.

The London Scottish photies provide the answer.

As is well known, although a kilted regiment they didn't wear tartan, but a plain hodden grey, sometimes known as Elcho Grey.  As a result they didn't need to wear the khaki aprons imposed on other regiments and so its still possible to see their sporrans - when worn. What seems to be obvious from the photies is that if the hairy sporran wasn't worn, it was then possible to wear the tunic, not least to benefit from the large pockets below the waist.

[FROGSMILE]

48 minutes ago, 6RRF said:

Looking into a totally different query anent the London Scottish in 1918, I got distracted [as you do] looking at photies of the regiment and noticed something interesting.

Bear with me... kilted regiments in full dress wore a scarlet doublet with Inverness flaps, separated at the front to make room for the sporran. In 1873 this was supplemented by a lighter frock, cut more like a tunic but but away at the front with an elegant curve, again to accommodate the sporran. Originally this frock was also scarlet but became khaki as part of service dress.

Normally it serves as a useful way of identifying a soldier of a kilted regiment even if he's wearing trousers for some reason, but it then gets complicated when kilted soldiers turn up wearing ordinary service dress tunics.

The London Scottish photies provide the answer.

As is well known, although a kilted regiment they didn't wear tartan, but a plain hodden grey, sometimes known as Elcho Grey.  As a result they didn't need to wear the khaki aprons imposed on other regiments and so its still possible to see their sporrans - when worn. What seems to be obvious from the photies is that if the hairy sporran wasn't worn, it was then possible to wear the tunic, not least to benefit from the large pockets below the waist.

Can you clarify what garment you mean by “tunic” as Scottish regiments did not usually wear such garments after 1881?  Do you mean the full dress doublet with Inverness flap pockets, the frock with its scalloped flaps, but inset pockets, or do you mean the drab service dress jacket with its cutaway arranged regimentally until the 1920s.  I’m not sure what point you are making, but like you am interested in all aspects of uniform.

Kilt aprons were often worn by London Scottish units in the field.  They were not just camouflage but intended to prevent the woollen cloth of the kilt from become easily saturated and caked with mud.

 

Edited 31 December , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[6RRF]

My understanding is pretty much as yours and Mike Chappell's illustrations in particular show what the London Scottish should have been wearing, but having just gone through an awful lot of pictures of them at the front [as distinct from studio portraits taken in the warm and dry] it seems that the apron was not much worn and I've come across at least one description of their being visible going forward with their brown kilts.

In the early days lots of these photies also very distinctly show the sporran - and a quite foul looking thing it is in the mud dangling below the hem of the kilt

However, as the war goes on, the sporran gradually disappears and the ordinary tunic often enough seems to be replacing it.

Mark Lloyd's book on The London Scottish in the Great War [Pen and Sword 2001] is crammed full of very useful photies, many of them showing this

[FROGSMILE]

12 minutes ago, 6RRF said:

My understanding is pretty much as yours and Mike Chappell's illustrations in particular show what the London Scottish should have been wearing, but having just gone through an awful lot of pictures of them at the front [as distinct from studio portraits taken in the warm and dry] it seems that the apron was not much worn and I've come across at least one description of their being visible going forward with their brown kilts.

In the early days lots of these photies also very distinctly show the sporran - and a quite foul looking thing it is in the mud dangling below the hem of the kilt

However, as the war goes on, the sporran gradually disappears and the ordinary tunic often enough seems to be replacing it.

Mark Lloyd's book on The London Scottish in the Great War [Pen and Sword 2001] is crammed full of very useful photies, many of them showing this

Thanks I understand better now.  As you say plenty of studio or at home shots of kilts and sporrans.  I’ve seen only one rather bedraggled looking London Scot dresses that way in the field so far, but will be interested to see more.

Edited 31 December , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[6RRF]

Here's a good one [June 1916] from page 71 of the book I mentioned

[6RRF]

Privates Spooner and Laird, both wounded 1 July

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, 6RRF said:

Privates Spooner and Laird, both wounded 1 July

Good photo, but they’re not dressed in marching, or field day order and so I wouldn’t expect them to be wearing kilt aprons.  They don’t have an iota of equipment with them so it doesn’t really figure as good evidence I think you’ll agree.

[6RRF]

True, true, but they were picked for their service jackets.

As to other photies, most men are wearing cut away Highland jackets, as you'd expect, but even when marching up to the line or thrashing about in the mud once they'd got there, sporrans are very clearly seen in 1914-1916 pictures, not hidden behind aprons - I'm still digging through the later ones.

Although the standard service jackets aren't as widespread as I thought at first, they are still there.   

[4thGordons]

2 hours ago, 6RRF said:

True, true, but they were picked for their service jackets.

As to other photies, most men are wearing cut away Highland jackets, as you'd expect, but even when marching up to the line or thrashing about in the mud once they'd got there, sporrans are very clearly seen in 1914-1916 pictures, not hidden behind aprons - I'm still digging through the later ones.

