|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4988
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 2:39 pm: | 
|
There's a copy of Haddon's book on Amazon for 8$
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 854
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
That's $7.00 more than I paid for it in 1984. It's value is increasing.
I spent part of this afternoon photostating part of the book for John, which I hope to mail within the next week. I gathered about two complete chapters, as well as several of the photos he used to illustrate the book (the one of his mother looks more like a drawing). Also several letters he photographed to two members of the Royal Family's staff are in the back, and I photographed those as well.
It is not a literary treasure - aside from it's curiosity value it could be just as useful as a door stop.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4990
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 3:12 am: |
|
Hi Jeff
Does Haddon give his parents' names (the official ones, that is)?
Haddon apparently wrote loads of letters - not just to the King, but also to MPs etc. So I'm surprised if none of these have survived.
Maybe we should brace ourselves for the discovery of a long-lost book by Haddon : "My Father Jack the Ripper."
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 856
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 9:14 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Worse, how about "Me and my illegitimate half nephew Joe".
His mother is Mary Reid, and Mary's husband (at the time of the alleged affair with Eddy) is Col. Henry Edmond Haddon, R.E. I feel (as I am still in the process of mailing this material to John) I have to be fair and not give more information. Haddon does divorce Mary in 1893, and she shacks up with a Lt. Rogers (the son of a General Rogers - no better name) who was an officer of THE KINGS OWN SCOTTISH BOARDERS. Mary eventually became an alcoholic (as did Rogers).
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4992
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 9:54 pm: |
|
Thanks Jeff. I just wanted to see if either of them was in the IGI for India.
John, those PRO files are closed for 100 years and 75 years, though it is possible to request a review of the info.
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 858
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Hi Robert and John,
I just wanted to say I finally mailed my material to John. It will say there are 25 sheets of paper on the overnight express mail envelope. Actually I did not count them, but I assure you that I sent all the papers I photocopied from the book.
Robert - Gordon Haddon does mention that Colonel
Henry Gordon Haddon had a hand in the building of a famous bridge over the Jumna River in India.
Supposedly there was a plaque naming Col. Gordon Haddon on the Bridge (he says his name is there in large letters, whatever that means).
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 875
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 3:00 am: |
|
Robert - don't forget that under the UK's Freedom of Information Act (which came into force Jan 05) such specified bars (100 & 75 years) have no meaning. the relevant authority will have to carry out a public interest test before they can withold the information - and you can appeal that to the relevant department, and to the Information Commissioner.
Under the Act it is not a right to see the FILE, but you do have a right to the INFORMATION contained in it (ie possibly summarised or re-typed). Again, unless the information was very sensitive (or personal) I doubt that a blanket veto on release would be upheld.
It might be worth putting in a request for information under the FOI Act to Kew. You don't have to be a UK resident or citizen to use the Act and must receive a reply within 20 working days.
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4995
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 6:32 am: |
|
Hi Phil
Thanks for that. Yes, I don't see why they shouldn't release the info, unless there was some truth in the allegations (something I doubt).
Robert |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 877
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
At this remove, I suspect the only bar to release would be if these were personal files.
Phil |
Anne, law student
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
PS perhaps we are looking at a book called 'My father the greatest criminal of all time'- three and six, cheques made payable to Fagin and Bill Sykes'.
I've given an informed opinion but people don't seem to be taking note of it. Good luck! |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 487
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Hi Jeffrey,
Thanks for posting that information off to me, I look forward to reading it. A second search by my local library was unable to trace a copy of this book in the UK, and they have discontinued obtaining books from abroad due to the expense, so that makes the info. you have posted me even more interesting.
Robert & Phil
Thanks also for the information about the National Archives and the FOI act, perhaps after I have read Jeffrey's material I may try to get permission to have a look at the files.
