Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...

[Steve Burrows]

So far, to me anyway, the two threads containing all the back and forth are at least as interesting as the underlying items being discussed.

Perhaps, but I suspect that many of these issues could be remedied if these "historians" would visit their local university and gain permission to audit a graduate level course (or maybe two) in Research Methods.

[Duncan Cheslett]

So please provide the proof that this is from an accepted copy of Ian’s grandfather’s signature since, during the first third of the 20th century during the time that his grandfather was alive, there were at least two other Dr. David Scott-Taylor’s that the various British medical societies have knowledge of, including the gentleman down in Australia that was mentioned in the first “discussion” and who most definitely was not Ian’s grandfather.

Phil,

Just out of interest, do you actually have any evidence that Ian's grandfather was NOT the Dr David Scott-Taylor involved in the court case in Australia?



http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3382189



http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/34321996

Multiple David Scott-Taylors working as ship's doctors in the same period?  It does seem rather fanciful...

Whatever you might think of David Moriarty, he has clearly spent a lot of time over the last few months looking for a second (or third) Dr David Scott-Taylor. He hasn't found one, yet you were very quick to state categorically that the aforementioned Australian abortionist was not our man.

How do you know that?

Where is the evidence for two other doctors called David Scott-Taylor?

[David_Elvins]

So either there were two David Scott-Taylors from "Alyth" studying medicine at University of Edinburgh in 1894, or that is our guy.   

David,

As you hypothesize  I hope you are considering how common identity theft was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.  It could be a perfectly logical reason for their being 2 DSTs from Alyth, or for DST to have several signatures.   Or for DST to have confusion about his own medical qualifications.

[David_Elvins]

[The] person whether they are a member of GCA or Max’s Lounge, who decided to call Ian’s sister yesterday.

That's pretty poor form. I am sorry to hear about this.

[Duncan Cheslett]

As you hypothesize  I hope you are considering how common identity theft was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 

I guess that's a very good point.

Ask Sonny Boy Williamson!

[Wayne_Kozun]

For even earlier examples of identity theft see The Return of Martin Guerre.

[Phil Young]

David,

I am on record here as stating that I would only answer your questions AFTER YOU PROVED that the person on the census form was Ian's grandfather. He isn't and you didn't.

In your haste to prove that the David Scott-Taylor who signed the census form is Ian's grandfather you neglect the obvious information that was included in the obituary notice. 2 facts about the life of Ian's grandfather stated there, both of which should have jumped out at you, completely contradict the information that you believe is so absolute. To make it easier for you to have seen, both facts are contained in the first 7 words of the 2nd paragraph.

The first is a simple piece of math. The obituary (and before you ask the family does have the relative documents to back up what I am about to say) states that Ian's grandfather was 58 years of age when he died in 1933. That means that he was born in 1875.

Now take a look at the age of your DS-T. He was 34 in 1911 which means that he was born in 1877! Wrong guy... More on this in a minute.

The second mistake you made I find even more egregious than the basic math mistake you made. On the census form, in the instructions under the column with the heading "BIRTHPLACE of every person" it lists this:

"(3) If born in a foreign country, list the foreign country."

This is quite specific information being requested and so YOUR DS-T is listed as being born in "Perthshire [this was actually CORRECTED to read that as 'Alyth' was crossed out underneath] Alyth (Resident). Its obvious that the person writing this information in made every effort to be exact which can be seen from the crossing out of the original "Alyth" and including the word "Resident."

Lets go back to those first 7 words from the first sentence of the second paragraph of the obituary:

"He was BORN IN INDIA 58 YEARS AGO..."

The DS-T that you appear to have uncovered is absolutely NOT Ian's grandfather.

In addition, when you first posted the signature it was done to say the Dr. David Scott-Taylor signatures already posted by me must have been forged by Ian and that signature proves it. Among the possible reasons stated as to how, if it really was something that referred to Ian's grandfather, the signature could be so different, was that possibly his wife may have signed for him. Neil Crafter then gave an example of this very thing happening with Alister MacKenzie to which you responded with indignation that someone had actually FORGED a signature on an official form.

