|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5159
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 8:38 am: | 
|
I liked the last line of thst Betjeman poem : "As a young man lands hatless from the air."
Robert |
Judith A. Stock
Detective Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 57
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Phil, Jeff, Robert, Howard, et al.......thanks for the clarification on the importance of the actual coronation; I kind of thought that was the case. Edward does seems a bit of a ninny, indeed. One does wonder how he could have possibly thought she would ever have been acceptable. Love, as they say, is INDEED blind. And you're right: they did deserve each other. His behaviour, both in the time before the war broke out, and later in the Bahamas, seems more than just a bit bizarre. Deep down, I've always thought he was planning that his "support" of the Nazis might have brought the throne back to him once Hitler had marched up the Mall. Good thinkin', David!! As the Duke of York, later George VI, stepped up to the plate in grand form, his elder brother looked pretty sad by comparison. So things shook out rather well, after all. The best man did ultimately get the job.
I guess we owe a debt to the whore from Baltimore! Don't know when I began calling her that .......seems forever. Never did like her scheming and casual air with other people's lives. Name just seemed to fit.
As to Haddon....oh, please! Maria Fitzherbert's kids would seem to have a better claim!
Cheers to all of you.....
Judy |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 976
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
I think there is an argument that the establishment questioned Edward's personaility and ability to stick the course as King well before 1936.
There are several anecdotal accounts of people, including his father, suggesting that he either should not be King or would not last long. I don't give much weight to these, as I suspect many were coloured by events, but they may reflect a hint of some suspicion that there was something wrong.
In addition, there may have been suspicions of his ability or willingness to remain a constitutional monarch, or to accept the role without massive change.
Mrs Simpson simply created a causus belli/catalyst for abdication. It brought things to a head - or maybe was used as an excuse by Baldwin and co to lance the boil.
The political differences are subtle and rest on the correct understanding of the appeasement policies of the UK's National Government of the mid/late 30s. This was not a policy of weakness, so much a compound of 3 things:
a) not wishing to go to war again after the catastrophe of 1930, with the added complication of bombing cities;
b) a feeling that versailles had been unfair on Germany;
c) a desire to gain time to re-arm and to seek to avoid war against both Germany (Europe) and Japan (imperial concerns) at the same time. This third factor was less predominant in 1936 than it became later.
Edward was in tune with appeasement, and in this he was in line with Baldwin etc; but he went further, in admiring the dictators (though interestingly he never met Mussolini) and seemingly wanting to emulate them. Several remarks of his suggest he saw himself as a "strong" man for England, or as standing with such a leader (Moseley?). This, and edward's seeming closeness to Nazi leaders and officials may have made him a major security risk.
Edward also had quite a deep social conscience (though what that meant is difficult to determine) and this (Nazism was, of course, national SOCIALISM - a combination of left and extreme right politics) may also have frightened the british establishment.
Once in exile, and with Germany triumphant over France) the former King would have found common cause with those such as halifax, and even his brother King George, in wanting to seek a negotiated peace to a war in which Britain and the empire now stood alone, and which seemed unwinnable. He may have glimpsed personal and national benefits in fixing his star to that cause.
It failed and his reputation has never recovered.
Wallis? I think her power rested on her ability to dominate him (which he loved) emotionally and sexually) and perhaps to give him sexual release. I do believe that she gained knowledge of some useful techniques in China and that a dossier setting these out exists somewhere.
Phil
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 911
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 7:40 pm: |
|
Hi Phil, Robert, Judy, and Howard,
I have always had a healthy respect for Stanley Baldwin as a Parlaimentary tactician, who rarely got beaten. His personal comments as the Simpson business expanded were pretty strong with anger at having to waste about this. When it becamed Britain's greatest 20th Century Constitutional Crisis he was really upset. He managed it extremely well, consulting with the other Prime Ministers in the Commonwealth for their feed-back (most were opposed to any kind of marriage or morganatic marriage, except for New Zealand). In the end he left Edward with a simple choice: drop Mrs. Simpson as his consort or leave. He chose to leave. I always felt the world owed Stanley Baldwin a deep debt of gratitude for getting rid of this idiot.
[Baldwin was not the biggest pusher for rearmament - Winston Churchill was - but Baldwin tried to get somethink like rearmament started. His problem was the bulk of the Tory Party as well as the Liberal Party and Labor Party were against rearmament. Whatever got passed he did push.]
