|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
H.R.H. Joseph Sickert
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
H.R.H. Joseph Sickert
Author: Jeff Murrish
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 03:23 pm |        | | Can't somebody slip a needle into one of the "lesser" royals veins when they are passed out at some local pub? Sheesh. You'd think what with all of the concern about who is "next in line" there would be a genetic depository available to tell one claimant from another ;). |
Author: David Jetson
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 04:04 pm | | I'd be interested in seeing if DNA could match Walter Sickert to Joseph. If J could be shown to have been Walter's son, it would blow a pretty big hole in Pat Cornwell's fantasy about W's ruined penis being the "cause" of W being the Ripper.
I know W was cremated, but presumably he had siblings or cousins or whatever, I'm sure there must be some living close relative - close enough for a DNA match that'd sink Cornwell's "evidence."
If someone was accusing a member of my family of being the the Ripper, I'd be keen to give a sample to prove or disprove it conclusively.
About the Romanov story: Prince Phillip gave a DNA sample to Russians who had found what they believed to be the remains of the Tsar's family. Phil obviously wasn't a direct descendant, but was a close enough cousin of the Tsarina for a match to be made. The remains have now been proved to be the Tsar and family.
Anna Anderson is the name of the woman who claimed to be Princess Anastasia Romanov. Many people were convinced, including at least one Romanov relative. There were books about her, and a movie was (loosely) based on the story.
A few years ago, a preserved tissue sample was located, and compared to the Romanov DNA from the remains that were found. It conclusively proved that Anna Anderson was not related to the Romanovs. She seems to have been a Polish woman who had never even been to Russia.
Chances of getting a DNA sample from a descendant of Queen Victoria are actually pretty good, I'd have thought, seeing as how there are plenty of them. It would be pretty simple to find an example of a Saxe-Coberg-Gotha, and compare it to Joseph Sickert. It would cost money, but not a fortune. I'd say it's likely that at least some of the Saxe-Coberg-Gotha is available. |
Author: David Jetson
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 04:14 pm | | On this subject, Americans might not be aware that there was recently a BIG scandal about how some newspaper tried to get an example of Prince Harry's DNA (from hair or skin) to compare it to James Hewitt.
Harry closely resembles Hewitt, and doesn't resemble Prince Charles much at all, and the possibility of Harry being Hewitt's son has been speculated on a lot, to the point of official denials being issued by both the royals and Hewitt - which, if you're as cynical as I am, is a rather interesting development. Why not PROVE beyond all doubt by allowing a comparison to be made? Surely that would lay the rumour to rest better than a standard denial?
And if you really need to be told, Hewitt was the guy (or one of the guys) that Princess Diana was, er, intimate with around the time of Harry's conception... |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 04:14 pm | | David, thanks for filling in the blanks about the Romanov "pretender". I believe I first came across the story as a segment on "60 Minutes". I remember she told a very convincing story, and as you say, had some very influental believers.
I to believe that there must be several distant descendants of Walter and/or the royals who could be traced and would be willing to donate a few cc.'s of blood for testing. It is a matter of tome and money, of course. With her fiancial resources and level of public recognition, it is to bad that PC doesn't pursue those lines. (If a relative of Sickerts could be found, it would help settle the dispute about whether it really WAS Walters DNA on those letters). |
Author: David Jetson
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 04:18 pm | | http://www.throneout.com/viewstory.asp?STORY_ID=79
A site about the Harry Hewitt saga... |
Author: Philip Rayner
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 05:10 pm | | DAVID shame on you for spreading such fibs- they still have the death penalty for treason you know?  |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 05:21 pm | | | Ooohhh... I forgot about that. Wasn't questioning the legitimacy of one of the heirs to the throne a capital crime? |
Author: David Jetson
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 05:50 pm | | Yes, well, it's only treason if it's not true. Anyway, it's not exactly on-topic, but I felt it was relevant enough to the discussion of the posibility of proving (or disproving) the various claims made about Joseph Sickert.
Proving Joseph was Walter's son would demolish the Cornwall story (I don't even want to credit it with the name "theory") by proving that Walter was in full working order.
Proving that Joseph was related to the royals would open up such a can of worms that I'd personally LOVE to see it happen. However, I'm a skeptic, so I want evidence that'd stand up in court, not somebody's feelings or theories.
