|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 801
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 2:17 am: | 
|
There have been several posts recently promoting (without much in the way of references) the royal conspiracy theory. These clearly relate to either the works of writers such as Knight and Fairclough, or the the three (at least) films of TV series - Murder by Decree; From Hell and the 1988 Michael Caine TV series; that have a royal conspiracy solution.
I thought it might be useful to focus such discussion by clearing setting out the reasons why I firmly believe that this theory should be buried (unless new evidence emerges).
Origins
The association of Prince Albert Victor (not yet Duke of Clarence) - henceforth "Eddy" or "PAV" for brevity in this post - appears to stem from Dr Stowell's article in 1970. Colin Wilson appears to have known about the Dr's views at least 10 years earlier and talked about them to others.
There does not appear to have been any earlier association of PAV's case with the murders. Interestingly the initials PAV are mentioned several times in regard to the Cleveland St scandal of 1889 - but appear nowhere in relation to the JtR case.
There was thus, nothing in principle to prevent the Prince's identity being mentioned in a serious police case. But there was no later "cover-up" of the evidence - we'll return to this later; though steps were taken to ensure that the case's chief suspect (Lord Euston) was able to escape. So even though the establishment hushed up an embarrassing incident A YEAR AFTER the Ripper case - the documents were not consistently "wiped".
Development
The conspiracy theory was developed by Knight - who distanced Eddy from direct involvement and had a trio of murderers as jack. the theory - timed contemporaneously with the Watergate conspiracy in the USA - reflected 1970s attitudes as much as those of 1888. It was, in part, based on ideas which came from a man called Joe Gorman, who claimed to be an illegitimate son of the painter Walter Sickert. He later recented his views in a major newspaper - either because he did not like his father being involved so closely; or because his "joke" had gone further than he had anticipated.
Gorman came back to the fore when he worked with Melvyn Fairclough on a further book - this time producing diaries said once to have belonged to Insp Abberline.
Background
PAV - eventual heir to the British throne - suffered from deafness and was educationally sub-normal. He was a perennial problem for the family not because of scandals as such, but because there was little they could do with him. He could not follow and maintain a service career as did his younger brother, nor make speeches well and thus be used readily for ceremonial occasions. Although he did spend time with an hussar regiment, his profile was comparatively low.
Eddy appears to have had an eye for the ladies - though I refer to those of aristocractic birth. he at one point became engaged to Helene d'Orleans, despite her being a catholic. Her unwillingness to change her faith proved a bar to their marriage - her religion per se, did NOT.
As noted above, in 1889, Eddy was involved to some degree in the Cleveland st scandal. Whether he had gone to the male brothel because he was bi-sexual; or by accident is unknown. He was there. It would not be surprising if he also visited female brothels too. There is no evidence of which I am aware that any of these were in the East End.
As for the Whitechapel murders? Eddy had very good alibis for all the canonical victims. two of them involve him being with either Queen Victoria herself (his grandmother) or his father. For the record to have been falsified - which was not done in 1889 remember - would have involved many people in duplicity. There is not one murmur about any such in any of the many available memoirs of those involved (or their friends) which have been published since.
Eddy died on influenza in 1892 at Sandringham. A large monument to him exists in the Albert Memorial Chapel at Windsor. in 1911, on the day of his brother's coronation as King George V (with Eddy's former fiancee, May of Teck, as his Queen) - Eddy's mother spent the day in seclusion repeatly saying: "It should have been Eddy".
The family of the future Edward VII was a close knit one. They enjoyed childish games and "romping". His mother's grief for Eddy thus seems explained - he was her firstborn - and she was personally present at his deathbed. A plaque was affixed to the pew where he usually sat in Sandringham Church. Any argument that he did not die in 1892, would thus involve many eminent people (including two future Queens, and two future Kings) not only in perjury but in hypocrisy in relation to their faith.
The alleged Royal Marriage
The basis of the royal conspiracy is usually some version of this story.
Eddy met and fell in love with a pretty working class girl called Annie Crook, who was Roman Catholic. Walter Sickert was supposed to have acted as pandar to the couple - in who's studio they used to meet. Eddy and Annie married and had a child. When this was discovered Annie was taken away and incarcerated in workhouses for the rest of her life. Eddy was watched.
A woman (perhaps MJK) who had looked after the child, or knew something of the story, tried to blackmail the royal family. She was associated in her scheme with four other East End woman.
The story that the eventual heir to the throne had married a catholic and had a child was perceived as such a threat to the throne that the woman were silenced. the man given this task was a royal physician, Sir William Gull, who used brutal Masonic methods to kill the women, nding with the butchery of MJK in Millers Court. Gull was assisted in his bloody work by a coachman (Netley) and by another person - variously described as Sir Robert Anderson, Walter Sickert or others.
The authorities silenced Gull by committing him to an asylum. Netley died under suspicious circumstances.
So far the story as Knight etc would have it.