Rgds
John |
Belinda from Henmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 2:35 am: |
|
It will have been impossible for the boy Guy to know he wasn't his own father's offspring, but it's interesting to see he saw an opportunity in his own circumstance? What made him get to work claiming to belong to Clarence? Presumably there was some story about the regiment having one or two meetings with Eddy's B Troop which he seized on as a teenager.
An early afternoon chat show recently interviewed a pseudo claimant who's got the idea that he was the love-child son of Princess Margaret and has written a book. He has had the usual half measured response from certain sentimental royals. I smelt a rat, his claim was just too bold. If you were an illegitimate outcast you wouldn't advertise it or get passionate about it in that way exactly. You'd be banging on about your inheritance and refusing to focus on anything else. I thought it was a nasty con.
However, the fact the files are closed makes a difference? |
Anne law student
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 6:21 am: |
|
Surviving records will be at the records Office. Again, I would respectfully advise that it's a waste of time, this man probably had nothing to do with the future King. They can't repond to every fraudster with Ripper intrigues, however good the story.... however much of a philanderer a royal reputedly is.  |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 879
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 3:05 am: |
|
Anne, you wrote:
They can't repond to every fraudster with Ripper intrigues, however good the story....
Who precisely can't respond? The Royal Household certainly would do no more than reply politely - perhaps offering a reputabvle historian access to the ROYAL archives at Windsor. That, as I recall, is what they did in response to Spiering's claims.
On the other hand, Government departments and the NATIONAL archives, at Kew, have no choice under the FOI Act, and must, at least confirm or deny information is held. If they deny access a specific exemption must be cited and this can be appealed against - first to the department concerned, and if that fails to the independent Information Commissioner.
On wider points, my impression is that British royal princes have usually not been too abashed by illegitimate issue - where they knew it existed. Edward VII usually had mistresses who were married, so any children were ascribed to the husband!! It avoided embarrassment. Does anyone, in fact, know of any illegitimate offspring for Edward VII? I cannot, which is odd given he had five children within his marriage and a very active sex-life outside. Luck or discretion?
As I have noted before, George V faced a claim of a previous marriage in Malta which would definitely have upset numerous apple-carts if true. That was not kept secret. An illegitimate child might have caused a stir, but by the 1930s the king was well-established and ageing. Nothing would have been likely to dent his public image - though his household might have been overly protective. Certainly the possibility of George - a sailor, known to have had at least one mistress before marriage - having fathered an illegitimate child in his younger days would not surprise me. His character from the 1890s to his death would not suggest the likelihood of any later indiscretions, however.
Phil
(Message edited by Phil on September 18, 2005) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5000
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 4:21 am: |
|
John, I've put in a request under the FOI Act.
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 489
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 7:23 pm: |
|
Hi Jeffrey,
Just to say that the documents you posted to me arrived safely this afternoon. I have not yet had a chance to study them, but look forward to doing so.
No doubt you will hear from me again soon, when I have read through them.
Once again, many thanks.
John |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 861
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 20, 2005 - 8:00 pm: |
|
Hi John,
Glad to hear that they got there. I'm sure you'll find them of interest, even if they don't lead to Whitechapel.
I await your comments.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
AnneLawStudent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 18, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
Hi !
I agree, I'm just saying that it's unlikely that Guy was Clarence's illegitimate son, partly because i) he seems to have waited a long time to "come forward" and ii) he hasn't taken discreet routes which would have been more likely to be successful in getting responses from authorities and royals.
I was joking about the Royals responding to allegations about illegitimates with Ripper intrigues. I agree the Ripper connection to Clarence's possible (but as yet unknown)offspring is silly.
I think Guy's claim seems much more like a bid for attention than a real claim- some people make false confessions to murder etc. For attention. They seem to revel in the mayhem. But hey, investigate it. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 865
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 8:31 pm: |
|
Hi Anne,
I have read this bird's attempted memoir. Believe me, he was out for money - a cushy job or sinecure or some kind of pension. He becomes really wacko at points about it not being a dishonor to be of royal blood with a "bar sinister" connection. As though illegitimacy is a badge of honor if mumsy or daddy was of blue blood. And when he tries to wax eloquent about the passing of the age of aristocracy, Gordon Haddon becomes self righteous and pompous. He believed what he said (even if it were actually true or not).
