What clan!!!

[BoldHighlander]

Uncletom was kind enough to email the pictures to me as I was unable to view them thru the links.

Having viewed them I would agree that this is probably not a Scottish Chieftain, but taken here in the States around 1865 (the 65?) judging in part from their dress. The reason why I believe it was taken in the States is comparing the gentleman's dress to those in this recent thread:
http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/1...143/index.html
leads me to believe that he too was a member of a Scottish-American Caledonian society (possibly east coast), as Todd mentioned in the linked thread. Not much to add on the wording.

I hope this helps.

[beloitpiper]

"Jen and Rustie '65" ...?

[BoldHighlander]

hmmm....
I think we're almost all in agreement the last part is "Rustie '65" but I have'nt a clue on the first part

[skauwt]

hmmm....
I think we're almost all in agreement the last part is "Rustie '65" but I haven't a clue on the first part

im not convinced that the R is R at all ...in the past thats how K where written out after checking over 400 years of family tree documents i own im certain thats its a K its just written in the same method as the last S in the first word
a style of writing not uncommon back then

[SteveB]

Gentlepeople,
The picture was most likely taken in the U.S. midlands in 1865. The inscription on the back appears to read Link (a common male nickname for Lincoln, or Richard during that time frame) and Kristie ( a common nickname for Christine, Kristan, Kristine) Hence the " Link and Kristie '65". The background imaging is from perhaps a wedding of these two people. The writing and posing, along with the clothing being worn by both indicate such, as this was quite common in the 1860's in Oklahoma, Nevada, Northern Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, and Utah.
I have seen this quite often in my genealogical researches of the area.

Slainte
Steve

[St. Amish]

Gentlepeople,
The picture was most likely taken in the U.S. midlands in 1865. The inscription on the back appears to read Link (a common male nickname for Lincoln, or Richard during that time frame) and Kristie ( a common nickname for Christine, Kristan, Kristine) Hence the " Link and Kristie '65". The background imaging is from perhaps a wedding of these two people. The writing and posing, along with the clothing being worn by both indicate such, as this was quite common in the 1860's in Oklahoma, Nevada, Northern Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, and Utah.
I have seen this quite often in my genealogical researches of the area.

Slainte
Steve

I agree. "Link and Kristie '65"

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Lincoln would be an extremely uncommon first name prior to 1865, and virtually unheard of as a first name among Scots at that time. Here's what we DON'T know:

1) we don't know where the photo was taken.
2) we don't know what "65" means.
3) we don't know who wrote on the back of the photo.

If we assume the photo was taken in New York in 1865 then we can also assume the man was born in 1825 since he looks about 40. He may or may not have been born in Scotland, but in either case it is highly unlikely that he would have been christened "Lincoln" as a first name.

Skauwt makes a good case for the "R" possibly being a "K", although I am not entirely convinced: I would expect "CH" instead of "K" to be used in spelling "Christie/Kristie", a fairly common Scottish name.

The first letter in the first word is the puzzler: "I", "G", "J", or "L" are all possibilities. And it is also possible that the first word is the name of the woman-- Linda-- and--Rustie, written by a cousin or sister, or some other family member, sometime after 1865...

In the end, it is all speculation.

[St. Amish]

I would expect "CH" instead of "K" to be used in spelling "Christie/Kristie", a fairly common Scottish name.

I think you may be overlooking that uniform spelling is a fairly new development. "Christie" could have been spelled any number of ways, and it would make sense to spell it with a "K" if you were spelling phonetically.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I think you may be overlooking that uniform spelling is a fairly new development. "Christie" could have been spelled any number of ways, and it would make sense to spell it with a "K" if you were spelling phonetically.

By the 1860s spelling was pretty uniform throughout the USA and Scotland. This was especially true with the middle-classes (ie: anyone who had attended school). Most people who could write could also spell, especially those who lived in cities and were affluent enough to be able to afford the luxury of being photographed in highland attire.

What we are looking at is a stiff bit of cardboard that had a photo pasted on one side and an inscription of sorts scrawled on the back. All we've seen is the photo on the front-- the rest of the card, which would have had the details of who took the photograph, and where the studio was located, have been edited out, which is unfortunate as we don't know if the photo was taken in Toronto or Tasmania, Crook of Devon or Chicago.

Looking at the back of the photo I am led to believe that the writing is (1) by a single hand-- it would be highly unusual for two different people to write on the back of a photo-- next, (2) written by "Rustie", because of the confidence of that word when compared to the word(s) that precede it-- I would also suspect that the person who wrote this was either (3) elderly, or unused to writing, or both, due to the poorly formed letters in the cursive script of the first word, and the almost awkward form of the numbers "65".

What all this graphology has to do with kilts is totally beyond me, but it does seem to defeat the tedium of what is another-wise slow kilt news day.

[St. Amish]

By the 1860s spelling was pretty uniform throughout the USA and Scotland.

Not true.

The American Anthropologist printed a symposium on the subject in March 1893. It had noted considerable variations in the spelling of English words. Moreover, delegates to the symposium heard how, of 1,972 failures to pass the civil service examination in Britain, 1,866 had failed because of poor spelling. The thrust of the symposium was that people spelled badly because English spelling was arbitrary and inconsistent.

Francis A. March noted in the History of Spelling Reform (1893) how the word "could" was "a markt exampl of unpardonabl spelling; the "l" is a sheer blunder, the "ou" has a wrong sound."