Talk:George Archer-Shee

Untitled
My uncle, Miles Goodwin DSM, (1921-2001) served under Captain Terence Back on the Arctic Conveys during the Second World War. It was well-known by his crew that he was the 'complainant' in "the Winslow Boy" case.RodCrosby 02:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That's quite interesting! I don't suppose you have some more info on what became of Terence Back? Might round off the article. David | Talk 15:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Irony
Has anyone noted how ironic it was that such a strident Ulster Orangeman as Sir Edward Carson should have become such a fierce and effective advocate for a Catholic kid? Such considerations are meaningless today, but not then! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, but Sir Edward Carson was not an Ulsterman. He was from Dublin, and privately did not share all of the views of those from Ulster who regarded him as their leader. He lost interest in Irish politics after partition even though he was offered the Prime Ministership of Northern Ireland. As far as defending Cadet Archer-Shee, the case clearly appealed to his strong sense of legal fair play regardless of religious sensibilities; this is one aspect on which Terence Rattigan was bang on the money. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

--Might I utter the proverbial “Wow!”? When I posted my observation on this obscure and seemingly orphaned Wikipedia article, I thought that perhaps sometime in the next ten years or so another might actually read my entry. Not only did you, but with astonishing rapidity!

Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding that Sir Edward had been an Orangeman. Apparently he was ethnically English and Anglican, though in fervent sympathy with the Orange cause. Apparently, he didn’t allow, as you suggest, religious divisions to serve as an obstruction in what he saw as the pursuit of justice.

I believe the boy was innocent for two reasons. Firstly, the forged capital “B” in “Back” on the signature line of the stolen money order Is radically different from the capital “B” in “Bassett” on the payee line of the money order that George Archer-Shee bought the same day Terence Back’s money order went missing. Secondly, if one answers to point one that the boy was clever enough to forge Back’s writing convincingly (we have no such samples, at least on Wikipedia), then I would respond that the boy would have been clever enough to realize that he wasn’t likely to get away with cashing the stolen money order at the very same time he bought his own.

Finally, since you seem knowledgeable concerning this historical incident, would you happen to know why the Archer-Shee family was Catholic? As an American, my perception is that the vast majority of Catholic Englishmen are of Irish heritage, such as Peter Noone and Paul McCartney. (At least the latter was baptized such.) “Archer-Shee” doesn’t sound Irish to me and their social standing at that time and place wouldn’t indicate they had been.

Were they perhaps descendents of the small minority of Englishmen who remained loyal to the old religion in the wake of Henry VIII? Perhaps a more recent ancestor had converted to the faith?

Thanks much for your input. It’s most appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff14 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Archer-Shee family was Anglo-Irish, with the 'Shee' name being the main Irish connection. Not all English Catholics converted in the reformation, and Catholic recusancy was especially likely in very old established families: the leading English Catholic layman is the Duke of Norfolk. One of the aspects of the story which is not reflected by 'The Winslow Boy' was that George Archer-Shee's step-brother Martin Archer-Shee was heavily involved in politics and was elected in 1910 as Unionist MP for Finsbury. Martin Archer-Shee therefore knew Carson through politics and Parliament.


 * There are several books about this case, of which the best is probably that by Rodney Bennett who is a firm believer in George's innocence. Ewen Montagu takes a neutral line and concentrates far more on the legal intricacies (including a more-or-less full transcript of the trial). Had the Admiralty not conceded defeat, the leading handwriting expert of the day Thomas Gurrin was due to take the stand and give his evidence that the writing on the two Postal Orders was by the same hand. It's worth saying that Gurrin had been severely embarrassed a few years before when his evidence in the Adolph Beck case was shown to be inaccurate, although he still regularly appeared as an expert witness.


 * Personally I think George Archer-Shee probably did cash Terence Back's postal order, principally because the postmistress Miss Tucker was someone to whom details mattered and was not likely to be mistaken. I think it was intended as a prank (because George believed he could cash the postal order and place the cash in Back's locker without anyone noticing) but that he unexpectedly found that the removal of the postal order had already been discovered before he had a chance to get back to the lockers. I also think it very significant that Martin Archer-Shee sr. had already declared "Nothing will make me believe the boy guilty of this charge" before even speaking to his son. As Ewen Montagu points out, George's evidence trying to explain the reason why he had stored the money he was going to send to Bassett-Lowke in his locker (which also gave him a good excuse to go to the lockers when no-one else was about) is very weak. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

—“Mr. Blaketer,” You most subtly and adeptly address the points I made concerning my belief that Mr. Archer-Shee had in fact been innocent. You might well be correct, though at this juncture we shall never know for certain. Only if there is an afterlife is there the possibility that the truth of this matter—and a great many like it—will come to light.