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 979
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 2:09 am: |
|
I too have respect for Baldwin, Jeff, and admiration for his handling of the abdication crisis.
But I do sometimes wonder if they could not have found a way through for the king had they wanted to.
I think the crisis may have broken unexpectedly and their emotions and hearts may have been torn two ways, but I think it may have been seen as an opportunity to get rid of a festering problem.
Phil |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 4:43 am: |
|
Interesting postings,
Getting back to conspiracies and all the dust they bring up I thought these two pieces might be of interest; In 1891 at the height of the Cleveland St Saga, Sir Francis Knollys the Prince of Wales's private secretary wrote to the Prime Minister's private secretary a private note;
"As you are aware, the Queen strongly advocates Prince Albert Victor travelling in Europe, instead of visiting the Cape of Good Hope, New Zealand, Canada etc. Unfortunately her views on certain social subjects are so strong that the Prince of Wales does not like to tell her the real reason for sending PAV away, which is intended as a punishment, and as a means of keeping him out of harm's way."
Notice that even in court circles Eddy was known as PAV.
Many documents involving the 'Royals' have 'mysteriously' vanished over the years.
This astonishing statement also made by Sir Francis Knollys in 1913 might shed some light.
On the 14th 1913 February he wrote to King George V;
"It is necessary, however that I should first look over, sort, and when advisable, destroy the great mass of letters and papers of all descriptions which accumulated at Marlborough House, and which have accumulated at Buckingham Palace-in fact from the year 1863 to the present day."
So there you have it, all gone up in smoke.
A&S |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 487
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
Here's one for the royal conspiracy theorists:
Hands up those people who know royal Court official, Sir Dighton Probyn,'s middle name?
He was appointed Equerry to the Prince of Wales in 1872, and was absolutely devoted in service to Princess later Queen, Alexandria.He had won a Victoria Cross during the Indian Mutiny and served the royal couple to the very end. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 981
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
I'm not sure i can tell you his middle name straight off, though don't tell me, I'll look him up. He's been a "friendly" figure since i owned a book of Queen Alexandra's snapshots many years ago. he figured in many - and was, as you say, utterly devoted.
Knollys was referring to the possibly embarrassing papers belonging to his master, Edward VII, as the year 1863 clearly indicates. over that time there must have been many letters containing indiscretions, and perhaps papers relating to the circumstances of the Tranby Croft and Mordaunt divorce scandals.
I think what was has to bear in mid here is the difference between DISCRETION and CONSPIRACY. There was much of the former in the royal household (probably still is) none of the latter I suspect.
Phil |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 914
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 8:48 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
There is another example of the Court's discretion in the early 20th Century when Daisy, Duchess of Warwick blackmailed the Royal Family with various indiscreet letters written to her by Edward VII when Prince of Wales. She did make a great deal of money on this transaction. Two of the middlemen involved were Frank Harris and (interestingly enough) Clarence Hatry, the future financial criminal. There is a book on the incident THE DARLING DAISY AFFAIR. I forget the name of the author, however.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 982
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 1:45 am: |
|
Daisy is a fascinating character - stunningly beautiful, but she "got" socialism later on, and also, as I recall, needed money.
The so-called indiscretions of the modern royal family are nothing to themultiple but relatively discreet affairs of their forebears!! Charles may have been unfaithful to Diana, but it was with a woman who seems to have been the real love of his life!! Edward VII was a multiple adulterer, but seemingly in the best possible taste.
All the same, there must have been a myriad of scandals ready to come back to haunt his successors.
Phil |
Sverre Helgesen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 9:38 am: |
|
I knew the Pertwee's, Jon and Bill, both Navy men, Bill did his full time to retirement as a CPO before getting into radio and TV. Both told me of the stories about 'The Sailor King' (George V?) It was before their time but there were men still around who recalled the (censured). All his wonderfull rep was bunkum, a coverup. George spent his time drinking heavily and getting in the way, throwing his weight about and refusing to speak English all the time he served, they had hell finding an officer who could speak German well enough to translate! All his reports were written (dictated) in German and so they had to keep 2 books, the real one in English and the poor officer had to read out all reports to him translating directly from the English. He liked playing the navigator and thus he would occasionally leave his whiskey bottle and wobble along to check the chart and the compass, which had been 'nobbled' to show his course when holding the real one. 'If we followed his navigation we would have sunk the entire Navy in short order!' was the wry comment. Him 'on the con' was a dire experience, the radio officer madly communicating his course changes to the other boats so as to avoid a collision and hand signals were used to dock the boat, the helmsmen and the crew obeying the hidden signs, NOT the Royal Orders! The mad (censured) thought he was the Bee's Knee's and lapped up his crews 'adulation' with gusto. They cheered for real the day he left, and shed tears of sadness (relief, actually) at loosing him. They had been told to keep theirs mouths shut, they were out of the Navy without a pension otherwise, hopefully in a military prison too.