Well, after seeing all FOUR signatures on the census form that you REFUSED to post yet claimed unequivocally contained the signature of Ian's grandfather, it is obvious that someone forged two of these signatures, including that of David Scott-Taylor,  and that would be Ada. To paraphrase what you stated earlier when you first presented the signature and compared it to that of Ian's grandfather, one doesn't have to be an expert to see that all 4 signatures on this form were signed by the same hand! Looks like another case of forgery here...

There are a number of other very clear discrepencies on this form from those contained in both legal and governmental documents in possession of family and solicitors that were also made available to those who authenticated drawings, diaries and associated documents. I'm not going to bother going into them for two reasons. First, there is no need to and secondly, I'm not going to do anyone's homework for them. I'm sure you can understand that David since you stated both publicly and in private that you didn't want to show all of your research since you believe that someone might immediately forge a document to back up their position.

Now you post the supposed military index card which you have stated belongs to Ian's grandfather. That, too, is blatantly incorrect on its face and once again I only need to refer to what has already been published on here.

The DS-T's card you posted, under the line "Theatre of war first served in: France"

Sorry, but the "Theatre of war" Ian's grandfather first served in was IRELAND and then to France.

In addition, the card of your DS-T lists several facts which prove that he wasn't Ian's grandfather. Here's two of them:
1- His eventual rank prior to being discharged was that of "Captain."
2- Under the line titled "Date of entry therein" is listed the exact date of 15.3.17.

Addressing each item individually, For item #1, let's once again go to the obituary: It states that he "rose to be Major Acting Colonel, and mentioned in dispatches five times..." COLONEL is a very different rank then Captain.

Item #2: Once again we go back to the obituary where its states that he was, "INVALIDED from the Navy during the Great War of 1914-18, he volunteered for service with the R.A.M.C." What does it mean when it states that he was "INVALIDED from the Navy?" That due to health reasons he was no longer able to serve as he had been. Why then would the R.A.M.C. accept him as a "volunteer" if he was too ill to serve in the Navy? Because the need for men to serve on the battlefields rather than on the ocean was beyond great and is why many middle-aged men were accepted into the military for those types of positions who otherwise wouldn't have been accepted.
      What does that have to do with the "date of entry" If you simply look at the inside cover of the 1914-17 diary which was posted in the essay, you'll see a complete record of Ian's grandfather's record of service. It clearly states that it was a "War Journal" covering the years "1914-1917" It also states the TWO theatres of war in which he served as a volunteer in the R.A.M.C. with the first being "IRELAND" followed by "France."
      Secondly it specifically lists the SIX places to which he was posted. The third one is interesting for a side point, that he was stationed at "Royal Hospital 1915-16" in IRELAND. Its pretty hard for him to have graduated from and gotten his medical degree from Edinburgh University in 1916 if he's already working as a doctor on a totally different island BEFORE he supposedly graduated and WHILE he was supposedly attending classes on that different island.

Once again, you have the wrong DS-T.

Let's also correct another mistake you make and present as "evidence." You stated, "The Royal Marines is a branch of the Royal Navy, so technically DST was in the Royal Navy."

That is only PARTLY correct. The Royal Marines were a SEPARATE branch within the Royal Marines. No self-respecting member of the R.A.M.C. would claim to be in the Royal Navy, ESPECIALLY while fighting on the front lines of France. In addition, once again going back to that obituary, the SOLE reason that Ian's grandfather volunteered for the R.A.M.C. was because he had been INVALIDED OUT OF THE ROYAL NAVY! So, if they were really the same branch from a designation standpoint, INVALIDED out of one means that one CAN'T serve in the other!

I also take exception to your reference that Ian's grandfather was only "technically" in the Royal Navy. Sorry to disappoint you, but the ACTUAL military service card for Ian's grandfather, Dr. David Scott-Taylor. details all of the above and many more surprises that contradict many things incorrectly concluded about him.

