Walter Sickert and Princess Alexandra Of Denmark

[APerno]

You don’t know what facts are.

Youve been outed and exposed.

Herlock,

You stated once, early on, that you read Knight's The Final Solution; do you still have a copy? -- I am curious, does Knight cite any of his presuppositions? Such as the one in question here.

I know from the documentaries that Knight's thesis goes something to the affect: Alexandra approached Sickert about taking Eddy under his wing with the intent of making him a more cultured/worldly individual . . . and then of course all the 'fun' with Annie Crook grows out of that association with Sickert.

Does Knight (in The Final Solution) offer any type of citing for (any of) his claims?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fishy,

Let's try to put an end the matter of the Blue Tunicle once and for all.

Joseph Sickert appears to have believed that his mother and father, Walter Sickert and Alice Margaret Crook, designed and embroidered the Blue Tunicle. How he may have come to believe this remains a mystery.

In pursuance of this notion, on November 5th 1974 Stephen Knight wrote to an unknown [to us] person at Westminster Abbey—

"He [JS] told me that you had explained to him the tunic was designed by his father and embroidered by his mother in the early part of this century."

On November 16th 1974, Stephen Knight wrote to The Dean’s Verger at Westminster Abbey—

"The gentleman who was kind enough to show us the vestment suggested I write to Mr..............for details of its background.

"I did this but Mr........was only able to confirm it was embroidered by my friend’s mother, Alice Crook Sickert, and he suggested I write to you for full details."

Stephen Knight had interpreted "designed by his father and embroidered by his mother" as meaning Walter Sickert and Alice Margaret Crook.

He was soon to be disavowed of this idea, for Knight's correspondent had attached two published articles—

A one-page photocopied extract from Westminster Abbey – It’s Worship and Ornaments Vol 3 by Jocelyn Perkins, (OUP 1952) confirmed the truth—that the "donor and artist" was Christine Drummond Angus, Walter Sickert's second wife.

And in a one-page photocopied extract from Sixty Years At Westminster Abbey, also by Jocelyn Perkins (James Clarke & Co.Ltd 1960), he wrote that the Blue Tunicle was "worked by a Scotch lady, Miss Elizabeth Angus by name."

Although husband and wife, Walter Sickert and Christine Drummond Angus were not JS's parents. Alice Crook Sickert [1885-1950], who appears to have changed her name posthumously, had nothing to do with the tunicle.

And nowhere in this correspondence is there any confirmation of Walter Sickert having designed, or having helped in the design, of the tunicle.

Yet in his book, Stephen Knight asserted that Walter Sickert had designed the Blue Tunicle. Presumably, this was to bolster the idea that he was firmly ensconced in royal circles. But he did acknowledge Sickert's second wife, Christine Drummond-Angus, as its creator.

Following publication of his book, Stephen Knight received a letter, dated October 20th 1976, from Christine Angus’s sister—

“Don’t think that Walter had anything to do with the designing of Christine's tunicle in Westminster Abbey – God forbid! Though I’m glad you give it the publicity it deserves.”

There are no facts to support Stephen Knight's assertion on Page 43 [in my edition] of his book that Walter Sickert either designed the Blue Tunicle or was at the heart of Princess Alexandra's royal circle.

Sorry, Fishy.

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

You stated once, early on, that you read Knight's The Final Solution; do you still have a copy? -- I am curious, does Knight cite any of his presuppositions? Such as the one in question here.

I know from the documentaries that Knight's thesis goes something to the affect: Alexandra approached Sickert about taking Eddy under his wing with the intent of making him a more cultured/worldly individual . . . and then of course all the 'fun' with Annie Crook grows out of that association with Sickert.

Does Knight (in The Final Solution) offer any type of citing for (any of) his claims?

None at all APerno.

[APerno]

None at all APerno.

No citing at all? That's not history! -- That is kind of amazing that Knight saw fit to make such outlandish claims and offer absolutely no proof! Usually nonsense like that tends to cherry pick information/facts that make its case, and then cite only those sources, but no references at all is just plain silly.

I guess it was a such great story that Hollywood/Media just didn't care! -- Truth is, nonsense like that usually won't get legs under it unless it claims to be a truth.

It makes me think of Fargo (Coen Brothers); who says who can't just claim something to be true, there are no rules/laws against it.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fishy,

If you wish to take issue with any points I have raised with respect to Stephen Knight's research, please ask, and I will give you a straight answer. We can do it here, in public, on the boards, or you can send me a private message.

