Author: Richard William Abbott
Sunday, 03 November 2002 - 06:50 am |        |
| I have heard it mentioned that Joseph Sickert is an H.R.H. Can anybody tell me facts behind this. Is it possible in what he says is true? |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 03 November 2002 - 01:15 pm | |
Dear Richard,
With regard to the title "HRH" it could be "Hubris Rules Here"...the truth is out there somewhere. Apparently, a number of barstards have a claim to the British throne.Place not your trust in Princes.
God save the KING!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Guy Hatton
Sunday, 03 November 2002 - 01:34 pm | |
In other words, no it's not true. There's also no evidence to support his claim to be Walter Sickert's son.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 03 November 2002 - 01:45 pm | |
Dear Richard,
Joseph Sickert claims to be the descendant of daughter of Annie Crook (who supposedly secretly married Prince Eddy), thus making him the heir to the throne through his mother, the daughter of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales.
The search for/disposal of the mother and child has been proposed as the reason for the Ripper killings. Never mind that Eddy could not have married legally without his Grandmother's permission, NOR could he have married a Catholic, NOR was the existence of royal bastards anything to be surprised at! Oh, well....
Now THAT should be clear as mud!!
Cheers,
J |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Monday, 04 November 2002 - 04:39 am | |
Hello Richard,
Regarding your enquiry into Joseph Sickert.
Joseph is a complex character to say the least, now into his mid-seventies he is what some might call a doddery old man and is, in fact, in failing health. Sue and I have met Joseph several times and on each occasion have found him exremely courteous and polite, a genuinely nice old man.
His claims to be the son of Walter Sickert cannot be proved, likewise cannot be disproved either.
He does possess several of Walter Sickert's paintings and sketches, which if he was solely after money could have sold many times over.
He also has intimate knowledge of the Royal family and notable memories of the present Queen. He recalls being taken to Buckingham Palace as a young child and playing in the royal nursery with the young princess Elizabeth, (they are approx the same age). Details he gives of these events and others are now known to be correct with the opening up of the royal houses several years ago and some records now being more freely available. He has a ring which he claims to have once been owned by Queen Alexandra (the wife of King Edward the Seventh), the description does match one that was owned by her. Joseph wears this ring all the time.
All this and much more could be put down to the ramblings of an old man whose grasp on events has been muddled and lost in the mists of time. We have an open mind on his recollections, but we do not think Joseph is a liar. Mistaken, maybe, but not a liar.
Why does he receive so much derision? Everyone who posts on the casebook site with a theory or opinion is no better or worse than he is, it is just their theory. Let's face it, no one is going to solve who Jack the Ripper was, so leave an old man alone with his memories. He's not hurting anyone and most importantly of all he has never ever insulted any of those who disagree with him.
A&S |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 05:31 am | |
The current revelations regarding the collapse of the trial of Princess Di's butler, Paul Burrell,
opens up again once more, the whole question of what, and how much the Royal family are involved in misleading statements. I personally do not think for one moment that the Queen, or anyone else within the Royals are guilty. The blame lies fair and square on the shoulders of the police investigators and the PPS. Also the Queens closest advisors need to share some of the responsibility. The fact that an innocent man could have been found guilty and jailed on such flimsy and flawed evidence is a disgrace. |
Author: John Dow
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 06:17 am | |
Maybrick and Sickert are being accused of worse crimes on less evidence. And how about poor old Druitt?
John |
Author: Richard William Abbott
Tuesday, 05 November 2002 - 11:31 am | |
Hello all
Thanks for your response to my question about the title H.R.H. and Joseph Sickert.
Richard Abbott |
Author: jennifer pegg
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 02:44 pm | |
acoording to cornwall walter sickert was incapable of having children driving his killing spree (could be 40).
jp |
Author: walt and Carolyn
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 09:31 pm | |
Hi,
We were wondering if anyone could provide any reference to independant scientific validation to the recent DNA reports associated with Sickert. Has independant laboratory tests and evidence contamination exclusion criteria been analyzed? Is this real or a fiction novel? If it is real, what type of comparative analyses were done and by whom? We are interested in the scientific details of the genetic tests and the statistics? Not just they found the DNA...
Thanks,
Walt and Carolyn |
Author: Spryder
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 09:39 pm | |
Hi Walt -
Unfortunately we must right now rely solely on Cornwell's word in regards to the mtDNA evidence found during her research. She has not released her documents to any outside parties (that I know of), and unfortunately she did not provide footnotes in her book that would allow independent researchers to follow up on, verify and/or extend her findings.