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 903
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 1:52 am: |
|
We must not forget, that for some people even a tentative link to royalty is desirable.
Also, a family can generate its own myths. Perhaps the mother DID have an affair with the Prince but did not become pregnant by him - but told her son what she wished had happened. This was before DNA testing could throw light on paternity.
I have only recently and personally come across a family friend who had a breakdown and started to claim she was a princess and had been "adopted" as a sister by the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh. She actually wrote letters to my mother and I setting out explicit but plainly absurd details of the arrangements - all fantasy.
But she seemed to believe it all, and used the title Mountbatten. I began to wonder whether her mother might have had an affair with the notably promiscuous Earl at some stage and had told her daughter that she was actually his daughter. The mother tells her daughter she is a "real princess2 etc, perhaps making more glamourous dull or unhappy lives - a shared secret.
Thus when she became unbalanced decades later, the daughter fell back on a myth that had been part of her memories from childhood. She believed it, but it had never had any but the most tenuous factual basis.
All just speculation, of course.
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5128
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
I have received a reply from the national archives, and they're invoking the 10 day extension :
Dear Mr Linford,
Thank you for your enquiry of 19th September 2005 requesting a review 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
I'm sorry, but we are not yet able to tell you if this file can be opened. The National Archives have to consult a number of departments in relation to this request. In such cases we have been granted an extra 10 days to do so under s.10 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please see the following link for details of the ten-day extension: http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/foi-section10draft.pdf
Ideally we would wish to respond to all enquiries within 20 days but in this case it was not possible, please accept our apologies. We will respond to you by 31st October 2005.
Etc, etc.
I actually applied on the 18th.
Oh well, just have to wait....
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2640
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Robert, careful, my dear chap.
You might get stabbed with a brolly on London Bridge, or fall in the water.
If you need help, you know where I am.
I have a certain panache when it comes to reluctant sources of information.
Say the word. I'll send troops in. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5132
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Thanks AP. I imagine it will be OK, but if not, you can go in with finger fully loaded.
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 890
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 11:03 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
AP's helpful warnings about odd fatal encounters made me recall that I saw a news item today that the police were finally planning to bring five men to trial for the 1982 "suicide" of banker Roberto Calvi - he who was found hanging from an odd location. It only took nearly a quarter of a century for the authorities to decide it was a murder. Maybe you will still find something out about Gordon Haddon. If you do, I will be very interested in what comes out.
Good luck - and watch out for those poisoned pointed bumpershoots.
Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5133
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 5:56 am: |
|
Brollies, bridges....I'm getting a bit nervous here. 
I'd better not tell them about my own royal ancestry....not yet anyway.....
Robert |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 955
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
One of the exemptions under the FOI Act in the UK is communications with HM the Queen. Nothing sinister, but simply to maintain the political impartiality of the monarch.
It may be that the file contains papers originated either by the palace at the time, or which relate to the Royal archives, and this is simply a bureaucratic delay while agreements from originators are obtained. I have colleagues who have to do this all the time - and it is all completely innocent. I say this, just in case any of the more imaginative posters here sniff conspiracy too soon.
It is also possible that the file contaions legal advice re the case, which might still be relevant. legal advice to a client is also exempted.
I do find it interesting though that an 80 year old file takes so long to clear. there are some things connected to the Royal Family that have always, and still do, made politicians cautious (the 1936 Abdication for one, and before that the fate of the Russian Royal Family and the location (if any) of their wealth.
Like UFOs the wording used always seems mightily carefully phrased.