In much the same way, I'd LOVE for it to be proved that Harry is a bastard, but I can't say that it's any more than an interesting theory so far. A resemblance is NOT proof. DNA is. That's why DNA is such a big part of the Cornwell story. The important fact that even if the DNA found on the letters was proven to be a match to Walter Sickert - which I regard as highly unlikely, given that 115-year-old letters which have no doubt been handled by dozens of people over the decades is hardly a basis for a conclusive match - it still only PROVES that Walter wrote some crank letters, NOT that he "must have been the Ripper."
This has been gone over in other threads, of course.
I'm veering off-topic here, anyway. Certainly it's sad that Joseph has passed away, and I hope that some legitimate scientific research is done to either prove or disprove the stories told about him. Losing the chance would be a sad thing. |
Author: chris scott
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 06:20 pm | | Hi all
Just a few points:-)
Questioning the legitimacy of any royal does not constitute treason. This now consists of only 3 acts:
1) Killing or attempting to kill the sovereign
2) Killing or attempting to kill the heir to the throne
3) Denying the sovereign's right to occupy the throne.
Similarly, if it could be proved that Joseph's claims were true it would not have profound legal or contitutional effects as he would be the product of a marriage that was contracted outside the peovisions of the Royal Marriages Act and would therefore be invalid
Hope this helps
Chris S |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 07:57 pm | | I agree with Andy and Sue regarding Joseph...there really WAS something about him. That is NOT to say he was royal. It's just that he DID have a certain presence.
AND, regarding Anna Anderson; she had the same effect on people that Mr Sickert had on A&S, and me, and others. There were those who SWORE she was Anastasia. Her "memories" of Tsarkoe Selo (sp?), Livadia, the hunting camp in Poland (what the hell WAS the name of that place?), family members, and especially a visit by an "uncle" to Tsar Nicholas during WW I, are just extraodinary, BUT she wasn't Anastasia....DNA has proven that.
Given that there are "royal descendants" all over the place, {not the least being the descendants of Maria Fitzherbert and the Prince Regent (later George IV), who were legally married, by the way}, I doubt that it would make much of a ripple if Mr Sickert WERE related to Queen Elizabeth. Whether or not he was, that makes no difference to the Ripper case. Let's let the nice man rest. He deserves it.
J |
Author: Jack Traisson
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 10:17 pm | | Many conmen have a certain charm or way about them. Joseph managed to fool Stephen Knight, Melvyn Fairclough, and many others with his lies.
Ultimately, there is little evidence to support any conclusion other than Joseph is the legitimate son of deaf boxer, Billy Gorman. Joseph's mother was illegitimate, however, and it is possible that the fantasies about being Walter Sickert's son, and all this other nonsense about the Royal Family started with her.
Cheers |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 11:23 pm | | You know what, Jack? It really doesn't matter any more. You're right about con men, and women, too. But con men, as a group, usually try to get something from others dishonestly.....true? As far as I know, Mr Sickert never hurt anyone, or stole, or conned anyone out of a bean. He even retracted his story to Knight. Even if he was a bit mad, SO WHAT? He was a nice old man, charming and quiet. I hope, when I kick, that someone remembers me like I remember him. I'm pleased as punch that I got to meet him, and he never asked me for a pint, or a smoke, or that I believe his story, either! The oddballs and eccentrics make life more interesting, and now that he is dead, life is a bit LESS interesting.
I just wonder who, if anyone, Mr Sickert ever hurt? Can anyone say that he did?
J |
Author: Chris Jd
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 02:54 am | | If we were as nice to people during their lifetime as we are after their death, this would be a much better world.
Sweet necrology may calm some consciens but doesn't help anyone anymore.
Christian |
Author: Jack Traisson
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 06:03 am | | It doesn't matter how nice we are in life, there are always people hurt by our actions. Did Joseph hurt me personally, no, he didn't, Judy. I am not about to start flattering him now with false sentiment because of his recent death. And I am not implying that you or anyone else has. I respect what you and Andy and a few others have said about him. I will not criticise your views. My opinions on the man won't change because he's dead. And it's probably best if I say no more.
Cheers |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 09:24 am | | Actually, Jack, I don't think we disagree at all, and there's no reason to argue about something like this, anyway. Everyone has, and is entitled to, his own opinion....that's why we have bookstores, and not just one book for all.