Before you even ask... NO, I will not present it for two reasons. The first is because I am a man of my word and clearly stated that I would not provide you with anything until AFTER you proved that the signature you presented was signed by Ian's grandfather. You haven't and can't because it isn't. Secondly because if this other DS-T's card can be found so can that for Ian's grandfather, Dr. David Scott-Taylor. Go find it yourself... 

Duncan, as stated in the earlier thread the DST in the Australian articles was not Ian's grandfather. YES, we have quite specific documents that place Ian's grandfather in the U.K serving in a special capacity dealing with the coal miners in Wales  before, during and after the time mentioned in the articles. If you honestly believe the Australian DST was Ian's grandfather please provide the proof. 

[Bryan Izatt]

Phil,

One small correction - the 1911 census form lists this "David Scott-Taylor" as 35 years old, not 34.

The 1911 census has his wife as Ada Clara and his son as Ronald, then 8 years old.  Was your "David Scott-Taylor" married to a lady named Ada Clara and did Ian's father have an older brother named Ronald? That would seem to me to be a way to shut down this particular line of questioning.

My understanding of the census process in 1911 was that the form as posted was delivered to the household, filled out by someone in the household, then collected by the enumerator and then transcribed into the enumeration book.  It sure looks to me like the form was filled out by one person, including the signature line.  The handwriting is quite elegant, something I would associate with a woman's hand, not a man's.  Since the man was a sergeant and Gosport was a community supporting the nearby Royal Navy port, it would be easy to imagine that the man was on duty and that Ada Clara filled out the form in its entirety, as was allowed by the census taking process.  So regardless of whether this was the right "David Scott-Taylor", the signature does not conclusively prove anything, in my opinion.


David,

Can you find the marriage certificate from 1932 in Conway where David Scott-Taylor married a lady named Jones.  If her first name was Ada Clara it would support your case that this is the same DST, although the signature is still not provably his.  Could you find any DST's is the 1901 or 1891 censuses?  Can you find the birth certificate for a David Scott-Taylor in Alyth in 1875-6?

 

[Jeff Taylor]

This seems like exactly the wrong way to go about documenting history. I hope this is atypical.

[Bart Bradley]

Phil:

Why are you still arguing about this on Golfclubatlas?  What are you hoping will happen?

Bart

[Phil Young]

Bryan,

Thank you for the correction, in my quick back and forth comparing I used Ada's rather than this DS-T's age. It's still off by a year.

Again, just the fact that Ian's grandfather was born in India which is half a world away from where this DS-T was born proves they can't be the same... as well as the numerous other facts presented which disprove the claims made that the David-Scott Taylor who is mentioned on the 1911 census form and the military record card are not Ian's grandfather.

Jeff, I think a better way to put it is that this is exactly the wrong way to discuss history. It is far too adversarial and, as a result, so many things that should be spoken about openly won't be.

Bart, I'm not looking to "win" anything. I honestly don't care whether specific individuals accept what has been published or not. It is their right to not do so. But there are some very good reasons for going through this process...

I'll check in tomorrow...

[DMoriarty]

I hope everyone who still has any inkling that this material is authentic is following along very carefully.

Ian and Phil claim to have an authentic diary documenting virtually every day of David Scott-Taylor's adult life, yet the are unwilling or unable to even identify the member's David Scott-Taylor's first family, or the place where David Scott-Taylor grew up!
 
Phil repeatedly told us he would answer my questions as soon as he had my offer of proof that person on the form is Ian's grandfather.  The census form has been posted and I have made my offer of proof.  Yet, he still won't answer my questions.  

The reason he is reneging on his word?   He claims he isn't convinced by my proof so he isn't obligated to answer my question. This is hardly the behavior of a "man of his word" or a "man of honor."  

As for Phil's post to me above, the arguments are so attenuated that they are hardly worth addressing.  But before we even get to that, let me ask everyone else a few questions for your consideration.  If Ian and Phil have the information they say they have about Ian's grandfather, then why on Earth would Phil have to rely on an obituary to try and make his case?  Why doesn't he tell us what the diaries say about the issue? Why doesn't he produce David Scott-Taylor's military records which he claims to have?  Why doesn't he at least provide the Regiment Number so we can look up the military record ourselves.  Why won't he answer Bryan's questions?

