Authenticating the Tillinghast Sketches update by Phil Young ...

[Mark Bourgeois]

It is quite possible that Queen Victoria was actually a man pretending to be a woman. In cases such as this it is not uncommon to call in a private surgeon.

You should claim the rights to "Queen Victor Victoria" posthaste.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here's his artists web page which explains the PhD... And has a picture.

http://ian-scotttaylor.artistwebsites.com

I could be wrong, but I'm 99+% sure that Dr. Scott-Taylor's painting called "Turnberry at War--1943" is of the 8th green on the Kintyre Course, which was not existent in 1943.

Looks like that green to me too.  Did it not exist on the old Arran course before and after WW II?  In any event Ian wasn't born until 16 years after 1943, so he clearly took artistic license in painting a scene from before he was born.  I presume the ships in the background are meant to be warships.

[Rich Goodale]

Here's his artists web page which explains the PhD... And has a picture.

http://ian-scotttaylor.artistwebsites.com

I could be wrong, but I'm 99+% sure that Dr. Scott-Taylor's painting called "Turnberry at War--1943" is of the 8th green on the Kintyre Course, which was not existent in 1943.

Looks like that green to me too.  Did it not exist on the old Arran course before and after WW II?  In any event Ian wasn't born until 16 years after 1943, so he clearly took artistic license in painting a scene from before he was born.  I presume the ships in the background are meant to be warships.

Brian

I played all 18 of the old Arran in 1978, and was no waterside hole on that course.  I would have remembered that hole if it had been part of it.  Donald Steel built the current version in 2001.  I suppose it is possible that there was a waterside hole that was destroyed in WWII (which is why gave my 1st post 99+% probability rather than 100%).  Does anybody out there have access to a plan for the Old Arran as it existed in 1943?

[Sean_A]

Rihc

Like you, I am nearly 100% sure Turnberry's main course never ventured as far down the coast as the 9th and 8th of the Kintyre.  I recall seeing (reprinted?) plans of the Fernie, Hutchison (damn it, will people stop spelling his name as Hutchinson - they were two completely different people!!!) and PMR routings, they are remarkably similar.  I am sure the routings are in a book somewhere that is fairly new.  I recall when I when I last played the Kintyre I wondered as to why on earth didn't the main course stretch another hole to include the green site from Kintyre 8. Its long been one of the burning questions I have about routings.

Ciao 

[DMoriarty]

Thank you David Moriarty for filling in/destroying more of the details once again.

While I realize that some on here find parts of this to be tangential, I personally consider it to be highly relevant, simply because.....

From my perspective as something of writer/researcher, I believe that if someone is going to come along with a story which significantly changes otherwise well-recorded history, their new version needs to add up pretty much completely.  There are, of course, quirky historical outliers - cases where an event is reported one way via multiple sources, then somewhat differently elsewhere, and you are left with at least a seed of doubt.  And in that spirit, I would caution against discounting any new narrative simply because not every single detail fits perfectly.  But.....

In this case, I personally viewed what parts of the Scott-Taylor materials I was familiar with to be fraudulent even before any of them appeared on GCA.  Then, once a few parts were posted here, numerous points of the narrative, big and small, were quickly called into question.  If, in response to that, either Ian or Phil Young could have meaningfully defended the great majority of the questioned points, the story might have had a chance of holding up.  But from what I can see, they've defended relatively little - and what they have presented is from secret materials that cannot be viewed, the content of which seems to have changed as needed, and which were "authenticated" by people who won't let their names out because they don't want to be questioned by amateurs on a golf architecture website (as someone with family fairly high up in the art business, that last part actually made me laugh out loud).

So for me, the bottom line is that beyond the possible odd outlying fact/inconsistency, Ian and Phil's story had to add up more or less completely to be credible - and based on the work of David Moriarty and several others here, it seems apparent that they are many, many miles away from getting over that bar.  Indeed, it strikes me that for those so inclined, perhaps a better use of research time going forward might be to see if there's any significant aspect of this story that actually does check out as clearly and demonstrably true.