The Flaws
Although the monarchy had been under threat from republicanism (partly fuelled by Queen Victoria's seclusion after her husband's death in 1861) that was in the late1860s/early 70s. The turn around came with the recovery of the Prince of Wales (Eddy's father) from typhoid in 1871. By 1887, the monarchy was as secure as it had ever been in history - Victoria celebrated her Golden Jubilee in that year to enormous acclaim. Ten years later the Diamond Jubilee would reveal an even more enormous out-pouring of affection.
In 1888, therefore, the throne was not at particular risk, despite a degree of social unrest in the country. Thus it is, IMHO, unlikely that a (baseless) blackmail threat would have been seen as a particular danger or that extreme action would have been authorised.
I say a "baseless" blackmail threat because Eddy's marriage (without the Sovereign's consent) would have been invalid under the Royal Marriages Act passed by George III in the mid-1700s. As we have seen, the fact that a woman was catholic was not in itself a bar to a marriage being considered. The woman was of low status, but Queen Victoria's uncles had had worse asociations at times - she could no doubt have been bought off (HAD THERE BEEN ANY SUCH MARRIAGE).
But Annie Crook did not live where Knight put her - the house had been demolished by 1888. Neither did Sickert have a studio in the right place. Moreover, Crook was not a catholic - she was anglican - as shown by her later workhouse papers. No marriage certificate, or evidence of witnesses, to a wedding, has ever been brought forward.
So what was the basis of any blackmail? Scandal surrounded the life of Eddy's father - gambling, woman, appearances in court, allegations of adultery, mistresses galore including well-known actresses. He intervened with lawyers to try to get letters which compromised one mistress, destroyed.
Is there any cover-up of any of this? No. It is in any biography of the period you care to read. In detail. Why should Eddy have been treated any differently? His misdemeanour was hardly earth-shattering.
[Sorry, but I find I have run out of time - I'll return to this later. Happy to take any factual corrections - I have summarised brutally and may have slipped. happy also to expand on points if I have been too enigmatic.]
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 4:34 am: |
|
Phil
He [PAV] was there [the Cleveland St brothel].
Is there really good evidence for this, rather than for a questionable association with Somerset which might have come out if there had been a trial?
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 802
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 6:29 am: |
|
The case files seem to link "PAV" to the brothel. It would explain the relative "panic" over the scandal better than anything else. I cannot at the moment put my hand on my copy of the book on the affair (in the attic reserve collection, probably!!) but Aronson's book on the Prince appears to accept his involvement.
I have always taken it that Eddy was involved - though on whether that was by accident or design, I reserve judgement.
Phil |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 475
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 8:09 am: |
|
Hi Chris & Phil,
Eddy was named in american newspapers of the time, and Chris Scott has provided examples of this in a thread entitled "Cleveland Street Affair".
From memory, both H. Montgomery Hyde and Chester Leitch & Samson, refer to Eddy's involvement as an "open secret" amongst the governing elite.
Rgds
John |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 817
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 2:30 am: |
|
PART TWO
Stowell
Stowell's Lancet article never referred directly to Eddy, but called the suspect "S". there is, however, little doubt that Stowell meant PAV to be his suspect as the details and conversations with Colin Wilson make clear. But when the storm broke over the Dr's head, after publication, he backed away from naming Eddy and declared the suspect was not him.
Other than hearsay, no evidence is adduced against Eddy. The material Stowell had picked up, appears to relate to the family of Sir William Gull - but no references are given. No family papers have turned up. A later attempt by another author (Frank Spiering) to cite Gull's own notes from a US library - proved not to be true. The library do not possess the papers.
Could Eddy Have Done It?
In my view it is very unlikely that Eddy, the limp, energyless, not very clever, deaf prince, with little experience of ordinary life, could have been transformed into a cunning killer, capable of disguising himself and/or his voice. I see no evidence that his reactions would have been swift enough, or his hearing good enough to let him be alert to the noises that might warn of someone approaching. All this is subjective - but even a casual reading of a biography of him must surely suggest that he was too indolent to himself be Jack.
While I do not doubt that, as a man of his class, age (in years) and society, Eddy made use of brothels and whores, there is no evidence that these were in the East End. If he were bisexual (as the Cleveland St scandal might suggest) then he may have looked for more specialised places. Alternatively, the West End was closer and offered variety when the Prince was in London.
Allegations that PAV suffered from a veneral disease or diseases remains unproven.
Further, there is no evidence in the biographies or any of the supporting material, that there was any sort of crisis in the royal family in 1888. Surely there would have been, had there been a suspicion that Eddy was even remotely involved.
Sickert, Stephen and Druitt
It has been variously contended that Eddy might have acted with others (notably JK Stephen and MJ Druitt. This is also a convenient moment to summarise the possibility of Sickert's involvement.
To deal with the last first. There is, to my knowledge no evidence to link Sickert to PAV. He did not paint his portrait and was not part of the Prince's formal circle. Neither do the many diaries or letters of the period contain any references. Nor does Sickert claim such an association.
Knight's contentions about a studio in Cleveland St have the wrong road and date.