Why would he make the attenuated argument that because the date on the form and the inferred date of birth on the census form and the inferred date of birth from the obituary are one year apart then this couldn't possibly be the same guy?  Surely if they know what they claim to know, and have what they claim to have, they can do better than this.  

I'll more fully address his post later.
____________________________________________________

Bryan,  Your questions are good ones.   I hope you and everyone else noted that Phil did not answer them.

But I think you have misunderstood something that other people probably misunderstood as well.   You ask me:

Can you find the marriage certificate from 1932 in Conway where David Scott-Taylor married a lady named Jones.  If her first name was Ada Clara it would support your case that this is the same DST, although the signature is still not provably his.

I do have the record of David Scott-Taylor's marriage in 1932 to Ian's grandmother but this was DST's second marriage.  David Scott-Taylor was a full generation older than Ian's grandmother, and he had lived a full life before they were ever married.  In fact, Ian's grandmother was a toddler when Ian's grandfather married Ada Clara. I am asking about David Scott-Taylor's first marriage not the second marriage.  The vast majority of the supposed diaries cover the time period of DST's first marriage.  

Ada Clara, (the first wife), passed away in 1931 near Chester, which is the area where Ian's grandfather was working at the time.   DST then married Ian's grandmother (the second wife) about a year and a half later.  He died a year after that.  I think it fair to say that Ian's branch of the family hardly knew him.  

As for the rest of your questions, I need to run, and I'll have to get back to you.  

[DMoriarty]

Turning to Phil’s post. (Sorry in advance about the length, but there are a lot of problems to address.)

1. David Scott-Taylor, Alyth.
Phil forgot to mention that he has already conceded that the David Scott-Taylor of Alyth is indeed Ian’s grandfather. Phil and Ian have long claimed that Ian’s grandfather studied medicine at the University of Edinburgh in 1894, and earlier in this thread Phil (for once) produced independent proof. Specifically, he provided a link to a 1894 edition of Edinburgh Medical Journal, which listed candidates which had passed their “First Examination.”  Phil's explanation (from post 6) referring to the listing: "That is Ian's grandfather who received his medical certification from Edinburgh University in 1894."

I agree. That is Ian’s grandfather. Here, again, is the listing from the Medical Journal: ”David Scott Taylor, Alyth.” Ian’s grandfather, David Scott-Taylor, was from Alyth, which was a village of about 2000 people.  

Is Phil really asking us to believe that there just happened to be two David Scott-Taylor’s from Alyth, both the same age, both serving in a branch of the Royal Navy until 1916, then both discharged, then thereafter both serving in the Royal Army Medical Core, and both becoming ship’s doctors, and both ending up in the Chester area by around 1930? Really?

2. David Scott-Taylor, born 58 years ago.
Phil argues that because the birth years inferred from the obituary and the Census Form differ by one year, then David Scott-Taylor “is absolutely NOT Ian’s grandfather”  Seriously, that is what he is arguing.

Let me explain the illogic here by way of example. I’ve done a bit of research into A.W. Tillinghast during these discussions and before, and on various official forms, I have found three different AWT birth-years, ranging from 1871 to 1876.  By Phil’s logic, we would know these were “absolutely NOT” the same A.W. Tillinghast, and there must have been at least three A.W. Tillinghasts of Philadelphia out there.  The point is that we cannot treat the dates on these forms (or a family-informed obituary) as “absolutes.” One must consider that they may be off by a year or even a few.  As anyone who has ever done any genealogical research can tell you, they weren't all that careful about birth-years back then.

If we’ve learned anything by Phil’s argument here, it is that Phil will stretch every fact and interpretation well beyond the breaking point if he feels it will help his case. His interpretations can “absolutely NOT” be trusted. Yet he demands we take his word for everything. See below.