As I say, outliers...   

Thanks Daniel.

As for your last suggestion, I've been searching for any significant aspect of the story that does check out and have asked others to chime in, but so far there is not much.

[Bill Brightly]

While David and others seem to be effectively challenging the authenticity of Tilly's long lost drawings and destroying family lore, we probably should dispatch with this piece of tripe that Phil threw in his essay:

So it might be reasonable to assume that when the tale of the design of Merion was told many years later, that the knowledge that Wilson had consulted design sketches of the great holes of Scotland and knowledge that he had gone over himself to make them, have as their genesis the Tillinghast hole sketches. This is not a dogmatic statement, but reasonable conjecture based on the proven existence of sketches of this type by Tillinghast and knowledge that it was his practice to share things of this type with his friends.

Really Phil? Do you really think it was Tilly's drawings, and not the time spent with Macdonald, including a visit to NGLA, where Wilson could actually see holes on the ground, that had the greater influence on what Wilson built at Merion?

[Bryan Izatt]

I now have the Royal Marines service record of "A" David Scott Taylor register number 9526.  It is the same DST as was earlier posted from the 1911 Census with a birthplace in Alyth Scotland.  I still don't have proof positive that this is Ian's grandfather.  I can glean the following information from the service record:

Born:  20 April 1877

Where Born:  Alyth, Perthshire

Trade on entering the Marines:  Medical Student.

I can find a report that "A" DST passed his first medical exam (after his first year of study in Edinburgh) in June 1894.  He is not listed among those who passed their exams in 1896.  I can find no publication of exam results for 1895, 1897 or 1898.  If he passed all five years of his studies he should have become a doctor in the summer of 1898.  If the Royal Marine DST is the same as the medical school DST, then he didn't graduate as a doctor before enlisting.

"A" DST enlisted on 22 February 1898 in Edinburgh

His next of kin was listed as W. S. Taylor, of Dundee Scotland

This DST was a private at RM Depot Walmer for 8 months and was then transferred to Portsmouth

He spent some months land based and had stints at sea on the "Diana", "Gladiator" and "Australia".  He was promoted to Corporal on 5 December 1900.  

He served on "Australia" until 7 January 1901 when he disembarked and spent the the rest of the year and 1902 through 9 October 2004 in Portsmouth and then embarked "Narcissus".

So, this DST was in Portsmouth at the beginning of the 1901 when Queen Victoria died.  There is no indication that he was a doctor, although there is a note that he was passed for first aid to injured in 1903.  He was also land based in Portsmouth in late 1901 when he married Ada Clara Porter.

This DST was promoted to Sergeant on 2 October 1905.

He served at Portsmouth and on several ships through to his discharge on 19 March 1916.

His "employment during service" is listed as School Assistant, then Senior School Assistant and then Officers Librarian for the periods he was in Portsmouth beginning on 22.2.01.

It is noted that he had a Temp Commission for the RAMC on discharge.

His address on discharge in 1916 was 37 Freemantle Road, Gosport, Hants.  This is the same address as on the 1911 Census previously posted.



If this is the same David Scott Taylor who died in 1933 and is Ian's grandfather, then he must have gotten his medical degree after 1916.

This DST was land based in Portsmouth in 1901 so might possibly have been visiting his family in Dundee on leave in May 1901 when he claims to have met Tilly et al at St Andrews.

So, I still don't know with certainty that this is "The" David Scott Taylor, grandfather to Ian.

[Adam Lawrence]

Great find, Bryan. I know you say there isn't final proof that this is Ian's grandfather, but I for one am sure that it is. There is no trace of any _other_ David Scott-Taylor in any records we have been able to trace. This DST is the correct age, and is clearly the same guy whose medal records were found earlier - note that medal record was not challenged by Phil and Ian.

Therefore I conclude that, as per my discussion with Phil on the previous thread, DST was NOT a lieutenant in the Royal Navy, whether before or after the purported 'Queen Victoria' incident, as Phil variously claimed.