J K Stephen may have known Eddy, but was NEVER associated with the Ripper case until Michael Harrison made a case in his 70s biography "Clarence". The author admittedly felt that he needed to counter Dr Stowell's claims and plucked a suspect from the air. Stephen was indeed mentally disturbed, but there is no evidence of him being a murderer, let alone JtR. the rationale of the murders given by Harrison, is complex, and frankly unbelievable - involving sexual rejection and matching a mixed bag of tenuous royal anniversaries with the murder dates.
There is no evidence that Eddy was homosexual or had an affair with, let alone rejected, Stephen.
Druitt, of course, is a suspect in his own right thanks to Melville Macnaghten. He seems to have been dragged into this scenarios given a putative resemblance to Eddy (I see none in build or look).
I don't deny the strongish (though unproven) case against Druitt himself - but there is nothing (bar recent speculation) to link him to PAV. That MJD may have had associations with some of the circle around Stephen is possible (his chambers were close to those of Stephen's friends, the Chiswick link etc), but remains again no more than speculation.
Sir William Gull
Sir William was certainly a royal physician, and help the Prince of Wales recover from typhoid in 1871. By 1888, however, Gull was old and infirm (he had suffered at least one stroke).
Again there is no independent evidence that Gull was in the East End in 1888. there is hearsay evidence based on Stowell's claims regarding Gull's family and Robert Lees stories about following a man seen in a London street. This is thin stuff on which to build a royal conspiracy - even a masonic one. Even if true, that Gull had been in Whitechapel to find a patient - that patient need not have been Eddy (and there is no evidence of eddy being secluded or given treatment at that time).
Gull's involvement also requires a considerable paraphenalia of coaches and coachment and helpers. Even those who promote the theory that Gull killed the women according to masonic ritual, seem implicitly to admit that he would have been to feeble to accomplish it alone.
But no coaches were seen - and anything but the most drab of hackneys would almost certainly have attracted considerable attention.
On balance, I remain unconvincd by this patchwork. The identification of the coachman "Netley" remains uncertain, involving the acceptance that "Nickley" meant Netley.
Joe Gorman
In the early 70s, Joe was the source of the BBCs and Stephen Knight's conspiracy theory. It is often overlooked that his real name was not Sickert.
He might, as he claimed, have been the son of Walter Sickert; he might not. I see a faint resemblance in his face to pictures of the painter - but that proves nothing.
A relative might well have been a coachman named Netley. He might well have heard stories in his youth about events. But Joe seems to have been a fantasist, changing and evolving his stories as needed. there are claims that he possesses Abberline's diaries (four exercise books) but nothing has been seen. Indications are that the diaries must be considered later forgeries including confusion over Abberline's own initials. The diaries are not mentioned by Knight, and presumably were either not revealed to him; or were "created" later.
More anon.
John Savage - thanks for your contribution. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 832
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
If you happen to have a copy of the original "Casebook" Website, I once typed out most of an unpublished article regarding Eddy and a possible illegitimate son named Clarence Gordon Haddon. Gordon Haddon wrote a book, published in 1930, called MY UNCLE GEORGE V, in which he told how his mother Mary Gordon Haddon, who was married already, met Albert Victor on his tour of India, where they began a romance that led to her divorce, and how she lived in London after Albert Victor's tour of India ended. Supposedly she was allowed to see the dying Prince in January 1892. I attempted to see if there was anything that could back up this story, but nothing (a word Ripperologists find repeatedly of irritating use) turned up. The only possible clue was a photograph of Clarence Gordon Haddon that had facial similarities to Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, but (as you pointed out in the discussion of Druitt resembling Albert Victor) that is in the eye of the beholder.
I might add only one thing of a personal note - although I realize it is hearsay and is also based on the beliefs of third parties who are unavailable for comment. Years ago, I worked in an apartment building in Manhattan. One of the tenants was an artist (not a member of the Sickert family) named Keith Woodeson. Woodeson had worked in Paris in the early 1930s, and Clarence Gordon Haddon was a member of the local British set there. Woodeson told me that everyone knew Gordon Haddon was the son of the Duke of Clarence. However, to me, that may be like everyone who supported him saying they knew Arthur Orton / Thomas Castro was Sir Roger Ticheborne.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 827
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 2:51 pm: |
|
I don't find the possibility of an illegitimate son of "Eddy" that surprising - though I had never come across this story before. Thank you for sharing it with me, Jeff.
There are lots of shadowed by-ways of royal history - it came out not that many years ago that the very upright George V has a mistress in St John's Wood before his marriage, and may have shared her (or another) with his brother Eddy.
In addition Eddy did tend to fall passionately in love with women - Helene d'Orleans is just one example. An affair in India is not incredible. The lady's divorce papers might reveal more. What is perplexing though, is that the usual royal practice was to have affairs with married women, so that "accidents" could be more readily passed off. A divorce relating to a royal affair would be exactly what they wanted to avoid - and both parties would have been socially ruined. So that part doesn't ring quite true to me. As corroboration read up on a divorce which occured between a member of the Prince of Wales suite in India, while the man's wife was in England. It was very difficult and both parties and some of their friends found themselves barred from the Prince's company.
What is interesting is that if the story is true, no one tried to murder this illegimate child or its mother. As far as I can see, no one even sought to hush it up.