3. David Scott-Taylor, born in India and brought to Scotland to be educated at the age of six.
This is the second element that Phil says "absolutely proves" it is not the same guy. The India reference is interesting and worth exploring, and I don't know (yet) exactly where Ian's grandfather was born.  Yet this one reference does not outweigh everything else we know.  We have no idea if it is reliable. If you don’t believe families get these things wrong about themselves, look at all that Ian has gotten wrong about his family so far, and he supposedly has an amazingly detailed diary! We also do not know if the "born" reference on the census was accurately followed, especially if we buy Phil’s insistence that the form was filled out by DST’s wife.

And let’s keep in mind that David Scott-Taylor and his second wife had only been married about a year when DST died. It should be no surprise if all the information is not perfectly accurate.  
   - For example there is no second David Scott-Taylor Military Index Card listing him as having risen to “Major Acting Colonel,” and one would expect there to be one if it were true.  
   - Likewise there is no record of Ian’s grandfather having been “mentioned in dispatches five times,” and one would expect there to be one if it were true.  (David Scott-Taylor's Index Card lists a Despatch but not five.)
  
4. Signature: David Scott-Taylor.
The pressure seems to be getting to Phil here.  He vehemently claims there are “FOUR signatures on the census form.”  Huh?  There are three names on the form, in the column for “Name and Surname."  But there is only one Signature, in the section marked "Signature" right below “I declare this Schedule is filled up to the best of my knowledge and belief."

As for the signature, as usual Phil overstates his case. He insists that this is definitely the signature of David Scott-Taylor’s wife.  While I don’t necessarily accept it, I can see the argument that the handwriting is feminine. Maybe Ian’s grandfather had feminine handwriting, or maybe not. Frankly, I don’t really care one way or another.  It is not worth arguing over.  If this is Ian’s grandfather described on the form, then Ian’s and Phil’s stories are bogus, regardless of who signed the form.

5.David Scott-Taylor’s War Index Card.
Phil tries to use entries from the diary to prove that David Scott-Taylor could not be Ian’s grandfather. Of course, he has turned the authentication process on its head.  Independent evidence must be used to authenticate the diary, not visa-versa.

The only David Scott Taylor War Index card for the relevant time period is the one I posted.  There is no separate David Scott-Taylor War Index card with information matching that of the diary.   If what Ian and Phil have been telling us is true, then there ought to be such a card. There isn’t.

Phil is all over the place in his discussion of DST’s Index Card. He seems to think that David Scott-Taylor filled out the Index Card. He didn’t. It is part of DST’s military record, and the RMLI was referred to as “Naval Forces.” Phil is also confusing the RMLI with the RAMC (Royal Army Medical Corp.)  He also seems to think I might have forged the Index Card, but the same card was posted in the past (from a different source) by either Adam or Niall.  

6. David Scott-Taylor, Indicted for Manslaughter.
Regarding the trial in Australia of a David Scott Taylor, at that time David Scott Taylor was working a ship's doctor sailing between the UK and Sydney.  Phil claims it couldn't have been Ian's grandfather because “we have quite specific documents that place Ian's grandfather in the U.K serving in a special capacity dealing with the coal miners in Wales before, during and after the time mentioned in the articles.”  Once again, Phil is asking us to take his word for everything, and no doubt the “quite specific documents” include the diary, and you can’t use the diary to authenticate the diary. If he was “serving in a special capacity” then there ought to be a record of it. One not controlled by Ian Scott Taylor.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Bryan, I have some possibilities on the information you requested but nothing definite yet.

[Quinn Thompson]

...how 'bout them Kansas City Royals, eh ?

[Duncan Cheslett]

Regarding the trial in Australia of a David Scott Taylor, at that time David Scott Taylor was working a ship's doctor sailing between the UK and Sydney.

If true, that is very interesting and something of a surprise. On what evidence do you base your assertion that DST was working as a ships doctor and visiting Australia at that time? I had assumed that by then he had become land-based and that the doctor in Australia was indeed someone else.

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!