[Bryan Izatt]

Adam,

Yes, this is the same guy as in the medal records - they have the same register number - 9526.

The medal record shows his promotion to Lieutenant and then Captain in the RAMC.  That was after his 18 years of service in the Royal Marines that I documented above.

Having done a lot of family tree research on my own, I'd just say that finding ancestors is not always easy, even when you know where you are looking.  The search engines are unreliable based as they are on transcriptions (by people) of physical records.  There are other David S Taylors out there as well as many David Taylors.  And names may be misspelled and dates and ages may be wrong.  It's still open in my mind.

I'd be happier if we could find a clear link between this DST and Ian.  I'll have to look at DST in the RAMC.  Perhaps there is s something there about him getting a medical degree or moving to Wales.

[Adam Lawrence]

Brian - as I posted in the previous thread, I'm pretty certain that this is the record of DST getting his medical qualifications...

Page 210 of this edition of the Glasgow Medical Journal shows Scott-Taylor passing the final examinations of the Edinburgh College of Surgeons in January 1916.

https://archive.org/stream/glasgowmedicaljo85glas#page/210/mode/2up

[Bryan Izatt]

Adam,

Thanks for the link to the Glasgow Medical Journal.  I missed it first time around.

The DST I have the service record for was discharged 19 March 1916 in Portsmouth with a commission in the RAMC. I wonder how he could have passed the final exam on 21 January 1916 in Glasgow while still in the service at Portsmouth?  Could it be that these are two different David Scott Taylors?

[DMoriarty]

Adam,

Thanks for the link to the Glasgow Medical Journal.  I missed it first time around.

The DST I have the service record for was discharged 19 March 1916 in Portsmouth with a commission in the RAMC. I wonder how he could have passed the final exam on 21 January 1916 in Glasgow while still in the service at Portsmouth?  Could it be that these are two different David Scott Taylors?

Bryan, I think the exam was in Edinburgh, not Glasgow.  And I don't think it was a "final exam" in the sense of an exam given at the end of medical school.  From what I can gather the "Triple Qualification" or "Triple Conjoint" was a licensing examination (or series of examinations.)  I don't think one necessarily had to be a traditional student at medical school to take the examination.  I don't know if it is true, but I've read somewhere (wikipedia?) that the test was sometimes considered a "backdoor" route to practicing medicine, presumably because one could become licensed without formally completing medical school at one of the traditional Scottish institutions.

In short, I don't think we should assume that David Scott-Taylor was studying medicine in Edinburgh (or Glasgow) in 1915 just because he passed the Triple Qualification in January 1916. 

[DMoriarty]

Also, Bryan, thanks very much for posting all that information from David Scott-Taylor's service record.  As you indicate, it is definitely the same David Scott-Taylor on the Medal Records and on the 1911 the census records. It also seems to be the same guy who was passed his first exam at University of Edinburgh in 1894, wouldn't you agree?

That said, I am somewhat confused as to why you still think this might not be Ian's grandfather.   You wrote, "There are other David S Taylors out there as well as many David Taylors.  And names may be misspelled and dates and ages may be wrong.  It's still open in my mind." While it is true that there are other David S. Taylors and David Taylors, we aren't looking for just any David Taylor.  We are looking for a David Scott-Taylor who matches the general description of Ian's grandfather.   Here are some details about the David Scott-Taylor we seek:

1.  Name:  He went by David "Scott-Taylor" with the Scott-Taylor hyphenated, which much rarer than "Taylor."
2.  Age:  He was born sometime in the mid 1870's.
3.  Residence as a child:  Ian and Phil have refused to tell us where he lived once he came from India, but the diary entries indicate that his family lived somewhere around Dundee. (His train journey to from "home" are to/from Dundee.)
4.  Medical Education:  Phil and Ian have said he studied Medicine at the University of Edinburgh in the mid-1890's. Phil has even argued that the person listed as "David Scott Taylor, Alyth" in the 1894 Edinburgh Medical Journal was most definitely Ian's grandfather, although I imagine he'd like to take that back about now.
5.  Service in Royal Navy:   Phil and Ian have said that his grandfather enlisted in the "Royal Navy" after medical school.
6.  Service in Royal Army Medical Core. Phil and Ian have said that Ian's grandfather was discharged from the Royal Navy during WWI and became a commissioned officer the Royal Army Medical Core.
7.  Residence at his time of death.  At the time of Ian's Grandfather death in 1933 he was living and working in the Chester area.