Queen Alexandra allowed his dying husband's last mistress to see him in his last hours. It is thus not beyond the bounds of possibility that she allowed someone particularly beloved by her son to see him as he lay dying. I can only say, however, that none of the biographies I have read mention such a thing.
Thanks again for this contribution,
Phil
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 834
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
HI Phil,
Actually I constructed a different situation leading for Mary Gordon Haddon's final visit to Eddy (if it happened). It was done by his father's permission (the future King Edward VII). I then suggested that Alexandra (who always loved Eddy over George) noted what her husband did. In 1910, while he was dying, King Edward was visited by his mistress, Mrs. Alice Keppel. It was noted widely at the time. Now Alexandra deeply resented Edward's flings, and disliked Mrs. Keppel. It was considered an extroadinarily gracious act for the Queen to do for her dying husband. I suggested that, if the incident about Mary Gordon Haddon being admitted to see Eddy was true, possibly Alexandra was returning a favor to her husband.
By the way, there is an interesting tie-in between Eddy on his deathbed and one of the other Ripper suspects. Eddy's physicians included Dr. William Broadbent, who had saved Prince George a few months earlier from an attack of typhoid. Broadbent, while caring for Eddy, was also thinking of a strange letter he received that he gave to the police, that accused him of poisoning one Mathilda Clover, a prostitute, in October 1891. Eventually this letter proved very valuable, as it contained information that only the actual criminal could have known. That criminal was Dr. Neill Cream!
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 829
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 1:42 am: |
|
Fascinating stuff, Jeff.
I have no problems with the deathbed scenario you outline. Shame there's no mention of it in any reliable source I know. I can see why it might have been kept quiet in 1892, but later? and after the widespread knowlege of the Mrs Keppel?
Something to file away at the back of one's mind, I suppose.
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Phil and John
Thanks for your comments.
I just wonder how hard the evidence is about PAV's involvement. I have read the books by Montgomery Hyde and Simpson et al., and the impression I came away with was that the evidence was very tenuous. Maybe it's a false impression.
I haven't read the book by Aronson - maybe there's more solid evidence there.
Incidentally, though I know Stan Russo has disappeared from the boards again, I should be interested if anyone can confirm or contradict my impression that Hammond didn't run a female brothel in addition to Cleveland Street.
Chris Phillips
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 476
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 9:14 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I suppose it all depends how "hard" you want the evidence to be, the following from "A-Z" will do for me, and I think you will also find it in Montgomery Hyde and Samson.
"The authorities were distinctly perturbed by the suggested implication of a Very Important Person, designated 'P.A.V.' in official memoranda. This person was almost certainly Prince Albert Victor"
It is a while since I last read Aronson, but I doubt you will find much more there than in the book I have mentioned.
Jean Overton Fuller made the suggestion in Her book "Sickert and the Ripper Crimes", that Hammond may have run the premises at 19 Cleveland Street as both a male and female brothel. Her idea being that after you went through the front door, you turned left for boys and right for girls, but personally I doubt it.
Rgds
John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1348
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 5:20 am: |
|
John
Thanks for that, but it sounds as though the authors of the A-Z are drawing the conclusions from the evidences that's given more fully in the two books on the Cleveland Street affair.
Thanks for the information about Fuller. One would have thought there would be some mention of this in the court proceedings, if there were any truth in it. Apart from Lord Euston's tall story about Hammond advertising "poses plastiques", I don't remember any.
Chris Phillips
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 174
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 6:14 am: |
|
Phil,
Quite persuasive reasoning,even if there are a few maybe's,could be's and very unlikelies.It is
pleasing to see you have shifted from the impossible,in the case of a secret marriage,to highly unlikely.A step in the right direction,I would say.
One thing I wish you had touched on,is what position the Church may have taken had the story of Sickert been true.They after all,were the power behind the throne,and the Queen head of the church.
A signed document of marriage,between a prince and a shop girl(I am referring to a marriage register and not a certificate),witnessed by a known prostitute,would be of immense value,regardless of what George the Third had decreed.
Perhaps the blackmail was coming from the wrong direction.
Just a thought,and not to be taken too seriously.
More seriously,what are the odds of a bogus marriage certificate appearing one day? |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 843
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
Low odds, Harry - as I don't think one exists.
As things like George IV's marriage to Mrs Fitzherbert (which technically would have made his later marriage to Caroline of Brunswick, bigamous) have been revealed, I can see no reason to hide it.
Edward VII's much more serious liaisons are now well-known. He broke the law by gambling (Tranby Croft scandal) but survived.
there were rumours around the time of his accession in 1911, that as a young naval officer, George V had contracted a marriage in Malta - as I recall it is discussed in his official biography.
So why would a similar transgression by Eddy (assuming it happened) or even a suggestion that it had, cause any problem. It would, on the precedents I have given have been ignored, simply denied, or refuted. At this late stage, I doubt the royal archives would continue a cover-up.
as for blackmail, the fact of the Marriages Act meant that without the Sovereign's consent any marriage contracted simply had not happened, it had no force or legality. the girl involved, whatever her class, would in 1888 and later have been regarded as just another silly slut who had had a royal fling and been taken advantage of by callous princes. Neither the first nor the last.