I'll be very interested in the outcome of this one. At this stage, I'd bet 70:30 that you'll see the information from or on the file - but if by any chance you don't - you should certainly appeal.
Note though that, even if the information is cleared for release, the Act only allows you access to the information not necessarily the file.
Phil |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 480
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Phil Hill once again is able to give us an explanation for the bureaucrats' manouvrings(sp?).
I think most of these Royal Conspiracies have come out in the last fifty years since the concealment of Royal scandals has become more difficult. Or become more opaque.
The failure to catch the Ripper,the witholding of information from the papers by the police, and suggestions of "the Highest in the Land" being involved, all combined to fuel conspiracy theory.
For centuries Europe's royal families have indulged in morganatic marriages; cover-up of marital indiscretions; gambling scandals; blackmail attempts and the
most strenuous efforts to avoid the appearance of royal personnages in public courts.
It was the role of the senior palace bureaucrats to ensure these things never reached the papers.
See the career of London solicitor Sir George Lewis, who played a very real part in keeping aristocratic indiscretions out of the press in the free-wheeling days of Queen Victoria's eldest son, Edward, during his long wait in line for succession to the British throne.
But in reality Prince Albert Victor is more likely to have ordered his Equerry or Private Secretary to strangle a blood-blood dowager than
be recognised by all and sundry in the stews of Whitechapel!
'Allo Yer 'ighness,lovely night fer a bit of
psyco-paf-ick mayhem, innit? |
John Savage
Chief Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 508
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 8:10 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Having had the chance to read through the extracts of Clarence Gordon Haddon’s book “My Uncle King George V” I have to say that there is really no proof to be found here of the man’s claims.
All of the details of Prince Eddy’s visit to India could easily have been found in publications and newspapers of the time, but Haddon had lived in India from about 1895 until about 1905, so he would have had a good knowledge of that country. He claims to have been born at Park Street, Fulham, London on 28th. September 1890, the son of Mary Jane Haddon who “came of Irish people”, and that her father Robert Reid, was an officer of the Indian Police Force. Mary Jane was born in India in 1835 and married Henry Edmund Haddon at Barrackpore on 22nd. December 1883.
Some time in 1892 she met in London a Lieutenant Rodgers with whom she lived for several years and resided in the cheaper pubs of Kensington, like another Mary Jane, it seems she had a fondness for drink which was to remain with her through two further marriages.
Haddon’s claim seems to rest upon the fact that his mother told him all about her passionate affair with Eddy in India, which carried on secretly at Park Street, Fulham until his death, and also three or four letters addressed to his mother from Eddy. Unfortunately these letters were stolen whilst he was on a long voyage.
The whole book is, I believe, nothing more than fantasy, and I am not at all surprised that it was not published in England, as its contents are scandalous and also possibly libellous. However it may be that this book, and Haddon’s letters to the King, which became a court case and was reported in The Times, could have been the inspiration for some of Joseph (Gorman) Sickert’s claims.
My thanks are due to Jeffrey Bloomfield, for very kindly sending me these extracts, and to Robert Linford who has searched out articles from The Times relating to Clarence Gordon Haddon.
Rgds
John |
John Savage
Chief Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 509
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 8:15 pm: |
|
Hi Again,
Just to complete my notes above, here is a picture of C.G. Haddon, thanks once again to Jeffrey Bloomfield.
 |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 893
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 10:43 pm: |
|
Hi John,
At least I finally got Gordon-Haddon back from the old newspaper files. I did write an essay about him once (most of it I put on the first Casebook website) where I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the problem was I really had limitations on whatever research I could do - being stuck in New York City.
If I were to continue looking into this bird anymore (if it's worthwhile), I would suggest digging into Indian Imperial records of the 1870s - 1890s. I am curious about Mary Hadden and her first husband, the army engineer, and her
father the police officer. They may be of some interest (at least in verifying what is verifiable - if that proves less than true than the chances are most of his story is false).