While Phil and Ian vehemently deny that the David Scott-Taylor we have found is Ian's grandfather, he seems to be a very good match.

1.  Name:  The David Scott-Taylor we have found hyphenates his last name, just like Ian's grandfather.
2.  Age:  The David Scott-Taylor we have found was born in or around 1877.
3.  Residence as a child: The David Scott-Taylor we have found listed himself as from Alyth, which 17 miles from Dundee, and listed his next of kin as from Dundee.
4.  Medical Education:  The David Scott-Taylor we have found listed himself as a "medical student" when he enlisted, and "David Scott-Taylor, Alyth" passed his first exam toward "Triple Qualification" at Universlty of Edinburgh in 1894.
5.  Service in Royal Navy:  The David Scott-Taylor we have found enlisted in a branch of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marine Light Infantry, in 1898.
6.  Service in Royal Army Medical Core. The David Scott-Taylor we have found was discharged from the Royal Navy and given a temporary commission in the Royal Army Medical Core in 1916.
7.  Residence at his time of death.  The family of the David Scott-Taylor we have found seems to have relocated to the Chester area sometime before 1933.  His first wife died in Nantwich (20 miles from Chester) in 1931.  His son lived in Chester and had a granddaughter in Chester.  His daughter lived (and died) in the Chester area.

This seems to be a very strong match to me. Do you really think there was a different David Scott-Taylor who also matches the description?  That would be remarkable, wouldn't it?  

I'd be happier if we could find a clear link between this DST and Ian.

I would too, and I think we will eventually.  But in the interim probabilities have to play a role here, don't they?  Doesn't it seem highly improbable that there would just happen to be another "David Scott-Taylor" who so closely matches so much of the description.  Doesn't it seem even more improbable that, if there was another, that none of us can thus far find any evidence of his existence?

Of course, if Ian and Phil would answer even the most basic questions about Ian's grandfather, such as the names of his first wife and family members, the search would be a lot easier.  We'd know for certain whether or not their story check out.  But so far all they have been willing to say is that the David Scott-Taylor we have found is most definitely not Ian's grandfather.  Not much help really, unless of course they are wrong.  

If it turns out the David Scott-Taylor we have found is Ian's grandfather, then I trust that even you will agree that their story is fiction.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Take a look at the institutions to which this David Scott Taylor was admitted in 1916;



Then compare them to those listed in the obituary of Ian's grandfather;



They are a perfect match.

The 'L' before the initials of each institution incidentally, stands for ' Licentiate '.

http://www.medicabbreviations.com/abbreviations/20151.html

A slightly puzzling question is that if DST was studying medicine in Edinburgh in 1894 why did it take him until 1916 to qualify?

One answer of course, would be that there were two DSTs studying for identical qualifications two decades apart. If Ian's grandfather was not the DST who qualified in 1916 then there must be a record of him achieving exactly the same qualifications some years earlier.

Unfortunately records at the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow do not appear to be fully digitised.

A visit to their archives might well be the only way to discover for sure whether there was ever more than one David Scott-Taylor.

[Bryan Izatt]

Adam,

Thanks for the link to the Glasgow Medical Journal.  I missed it first time around.

The DST I have the service record for was discharged 19 March 1916 in Portsmouth with a commission in the RAMC. I wonder how he could have passed the final exam on 21 January 1916 in Glasgow while still in the service at Portsmouth?  Could it be that these are two different David Scott Taylors?