I doubt that the Church of England in 1888 would have been much perturbed. It was not much so over Edward VII after all.
as for the nature of the girls involved, I think you'll find that it was a common thing where weddings under special licence were concerned, to haul anyone of the street who was available as witnesses. If MJK (say) could write, her signature would be on the certificate. But as (given Barnett's need to read the papers to her) she was probably illiterate - what would a mark of "X" mean?
I don't recognise, in historical terms, the Anglican church, either in institutional terms, or in terms of personality, as being "the power behind the throne". It was not and showed no inclination to be. As for being Head of the Church - I doubt whether the constitutional or political aspects of that role would have exercised Victoria much. She was accustomed to getting her way. I suspect any cleric who sought to blackmail her - or even hint at it - would have regretted doing so.
in the John Brown affair, not long past in 1888, the Queen was herself not immune to innuendo.
As for me monving in terms of highly unlikely/impossible.
The evidential position is highly unlikely, my interpretation of that is impossible in any real sense. No evidence exists and as I have said, IMHO, is unlikely to appear but (as always)absence of proof is not proof of absence. I think only a fool though would build much on that faint chance.
So all's well with the world, after all, Harry.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 849
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
PART THREE
Gull and Freemasonry
It seems that an almost integral part of the royal conspiracy theory for some, is the connection with freemasonry and the implication that somehow the JtR murders were done according to some arcane masonic ritual.
Most of the supposed pillars on which this was based have now been shown to be false:
* there were no "pillars" of rings or patterns of objects as Chapman's feet;
* the word Juwes has not been demonstrated to have any masonic connection in the UK at that time
* the "three ruffians" to which the word was said to refer were not a part of UK or US masonic ritual at that time;
Neither was Lord Salisbury, who was said to have commissioned Gull to silence the blackmailing women, a freemason.
It also defies commonsense for a mason to commit crimes deliberatel;y that could throw nothing but suspicion and potential danger on his organisation. At the very least the "ritual" might have offended masons who recognised it, if the signs werewell-known. if they were so arcane, who would have been able to interpret them.
Masonic killings make no sense in that they would not have warned off anyone, or at least not non-masons. So what was their purpose? Was it simply that Gull was insane - if so why wasn't he stopped after the first murder. And moreover hy do there seem to be signs of development in the murders as the mutilations increase?
Moreover, why commision anyone to kill the women in this way. Even if there had been cause, simpler to pay them off, as other known royal blackmailers (down to gay friends of the late Duke of Kent in the 30s) were paid off? If that did not work, why not silence them in a less dramatic way - abduction? incarceration? seeming accidents? If a dramatic end was needed to warn others, then why not have it done professionally and simply?
Finally, there is little obvious link between the alleged masonic-style of the killings and the royal family. Masonic memnbership was not a big issue in the C19th - so how do the murders relate to any conspiracy.
In that event, the conspiracy would surely be one to cover-up the Government's misdeeds? not he alleged origianl roya; transgression? So it isn't a royal conspiracy at all.
Summing Up and Verdict
I hope I have shown - and I may return to tidy up some lose ends in later posts - that the idea of a royal conpiracy has no basis, no underlying motive and no evidence to support it.
It is not, as some have recently suggested on Casebook, that the lack of evidence itself is sspicious. There is no sign that there IS a lack of evidence.
Rumbelow points out that the loss of papers in relation to other issues by other orgnisations, is as great, and for the same reasons, as at Scotland Yard. To show that there was a withholding of information requires it to be shown that information has been destroyed or withheld. As the return of pictures and documents to Scotland yard since the 80s has indicated - the reasons for the loss of material is evident - theft.
But beyond such trivial charges, the real crime of the royal conspiracy theorists, is a crime against history. It is the anachronisms, the ignorance of the context and of contemporary politics, the way in which the well attested character of men and woman is brushed aside.
When all these considerations are taken into account - the fact that cover-ups were not carried out in relation to Edward VII (as Prince of Wales) in EXACTLY this period is never discussed by these superficial theorists. the father's scandals were far more embarassing to the establishment than the son's - the Lady Warwick letters, Tranby Croft, the Mordaunt divorce affected the heir to the throne himself, not the second heir, and involved court appearances. The Prince was booed.
In Eddy's case in 1889, though the Prince's involvement in the Cleveland St affair was kept out of the press, the official documents were not altered. yet this is supposedly after the prince was known to be JtR, and when surely a second scandal would be worse than the first? It will not do. Victorian officials were as reputable as those today - perhaps more so - and would they have resisted such a move. Indeed, altering documents would have to be known to many. the risks would be too great.
Look for royal conspiracies if you will. The conduct of the Duke of Windsor (Edward VIII) before and after his abdication; the role of the royal family in the Hess affair; and the role played by Sir Anthony Blunt in 1945/46 are cases that would warrant investigation. But the signs of a cover-up in those cases are clear - documents withheld; misleading answers.
Neither is true in the case of Eddy.
That is why I say that the alleged royal conspiracy of 1888 has been shown to be discredited as a theory, and foolish even as an intellectual pretension - not on one level, but on many.