Flattery or false sentiment is never appropriate, nor is the elevation of a crook to sainthood. If you believe him to have been a con man, that's OK; I really didn't mean to imply that I thought it was OK to be one. Mostly I was trying to relate my impressions of Mr Sickert, not start an argument. Lord knows there is enough of that on these boards, and mostly over differences of opinion ONLY, not provable cases....don't know if you find this to be the case, but the arguments I've seen usually start over one person trying to change the mind of another over something as unimportant as whether or not someone THINKS something MIGHT have been possible if all the signs were right. The arguments don't seem to generate over things like whether or not Warren had the graffito erased. The saddest thing is that one person rarely changes the mind of another; two people can agree to disagree, but if I have decided that Howdy Doody was Jack the Ripper (as we all KNOW to be the truth), how are you gonna convince me that it was Weedon Grossmith??
To return (I digress much too easily these days), I apologise for starting something. Those of us who met Mr Sickert, for the most part I think, liked him. FULL STOP. Those who didn't like him are OK,too; no one will hunt you down like a fox in a field and savage you for having an opinion. Still friends?
'Nuff said,
J |
Author: Michael Raney
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 01:40 pm | | DNA has not proven that Anna Anderson Monahan was not Anastasia. There is no proof that the hair from a Hairbrush, found in an antique store, in a box with a couple of her husbands books was her hair. As far as the other suprisingly found tissue "sample", it was from a peice of bone removed in the early 1930's. No one can prove it was hers. The DNA results were only officially accepted by the Russian Government, and ONLY in regards to the other "Romanov" remains, not by any Romanov family member or by ANY court. Not one member of what was left of Nicholas and Alexandras immediate family ever denined that Anna was Anastasia, only those of the family that had the most to gain, ever publically denied her. Please do the research on this remarkable woman. I am not saying that she was Anastasia, I'm saying it has NEVER been legally proven that she was not.
Sorry, I know this was off topic, but I feel passionate about this issue.
Mikey |
Author: David Jetson
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 03:57 pm | | It's WAY off-topic, but the testing of Anna Anderson's DNA WAS conclusive. The tissue sample was from an operation she had in 1979. She turned out to be Franzisca Schanzkowska, from Poland, which was proved by a match between her DNA and that of a living relative of the family.
http://anomalyinfo.com/articles/sa00021a.shtml
http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob55672/anna_anderson_unmasking_page.htm
A simple internet search will show you dozens of similar reports.
What I find interesting is that some people who have been part of the "Anna Anderson Industry" still refuse to admit that they were wrong. I can imagine that if some evidence turns up to conclusively prove that Walter Sickert could not have been the Ripper, there will still be a few sad cases who insist that the evidence is wrong...
The second url there quotes one of the AA "experts" as saying some quite silly things, along the lines of "I know the science proves she was not Anastasia, but I still believe she was." |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 04:25 pm | | Thanks, David; I KNEW I had read that the DNA was from a relatively recent tissue sample, but couldn't remember where.
And Michael, I am passionate about the Romanov mystery, as well, but I do not believe that anyone survived the basement of the House of Special Purpose. It is a compelling story,and one with many circles within circles, but I think they all died there, or in the woods outside Ekaterinburg. SAD, but true, I believe.
J |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 04:34 pm | | David's right--it's been proven that Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia Romanov (although I wish she had been). Robert Massie, the author of "Nicholas and Alexandra", wrote about the claimants and the work with the Romanov remains around the mid-nineties, I think. Check it out. Sorry I've got no title for you, I think I loaned that book out and never got it back!
Also, there's a very nice picture book (geared towards children) of photographs hand-colored by Anastasia, coupled with excerpts of her diary. Her impish humor shines through clearly.
Sorry to go off-topic.
Later,
Dave |
Author: Michael Raney
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 04:41 pm | | | Yes, a search of the internet will give you all kinds of reports. You can find any number of websites that will tell you who the real Jack was....do we believe any of them? Can you put a name to any person or company or labratory who actually did the DNA testing on Franzisca Schanzkowska's nephew? And it was NEVER proven to a legal certainty in any kind of court. There are two court cases still undecided, one in Germany dating to 1962 and one earlier in the World court at the Hague. Both of these courts would be willing to entertain motions stating that Anna Anderson was a fraud based on DNA evidence. She was hospitalized on many occasions between 1978 and 1984, no where is there a record of any surgery during this time frame. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but there are many reasons, political, financial, historical and humanitarian, that would keep any claimant to the Russian throne from ever being accepted or believed. Anna Anderson may not have been Anastasia Nicolaivna Romanov, but she certainly wasn't Franzisca Schanzkowska. |
Author: Eduardo Zinna
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 06:14 pm | | Dave,
'The Romanovs: The Final Chapter'; 1995.