Bryan, I think the exam was in Edinburgh, not Glasgow.  And I don't think it was a "final exam" in the sense of an exam given at the end of medical school.  From what I can gather the "Triple Qualification" or "Triple Conjoint" was a licensing examination (or series of examinations.)  I don't think one necessarily had to be a traditional student at medical school to take the examination.  I don't know if it is true, but I've read somewhere (wikipedia?) that the test was sometimes considered a "backdoor" route to practicing medicine, presumably because one could become licensed without formally completing medical school at one of the traditional Scottish institutions.

In short, I don't think we should assume that David Scott-Taylor was studying medicine in Edinburgh (or Glasgow) in 1915 just because he passed the Triple Qualification in January 1916. 

David,

You're right, it was Edinburgh, not Glasgow.

For your edification you could read the British Medical Journal of 1892 that lays out in excruciating detail the requirements and processes for achieving the "triple qualification".  It details the courses required and when the four examinations should be taken.  The "triple" part refers to the three licensing bodies - the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (L.R.C.P.E.);  Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (L.R.C.S.E.);  and, Royal Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow (L.R.F.P. and S.G.).  Taking one set of 4 exams successfully would get you licensed through all three bodies.  Apparently you could take the courses at different accredited places and take the exams at a common location.

The process looks quite formal.  I don't think what you "read somewhere (wikipedia?)" is correct, but you can read what the British Medical Journal says for yourself.  The relevant part starts at the bottom of page 512.  Happy reading.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=gNI9AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA511&lpg=PA511&dq=triple+qualification+edinburgh+medical+1892&source=bl&ots=lsDsbskf7c&sig=HBeuoM_JhhG0bDbUUXMwRyu7qbU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q0hLVLC2DomayQSrmYHIAw&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=triple%20qualification%20edinburgh%20medical%201892&f=false

Perhaps standards were eased during the war, but I still don't understand how this DST could pass the final exam in January when he wasn't discharged until March and had spent the last 18 years in the Marines, latterly serving as a school assistant and then librarian.

[Bryan Izatt]

Also, Bryan, thanks very much for posting all that information from David Scott-Taylor's service record.  As you indicate, it is definitely the same David Scott-Taylor on the Medal Records and on the 1911 the census records. It also seems to be the same guy who was passed his first exam at University of Edinburgh in 1894, wouldn't you agree?

It's possible, maybe even probable, but there is no definitive link to the guy who passed his first triple qualification exam in 1894.  By the way, it was not the "University".  I believe the conjoint Royal Colleges conducted the exams.

That said, I am somewhat confused as to why you still think this might not be Ian's grandfather.   You wrote, "There are other David S Taylors out there as well as many David Taylors.  And names may be misspelled and dates and ages may be wrong.  It's still open in my mind." While it is true that there are other David S. Taylors and David Taylors, we aren't looking for just any David Taylor.  We are looking for a David Scott-Taylor who matches the general description of Ian's grandfather.   Here are some details about the David Scott-Taylor we seek:

1.  Name:  He went by David "Scott-Taylor" with the Scott-Taylor hyphenated, which much rarer than "Taylor." 
2.  Age:  He was born sometime in the mid 1870's.
3.  Residence as a child:  Ian and Phil have refused to tell us where he lived once he came from India, but the diary entries indicate that his family lived somewhere around Dundee. (His train journey to from "home" are to/from Dundee.)
4.  Medical Education:  Phil and Ian have said he studied Medicine at the University of Edinburgh in the mid-1890's. Phil has even argued that the person listed as "David Scott Taylor, Alyth" in the 1894 Edinburgh Medical Journal was most definitely Ian's grandfather, although I imagine he'd like to take that back about now.
5.  Service in Royal Navy:   Phil and Ian have said that his grandfather enlisted in the "Royal Navy" after medical school.
6.  Service in Royal Army Medical Core. Phil and Ian have said that Ian's grandfather was discharged from the Royal Navy during WWI and became a commissioned officer the Royal Army Medical Core.
7.  Residence at his time of death.  At the time of Ian's Grandfather death in 1933 he was living and working in the Chester area.

While Phil and Ian vehemently deny that the David Scott-Taylor we have found is Ian's grandfather, he seems to be a very good match.