At least you did not have to read through most of the self-pitying portions of his memoirs.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 964
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 3:10 am: |
|
John Ruffels:
But in reality Prince Albert Victor is more likely to have ordered his Equerry or Private Secretary to strangle a blood-blood dowager than
be recognised by all and sundry in the stews of Whitechapel!
Since his father never had to order such drastic measures to cover indiscretions - he used legal means and men such as Lewis - why should his son resort to them? I am afraid a murderous conspiracy to cover up a sexual indiscretion is not even a starter for me as a motive in the context of that period and those people.
It seems much more like an anachronistic, post-Watergate idea grafted on to an age and class which did things differently.
Phil
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5135
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 5:16 am: |
|
Hi John
Since Haddon's mother gave birth to him at the age of 55, I'm surprised he didn't claim Abraham as his dad!
Robert |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 142
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 11:20 pm: |
|
Paul West wrote a book called: The Women of Whitechapel and Jack the Ripper. It was published in '94, and I imagine he spent a few years writing it as it is a long novel. It is a Royal Conspiracy and Walter Sickert as artist novel in which Mary Kelly is a part-time model for Sickert and is somewhat romantically displayed. It is critically acclaimed, but I found it tedious, though I shall give it another try. I just wonder if conspiracy authors and Cornwell got some ideas from it. William Gull plays a big part in the book and is portrayed as an ogre and a manipulator. Of course the royal family is involved. It is interesting in that the women of Whitechapel get meaty roles. West says in the intro that it is a complete work of fiction and not based on anything he really knows about the Ripper. Here's a link for a high-brow review of the book:
http://www.zinkle.com/p/articles/mi_m0403/is_n2_v40/ai_16530450
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
LizzieLiz
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
I am a stranger to proceedings, but wish to make the following point. I have taken a great interest in the Ripper and the Royals for many years.
It's important to remember that Haddon, even if he were the son of the Duke of Clarence, was born in 1890, two years after the Jack the Ripper murders were over, and therefore has nothing to do with the Ripper case.
see the newspaper report printed page 1) He evidently happened when it was all over. His mother was a woman that Clarence was supposed to have met later, who apparently went by the name of Kingston or suchlike (see newspaper report).
I fear, Robert, that after reading this file, if they let you open it, you will still very much be looking for the lost prince and princess in a void, if indeed he or she existed.
I can see you are excited as an author but I strongly recommend you don't try and pin on Haddon what he clearly is not. He had no proof for his irrelevant claims, his widely published book fell on deaf ears, his mother was nothing of any interest to the authorities apart from, as the Judge said, being 'responsible for putting a maggot in his brain', (by which he inferred a delusional belief that he was the son of the late Duke of Clarence). Were he even the son of the same, his existence sheds no light on the Jack the Ripper case whatever.
It is at least biologically possible that there is here an illegitimate boy at the heart of a belated dirty blackmail scheme of no relevance. But it is very unlikely. The prince was grieving for his fiancé Helene in 1889, and was a keen disciplined traveller as a soldier, as his simple and honest letters, widely published, seem to reveal. We would have to imagine that after 1888 he was extremely keen to fling himself into a tent with the wife of the nearest renegade soldier as soon as he got abroad to a place where he was sent apparently to escape from public scandal, if we were to take Haddon's blackmail scheme seriously. Further, this Haddon's existence is of no relevance to the case in hand in any event.
As with all talk of this kind, this conversation (above) has swerved right away from the evidence and onto excited baseless inuendo in a very short time.
And is there any more writing to do? Haddon has written a book himself. |
N. Beresford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 12:32 pm: |
|
To John Ruffels,
N. Beresford here. I was wondering if you would consider looking at the 'Weather Conditions' thread again. I think I made an interesting point in one of my posts, directly relating to a question you proposed. I look forward to hearing from you if you can find the time.