Although the standard service jackets aren't as widespread as I thought at first, they are still there.   

As you no doubt know SD jacket fronts were altered at unit level, (it was not until the 1920s that a specifically Scottish Pattern of SD jacket was issued) Instructions were issued at the outbreak of the war that this practice was to cease. This instruction was widely ignored and modifications continued when there was time.

However unmodified jackets on kilted troops are common in theatre and even at home (see my Avatar - my great grandfather a pre war TF Gordon taken at Bedford with an unmodified jacket) I also have several pics of soldiers with the skirts of their jackets pinned or tucked back for appearances in photos.

At about the same time it was also ordered that sporrans should not accompany troops to France (except for bands and such it appears) -- this seems to have been much more widely followed as in my experience pictures of sporrans in theatre are uncommon (except with bands/pipers) after 1914 and sometimes with Canadian scots with leather sporrans. You also sometimes see gas hood bags worn as sporrans. Certainly the vast majority of pics of the TF Highland division I have seen (who mostly went to France and Flanders in early 1915 do not show sporrans at all.

One final observation that might be relevant to your original comments -- there was also a short lived "Drab Kilt" which was supposed to be issued as a universal kilt but only got very limited use (in the face of much resistance from all regiments it seems!) I have a pic which I believe shows this in use (note also an unmodified SD jacket)

 

Chris

Here's a pic of mine I've posted before that shows all sorts of variations of modified, unmodified(folded back), simplified jacket, Canadian 7 button (folded back) etc and a sporran (in France)

[6RRF]

Interesting, and ultimately the point which all of this is moving towards is that just because a non-kilted Scottish soldier is wearing an unmodified service jacket it doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't a highlander - if you know what I mean 

 

[4thGordons]

 

1 hour ago, 6RRF said:

 ultimately the point which all of this is moving towards is that just because a non-kilted Scottish soldier is wearing an unmodified service jacket it doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't a highlander

 

 

Indeed, in my view the presence of a standard SD jacket absolutely cannot be used to rule out a man as a member of a highland regiment, likewise the absence of a kilt.

For example:

Gordon with modified SD jacket but trousers/puttees

Gordon (mounted duty) with unmodified jacket and riding jodhpurs/breeches

(probable) Gordon with an unmodified jacket, trousers/puttees AND an undiced glengarry (One of the training battalions of Gordons seemed to have worn undiced glens).   

Chris

 

[6RRF]

Interesting.

The photie I included was Wullie Grant from Hatton [Cruden]. Family legend has him as a Gordon although I don't have a number or battalion for him and the wound stripe and signaller's badge doesn't take us further. He survived the war and I remember briefly meeting him as a wee boy

[FROGSMILE]

If you carry out a forum search you will find that this is very old hat and a subject covered quite a number of times, with lots of images posted over the years.  From memory I think that Chris has contributed to quite a number of them, although others go back a long way now.  There is a richness of information often missed by not searching the forum I think.  Happy hunting!

1.https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/65486-1st-2nd-bns-cameronians-1902-to-1914/#comment-577583

2.https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/173691-uniforms-regiment-id/#comment-1689687

3.https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/116237-help-identify-a-scottish-regiment/#comment-1111156

London Scottish:

1.https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/290521-114-london-london-scottish/#comment-3009438

2.https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/36559-royal-scottish-reserve/#comment-3035805

3.https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/271959-shouldertitle-london-scottish/#comment-2764381

There are over 136 posts on the London Scottish and it always seems to me to be beneficial to tack on to the end relevant new posts as it serves the double purpose of refreshing the old threads and exposing the information to forum members who’ve joined since they were first made. 

Edited 1 January , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Smithy26]

18 hours ago, 4thGordons said:

 

Indeed, in my view the presence of a standard SD jacket absolutely cannot be used to rule out a man as a member of a highland regiment, likewise the absence of a kilt.

For example:

Gordon with modified SD jacket but trousers/puttees

Gordon (mounted duty) with unmodified jacket and riding jodhpurs/breeches

(probable) Gordon with an unmodified jacket, trousers/puttees AND an undiced glengarry (One of the training battalions of Gordons seemed to have worn undiced glens).   

Chris

 

The 3rd picture looks like he is wearing a Cameronian (Scottish Rifles) badge to me?

[4thGordons]

28 minutes ago, Smithy26 said:

The 3rd picture looks like he is wearing a Cameronian (Scottish Rifles) badge to me?

Possibly, yes. That would fit with what appears to be a small straight shoulder brass (SR)?

Chris

[Smithy26]

9 minutes ago, 4thGordons said:

Possibly, yes. That would fit with what appears to be a small straight shoulder brass (SR)?

Chris

Yes, that is the regiments Shoulder Title.  I didnt zoom in on it, so going with your eyes.

Smithy