As far as the world was concerned the man was a born Nelson. The Sailor King.
One imagines this applies to all the Royals after him. Did Charles actually solo in a fighter jet? All on his own? I doubt it. I knew a man called John Wright, he was the only man in the RAF without his wings, though he had them on his uniform, he was a Rolls Royce service engineer and crash investigator. He flew his hours with an instructor at the controls, 'Don't you dare touch them!' he was roared at. But it was his name in the logbook afterwards. So they did do that sort of thing.
The only decent Royal is Anne, she actually took several Oxford/Cambridge exams when she was 12, just for fun (I met her then, so I know this, I was dating one of her ladies in waiting). She did very well indeed, enough to say, 'S## (censured) Uni, I don't need it!' and start work at 16, the only Royal to do so. She's ok. The rest are rubbish.
There was talk of the Ripper business, guarded talk. Very. Guarded enough to get some of the girls nervous (Camilla was one of them, we were the same age, 15-16, nice girl back them, fancied her). Anne brought it up, it would never have been mentioned otherwise. She didn't know the entire truth and was pushing a bit, using me as a lever. There is some truth behind some of the rumours, let's just say that. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5223
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 10:40 am: |
|
For anyone interested, I received an email 26th October to tell me that owing to an administrative oversight my request had not been processed - but that they were dealing with it "immediately."
Robert |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1002
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Probably true, Robert, but interesting all the same.
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5292
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 9:34 am: |
|
I have now had the decision.
Dear Mr Linford,
Thank you for your enquiry on 19th September 2005 regarding a review of the closure status of the files:
HO 144/21778 ROYAL: Clarence Guy Gordon Haddon: claim to be illegitimate son of HRH Duke of Clarence. 1929-1943
MEPO 2/9552 Clarence Guy Gordon Haddon: demanding money with menaces from HM The King concerning his claim to be the son of the late Duke of Clarence 1924-1965
We are pleased to tell you that, in consultation with the Metropolitan Police Service and the Home Office, it has been decided that these documents may now be made available at The National Archives, Kew. The files can be ordered and viewed at the National Archives from 22nd September onwards.
Under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000, and the Environmental Information Regulations, 2004, you have the right to:
+//0 know whether we hold the information you require
+//0 be provided with that information
Etc, etc.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 1:09 pm: |
|
Well done Robert. Do you intend to follow this up?
phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5293
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Yes, Phil, as soon as I get the chance (and a digital camera that works!) I'll need that if they're large files, or eye problems kick in.
Robert |
John Savage
Chief Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 535
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 7:57 pm: |
|
Yes Robert,
Well done indeed, and I hope you can make it down to Kew, please keep us informed.
Rgds
John |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 954
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Good luck Robert - this should prove interesting.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5296
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 3:41 am: |
|
Thanks Phil, John and Jeff. Whatever I find, I'll post it on this thread.
Robert |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 319
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 9:37 am: |
|
Duke of Clarence (Eddie)
Some of you may be interested in a feature on Page 3 of the Sunday times. It appears that at least one cover up did take place with Eddie.
New records released apparently show that Edidie had an ilagitamate son Clarence Guy Gorden Haddon.
Apparently he had an affair with Margery Haddon in India in the 1880's. The itom does not give exact dates but it appears the Margery came to England sceaming at the gates of Buchingham palace. She was bought off and the letters between herself and Eddie bought by a solicitor Lewis and lewis. She was sent back to India.
Her son return to England in the 1920's and was arrested asnd put in jail for making his claims to be a Royal son. He died a broken man.
The cover up was done by the Metropolitan Police commissioner and head of special branch...sound familiar?
Obviously it does not prove anything about the Annie Crock conection but it is interesting that this sort ofr cover up did actually happen.
Perhaps it even gave rise to some of the conspiracy stories..its a feature worth checking out.
