My apologies to all for not being around for all of the fun yesterday, I was unable to because of an urgent private matter.
I will be answering questions put on here already and more that I am sure will be coming my way. I will provide as much information that I can that does not impact on the family’s right to privacy, and despite the near rabid show of personal entitlement they do have one, and that I am legally allowed to by law as there are probate issue’s involved due to the recent passing of Ian’s mother.
If I cite that as a reason I’m quite certain that I will be vilified by some and that it will be viewed as hiding, or worse yet, participating in a scam and cover-up of the worst sort! Anyone who believes that doesn’t know me and is free to believe as they wish and say it.
In my opinion, regardless of the specific attack on what was written, this all boils down to a single two-part issue. Were the journals written by David-Scott Taylor during his lifetime and how can that be proved?
I will primarily be addressing that question today.
Below I’m going to be directly quoting from letters sent by the family attorneys to separate members of the Scott-Taylor family. I will NOT be publishing the letters. These are private legal documents and will remain such. How then can I have any belief that a single person would accept them at my word? Because I’ve sent photographic copies of the actual letters to Ran Morrissett. I would find it beyond the realm of any possibility that someone on this site would question his veracity and honor if he were to say that what I’ve referenced and quoted from in them is not true. He has the freedom to comment or not on them and anything written here about them and say his honest opinion as to what I’ve written.
The first letter is dated 15 December, 1998. It was addressed to Ian Scott-Taylor. It references an: ADDENDUM TO WILL.
“It was nice to see you and your father again last Friday and I do hope that I can assist you in being able to amend the above matter as quickly as possible. As agreed, you and your father have set out in the amendment that the items now in our possession legally are yours in the will.
“The items discussed at our last meeting include the
1. Items from your grand father. The gand fathers diaries and sundry items.
3. Various drawings.”
The above referenced letter is part of the legal papers filed in two separate estate probate actions (both Ian’s father & mother). This makes it unchallengeable for its veracity.
Note the direct reference to the diaries and drawings. Also, for those who have questioned their being kept at the various law offices through the years, note that it clearly states that they are currently in their possession. This is at a time when all parties are alive, thus showing that the family was entrusting them to the care of the attorneys.
The second letter is dated 7 September 1965. It was addressed to “David Scott-Taylor,” Ian’s father:
“Further to our last meeting… I can confirm that the will of your mother Mrs. Ethel Scott-Taylor [David Scott-Taylor’s wife and widow]… has been ratified and the documents are ready for you to sign and pick up.
“I can also confirm the items in the office, will remain here in our care under your instructions. Your father’s effects together with a set of diaries,a nd set of drawings.”
This above referenced letter is also part of the legal filings in the probate of the estate of Ian’s grandmother and therefor unchallengeable for its veracity.
Once again note the direct reference to the diaries and drawings. Again the direct reference that drawings and journals have been in their possession and that they will “remain here” per the direct instructions of Ian’s father.
For those who have been entertaining the bizarre notion that Ian Scott-Taylor manufactured or forged these, this uncontestable proof that they existed in 1965 also uncontestably proves that the FOUR YEAR OLD Ian Scott-Taylor could not have done that!
Now we add in the aphidavit that is part of the documents in the current probate and that Ran has already attested to its veracity. That is, that the journals of Dr. David Scott-Taylor, along with the drawings, have been in the hands of the various solicitors for the family since 1933.
These are all uncontestable legal documents as they have already been accepted as such by the probate action!
What does that mean in this “debate” that has been waged? It disproves every negative thing said.
First, as they have been in the solicitor’s hands since the death of Dr. David Scott-Taylor, and he died UNEXPECTEDLY of a massive stroke, it again proves that these were the sole product of HIS hand and no others! It is time for this attack on the veracity and honor of Ian Scott-Taylor to stop! Regardless of whether one can’t find an explanation for why he and his family have been silent about these sketches and the items in their collection for all these years, the fact is that they have. Their reasons for doing so are theirs alone, as is their reasons for allowing these to come to the light of day now. Those reasons, all of which I know, I can attest to as being honorable ones.
Secondly, that those who are so freely arguing that the journals had to be written by a “modern hand” based on the “history of idioms” as they know it are clearly WRONG. The phrases in question all pre-date 1933since that is when they were written.