Whichever is more comfortable and convenient for you.

Kind regards,

Simon Wood

[Herlock Sholmes]

Prepare for silence Simon.

[FISHY1118]

you wish herlock

[FISHY1118]

Following publication of his book, Stephen Knight received a letter, dated October 20th 1976, from Christine Angus’s sister—

“Don’t think that Walter had anything to do with the designing of Christine's tunicle in Westminster Abbey – God forbid! Though I’m glad you give it the publicity it deserves.”

There are no facts to support Stephen Knight's assertion on Page 43 [in my edition] of his book that Walter Sickert either designed the Blue Tunicle or was at the heart of Princess Alexandra's royal circle.

Hi Simon , if i may comment on the above ,and bare with me here, im sure your well aware that its easy for some on this forum to quote an outside source when trying to make a point relating to JTR, it. Inperticular the subject where Christines Angus sister is concerned is no different.

Now i have no doubt that she indeed sent knight a letter, the contents of which may well indeed be what is suggested in relation to who actually did design the blue tunicle . But like all sources it can be questioned and examined as to its truthfulness, for instance, how do we know for sure that Christine sister was telling the truth ? , what her relationship to Walter like ? did she dislike him? did she have little if no contact with him? did she despise him for something ? ?
if Joseph believed that Walter had in some way contributed to the deign in a some small way i dont see how Christines letter to knight is proof that he didnt .

Im going to need more than just her letter vs Joseph Sickerts belief .

just my opinion. regards fishy

[APerno]

Hi Simon , if i may comment on the above ,and bare with me here, im sure your well aware that its easy for some on this forum to quote an outside source when trying to make a point relating to JTR, it. Inperticular the subject where Christines Angus sister is concerned is no different.

Now i have no doubt that she indeed sent knight a letter, the contents of which may well indeed be what is suggested in relation to who actually did design the blue tunicle . But like all sources it can be questioned and examined as to its truthfulness, for instance, how do we know for sure that Christine sister was telling the truth ? , what her relationship to Walter like ? did she dislike him? did she have little if no contact with him? did she despise him for something ? ?
if Joseph believed that Walter had in some way contributed to the deign in a some small way i dont see how Christines letter to knight is proof that he didnt .

Im going to need more than just her letter vs Joseph Sickerts belief .

just my opinion. regards fishy

I would like to know why she added the "God forbid" at the end. -- Is it a hint that she thought Walter Sickert had bad taste? Imagine the Camden Town Murders paintings translated to an embroidered gown; maybe she's correct, god forbid.

[FISHY1118]

I would like to know why she added the "God forbid" at the end. -- Is it a hint that she thought Walter Sickert had bad taste? Imagine the Camden Town Murders paintings translated to an embroidered gown; maybe she's correct, god forbid.

Interesting point , and perhaps she did , however design contribution could have come in many forms not just painting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

you wish herlock

I was absolutely correct when I predicted silence. You completely ignored Simon’s offer to discus any aspect of Knight’s research or his own.

Predicting you is not difficult.

[FISHY1118]

Herlock youve never been correct about anything , now shoooooosh and let simon speak for himself, his a big boy im sure his capable .

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT POST 53 IS AN ISSUE , I HOPE YOUR BETTER AT PREDICTING THE WEATHER

If you wish to take issue with any points I have raised with respect to Stephen Knight's research, please ask, and I will give you a straight answer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock youve never been correct about anything , now shoooooosh and let simon speak for himself, his a big boy im sure his capable .

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT POST 53 IS AN ISSUE , I HOPE YOUR BETTER AT PREDICTING THE WEATHER

As ever you’ve dodged the real issue

. If you wish to take issue with any points I have raised with respect to Stephen Knight's research, please ask, and I will give you a straight answer. We can do it here, in public, on the boards, or you can send me a private message.

Whichever is more comfortable and convenient for you.

Show some integrity for a change and respond to this very polite request. You were the one that questioned his research. You were the one that told me that you could prove him wrong. Just for once try backing your words with evidence.

Ill say again......prepare for silence.

[FISHY1118]

Ill say it again post 53

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ill say it again post 53

Post 50 is the one that you are ignoring Fishy. You know that I’m not talking about post 53. Post 53 is irrelevant.

You've made your claim deriding Simon’s research.

You have Simon here politely offering to discus the details of that research.

You constantly dodge the issue.

Conclusion.

You know that you are wrong and that you cannot back up your comments. If you could do so why would you refuse the opportunity to strengthen your case?

Youve been exposed yet again Fishy