1.  Name:  The David Scott-Taylor we have found hyphenates his last name, just like Ian's grandfather.

His name was not hyphenated in either the 1894 or 1916 medical exams.  Nor was it hyphenated on his service record.

2.  Age:  The David Scott-Taylor we have found was born in or around 1877.
3.  Residence as a child: The David Scott-Taylor we have found listed himself as from Alyth, which 17 miles from Dundee, and listed his next of kin as from Dundee.
4.  Medical Education:  The David Scott-Taylor we have found listed himself as a "medical student" when he enlisted, and "David Scott-Taylor, Alyth" passed his first exam toward "Triple Qualification" at Universlty of Edinburgh in 1894.

As per above, not the "University".

5.  Service in Royal Navy:  The David Scott-Taylor we have found enlisted in a branch of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marine Light Infantry, in 1898.
6.  Service in Royal Army Medical Core. The David Scott-Taylor we have found was discharged from the Royal Navy and given a temporary commission in the Royal Army Medical Core in 1916.
7.  Residence at his time of death.  The family of the David Scott-Taylor we have found seems to have relocated to the Chester area sometime before 1933.  His first wife died in Nantwich (20 miles from Chester) in 1931.  His son lived in Chester and had a granddaughter in Chester.  His daughter lived (and died) in the Chester area.

This seems to be a very strong match to me. Do you really think there was a different David Scott-Taylor who also matches the description?  That would be remarkable, wouldn't it?

Sure, there are points that match, but there is no definitive link going backwards from Ian to his grandfather and first wife or to his medical school and birth even.  If Ian and Phil categorically deny this guy as the grandfather, then I'd think you'd want to find definitive proof before accusing them of lying.  They have more information about the family than the rest of us do.  I assume that you were trying to get the information from Phil about DST's first wife and children to confirm the link.  (And, I know that they haven't provided that, so you don't have to reiterate it).

I'd be happier if we could find a clear link between this DST and Ian.

I would too, and I think we will eventually.  But in the interim probabilities have to play a role here, don't they?  Why do we need to rely on "probabilities" in the interim?  What's the rush to judgement.  Either we'll find proof one way or another or Ian and Phil will provide verifiable information.  What good does it do to be probably right in the interim.

Doesn't it seem highly improbable that there would just happen to be another "David Scott-Taylor" who so closely matches so much of the description.  Doesn't it seem even more improbable that, if there was another, that none of us can thus far find any evidence of his existence?

Why can't we find DST's birth record?  Or, where he was in the 1901 census or the 1891 or 1881 census?  Why didn't DST pass any more triple qualification exams between 1895 and 1898?  Why would he enlist in the Infantry?  How would he have passed the triple qualification exam in 1916 after 18 years in the infantry (and on ships) and before he was discharged?  There's lots of unanswered questions.

Of course, if Ian and Phil would answer even the most basic questions about Ian's grandfather, such as the names of his first wife and family members, the search would be a lot easier.  We'd know for certain whether or not their story check out.  But so far all they have been willing to say is that the David Scott-Taylor we have found is most definitely not Ian's grandfather.  Not much help really, unless of course they are wrong.

Perhaps a less adversarial approach on all sides would have led to a more informative conclusion at this juncture.  But, it didn't, so here we are. 

If it turns out the David Scott-Taylor we have found is Ian's grandfather, then I trust that even you will agree that their story is fiction.

I'd agree that it would mean that the Queen Victoria story was fiction.  It would certainly cast doubt on his ability to be in St Andrews in May, 1901.  Does it mean that the whole diary is fake?  Or, that the drawings are fake?  I don't know.  You, and others, have raised some interesting questions that haven't been put to rest.  So, we're at a state of impasse.  This is not a debate that should be won on probabilities either way.

I keep being reminded of the JFK assassination - even with a Warren Commission and myriad investigations since there is still no widely held understanding of the truth of what happened.  And, that event had a lot more evidence and scrutiny that David Scott-Taylor ever had.  The truth in this case may always be ephemeral.