Yours Jeff |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1048
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Jeff, is your post a joke, or did you not read the preceding posts in this thread?
Phil |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 322
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 2:16 pm: |
|
No Phil
I was just pionting out to those interested that the Sunday times has today published an article on this subject that some people may be interested in reading.
Jeff |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 973
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Gee, I just beat the London press with my information by a few months (unless someone from the press reads this thread?).
Thanks for keeping us posted Jeff
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5322
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
I've tried to post a link to the article, but the link won't work.
However, I've saved the article, so if anyone wants it I'll post it to them.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1049
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 3:28 pm: |
|
If the national Archives issue any sort of weekly update of new files opened, this may have been mentioned in that.
It could also have been picked up from their FOI website - I think they ahve to have one showing recent cases.
The press may watch either - so Robert you may have made the news!!
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5323
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Maybe, Phil, but according to the article there are "hundreds" of pages to wade through.
How much is a ticket to India?
Robert |
John Savage
Chief Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 542
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I feel quite certain that the Sunday Times have got their story from either looking at this site, or through your work in getting the National Archives to release the information under FOI.
Shall we call you "Scoop"?
Anyway, we can go one better than the Sunday Times. As you know some weeks ago Jeffrey Bloomfield sent me some extracts from Gordon Haddon's book, "My Uncle George V" and in it is a picture of Gordon haddon, I hope Jeffey will not mind my posting that picture here.
Rgds
John |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 975
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 9:55 pm: |
|
Hi John,
I don't mind the posting (second posting actually on this thread).
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 325
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
Hi Guys
Sorry to butt back in but I was just wondering if anybody could answer a couple of questions.
The Sunday times itom didnt really make it clear what date the actually affair took place and And am I correct in thinking Eddie contracted siphilis about this time.
Also did Gordon ever have any off spring?
Urh actually I trhink thats three questions.
Anuway Just currious..Jeff |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Do we know for certain the PAV HAD syphilis at all?
Secondly, I checked with colleagues at work who deal with FOI matters full time. They confirmed too things - the National Archives routinely ask for more time. That's because none of the information they hold belongs to them - so they have to check with other Departments of State as a matter of course.
My colleagues also thought it more likely that the journalist would have picked up the information from the NA web-site - but please feel free to believe what you wish.
Phil |
John Savage
Chief Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 543
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
According to Gordon Haddon's book "My Uncle George V", the affair between his mother and Clarence took place in India, at the time of Clarence visit in 1889. She returned to England and Clarence Gordon Haddon was born on 28th. September 1890 at Fulham, London.
As Phil says above, it is doubtful if Eddy did ever have syphilis, the story seems to eminate from Dr. Stowell, whose suspect, "S" supposedly caught the disease in the West Indies. This could have been at the time of the cruise aboards HMS Bachante and would have been roundabout 1880. But I know of no definite evidence of Eddy having the disease, although some time later a Dr. Alfred Fripp is said to have treated him for gonorrhoea.
As far as I am aware Gordon Haddon had no children.
Phil,
My thinking being that if Robert had not made the aplication under FOI, the papers might not have been released and would not have appeared on the NA web site. Is that possible?
Rgds
John |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 327
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Cheers for that John
I realize that the royal conspiracy's have long since been discredited but its fun looking at the various time frames.
Cheers for that Jeff |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 1:45 am: |
|
John, I am sure Robert's request for information under the FOI Act was the catalyst. I don't think that this site was involved.
Phil |
Belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:30 am: |
|
Time for Belinda's bucket of cold water! :-)
I am pretty certain that the Times reporters have hardly looked at the files, either. You can see by looking at Haddon that he's very likely to be a fraud, although it seems we Might assume ( big captial M) that Eddy, Clarence, did spend a night in a tent with his mother in India. Haddon just doesn't cut it with me. He resembleth a fake! Do rememeber that blackmailing the gents was very very common, and people who did it had alot of strategy and expertise. That the allegation had to be responded to, that's another matter. It would have been responded to thoroughly, whatever. The Sunday Times merely want to look as if they've been doing their sensationalist homework, I think.
Anyway no marks, as the files apparently tend to suggest that the Officers were merely dealing with an allegation rather than a fact, and this baby has nothing to do with the Jack the Ripper case, as I keep saying, and it is also proved that Joseph Sickert was making up most of his story. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page