It was an honourary title.
He wasn't a real constable.
John Prescott has been made a Lord, but it doesn't make him a gentleman.
It was an honourary title.
He wasn't a real constable.
John Prescott has been made a Lord, but it doesn't make him a gentleman.
Sorry, but that is not an analogous situation: of course I was NOT saying anything as daft as 'Dickens must have been at the Argyll St./Campbell St. bridewell because it existed during his lifetime'.
I am however saying that he not only had Liverpool connections over quite a number of years, but was probably a special constable at a bridewell that was almost certainly one of two within a few hundred yards of each other. And even if it is more likely (although not proven) that he was at Seel St in 1848, does this rule him out from being at the other 12 years later? As far as I can see, we just don't know...
And do you know for a fact that the plaque is not genuine? - If so, should it be allowed to remain?
Earth is the insane asylum for the universe.
I've posted a photo of the plaque.
The only thing genuine is that it exists.
Count the mistakes.
"One day in 1860".
"Masque Theatre".
This is a case of: "When the legend becomes bigger than the truth, then print the legend."
Who am I to say if the plaque should remain?
The tourists are told little white lies every day.
These watercolour paintings of the Dingle are by Florence M. Willink, c. 1893.
I checked with the Maritime Museum as to who the artist was. They have photographs of several paintings done in and around the Dingle Bank estate, including the two below.
The series can be found under D/CT/15/1-17 which forms part of the John Cropper archive.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."... ... ... Mark Twain.
Bookmarks