[Phil Young]

As this has gone so far beyond the stage of ridiculousness I am retiring from this conversation. When I retired the first time, I promised to come back when I could present further information about the drawings and diaries, and that is exactly what I did. As this discussion is discussing anything but that and is concentrated on people who are both NOT Ian's grandfather and not involved in any of this I refuse to continue the argument.

Just as I came back this time after I retired promising to do so when I could reveal more information, and that is exactly what I did, I will come back after the final report is issued and I'm free to release the names of the authenticators.

Still, there is just one last question that needs answering.

Quinn Thompson, those Royals remind me of the "69 & "73 NY Mets about whom Tug McGraw created their rallying cry and which the "Sign Guy" displayed at every game, so apropos here, "Ya Gotta Believe."

[Niall C]

By the way, did anyone else notice that on the third alleged David Scott Taylor signature, the date is written in the American Date Format of Month, Day, Year?

"April 14th, 1914"

In England, Wales, Scotland, India and most of the world, the Format is Date, Month, Year.

Looking back at the few journal pages which have been posted, it seems that David Scott-Taylor was a bit schizophrenic when it came to which which format to follow.  Sometimes he followed the American Format, sometimes that of the rest of the World.

Anyone have any explanation as to why this might have been?  

It seems unlikely that someone with his background would fall in and out of the American Format.   It seems much more likely that a ex pat Welshman who has been living in the Unites States for some years might.  

I have to agree with Neil here, David.

In the UK the use of 9th October 2014  and October 9th 2014 are completely interchangeable and most people will use both formats depending upon their inclination at that time.

Only when the date is digitised do we have a set format. We use the entirely logical day/month/year format - 9/10/14

Only in America is the completely illogical (and rather confusing) month/day/year format - 10/9/14 - used.

Duncan

Interesting comment about how dates are written down in the UK. Have to say in my business experience the day comes before the month whether it's numerical or written, and pretty sure that applies to informal/personal correspondence. It may well be that back then things were different but I'd have guess the opposite, that that was where our convention came from, no ?

Niall

[Niall C]

Regarding the Road hole drawing: “These signatures were compared with copies and originals of the four persons indicated on the drawing.” Also, “In conclusion, all signatures were made by gentlemen with their right hand.  Three different inks were used on the documents. Of note, A.W. Tillinghast’s signature and drawing were made in one ink consistent with an American manufacturer.  Dr. Scott-Taylor and Dr. MacKenzie’s signatures were written in a fountain pen with separate ink.  Mr. Morris’ signature was made with a dipping pen and is in another ink.  This concludes that all the gentlemen’s signatures on this document are genuine and are written at the time dated. This proves that the documents are genuine. 

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.

Niall

[Jonathan Mallard]

Phil:

Why are you still arguing about this on Golfclubatlas?  What are you hoping will happen?

Bart

To quote Deep Throat (as portrayed by Hal Holbrook) aka "MF," AKA "my friend," and finally self-outed as Mark Felt...

"Follow the money."

[DMoriarty]

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#msg1392904

Notably, 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.  

[Ian Scott-Taylor]

Mr. Moriarty, thank you for your last post, and your magnificent conclusions. I must say you seem to know far more about my family than we do, but then again you seem to know a lot about everyone's posts. The only sad thing about this Sir is that you will and have scared away people who wish to post work or interesting threads for us followers of GCA. Bye the bye we do know who called my family thanks to the police service, don't we,  you obviously know because you know everything else. We will not be posting on this thread as is seems to be a pointless exercise. No matter what we post you will sir attack it with your usual gusto, so why put any one through the agony. Any way I must bid you good night sir as I'm going to finish my '0' gauge Stanier Black 5 model. I'm sure you could give us chapter and verse on the steam engines history ? Good night sir.

[Adam Lawrence]

Ian, perhaps you could explain to us the remarkable similarity between your signature and your grandfather's, bearing in mind that he died 26 years before you were born?