[Bryan Izatt]

Duncan,

Anybody in Scotland who took the conjoint examination of those three Colleges would end up being licensed to all three.  At that time, in Scotland, those would have been the major (maybe only) colleges licensing physicians and surgeons so, everybody who was licensed in Scotland would have the same acronyms after their name.  I suppose it proves that the obituary DST was licensed in Scotland.

Interestingly, the digitized versions I've seen were done out of the University of Toronto, my alma mater.  I guess it means that some or all of the original versions are in my old university library.

[Duncan Cheslett]

So if a search of the archives reveals that no other David Scott-Taylor achieved these same qualifications between 1895 and say 1920 it proves that the DST in the 1911 census and the 1916 Glasgow Medical Journal was in fact Ian's grandfather?

[Lou_Duran]

For your edification you could read the British Medical Journal of 1892 that lays out in excruciating detail the requirements and processes for achieving the "triple qualification".

I am green with envy.  Having been the recipient of similar edification on advanced golf topics ("reverse angle of attack", optimization of equipment to swing characteristics, the application of modern communications and visual technologies to swing analysis, the architecture of the British Isles, etc.) and on more serious geo-political matters (the superiority of the Canadian medical and welfare systems, the predominance of social policy over economic policy), I only wish you would have also tutored me on speed reading and time management.

My lord man, you actually read the BMJ of 1892?  I could barely get through Steve Berry's "The King's Deception", which though it had no relevance to the subject thread, it at least enabled me to understand the context of John Kavanagh's incorrect allusion to Queen Victoria (I think his wider point was that just because something is not recorded in writing for someone to dig up later, it does not mean it didn't happen).  Impressive stuff, all the research that's going on.  I may have a project of a personal nature if you have time to help me over the winter.  It may require some facility with Castilian Spanish and perhaps Gallego.  IM me if interested.

[Ronald Montesano]

I'm envious, Lou. When I travel to Asturias with our exchanges, I'm able to wade through bable, what the locals call their dialect, with some expedition and precision.

[Bryan Izatt]

Lou, Lou, Lou, ............

I continue to stand in awe of your depth of knowledge of so many topics.  I'm a mere piker.

After the failed attempt at educating you on your swing through super-slo-mo video, I have learned my lesson and have put you on the ineducable list.   

Good luck on the Gallego - I had to look that up.  Thanks for incenting me to broaden my knowledge.    

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,
Regarding the "Triple Qualification" process, thanks for the link to the 1892 Journal but I had already seen it. I take from it a different lesson than you, but perhaps this is because we may be talking past each other.  What I said was that the Triple Qualification was a mechanism to become a licensed practicing physician "without formally completing medical school at one of the traditional Scottish institutions."  So far as I can figure this was an accurate statement.  A person could practice medicine as a triple Licentiate even without a M.D. or MBChB from one of the Scottish Universities and without having become a "Fellow" (or the equalivent) to one of the licensing bodies.   This doesn't mean they weren't qualified, but it does mean that they may not studied medicine in Scotland, and that they may not have a medical degree other than the license.  I think the opposite was true as well.  One could practice medicine in Scotland without having passed the triple qualification, provided that they received the necessary credential from one of the Universities or Colleges (including the Colleges who offered the alternative of the triple qualification.)  I guess whether one considered this a "back door" to medical practice is a matter of opinion, but from what I can glean from the reading I have done, receiving a traditional medical degree (M.D. or MBChM) from a respected University was held in higher regard than testing into the practice through the Triple Qualification.

More to the point for our discussion, David Scott-Taylor could take the Triple Qualification Exam whether or not he was studying medicine Edinburgh or Glasgow, provided he met the prerequisites.  

For a summary of Scottish "University" requirements for a medical degree (M.D. or MBChM) see page 514 of the same Journal you cited.

The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh  has some interesting information on the triple qualification here: http://www.library.rcsed.ac.uk/content/content.aspx?ID=10

[DMoriarty]

As for your second post to me, I have a few comments.

