September 17th Letter

[Natalie Severn]

I don't understand why you think this is significant.

Obviously, these people simply didn't know that the letter's authenticity had ever been questioned. Given that, the fact that they believed it to be genuine is scarcely surprising. And presumably they "wouldn't be drawn further" because they didn't know anything.

Chris,
You may be right.At the time I understood from information on one of the threads here at the time, that testing had been done on the letter and further testing was in the pipeline,but the staff intimated that yes,certain tests, common to other items in their archives,would have assuredly taken place,but they were not aware of any " recent testing" , either in progress or being contemplated.
You are aware Chris,that because the letter is under lock and key and high security is in operation at Kew ,it is no easy matter even getting [ rare ]sight of it,never mind requesting it be "retested" -so the matter has been left unresolved to my mind to date.
Best
Norma

[mac-the-kipper]

I don't understand why you think this is significant.

Obviously, these people simply didn't know that the letter's authenticity had ever been questioned. Given that, the fact that they believed it to be genuine is scarcely surprising. And presumably they "wouldn't be drawn further" because they didn't know anything.

I think it was Stewart that wrote about it's credibility and intmated that they (the NA) 'are looking into it'. That was a couple of years back.

[mac-the-kipper]

The obvious conclusion being that Mac perhaps bought the letter on E-Bay and then slipped it into a similar volume of material?
Only joshing ya folks.

Damn!........................busted!

Great piece of music that.

[mac-the-kipper]

Hi Ally,
I would agree with you -usually.However ,in this instance I understand it may be difficult for Mac to give Chris an absolute yes or no on this matter.
The National Archives people reacted with surprise when I spoke to them,about a year ago, about the testing that [I thought] had been recently done regarding the authenticity of Sept 17th letter.They said that as far as they knew there were no questions about it not being genuine.So I was left with the impression that they believed the letter kept in their archives was indeed genuine. They wouldn"t be drawn further.
Warm regards,
Norma

There you go folks, read Norma's post. She was asking the NA about this before I found out. I'm sure that if you paid many thousands of pounds you too could have a definitive answer.

[Chris]

The National Archives people reacted with surprise when I spoke to them,about a year ago, about the testing that [I thought] had been recently done regarding the authenticity of Sept 17th letter.They said that as far as they knew there were no questions about it not being genuine.So I was left with the impression that they believed the letter kept in their archives was indeed genuine. They wouldn"t be drawn further.

I don't understand why you think this is significant.

Obviously, these people simply didn't know that the letter's authenticity had ever been questioned. Given that, the fact that they believed it to be genuine is scarcely surprising. And presumably they "wouldn't be drawn further" because they didn't know anything.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ally,
I would agree with you -usually.However ,in this instance I understand it may be difficult for Mac to give Chris an absolute yes or no on this matter.
The National Archives people reacted with surprise when I spoke to them,about a year ago, about the testing that [I thought] had been recently done regarding the authenticity of Sept 17th letter.They said that as far as they knew there were no questions about it not being genuine.So I was left with the impression that they believed the letter kept in their archives was indeed genuine. They wouldn"t be drawn further.
Warm regards,
Norma

[Chris]

Has anyone actually accused him of faking it?

Only in private emails several years ago - as far as I'm aware.

[Ally]

Norma,

I kind of have to disagree. If you make a statement of "fact" i.e an assertion, in a public forum and then refuse to back up that assertion with actual hard facts, then you do need to explain yourself. Or you look like a git and don't really get to complain when people treat you like a git.

Now I will be totally honest, I don't know what the heck the ta-do is over the sept. 17th letter because I haven't followed all the hoopla. But it seems to me, that mac found the letter, so he thinks that because everyone thinks it's fake, they are accusing him of faking it? Is that basically the gist?

Has anyone actually accused him of faking it? Yes, I know, I need to go back and read the whole thread....getting on it.

