THE NOSES OF TWO LITTLE BOYS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LIII, Issue 5949, 20 March 1880, Page 3

THE NOSES OF TWO LITTLE BOYS.

Under the above heading, the World descants as follows upon the story that.the two sons of the Prince of Wale? had been permanently disfigured by tattooed noses:— It may be inferred from a paragraph, which appeared in the Morning Post of Monday last, that Jenkins, who has tor some time past been engaged—oddly enough, in a literary capacity—in the service of a well known firm of egg merchants, has resumed his old duties on the daily journal of polite society. The style of the Post’s remarks on “ tbe tattooing story ”is unmistakeable; and among the re- ~ porters of London there is only one who can mingle the flunkeyism, which apes loyalty, and the twaddle, which defies grammar, in such grotesque proportions. Whether “ the young Princes ” did, or did not, permit their noses to be impressed with the mark of an anchor is not a matter for profound national concern. According to Jenkins, I heir own common sense, not less than the care of those about them, would bo the best guarantee of any such absurdity as that which had obtained an unmerited currency.” Jenkins proceeds to admit that these admirable qualities did not suffice to prevent something that is suspiciously like the eccentricity of which the youths were originally alleged ter have been the victims. “The midshipmen of the Bacchante indulged,” it seems, among other “ traditional pastimes,” “ in the amusement of placing on the Royal faces the representation of tattoo marks,” whence—not unnaturally—“ it was reported as if they had been really tat tooed.” Happily at this critical stage Mr Childers appears as a comforter. That gentleman has “ had the honor of dining at the Governor of Gib altar’s table with their Royal Highnesses,” and is able positively to say that the two littlo boys’ noses were not disfigured. On the contrary, “his astonishment was extreme when, on arriving in England a few days ag>, he heard that their Royal Highnesses bore upon their faces indelible marks.” By this time, it may be hoped, Mr Childers has fairly recovered from the shock, and the British public will perhaps have regained its composure. The next time that it is considered desirable to contradict or to correct rumours which affect the fortunes, or features, of Royalty, it might he well if the task were confided to some less sensitive person than Mr Childers, and some less ludicrous writer than Jenkins.