What I can tell you is that they did not make a DNA match between Sickert and the Ripper. What she found was a similar mtDNA sequence on both letters signed "Jack the Ripper" (all mostly likely were hoaxes) and letters from Walter Sickert's correspondence. This sequence, according to Cornwell, is found in only 1% of the population (or, to put it another way, just less than half-a-million people in the U.K. would have had that sequence in their mtDNA). She admits this is not conclusive, but only a 'cautious indicator.' A better way to put it would be that the owner of the mtDNA found on Sickert's correspondence can not be eliminated from the pool of possible owners of the mtDNA found on the "Ripper" letters.
The number of problems which arise with provenance and contamination with these century-old letters are mind-boggling, but not addressed in Cornwell's book. Walter Sickert's DNA no longer exists, as his body was cremated.
A "primer" that covers this and other aspects of Cornwell's research can be found on the Casebook at: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-pamandsickert.html |
Author: walt and Carolyn
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 11:03 pm | |
Thank You for this information. So, the plot thickens. And, DNA claims are being used perhaps as a way to convict Sickert, when he may just be one in 1/2 million, (Or to sell books).. Anyone do this with the rest of the suspects? Maybe one of them is one in 100,000..or one in 10..
Regards,
Walt and Carolyn |
Author: Stan Russo
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 04:18 pm | |
John, and all
I am really getting tired of the prerequisite "POOR OLD" when describing suspects that have been named over the years. I have heard it numerous times used with suspects such as Dr. William Gull, Montague Druitt, James Maybrick, and others. Here's some information about these "POOR OLD" suspects:
Dr. William Gull was an ardent vivisectionist, meaning that he cut up poor little animals to conduct research on them.
Montague John Druitt was fired from his job as assistant headmaster of Mr. Valentine's School for boys on November 30th, 1888. The reasons have never been disclosed, which have led many to believe, including myself, that he was a pedaphile. A "POOR OLD" pedaphile.
James Maybrick was an arsenic addict, adulterer, and wife beater.
And the list goes on. 114 years after the case, the search for new ideas are still insulted and looked down upon by the naysayers. "POOR OLD" Sickert, and "POOR OLD" Kosminski, and "POOR OLD" Tumblety. Of course they couldn't be suspects. In fact no one is a suspect, they are just "POOR OLD" victims.
STAN |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 04:40 pm | |
Stan, my friend--why are you picking on M.J. Druitt? There's zippo evidence he was a pedophile.
Cheers,
Dave |
Author: Stan Russo
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 04:57 pm | |
David,
Shouldn't it be "POOR OLD" Druitt?
I said I believe he was a pedophile, not that he is a proven pedophile. Something happened to get him fired from that school in such a hush hush manner. It wasn't stealing, or Mr. Valentine wouldn't have given him the two checks found in his jacket. It wasn't the 'JTR' murders, or Valentine would have turned him in.
A school for young boys. A dismissal that is still hush hush 114 years later. Do the math. |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 05:28 pm | |
Hi, Stan
Conjecturing isn't math. As far as I know, there's no evidence that the checks found on Montague were written by Mr. Valentine (although they could have been). For all we know, Druitt could have been habitually tardy. Maybe he was an excellent barrister, but a poor teacher. Or maybe he really was having sex with students, as you believe. But does our lack of knowledge really indicate that the matter was hushed up?
Let me ask you this: do you believe Druitt was a pedophile because he was supposed to be a homosexual(at least I think it's said he was, although I can't think of any documentation to back this up--can anyone help)? Is it really fair to condemn him so?
Take care,
Dave
PS And yes, I do mean poor old Druitt  |
Author: Stan Russo
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 05:36 pm | |
David,
Druitt's 'alleged' homosexuality might have arisen from the MacNaghten Memorandum. MacNaghten claims that Druitt's own family believed he was sexually insane. This could have been translated into homosexuality.
The matter is still hushed up. Researcher Neil Rhind has done work on Druitt as a schoolmaster and states that the issue is still hushed up. It's my belief that his dismissal was because he was a pedophile, and there is logic behind this belief.
The checks found were from Mr. valentine, one covering Druitt's pay.
I'm not saying it's okay to condemn Druitt, but I believe everyone has the right to there opinion. Druitt is now an historical figure, and as such, will have theories discussed and written about him.
STAN |
Author: Caroline Morris
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 05:12 am | |
Hi Stan,
I agree with you that people should get over this 'poor old' suspect thing.
Why is it so much worse to talk about those that others would call 'unlikely' suspects, than to debate the so-called 'more likely', or 'legitimate' ones? If you look at it logically, all the 'more likelies' - bar one at the most - are every bit as innocent as the least likely (ie those with alibis).
The suspects thought very unlikely rippers by serious historians and Ripperologists don't come out of it as badly as the poor old totally innocent 'legitimate' suspects, whose names can be dragged through the mud without so much as a by-your-leave.