[Ian Scott-Taylor]

Adam,
Firstly got to say your an awesome golf writer, if I gave a reason or explanation Mr Moriarty would hang it to the cross. I think enough has been said for one reason or another, you have your opinion and I respect that, it's a free country both here in the US and home in the UK not to give a member of Parliaments answer.  In short I have no answer  never noticed till it was pointed out there was no need to look before this scrutiny.

Anyway looking forward to your article on your US trip. Safe flight back mate and belated happy anniversary to you and your good lady.

[DMoriarty]

Mr. Moriarty, thank you for your last post, and your magnificent conclusions. I must say you seem to know far more about my family than we do, but then again you seem to know a lot about everyone's posts. The only sad thing about this Sir is that you will and have scared away people who wish to post work or interesting threads for us followers of GCA. Bye the bye we do know who called my family thanks to the police service, don't we,  you obviously know because you know everything else. We will not be posting on this thread as is seems to be a pointless exercise. No matter what we post you will sir attack it with your usual gusto, so why put any one through the agony. Any way I must bid you good night sir as I'm going to finish my '0' gauge Stanier Black 5 model. I'm sure you could give us chapter and verse on the steam engines history ? Good night sir.

First, as to your stories about your grandfather, rather than lashing out at me wouldn't it be far more satisfying for you to just to prove me wrong?  

I am way out on a limb here.  I have stated that, based on my research and the research of others, I don't believe your grandfather was who you say say he was; That he wasn't a commissioned Naval officer and Naval surgeon; That he wasn't rushed to the bedside of the Queen, that he wasn't made a informal member of the R&A; That he wasn't at a dinner in 1901 with A.W. Tillinghast, Old Tom, and Alistair MacKenzie. Etc.  I've claimed that your grandfather was the David Scott-Taylor who is listed as from Alyth on the census form (and your partner, Phil Young, has confirmed that your grandfather was indeed from Alyth.) In short, I've set myself up for you to make me look like a complete fool. Surely you and Phil would like nothing better!  And it is easy. If your story is true.

You claim to have diaries from virtually every day of your grandfather's adult life, and a wealth of additional information from and about your grandfather.   If you have even some of what you say you have, then you can prove me wrong quickly and easily.  All you would need to do is provide some information about your grandfather that is verifiable from independent sources.
- Things like the names of his family members before he married your grandmother, and their places and dates of birth and death.
- Things like his military records, or at the very least his military regiment number so we can look up his military records ourselves.  
- Things like where he grew up in Scotland, after returning from India, and where he lived between 1900 and 1930.
- Things like the actual dates when he was tending to the Queen, and any formal or informal accommodation received for his service.
 
This type of information is relatively easy to verify by informational sources outside your cocoon of control, and none of this requires much more of you than looking at the diaries.  It ought to all check out via independent sources.  You will have proven that I was wrong and you will take me down more than a few pegs.  We all know that  you, Phil, and some others would like that very much.  

And it would be so easy to do.  If your story was true.

________________________________________________

Second, if you mean to infer that it was me who called your sister, or that I was involved, then you are telling stories once again. I didn't call her and I know nothing about it.

Instead of this amorphous and vaguely accusatory bit about how "we know who called . . .don't we . . . ." back up your accusation.  If you know who called, then who called? Will you at least back up this latest story with facts, or must we again take your word for it?

Also, I'd like to contact the "police service" you claim to have called and discuss the matter with them directly, especially now that you have inferred on a public website that I was involved.  I'd like to clear my name and provide them with all the information I have so as to help them crack this heinous case.
 - Which police agency did you contact, and when, and what is their contact information?
 - To whom did you speak?  
 - Was a report filed?  If so, what is the reference number?
 - Is there an investigating officer?  If so, what is contact information?

Thanks.

[Ian Scott-Taylor]

Sir, there you go again twisting words, I rest my case it is pointless posting anything, I implied you knew everything not that you were the caller did I.

By the way sir  it is not my nature nor do I take pleasure in making anyone look a fool that sir is for someone else to do, we were brought up better than that.

Good night sir, I am soldering my brass model,  you must excuse me, I have more important things to do this night.