So, MacKenzie, DST and Old Tom are sitting round the table having a yarn and DST suggests that they all sign this plan. So why would there be two pens ?
Just a thought.
Another thought. The Old Tom signature was written with a dipping pen. Apparently he must have carried a dipping pen and bottle a ink around with him, even to the
Scores Hotel Grand Hotel dinner.
_____________________________________________________
Duncan and Niall, while you are considering date formats, perhaps you could help an ignorant American understand another seemingly strange British convention . . .
I'd always heard that over there people have long been weighed in "stone." So I was a bit surprised by the reference to the supposed long hitting American golfer named Fitzroy:
"The tallest, thinnest bloke I ever saw. He had to be 6’5’’ and 170 lbs dripping wet."Shouldn't this read,
He had to be 12 stone dripping wet?(Never mind that the saying wasn't in use at that point in history, or that nothing else checks out about this supposed May 11, 1901 competition at The Old Course anyway.)
_________________________________________________________________
Duncan,
You ask how I know that Ian's grandfather was tried in Australia is Ian's grandfather. The short answer is that there was only one David Scott-Taylor remotely matching the description.
Your question assumes that there may have been more than one David Scott-Taylor at least remotely fitting the description, but my research (and the extensive research of others) does not support this assumption. If there is another, then why haven't Phil and Ian given us anything verifiable indicating that there was more than one David Scott-Taylor? They won't even give the names of
their David Scott-Taylor's first wife and children!
Let's turn this around a bit. You indicate that you had
"assumed that by then he had become land-based and that the doctor in Australia was indeed someone else." On what basis had you assumed that? Are there any independently verifiable facts indicating this? Or are you just accepting Ian's and Phil's story, without proof?
For that matter, on what basis do you believe that David Scott-Taylor had even been a ship's doctor previously? Phil and Ian have insisted it is so, but they haven't offered any independently verifiable information indicating it is so. I have searched, and others have searched, and we've checked databases where he ought to have been listed if what they claim is true. And he does not appear in any of these databases.
For example, David Scott-Tayor was supposed to have become a commissioned Royal Navy officer - a Lieutenant - sometime before January 1901, when he was supposedly serving as a ship's surgeon in the Royal Navy. As Adam Lawrence has explained on other threads, there was a book called the The Navy List which provided biographical information on every commissioned Naval Officer. To quote a website where the list can be researched:
For over 200 years a book called The Navy List has been published each year. Navy Lists contain the details of all Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Queen Alexandra's Royal Naval Nursing Service (QARNNS), and former Women's Royal Naval Service (WRNS) commissioned officers who were serving in the year of publication, and also details of the commissioned officers of their Reserve Forces.Most of the annual Naval Lists from the relevant time period are available in the British National Archives, and David Scott Taylor ought to appear on a number of these lists, a mention for each year he was supposedly a commissioned Naval Officer. As Adam also explained,
he is not on any of these Navy Lists. Additional, as was also explained by Adam, promotions to Lieutenant in the Royal Navy were listed in the London Gazette. David Scott-Taylor is not listed there either.
In short, David Scott-Taylor does not appear to have been a commissioned naval officer or a naval surgeon. From the research, he looks to have enlisted in the Royal Marine Light Infantry, and eventually attained the rank of Sergeant. He became a doctor in 1916, and was discharged from the RMLI and was awarded a temporary commission as a Lieutenant in the Royal Army Medical Corps. Here is the link where Adam discussed this:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59090.msg1392904.html#msg1392904Notably, the obituary posted by Phil says nothing of David Scott-Taylor the commissioned naval officer and ship surgeon, and nothing about how he rushed to the aid of the Queen. You'd think that these things might have merited mention. (I suppose we will get to the fanciful story about how Ian's grandfather was rushed to the deathbed of the Queen before too long.)
___________________________________________
Duncan also wrote:
"If this turns out to be our David Scott-Taylor it wouldn't change anything about the story, but it would give some fascinating background detail and an insight into the character of the man. It's certainly more interesting than the Queen Victoria episode!"Perhaps I can suggest a correction. If Ian's grandfather was working as a ship's doctor in 1926, then this obliterates what is left of Ian's and Phil's story. Remember, these guys claim that they have detailed information indicating that this could not possibly have been Ian's grandfather, and this information obviously includes the diaries. If Ian's grandfather was a ship's doctor during this time period, then the diaries (at least as represented by Phil and Ian) are fake and related information is fake.
Same goes for the census form. If Ian's grandfather is listed on the census form, then their ship is sunk. Because the description on the census form does not match the description from the diaries, as represented by Phil and Ian. Remember, they really ought to be all-knowing here. They claim to have diaries documenting his life. If they cannot even get the most basic facts of his life correct, then their story is bogus.