Walter Sickert and Princess Alexandra Of Denmark

[FISHY1118]

Keep stomping your feet and sooking up, it wont do you no good ,you lost out as far as knight is concerned . you had your chance and you blew it

[Herlock Sholmes]

Keep stomping your feet and sooking up, it wont do you no good ,you lost out as far as knight is concerned . you had your chance and you blew it

Why aren’t you answering the questions Fishy?

You say that you can.

But you dont.

Why?

[FISHY1118]

Try paying more attention to my post and you will see why Herlock . You read them but you dont understand them .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok Fishy. I’ve gone back over the conversation just to ensure that I’ve made no errors. And I haven’t.

Post 50 - Simon invites you to discuss Knights research. This means on the case as a whole. It means on the points where you have claimed that Simon’s research is at fault.

Post 52 - Is a response to me.

Post 53 - Is specifically about the tunicle.

Post 55 - Is a response to the God Forbid comment.

Post 59 - Is a repetition of post 53.

So.....

Ive paid attention Fishy.

And...

Simon has offered to discus the research which you have stated is wrong (Crook, the studio, the hospital etc) and you have completely ignored that request. Unless there are some hidden posts Fishy I can’t have gotten this wrong.

Again...this is simple. It either requires you to say either a) yes I will discus your research and show how you are wrong, or b) I’m not willing to prove my points.

Very simple. Very clear.

[FISHY1118]

OR, C which is like ive already said, i wont discuss anything to do with knight with you, but will continue to post where i see the evidence and witnesses and doctors inquest statements that makes knights theory one possibility. And Simon is more than welcome to comment on them if he wishes.

AS FOR THE 1-6 it all comes down to which source one chooses to believe

[Abby Normal]

don't feed the trolls

[Herlock Sholmes]

OR, C which is like ive already said, i wont discuss anything to do with knight with you, but will continue to post where i see the evidence and witnesses and doctors inquest statements that makes knights theory one possibility. And Simon is more than welcome to comment on them if he wishes.

AS FOR THE 1-6 it all comes down to which source one chooses to believe

As for the 1-6 there are only real sources and not purely the word of a writer. Simon used the PRO. Rate books, workhouse records etc. These are provable original sources. How can these be questioned? If an original source says that a building didn’t exist then there are no alternative sources. There comes a point when we have to accept that a fact is a fact. If you disagree with this Fishy then I’d find that rather strange. As no one else would.

[Phil Carter]

P 42, 43 ,I see no reason to dispute anything odd in regards to the Sickerts and the Dutch royal family . Precisely my point, a year before, how did it end up with such importants ?

Hello Fishy,

You write "Dutch", not "Danish".

Any particular reason? Or a typo?

As I am one of those looooong convinced that the Stephen Knight/Joseph Gorman story is humbug, (brilliantly invented humbug though) I will add just one tiny titbit. I cannot confirm nor deny it.

Many years ago a Danish acquaintance told me that in one of the Royal Households in Denmark, a painting by Walter Sickert hangs.

I do not know where, nor its name. I've never investigated the point, or claim. I just mention it out of curiosity re any thread of connection, as this particular thread pertains to a possible connection.

However, it must be said that any painting by any painter in any Royal building or household in any country in Europe does NOT mean a personal connection between painter and Royalty.

Royals around Europe own a mightily impressive collection of canvasses from a mass of famous painters, ancient or of younger age.



Phil

[FISHY1118]

Hello Fishy,

You write "Dutch", not "Danish".

Any particular reason? Or a typo?

As I am one of those looooong convinced that the Stephen Knight/Joseph Gorman story is humbug, (brilliantly invented humbug though) I will add just one tiny titbit. I cannot confirm nor deny it.

Many years ago a Danish acquaintance told me that in one of the Royal Households in Denmark, a painting by Walter Sickert hangs.

I do not know where, nor its name. I've never investigated the point, or claim. I just mention it out of curiosity re any thread of connection, as this particular thread pertains to a possible connection.

However, it must be said that any painting by any painter in any Royal building or household in any country in Europe does NOT mean a personal connection between painter and Royalty.

Royals around Europe own a mightily impressive collection of canvasses from a mass of famous painters, ancient or of younger age.

, Hi Phil and yes my mistake with the Danish , and you are more the entitled to think what you like in regards to knights and the Sickert story, thats fine .But just so were clear, it was in relation the the fact that Sickerts father and especially his grand father who had close ties with the ''danish royals'' that there might have been a connection and not through Walter Sickerts paintings . Regards Fishy