All the best, N. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5142
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
Hi Lizzie
Rest assured, I don't expect to find out anything about JTR from the Haddon business. It's just curiosity, I suppose.
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 901
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 12:14 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
Actually, although I tend not to believe Gordon Haddon's fantasies, I do feel that there is a way they reflect on the "Clarence - is - the - Ripper" theories because of the comparison to the idea of the series of murders to cover up an earlier illegal marriage (and child). If Gordon Haddon was telling the truth, why did his mother Mary Reid Haddon not end up slaughtered and he end up targeted for an accident like Annie Crook?
It is the relatively different paths that this so-called illegal royal marriage and child took from the other so-called illegal royal marriage and child story that I found interesting.
Distinctly minor but curious.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Spiro
Police Constable
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 8
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 1:30 am: |
|
Hi all,
Fascinating thread! Just curious...is Olivia Haddon any relation to the Gordon Haddon? She was an accomplished painter. Does anyone know?
Thanks
Spiro |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5149
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 7:39 am: |
|
Hi Jeff
it's strange that, according to Haddon, he was more or less treated as an outcast by all except foreigners. Yet illegitimate children of royals were hardly a new phenomenon, and one might have expected people to cosy up to him, if they really believed he had royal connections. I suspect that he was a crank from a quite early age - that might explain his self-confessed unpopularity.
Spiro, I don't know the answer to your question. Sorry.
Robert |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1069
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 7:46 am: |
|
Baron:
I have that book too. You're a better man than I am,sor..I couldn't finish it. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 903
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I tell you, if you read the complete "memoir" he did (in the words I used in my essay) come across as a good imitation of a "sponge". He wanted more than a friendly piece of recognition - he wanted a big sinecure. His inflated idea was, but for the illegality of the relationship his mother had with Eddy (which Haddon austensibly believes in), he'd be ruling the British Empire. So he deserves a nice, simple job with a lot of money, or a pension. I have to hand it to Joe Sickert - he never demanded that, as far as I can recall hearing or reading.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5153
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Jeff, he must have been astonished when Edward VIII chose to throw it all away!
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 906
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
There is a passage by Gordon-Haddon on page 247 that is inimitable for bad pronostication and to show his narcissistic ego embracing glorious doom for his "class":
"As for the reigning family - my family, if I have any at all - I remember what Edward VII said: "My son will reign, and his son." But his son's son will not. No destined ruler of a nation could be more popular than the Prince of Wales today. But he has shown no great eagerness to reign. I have heard it said that he will refuse the throne. If he does, England will never have another king."
Edward VIII did take the throne, and hold to it for almost a year before the problems of his relationship with Wallace Simpson led to the abdication crisis in December 1936. Edward did not want to lose the throne - he hoped that an arrangement would occur. It didn't. So he decided he wanted Wallis more than the throne.
So then he abdicated.
So, according to Clarence Gordon-Haddon, beginning December 1936 Great Britain became a republic. Didn't it? True or false?
Oh...that's right. King George VI took over until he died in 1951. Then Elizabeth II took over until the second day. Gordon-Haddon probably never predicted anything correctly in his life. He also, after all, predicted the Royal Family would embrace him and reward him as a bar sinister cousin. That didn't happen either.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Judith A. Stock
Detective Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 56
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 10:22 pm: |
|
Dear Jeff....Edward VIII never was crowned, so did he actually take the throne? Yup, I know he became King, but is that OFFICIALLY OFFICIAL until the coronation??? On this side of the Pond, we have two pressies at once, but one is a lame duck, and the other a "not really" until January when inauguration takes place......very confusing, especially when they all seem to resemble ducks these days..but that's another story.
My take has always been that Edward wanted the whore from Baltimore so much he would have given up EVERYTHING for her, and that she was the one hoping for an accomodation of some sort, along with a title of some class or another..but again, that's just my take. I hate to be so cynical, but REALLY! Wallis??? Now I ASK you!
