4 ms·

I think Grauniad are using clumsy wording as "in the elegant hand of a scribe" can just as easily imply that was her Sunday best script in the style of a scribe

I think Grauniad are using clumsy wording as "in the elegant hand of a scribe" can just as easily imply that was her Sunday best script in the style of a scribe, which degrades as she hurries. Which is how I took it. Auntie Beeb brings a tad more precision with: "But the clinching argument was the handwriting. The translation was copied by one of her secretaries but it is covered in corrections and additions which match the queen's highly distinctive, indeed rather messy, hand." So I was entirely wrong, and the Mail appear to be making stuff up, which is to be expected. :) Three sources, three differing results. lol. Dr Philo needs his own blog.

dmurray 7y ago
> Three sources, three differing results. lol. Dr Philo needs his own blog. This provoked me to find the original source published in the Journal of English Studies this week, which appears to be freely available [0]. I haven't read the journal article yet, much like the journalists. It's not clear from the abstract whether the page in question was written by a professional or by the queen. The abstract does mention other stylistic arguments for the queen being the translator. [0] https://academic.oup.com/res/advance-article/doi/10.1093/res/hgz112/5640388?searchresult=1 https://academic.oup.com/res/advance-article/doi/10.1093/res...
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Nice, thanks for finding that. Had a lengthy skim of that over lunch, really clear with lots of nice pictorial example snippets to compare, and lots of other circumstantial pointers. Seems she completely lost her careful italic style that she'd had as a youngster, and often used a secretary to rewrite letters and documents in a better hand. Page in question seems to have been written by her secretary, and amended.