Talk:Thomas Rawlinson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] accuracy
Your external link is at odds with the article, thusly:
"One story commonly repeated is that an Englishman named Thomas Rawlinson opened an iron-smelting factory in the Highlands around the year 1730. His workers all dressed in the belted plaids, which proved too hot and cumbersome for close work in his factory. He solved the problem by cutting the garment in half. The lower part could now be worn separately and the upper part discarded when coming indoors. This is considered proof that an Englishman invented the Scottish national dress. The problem with this story is that we know of numerous illustrations of Highlanders wearing the only the bottom part of the belted plaid that date long before Rawlinson ever set foot in Scotland. Remember that the belted plaid consisted of two widths of material stitched together. If one neglects to stitch the two together, and only the bottom 4 yards are worn, pleated and belted around the waist, the resulting garment is called the feilidh-beag (little wrap). The word is often spelled in English “phillabeg.” I will not go into detailed evidence of the wearing of the phillabeg here, but I will say that there is some suggestion of its use in the late 17th century, and it was definitely being worn in the early 18th century. It most likely came about as a natural evolution of the belted plaid and Rawlinson probably observed its and quickly deduced its usefulness in his situation and introduced it among his workers. "
You may want to change the article to reflect this. --Aim Here 00:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Accuracy (redux)
The Reconstructing History web site (one of the two sources cited in the external links section) states:
"Recent scholarship has, to the great delight of Highlanders everywhere, disproven that Rawlinson "invented" the feileadh beag."
The Early History of the Kilt article states:
". . . we know of numerous illustrations of Highlanders wearing only the bottom part of the belted plaid that date long before Rawlinson ever set foot in Scotland.
Thus, the basic thesis of this entire article is contradicted by both sources cited in the external links section. No source is cited for the story which is recounted in the article itslef.
JFPerry 20:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- The lead sentence (prior to my last edit) read: "Thomas Rawlinson was an 18th century English industrialist who is widely known today as the popularizer of the modern kilt."
- At the conclusion of the article, in the section headed Enduring legacy, we read: "Though knowledge of Thomas Rawlinson's contribution to Scottish dress was forgotten for the better part of two centuries, . . ."
- I don't know how he could be the popularizer of the kilt if his "contribution" was forgotten for "the better part of two centuries". In fact, his alleged contribution (as the inventor) was first asserted in a letter published in an Edinburgh journal in 1785! The popularization of the kilt is multi-faceted, with contributiions made thereto by the Highland regiments, by Walter Scott and the visit of King Geo. IV to Edinburgh in 1822, by John Sobieski Stuart and the Vestiarium Scoticum and by Queen Victoria's patronage of the Balmoral Gathering in ca. 1848. I don't know of any hard evidence that Rawlinson made any significant contribution to the popularization of the kilt and he is certainly not widely known as "the popularizer of the kilt" today..
- The (first) removal of the accuracy tag was unjustified. The basis for such removal was the alteratiion from an unsupported assertion of invention to an equally unsupported assertion of popularization. But the entire artilce is about the alleged invention of the kilt by Rawlinson, as is clearly evidenced by the first main header where the world invention is used. There is no source cited for the story therein recounted which goes in its details far beyond the Edinburgh letter of 1785.
JFPerry 21:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- If you'll notice, under the Enduring Legacy section, it says, in full, "Though knowledge of Thomas Rawlinson's contribution to Scottish dress was forgotten for the better part of two centuries, his version of the kilt is still worn today . . ." His version of the kilt. He didn't invent the kilt; he simply popularized its modern version. There were different versions before his time. Remember, he didn't invent the kilt, he simply popularized a new version of it. Don't pick and choose quotes, please. Thank you.
Skrooball 02:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The entire section on the "Modern Invention" is POV violation as it does not present significant alternative points of view. Absolutely no sources are cited for the story, not even the Baillie letter which contains none of the embellishments mentioned in the article. Your removal of the accuracy tag after the minor, trivial change in the lead sentence was an insult. You say he didn't "invent" the kilt, but the entire story in the "modern invention" section says otherwise. There is no evidence whatsoever that he popularized the kilt. You have not addressed anyuthing which was brought up elsewhere on this talk page. JFPerry 13:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thomas Rawlinson genealogy
I can find no records giving Thomas Rawlinson's birth and death years. There is a web page which lists the "Baptisms at the Church of St. Laurence in the Parish of Chorley in the County of Lancashire, 1709-1768": http://lan-opc.org.uk/Chorley/stlaurence/baptisms_1709-1768.html
The following baptisms are recorded:
Baptism: 22 Feb 1718/9 St Laurence, Chorley, Lancashire, England Thomas Rawlinson - Son of Thomas Rawlinson Register: Baptisms 1709 - 1768, Page 9, Entry 34 Source: LDS Film 93703
Baptism: 15 Jul 1722 St Laurence, Chorley, Lancashire, England Ellen Rawlinson - Daughter of Thomas Rawlinson & Ann Occupation: Bricklayer Register: Baptisms 1709 - 1768, Page 15, Entry 11 Source: LDS Film 93703
Baptism: 13 Dec 1724 St Laurence, Chorley, Lancashire, England Ann Rawlinson - Daughter of Thomas Rawlinson & Ann Occupation: Bricklayer Register: Baptisms 1709 - 1768, Page 17, Entry 22 Source: LDS Film 93703
Thereafter, the name Rawlinson seems to disappear from the Lancashire records. The father of these infants is likely the Thomas Rawlinson who is the subject of this article. Said Thomas Rawlinson died prior to 1768 which is the year in which the famous letter, published in 1785 in the Edinburgh press, was actually written as that letter (reproduced in Dunbar's History of Highland Dress) refers to him in the past tense.
The article on Thomas Rawlinson is actually not about TR, but almost exclusively about the legend of the invention of the kilt.
JFPerry 15:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wealthy?
In the article, it is asserted:
"Through this new version of an old garment, Rawlinson attained wealth and certain prosperity . . ."
I find this statement to be highly improbable at the least. How is one to make money off such an "invention" if indeed he be the inventor (more to the point, are clothing or fashion styles of this nature ever really invented at all - are they not rather adopted and adapted?). Since the "invention" could not be patented, he could not have charged a licensing fee for the manufacture or production of such a garment. So the only way money could have possibly been made was in the sale of yard goods or finished products, perhaps by supplying them to the Highland Regiments after the '45. But to the extent that such large-scale manufacture was undertaken it was by Wilson's and not by Rawlinson. Elsewise, the garments would have been produced by home handicraft industry. JFPerry 13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV version
The present version (#74032153) of this article presents the story, based on the Baillie letter, of Thomas Rawlinson's alleged "invention" (this is the word that Baillie uses,and the word which appered in the main header to the story in the original version of the present article) of the kilt, though without the unsourced embellishments and without presenting it as established fact. It also presents the contrary points of view together with references, again presenting them as opinion and not established fact. The reader is thus left, with proper sourcing, to read the original documents and make up his/her own mind.
The last two sections ("Growing popularity" and "Enduring legacy") could well be removed as they concern the history of the kilt, and not Thomas Rawlinson, about whom precious little is known.
Jim Perry