Let it die and devote energy to areas of the case that merit it.
Phil |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 836
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 8:28 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
A point was brought up (and shot down) regarding what if an actual marriage certificate turned up
(which would be rather odd - Eddy would certainly not use his real name or official title, making it difficult to identify the groom with him). But I have heard a rumor story (partly spread, at one point, by Sir Winston Churchill) regarding a mysterious marriage of an era two hundred years before the Ripper.
One of the Royal Family's skeletons is James, Duke of Monmouth and Bucclueth. We know his mother was Lucy Walters. Was his father Charles II? Or was his father one of Charles many courtiers and friends? Charles, who had been close to Lucy at the time Monmouth was born, always treated him as his son - if that means anything. But as time passed, despite enobling him as a Duke, Monmouth joined the Whig political opposition, and was close to the Earl of Shaftesbury. Shaftesbury hoped to force Charles to recognize Monmouth, and make him his legal heir in place of Charles' Catholic brother, James, Duke of York (later James II). Charles refused. A rumor spread that there had been a legitimate marriage (Charles was angry at this rumor, as it insulted his Queen, Catherine of Braganza), and that a box contained the certificate of Charles' marriage to Lucy. This document did not materialize. Charles died in 1685. His brother was on the throne only a couple of months when Monmouth led a revolt in the West Country, ending with his defeat at the battle of Sedgewick Moor. Monmouth would be beheaded at the Tower of London later that year.
Winston Churchill mentioned the story in passing in volume three of his HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE. I don't think he believed it, but he mentioned that it was never really settled.
Monmouth left descendants who were Dukes of Bucclueth. One of them once wrote an introduction into a book about the ill-fated Duke, and said that there was a story that there was a certificate, and it was discovered by Monmouth's grandson (the then current Duke of Bucclueth), which proved that Charles and Lucy were legitimately married. This meant that all the rulers of Great Britain since Charles II were usurpers, and that Bucclueth's family should rule. He was about to reveal this publicly, but it was the year 1746, and that very day he discovered he was actual King of Great Britain, news came to him that William, Duke of Cumberland, had smashed the army of Bonnie Prince Charlie and massacred many of the highlanders. The Duke of Bucclueth, upon careful reconsideration, decided he would be happier as a Duke than a trouble maker or a beheaded rebel, and he burned the certificate.
That is really the only time that a marriage certificate between a monarch and some woman other than a legal queen actually played some role in British history. Even the marriage of Mrs. Fitzherbert and George IV was just considered a juicy scandal to the public - nobody expected George to try to make Maria Fitzherbert his Queen (although he did everything possible to prevent Caroline of Brunswick from assuming that role). George didn't have to - Maria was a welcomed figure in his entourage and court, and was (from what I heard) a person of acceptable manners and intelligence. Actually she had everything that Caroline did not have, except a legal ring.
You did a fine job dismissing the foundations of the Royal Conspiracy theory, but as long as we have romantics and dreamers the Royal Conspiracy theory will have it's adherents.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 853
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 2:04 am: |
|
But let's be clear Jeff that that is what they are - dreamers, and NOT serious students of the case - unless their arguments are factually based and soundly argued. THEN, I'll listen.
As for Monmouth, I have read most of the accounts. Churchill knew the period (from his research for the Marlborough biography) but his History of the English Speaking people's is now very dated and was never overly reliable. (They once - early 70s I recall - did a partwork in the UK which gave Churchill's chapter and then all the more recent work and alternatives to those WSC had included!!
On illicit marriages - would a certificate (and the marriage associated with it) be remotely legal if false names were given? In the UK banns - pror notification that the marriage is to take place) have to be given out and there has to be an opportunity for objections to the marriage. These could not happen with false names.
On Monmouth, Charles II was desperate for a son and hair. If he could have made Monmouth his heir I am sure he would have done so - especially in thei early years of the reign he lavished many honours on him. But I think Charles knew no marriage had taken place, and thus such an approach would have marred the true bloodline. He could thus turn to brother James (however unsuitable) and not offend his Queen.
Thanks again Jeff for your positive and well-written contribution,
Phil |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 175
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 6:17 am: |
|
Phil,
On the question of a bogus marriage certificate,it would be simply that,bogus.We all,I believe,are of no doubt that a genuine certificate would never surface.
The question of whether Kelly could write,means nothing.The name Kelly could be inserted on any document by anyone,and unless there is a genuine copy of her signature,who could pronounce it fake.Same goes for Crook.Sickert and PAV may have left signatures that can be compared,but a good forger could overcome that problem.
Over the years,many have tried,as you have,to discredit what Knight proposed,but without success.Not that you or they are wrong,but the fact is,that people will ignore a well reasoned arguement,and simply go for the notion that five people met, a ceremony was performed,and prostitutes died because of it.
So the possibility is,that only those who already believe the improbability of a royal involvement,will take note of what you have written,the rest may read and ignore.
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 05, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
My immediate problem with all this springs not from anything to do with any of the suspects nor with the supposed method of the victims being killed and then dumped(even though there was arterial spray on the walls).