Although this undermines my own argument, I have absolutely no faith in the validity of handwriting analysis (nor polygraphs). The following article will explain why:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2447/is-handwriting-analysis-legit-science

A fifty-two percent accuracy rate (by “experts” and laymen alike!) hardly instills confidence and the “science” shouldn’t be admissible in courts of law.

Thank you for the factual information, which is most appreciated. Apparently, English Catholics of the gentry sort had little sympathy for their co-religionists in Ireland. It would seem that heavenly concerns took a back seat to more earthly ones. How disillusioning. Perhaps one day I shall investigate the books you kindly recommend on the subject.

newspaper priority.
My Grandparents reckoned that to the fury of Admiral "Jack" Fisher, both press and public were far more interested in the story of George Archer Shee than the new big, shiny and expensive Battleship "Dreadnought".

Didn't the RN consider itself above the law of the land as a Royal Perogative? When King Edward Vll was petitioned he wrote upon the petition "Let justice be done" and the RN was then in court.

When Archer Shee was killed in action his gallantry was such that he had been " mentioned in dispatches".

After losing the case the RN sat on the file for 50 years before making them available refusing all applications for access until the 50 year period had elapsed. No record seems to exist as to why, or who, considered that this file should be sealed for so long

When the late Edgar Lustgarden reconstructed the case on BBC radio he seemed unable to decide whether Archer Shee was innocent or otherwise but accepted that it was the original investigating Chief Petty Officer who suggested to the postmistress the idea about Archer Shee and stolen postal order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

A theory
I have just read Bennett's book. One vital fact is missing - was the 'forged' signature like or unlike Back's true signature? This is surely absolutely crucial. Taking the 'Agatha Christie' maxim of 'the most unlikely person did it' let me propose that Back himself broke into his own locker and pretended the postal order was stolen. Why? There was continuous thieving at Osborne; let us invoke another 'Agatha Christie' motif - the criminal who fakes a crime against himself to divert attention from himself. He then got Archer-Shee to cash the postal order (signed by himself legitimately). Why? Invoking Jonathan Wild the Great's 'double cross', to get rid of him as a dangerous accomplice who could shop him. Why would Archer-Shee not use this as a defence? Because Back had a hold over him worse than being expelled. What could be worse? Prosecution for theft or some homosexual scandal perhaps (that also was rife). Perhaps Beck and Archer-Shee were BOTH in a joint illegal/immoral enterprise. 109.144.219.8 (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Reading your comment, I often wonder if I am the only person who finds the "Talk" pages on Wiki, more interesting than the subjects covered. This is not a criticism of your comment, but I have watched quite a few episodes of the BBC Timewatch series, which has recently morphed into a sort of "Timewatch Revisited". The point being to show how historians even within say a narrow period of the last 40 years or so have revised their views on historical events and characters so that what we believed then to be true, is not necessarily what we believe now.

And so, maybe in a hundred years time, historians will revisit this case, and decide that this was an effort by the Navy to cover-up a Homosexual Scandal because there were many sons of the great and the good who were at Osborne and were expected to keep coming to Osborne. And maybe Archer-Shee was caught in "flagrante delecto", and was framed as a lesson to other cadets. I don't say that was what happened, but as with all theories, it cannot be disproved.

But for all that, I have a suspicion that this is how historians work in revising the previously held view of an historical event or character. And for me, that is why the "talk" pages are a guilty pleasure.46.7.85.68 (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

VIAF
Why this person should have an authority control, while the publication in question is about him not by him?--unsigmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.32.96.227 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Archer-Shee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222060732/http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/world-war-1-2c-2-war-memorials-and-commemorative-memorials/p60809-bristol-2c-st-mary-on-the-quay-war-memorial.html to http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/world-war-1-2c-2-war-memorials-and-commemorative-memorials/p60809-bristol-2c-st-mary-on-the-quay-war-memorial.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Statement that seems to contradict rest of article
The statement "The college, which was part of the estate of the late Queen Victoria, educated and trained 14- to 16-year-olds in their first two years of officer training for a career in the Royal Navy" looks wrong to me as the article would indicate that George Archer-Shee was only 12 when he became a cadet and 13 at the time of the incident. The main Royal Naval College, Osborne article says "Boys were admitted at about the age of thirteen to follow a course lasting for six academic terms before proceeding to the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth"  which again would not seem to fit with the statement here. Dunarc (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Conflict with the The Winslow Boy article
As I have noted at Talk:The Winslow Boy the two articles seem to contradict each other over the question of whether or not George's father instantly believed in his son's innocence - it says there in the "Differences between reality and fiction" that "In the play, it was Ronnie's father who first believed in his innocence; in fact, it was his older brother, Martin, who persuaded their father"  which of course does not tie in with claim here that he 'instantly responded that "Nothing will make me believe the boy guilty of this charge, which shall be sifted by independent experts"'. As neither article cites a source for its claim it is difficult to be certain which is correct, but it would be good to try and get the articles to be consistent. Dunarc (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)