Cheers,
Eduardo |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 09:10 pm | | | Oh lordy, more to argue about. |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 11:08 pm | | NOT if we don't go there, Jeff...... enough, already!
J |
Author: Jack Traisson
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 01:10 am | | Judy,
Of course, we are still friends. We were not having a dispute just a discussion. You always post with passion and honesty. I regard you and Cam Wolff as the Grande Dames of the Ripper field. I just didn't want to say something I would regret, which is why it is best if I say no more about Joseph than I already have. That was all I meant.
Cheers |
Author: Paula Wolff
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 08:13 am | | Have I found a cousin? Who is Cam Wolff, if I may ask, please? I would really appreciate knowing.
Author Peter Kurth, an expert on Anna Anderson and Anastasia, still does not accept the DNA analysis and that it conclusively proves who Anna was and wasn't. I agree it would have been nice if someone had left that horrible cellar alive but it seemed to be only the men who killed them. I, too, love the Romanov thing.
Anyway, I'd like to know Cam Wolff.
Thanks,
Paula Wolff |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 02:50 pm | | Dear Paula,
Camille Wolff is one of the kindest, funniest, most terrific women you could ever hope to know. She ran Gray House Books for years; it was located in London, and was THE place to go before Cloak & Dagger Club meetings! I met Mark Galloway at Cam's in 1996, just as the C&D was beginning, and he signed me up on the spot. I had lunch with Cam and Mark that day, and kept up a correspondence with her until she retired a year or two ago.... can't remember the exact year, but it was pretty recent. For years, Cam was the person you asked when you needed a particular book, and NO ONE on the planet had one.....she always did! A great lady, indeed.
AND JACK.....we are now much more than friends.. if you even THINK of me in the same class as Cam!!! I am so flattered, I can't even begin to thank you for the compliment. Maybe in another four or five hundred years I can live up to the company in which you put me......OR, maybe it's may age and general outspokenness that reminds you of Cam....either way, to be included in her category is quite flattering, and I'll try to live up to it. I knew what you were saying, and respect that you didn't want to start up a whole NEW magilla...like we need THAT!
EVERYONE have a great weekend,
J |
Author: Michael Raney
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 02:59 pm | | Everyone,
I did not mean to be argumenative or to start an argument. There are always at least two sides to any story. I just always seem to present mine in a PASSIONATE way. I will not stray off topic again, in this thread anway. LOL
Mikey |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 06:31 pm | | Michael, not to worry. This site also deals with other "murder mysteries", which I feel Anastasia story falls under. As such I see nothing wrong with presenting differing viewpoints about this subject. My brief thread was meant to be "tongue in cheek".
If people can no longer express (respectfully) different viewpoints here or ask questions then the whole reason for existence of the Casebook will have disappeared. |
Author: simon daniels
Monday, 27 January 2003 - 05:16 am | | Hi all , I wonder if this type of "argumentative behaviour", indecision, and internal quibbling
could be -if attributed to the police force working on the case at the time-,
responsable for their not finding JTR?
Only joking...Sickert was in with the establishment for sure...but the ripper?
not I he said!
Simon |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 27 January 2003 - 04:48 pm | | Re : The Romanovs - the whole case of the discovery and investigation of the Romanov bones is one with serious discrepancies , I would urge anyone interested to check out a book called ' Every Contact Leaves a Trace ' by Dr Zakaria Erzinclioglu , Carlton Books 2000 , Isbn 1 84222 192 2 (UK) / 1 84222 161 2 (US), pages 102-112.
The bones of Anastasia , Alexei and the Tsar were all not present , even if you believe that the remains really were those of the Russian royal family.
Finally as a friend of Joe Sickert , whatever you may believe about his views , in person I always found him to be polite , funny , generous and very charming ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 27 January 2003 - 05:02 pm | | My deepest sadness about Joseph's passing is that his story about being the grandson of the Duke of Clarence was never vindicated in his lifetime. He said to me privately that he intended to let the matter of his being royal blood rest when he died , and that he did not want the struggle for recognition to be passed on to his dependents.
I only knew him for a short time but I am proud to say that he considered me his friend , and I consider him mine. He won't be forgotten by me certainly.
Rest in Peace old Hobo !
Simon  |
|
|
|
|