If you are going to afford a 'cover up' then there is no way that you would kill these women in the most public way possible.Yes I know Knight claimed this was a warning but a warning to who? Nobody outside of Freemasonry would have a clue what was going on,the so called witnesses we're being killed so the warning was not for them either.
If any of these girls were actually involved in a blackmail plot then why, after the initial killings, did none of them run? One even cheerfully RETURNS to the east end after being miles away hop picking!
I'd suggest that a 'cover up' would have seen these women spirited away quietly and disposed of in such a way that they would soon be forgotten. |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 9:42 pm: |
|
cover-up
noun [C]
an attempt to prevent the public discovering information about a serious crime or mistake:
So...to cover up a blackmail/marriage/bastard child,pertaining to the Royal Family, X amount of women are butchered in such a way as to bring about the full and glaring attention of most of the civilised world...oh please!
Anne/Ann Crook/Cook was done away with nice and quietly thank you very much, so why not the others? There are so many holes in this 'theory' Phil I'm just amazed you went to so much trouble but let me just add one more thing....
At the time Mr Knights book went to press I believe that the files on this case were not open to the public so...
Back then it was quite difficult to refute the 'carriage' part.Now of course ANYONE can read those files and take note that arterial spray was found at the scene of more than one crime.
The victims were killed where the bodies were found....end of Mr Knight.
Now will someone explain to me exactly WHERE his Royal Highness gained the intimate knowledge that would have been needed to find his way in and out of Whitechapel not forgetting, of course, that we are discussing a man who needed servants to find his own bedroom slippers!
Excellent piece of writing Phil. |
AAP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 04, 2005 - 3:08 am: |
|
"Stowell's Lancet article..." I've never heard of this one Phil, do you have a copy? |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 856
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Im meant, of course his "Criminologist" article. Slip of the finger. Thanks for the correction AAP.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 865
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 08, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Simon Owen, Thomas Neagle - where are you? My challenge stands - this thread was essentially created for the royal conspiracy buffs to refute.
If you believe what you write elsehwere you should have no problem.
Phil |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 478
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 9:26 am: |
|
Hi Jeffrey,
I was interested to read about Clarence Gordon Haddon and his book "My Uncle George V".
I have been trying to locate a copy through my local library, and they are unable to trace it in any catalogue, including the British Library and Library of Congress.
Could you possibly help me with any further information about this book that may help me track down a copy?
Rgds
John |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4964
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 10:35 am: |
|
John, Jeff
DEC 13th 1933
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 845
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Hi Robert and John,
Thanks for putting that on the Casebook web site.
I'm glad that now there is proof that I am not talking out of my hat describing Gordon-Haddon and his claim. That book is a rarity that I stumbled on (the book store I got it at in the 1980s closed out that branch within two years of my purchase, and now it's main branch is closed in lower Manhattan).
John, there is a copy of the book at the New York Public Library at 42nd St if you check the pre - 1971 Card catalog that is in binders now. If you are unable to get to New York City in the forseeable future, send me a personal message with your postal address, and I'll send you some xeroxed bits from Gordon-Haddon's book.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 480
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 8:10 pm: |
|
Hi Robert and Jeffrey,
Robert, Thanks for posting that very informative article, interesting to note that he is refered to as GODDARD Haddon, perhaps that may be why my library was unable to trace it.
Jeffrey, I did not think for a moment that you were talking out of your hat. Many thanks for your kind offer, and I shall e mail you privately.
Rgds
John |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 847
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Hi John,
I'll await the private message. However, the newspaper is wrong - it is Gordon - Haddon. It says so in the book.
By the way, I occasionally can be a bit facetious on these threads (too facetious perhaps), but in reading the charge against Gordon-Haddon I noted it was: "uttering a letter demanding money from the King with menaces and without reasonable or probable cause." Of course this means, an attempt at extortion, which is what it should say, but it suggests that Gordon-Haddon would have been on safer ground if he had written his threatening note but had reasonable and probable cause to do so.
In what circumstances could those be?
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 869
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 1:50 am: |
|
Jeff,
In legal terms - as blackmail/extortion itself can never have an excuse (ie reasonable cause) I suspect that the phrase infers that you cn only demand money if there is a genuine debt.
But this is a legal phrase (probably reflecting the relevant Act of Parliament, or established Common Law principle, that underlies the charge.
Is there a UK lawyer in the house?
Phil |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 481
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
Hi Jeffrey,
It is not really possible to answer your question without first reading the letter that Gordon Haddon sent to the king.
However reading between the lines I would guess that Haddon, claiming to be the illegitimate son of the Duke of Clarence was asking for what he would consider his rightful inheritance. The Crown would I am sure have denied that PAV had any illegitimate children, and it is probale that Haddon had no firm evidence of his claim. This would take care of the phrase, "demanding money with menaces from the King and without reasonable or probable cause".
By phrasing the charges in this manner they would avoid having to give publicity to the claims of illegitimacy, but this raises the problem that anything Haddon later said in court would not be considered libel. Perhaps they were just trying to frighten him off.
Let's just hope we can find out more.