Cheers,
Judy
http://www.casebook.org/2006 |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 908
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Hi Judy,
My take is that Edward was something of a ninny
when it came to his job and duty, and that he figured that one day he could undue his grand gesture. During the World War he acted...shall we say a little odd when it came to the Axis, and his appointment to the Governorship of the Bahamas he seemed to buddy buddy with pro-Nazis there as well. His botching of the murder investigation of the anti-Nazi Sir Harry Oakes is a case in point. Wallis seemed to be fully in line with him on his actions. Calling her the "whore of Baltimore" is almost poetic, but it seems just. Bey as cynical as you want. With Wallis and "David" I'd say they fully earned it!
Cheers,
Jeff
P.S.
If there is a believer in justice at the center of our universe, in the afterlife, Wallis and David have to constantly be the hosts of their illegitimate, snobbish "cousin" Gordon-Haddon. They'd deserve to be.
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 972
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 2:29 am: |
|
Coronation confirms legitimacy, but the new monarch is legitimate from the moment of his/her predecessor's death (hence the old refrain: "The King is dead: Long live the King!"
The title to the throne is confirmed by an Accession Council held a day or two after the death/abdication of the previous sovereign. Later, either at the Coronation OR the first State Opening of Parliament of the reign (whichever comes first), the new monarch takes the oath.
The coronation confirms all this in a ceremonial way and gives God's blessing (the anointing in particular) but the recognition and acclamation ("Sirs, I here present unto you, X your undoubted King/Queen"), the homage etc, broadly repeat in a grand way what has already been done.
In medieval times, coronations were held within a few days (later weeks) of the accession. Now it is eighteen months or so, to allow for preparation. But even so Edward I in the C13th had to come home from Palestine on the death of his father Henry III, and he was never doubted as King.
That said, it was observed by many in 1936 that coronation did something to the monarch - and I think there is an element of hallowing/or making sacred involved. It's a moral thing, and Edward VIII would have found it harder to abdicate afterwards than before, or perhaps to marry a divorded woman (in the context of that time).
As for what going through that incredible, ancient and layered ritual means for the individual involved, who knows. I think, on the basis of what we know, it means a lot at that level.
Hope this helps,
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5157
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 5:24 am: |
|
Hi Jeff
There seems something inescapably raffish and shady about Edward VIII, and it's a pity we can't summon from the grave the actor Guy Middleton, to play him.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 973
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
I think Edward VIII was in some ways a very typical figure of his age - impatient with the norms and traditions of the past, and gravely shaken by the 14-18 War. Added to that, I think (like some celebrities today) he began to believe his own myth - which made him think of a new role for the monarch, as a populist, fascist leader (akin to Mussolini, rather than Hitler).
The mrs Simpson attraction simply added the final twist - or ingredient - to this fatal mixture.
He thought he could have it all - glory and power without work and his way. When it was taken away from him, he wanted it back. That was what finally pushed him to (or over) the borders of treason.
He SHOULD have been our greatest king - he turned out to be one of the most abject failures.
Phil |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1071
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Ms. Judy:
"My take has always been that Edward wanted the whore from Baltimore so much he would have given up EVERYTHING for her.."
Its weird,but I remember my parents talking about this Edward dude once. I remember my old man saying something similar to what you did about Edward.
He said that the responsibility of being King was too much and that Edward would have taken ANYTHING just to get out of that position.
|
LizzieLiz
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 2:02 am: |
|
Oh dear, looks like people will believe what they want to. Again I stress that Haddon is very unlikely to be Clarence's son and if he were, being born in 1890, he clearly has nothing to do with the Ripper murders which took place in 1888.
Jeff. I see what you feel. Where did Haddon get his idea to annoy the princes with a false claim?
All the same, he might just be a madman with an idea.
It goes to show what sort of allegations can happen to a Prince who takes a walk on the back street side of life which was more or less all he did. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