Third, that the drawings mentioned in these journals must also be as presented. The peripheral stories contained within the journal pages, e.g. the mine disaster in Wales and the announcement of the French-Morocco treat the morning of July 20th are also unquestionably true. In fact, even the cricket match at Old Trofford that DS-T mentioned that Mackenzie would take Tilly to has now been verified as the account of the match can be found in the 26 July 1901 issue of the Sheffield Evening Telegraph. For those Cricketphiles amongst the group, this is what the brief article reported:
“This match was commenced at Old Trofford this morning, there being no play yesterday. [Evidently they were rained out of the scheduled match.] The visitors had the same team as against Derbyshire, whilst Cuttell and Eccles re-appeared in the home side. Gloucester won the toss. The weather is somewhat threatening, but with the exception of three-quarters of an hour the rain held off. The downpour then was not very heavy, and play went on as usual after the luncheon interval.”
A good number of questions, both public and private, have argued against these drawings being real are based solely on the notion that the information presented in the journals presents a different picture of Alister MacKenzie than that of which they are aware. They cite such things as information found on the Mackenzie Society webpage and introductory information prefacing the incredible MacKenzie Timeline. They have even cited Tom Doak’s writings. As the information from the journals was not available to any and all when these were written what else would one expect to see written? Therefor that is again proof of nothing. I daresay that these would have been written differently if the information found in the Dr. David Scott-Taylor journals had been available to them.
There are two questions to which I will respond at this moment.
The first is David’s question regarding why I changed the wording in the second essay and removed the reference to the Score’s hotel letterhead. Of all people I would think that he would respect that I did it because I have yet to receive the copy of letter showing everything and so that is the sole reason I didn’t. If and when I do he’ll be among the first to know…
Second is the question as of David Lawrence as to how Dr. David Scott-Taylor could have gotten the rank of Lieutenant in the Royal Navy since, as he put it, “However, as this diagram makes clear, it is impossible for Scott-Taylor to have been both a medical officer and a lieutenant in the Royal Navy in 1901. Medical officers did not achieve fully commissioned rank until 1918.”
Instead of taking my words, let’s take those as found on the website of “The National Museum/Royal Navy” where they write:
Lieutenant
The rank of Lieutenant can be traced back to 1580 with the simple reason of being an understudy to the Captain in case of accident or illness, although they were not permanently established. After the restoration, Samuel Pepys introduced an examination to test the abilities of the rank and by doing so transformed their status from mere understudy to an actual job with particular duties attached. The senior lieutenant, known as the First Lieutenant and was responsible for the organisation of the ship and administration under the guidance of the Captain. This post eventually turned into the rank of Commander. He was responsible for maintaining discipline and navigation and with the junior lieutenants responsible for ensuring the crew carried out their duties. He was in charge of watches. Lieutenants received their commissions for particular ships and the position within the officer ranks. An officer was required to have at least six years service at sea before passing the examination for promotion to Lieutenant. It was possible for the officer to pass many years at this rank until the eventual distinction between Lieutenants of eight years service and the eventual establishment of the rank of Lieutenant-Commander."
"WARRANT OFFICERS
Warrant officers were the heads of specialist technical branches of the ship’s company and reported directly to the Captain. For administration they reported to the different boards which governed naval affairs such as the Navy Board, Victualling Board and Ordnance Board. They were usually examined professionally by a body other than the Admiralty and had usually served an apprenticeship. In the eighteenth century, there were two branches of Warrant Officer, those classed as sea officers, who has equal status as commissioned officers and could stand on the quarterdeck and those classed as inferior officers (keeping no accounts). Of the Warrant Officers, five were classed as standing officers, warranted to a ship for her lifetime whether in commission or not. When in reserve, they were borne on the Ordinary books of the dockyard and employed in maintenance of the ship. There was a change in the nineteenth century when some warrant ranks were transferred to commissioned rank and the branch of Engineers was introduced. It became necessary to distinguish between types of officers as to which ranks could command and those who could not – basically Military and Civil (equivalent to the modern Executive and Non-Executive officers). After 1847, only three warrant ranks remained."
"Surgeon
Surgeons were warranted to ships by the Navy Board. Their examining boards were conducted by various bodies including the Barber-Surgeons Company, Sick and Hurt Board, Transport Board and the Victualling Board up until 1832 when the Admiralty became responsible for their qualifications. They were the only medical officers on the ship and was assisted by one or more Surgeon’s Mates (inferior warrant officers). They had the right to walk the quarterdeck and became a fully commissioned rank in the nineteenth century. They were responsible for the sick and injured, performing surgical operations as necessary and dispensed medicine. They were required to keep a journal of treatment and advised the Captain on health matters."
Adam, you are mistaken. He was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant in the months following his care of the Queen and this is why I referred to him as such.
I will answer serious questions only and after seeing some of what has been posted, will not respond to mockery.