Rgds
John |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4967
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 5:17 am: |
|
Here's some more. It'll take more than one post.
Dec 20th 1934
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4968
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 5:20 am: |
|
This is Jan 18th 1935.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4969
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 5:24 am: |
|
And this is Feb 26th 1935
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4970
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 7:02 am: |
|
I missed these :
Jan 12th 1934
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4971
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 7:06 am: |
|
And Jan 20th 1934
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4972
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
I'll just slip this one in. Sorry these are out of sequence.
Nov 3rd 1934
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 484
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 7:38 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I think you have posted a very good summary of Gordon Haddon's claims, well done indeed.
I think that we can say with reasonable certainty that the man was delusional, but it would be interesting to know for certain if his mother was in India at the same time as PAV, I shall try to check the birth registers for 1890 and see if there is any record of Gordon Haddon's birth.
By the way, strange is it not that we have another mention of Masons! I wonder if that is were Joe Sickert got the idea?
Rgds
John |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 851
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 9:34 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Marvelous work on Gordon Haddon's legal travails in the early 1930s, and a reference to his book among them. I will be getting material from the book to John shortly.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 874
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 2:52 am: |
|
Very interesting stuff. I was unaware of any of this. One of those fascinating sidelights on history - probably doesn't lead anywhere, but no matter.
The world is full of putative descendents of kings - born on the "wrong side of the blanket" as the saying goes.
A few years ago British TV did a documentary about a chap (living in South Africa as I recall) who claimed to be the rightful monarch because he was descended from George IV (1820-30). Even if legitimate, of course, such claims have no force (as those of various Stuart claimants) because all sovereigns since 1688 have effectively been recognised by Parliament. Descent is an important factor (primogeniture "rules" as it were) but it is not the only one - In 1936 there was some discussion of passing over Prince Albert (later George VI - 1936-1952) as unsuitable because of his stammer. Although Albert succeeded his brother, it is evidence that birth is not ALL.
Royal indiscretions are nothing new - as late as the 1920s/30s, Edward VIII (as prince of Wales) had to buy back unwise letters from his brother George (Duke of Kent) to a homosexual lover in Paris. No doubt, even if our "Eddy" had been indiscrete in India, the family of the lady concerned would have been paid off.
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4980
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Thanks folks.
John, by my calculations you have at least three different birth years to search - and two countries!
No mention of Clarence in the IGI for India, that I can see.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4981
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
His medal card can be downloaded for a small fee on the National Archives website.
This is what they tell you for free :
Description Medal card of Haddon, Guy Gordon
Corps Regiment No Rank
17th Battery Royal Field Artillery 562 Bombardier
West Riding Regiment Second Lieutenant
Royal Engineers Lieutenant
Date 1914-1920
Catalogue reference WO 372/8
Dept Records created or inherited by the War Office, Armed Forces, Judge Advocate General, and related bodies
Series War Office: Service Medal and Award Rolls Index, First World War
Piece Gibson A - Hannas J M M
Image contains 1 medal card of many for this collection
Robert |
Anne Law Student
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 11, 2005 - 3:42 am: |
|
This book by Haddon is quite well known in UK. So, in the late nineteenth c and furthar back, was the practice of claiming to have been born of the King, or of well placed gentry. I would respectfully suggest that were Haddon of any real concern to the Royals the matter would have been kept out of Court. Haddon would also have been able to pass thrugh higher channels of some kind when making his claim.
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Can anyone explain the point of all this?
And in answer to the question....it is in fact against the law in this country to demand money even if there IS a debt. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4982
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 3:05 pm: |
|
The Catalogue had two results :
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
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4983
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
There are still one or two "Times" reports I haven't posted, but the only things I can see worth mentioning are
1. Haddon claimed that at one time he was in the Imperial Maritime Customs, but was hounded out.
2. In 1938 he fought and lost a libel action against the publishers of the "Star" over their 1935 court coverage.
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 485
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 4:43 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
More good work, thank you.
It looks from the files held on this man by the National Archive that he spent most of his life trying to gain acceptance of his claims, I should love to get down to Kew and take a look.
I have heard of HM Customs but Imperial Maritime Customs - that's a new one on me. Also not surprised he lost a libel action against a newspaper, but I wonder were he got the money to mount a court case in the first place?
Rgds
John |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 184
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
John,
Try a search through a major search engine for,'Imperial Maritime Customs'.There you will find much information on the subject. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4985
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
John, re money, here is one of Haddon's letters, from a report Dec 5th 1933 :
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 486
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Hello Harry,
Thanks for the tip.
It seems as though the Imperial Maritime Customs was a part of the Chinese government and in the early 1900's largley staffed by British workers, so perhaps Gordon Haddon also travelled there.
Robert,
£600 a year, not a great amount to ask for one who claims roayl descent.
Rgds
John |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4986
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
John, Haddon claimed that he went to the Far East for a while, so that part of his story hangs together, at least.
Since he claimed that he had been teased as a child by other children on account of the PAV connection, and had been persecuted since, he doesn't seem to have been shy about mentioning it.
At least he didn't do a Dennis Price and murder his way to his birthright!
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