1.  "David Scott Taylor, Alyth". You argue that "there is no definitive link to the guy who passed his first triple qualification exam in 1894" and the guy on the Census form/military service form. I beg to differ.  The person on the census form/military service form was a "medical student" before joining the RMLA and he was from Alyth.   The "David Scott Taylor"who passed the first examination in 1894 was from Alyth.  Considering we are looking for information 120 years after the fact, the links don't get much better than that. I just don't think it a reasonable hypothesis to think that there were two David Scott Taylor's from Alyth, both studying medicine at the same time. 

2. You wrote, "Sure, there are points that match, but there is no definitive link going backwards from Ian to his grandfather and first wife or to his medical school and birth even."  There are plenty of links.  You don't think they are definitive. Others see it differently.  Surely you agree that, odds are, we have found Ian's real grandfather.

3.  You also wrote "They have more information about the family than the rest of us do. I assume that you were trying to get the information from Phil about DST's first wife and children to confirm the link."   If the diary is real, then they have more information than we do.  But if the diary is fake, then I am not so sure.  At this point, what makes you think that they have more information about the first 50 years of Ian's grandfather's life than the rest of us do?  Nothing about their story checks out and they weren't even able to tell us the name of his first wife.  Have they offered any verifiable fact that would make you think they know know more about the first 50 years of David Scott-Taylor's life than you do?

4.  There has been no "rush to judgment." These guys have have tried to make their case in three separate IMO's, and countless unfulfilled promises of more information to come. Yet they still haven't offered anything that actually checks out about Ian's grandfather's life.

5. As for your unanswered questions, I don't know the answers and I am not sure the questions change much, but here are a few ideas nonetheless:
  - As for his birth record and the 1881 census, the obituary says he was born in India and maybe he was.  That'd mean that on the 1911 Census form he (or his wife) put the place he grew up as opposed to his place of birth.  That wouldn't be a big shocker, would it?
  - As for why he didn't pass any more qualifying exams between 1895 and 1898, maybe he didn't study hard enough. That might also explain why he joined the RMLI rather than becoming a physician.  Also, while we know he didn't pass the final exam (had he, he'd have been a physician/surgeon when he joined the RMLI), we don't know for certain that he didn't pass any more preliminary exams during this period, do we?  I haven't been able to find records for all those years.  Have you?
 - As for how he eventually passed, perhaps he studied harder. He eventually became an "instructor" and worked in the library so perhaps there was ample time to study and perhaps even take classes.
- Of course there are lots of unanswered questions, but your unanswered questions pale in comparision to the question of why there is no record whatsoever to back up anything about Ian's and Phil's story.  (Remember, they say the guy we have found is not their guy, so none of what we found counts!)

6. You say "this is not a debate that should be one on probabilities either way."  But probabilities are always a part of this type of debate.  Even (real) forensic experts offer their opinions on a scale of probabilities.  And in a situation like this where the probabilities weigh against authenticity, it makes no sense to consider the material authentic.   Now that may change if they ever square with us, but I am not holding my breath. 

7. This is the one where you really lose me.  I asked you whether or not you agree that, if we have found Ian's grandfather, then their story is fiction.  Your answer makes no sense to me:

I'd agree that it would mean that the Queen Victoria story was fiction.  It would certainly cast doubt on his ability to be in St Andrews in May, 1901.  Does it mean that the whole diary is fake?  Or, that the drawings are fake?  I don't know.

Honestly Bryan, the above baffles me.  Ian and Phil have the diaries, and these diaries are supposed to be a daily accounting of Ian's grandfather's life. They have told us unequivocally that the David Scott-Taylor we have found is NOT Ian's grandfather. That Ada Clara was not his first wife. That Ronald was not his first son.  That he was an medical officer in the Royal Navy, not a Sergeant in the RMLI.

If Ian's grandfather's diaries cannot even get his wife right, or his children, or his occupation, then their story (and the diaries) are fiction.  Surely you can admit at least that.

[John Kavanaugh]

I hope Phil and Ian never run out of rope.

[Jeff Taylor]

I hope Phil and Ian never run out of rope.

Why?