[Natalie Severn]

Chris,
Those remarks on the other thread were not directed at you actually and I am sorry if I have misunderstood you.
However,thankyou for clarifying what it is you want Mac to do . I do think that is a perfectly reasonable request you are making. However ,if Mac declines he may have good reason for doing so and he doesn"t have to explain himself to anyone on here.
Best
Norma

[Chris]

I think Mac"s response is understandable.He has clearly had his fill of being treated in a condescending and contemptuous way by certain of those who consider the letter to be a modern fake.
Obviously it would be great for everyone if some new tests could be carried out but bullying wont budge the archivists at Kew will it ----anymore than it is encouraging Mac to go to the trouble of arranging towards this himself?

Natalie

I think you must have misunderstood what I am asking. I am not asking about "new tests", or even the recent ones that are rumoured to have been paid for by Patricia Cornwell. I am asking "mac-the-kipper" to clarify what he himself has posted on this thread - which appeared to be a claim that the National Archives have already authenticated this letter by scientific tests they had carried out some time ago.

If he will just confirm that that understanding of his comments is correct, then I will be happy to contact TNA to try to get some more details. I should have thought that anyone interested in establishing the truth about this letter would welcome that.

If you think I am behaving unreasonably in seeking clarification of what has been claimed, I must say I think you have a very peculiar perspective.

At any rate, I should appreciate it if you could refrain from accusing me of "bullying" "mac", let alone making cryptic comments about "really unfair and unpleasant personal attacks" on him, as you have on another board. I realise he says he received some unpleasant anonymous emails some years ago, but I don't think I have ever seen a personal attack on him, either on these boards or on jtrforums.com.

[Cap'n Jack]

The obvious conclusion being that Mac perhaps bought the letter on E-Bay and then slipped it into a similar volume of material?
Only joshing ya folks.

[Natalie Severn]

I am simply asking you (politely) to clarify the statements you have already posted here, which appeared to imply that you had been told by a senior member of the National Archives staff that the TNA had had scientific tests conducted on the letter some time ago, and had thereby authenticated it.

If you refuse to confirm that, I'm sure people will draw the obvious conclusion.

I think Mac"s response is understandable.He has clearly had his fill of being treated in a condescending and contemptuous way by certain of those who consider the letter to be a modern fake.
Obviously it would be great for everyone if some new tests could be carried out but bullying wont budge the archivists at Kew will it ----anymore than it is encouraging Mac to go to the trouble of arranging towards this himself?

[Chris]

I don't have to answer your questions nor will I.
As Martin put it.............. Tough titty.

I am simply asking you (politely) to clarify the statements you have already posted here, which appeared to imply that you had been told by a senior member of the National Archives staff that the TNA had had scientific tests conducted on the letter some time ago, and had thereby authenticated it.

If you refuse to confirm that, I'm sure people will draw the obvious conclusion.

[mac-the-kipper]

As "mac-the-kipper" has appeared on another thread with some completely uncalled-for remarks casting doubt on the authenticity of the photo of Dutfield's Yard discovered by Philip Hutchinson, and a strange reference to my "belligerent" posts, I thought I'd quote my last post to him - which I thought was actually remarkably polite in the circumstances.

If he wants to discuss the 17 September letter, I wish he would do so, rather than making unwarranted attacks on people who aren't concerned with it.

I don't have to answer your questions nor will I.
As Martin put it.............. Tough titty.

you'll have to wait.

[Chris]

While you're continuing to post here, it would be really helpful if you could answer that question about the tests you said you'd been told about by a senior member of staff at the National Archives.

On Friday you appeared to confirm that I had correctly understood what you were saying, but then your post was removed. That makes me wonder whether you had had second thoughts.

So please can you confirm whether the following is correct? Are you saying that the senior member of staff of the National Archives told you that tests had been conducted by TNA, and that they had determined that the paper came from the relevant period, and that the ink was "as it should be"?

If that is correct, I will ask someone at the National Archives whether they can provide further details of these tests.

As "mac-the-kipper" has appeared on another thread with some completely uncalled-for remarks casting doubt on the authenticity of the photo of Dutfield's Yard discovered by Philip Hutchinson, and a strange reference to my "belligerent" posts, I thought I'd quote my last post to him - which I thought was actually remarkably polite in the circumstances.

If he wants to discuss the 17 September letter, I wish he would do so, rather than making unwarranted attacks on people who aren't concerned with it.