Love,
Caz, who thinks if poor old Sooty's name can be blackened, then why not everyone else's? |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 02:32 pm | |
Okay, Stan. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, you and I both, when the best evidence is innuendo. I just think a little more open-mindedness might be called for.
Dave |
Author: John Dow
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 05:01 am | |
Stan, in defence of my "poor old" thing:
Does being a drug addict justify the accusation that the man committed the atrocity that is the murder of Mary Jane Kelly?
Does being (alledgedly) homosexual justify it?
How about beating a wife?
I think perhaps we need to go and look at the mortuary photos again, followed by the photo of Annie Chapman in life, then have a little think about the mutilations.
Once we've done that, we can think about exactly *what* abominations we're accusing the suspect of, and with what evidence.
John |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 02:53 pm | |
Whatho Stan,
Ever heard of irony?
Cheers, Mark |
Author: chris scott
Monday, 25 November 2002 - 05:37 pm | |
Stan
Out of interest can you tell me where the info comes from that the two cheques found on Druitt's body were from George Valentine? I'd be interested to know the source of that.
Incidentally, just for the sake of accuracy if we are going to be flinging insults around, I found the listing for George Valentine's school which listed MJD (as Montague Druk for some reason). This show that the age range of his pupils was from 14 to 17 years of age. Therefore, even if Monty were found to be indulging in inappropriate behaviour with his charges he would not, psychologically, be a paedophile as that refers to people who are sexually interested in children below the age of puberty. The correct term for someone of MJD's alleged inclinations would be an ephebophile.
Also on the subject of MJD's alleged homosexuality, let us not forget that the overwhelming majority of paedophiles (even those who engage in same sex activity) are heterosexual.
Regards
Chris Scott |
Author: Stan Russo
Monday, 25 November 2002 - 10:08 pm | |
Chris,
The two checks were discussed in Sugden's The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. Sugden theorizes that the two checks were from Mr. Valentine as partial payment for services rendered. There is no proof that they were from Valentine, yet the monetary amount suggests they were. If anyone can offer another explanation as to who wrote the checks then I would love to hear it.
In reference to Druitt being a pedaphile, or an ephebophile, does that change the scope of why I believe he was dismissed. The secrecy, which according to Neil Rhind still exists today, surrounding Druitt's dismissal. Druitt could have been dismissed for just about anything. Examining what was known about the dismissal, and the events surrounding it, I came to the conclusion that the dismissal was due to inappropriate behavior with a young boy, age irrelevant.
Mark,
Irony? Duh, no. What's that?
Good contribution to the boards.
STAN |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 10:50 am | |
To All Posters.....
It is with sadness that we have to tell you that Joseph Sickert died last Wednesday 8th January 2003.
Whatever you might have thought about Joseph and his claims, he always, repeat always, conducted himself with great dignity and grace. He never, and I repeat never, insulted anyone who disagreed with him, and always had time for all theories and would listen with interest. I hope those who were sniggering and making caustic remarks when Joseph was being interviewed at the Bournemouth Conference 2001 now feel just a pang of remorse.
A&S |
Author: Garry Ross
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 11:05 am | |
Andy & Sue,
That is sad news and a real shame too.
take care
Garry |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 11:50 am | |
Sue and Andy,
We didn't know Joseph really, We met him at Bournemouth, our impression of him was, a very polite, quiet spoken gentleman. We're sorry to hear of him passing on, he will be missed.
Pat and Rick |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 12:17 pm | |
A&S,
Sad news indeed.
He indirectly brought me into this world of Jack.
Too sharp in our criticisms ? Perhaps, its because some are too involved.
I shall raise a pint for him in the Bells on saturday.
Thank you Hobo,
Monty |
Author: molly donlon
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 12:36 pm | |
memory eternal....
dust to dust etcetera.... |
Author: Philip Rayner
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 02:04 pm | |
| May he rest in peace. |
Author: Stan Russo
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 03:18 pm | |
Andy and Sue,
Very sad news regarding Joseph. I believe he knew more than he told.
STAN |
Author: Eduardo Zinna
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 07:38 am | |
Andy and Sue,
I regret to hear the sad news about Joseph Sickert. I only met him once, briefly, at the Bournemouth Conference, and I found him to be, as you say it yourself, a courteous old gentleman. I hope that you are in touch with Paul to ensure that his passing is properly reported in the forthcoming issue of the Ripperologist.
All the best,
Eduardo |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 02:44 pm | |
Hi All,
Thanks for post's re Joseph Sickert.
We would like to post on the casebook an e-mail we received today from Alan Hayday who got to know Joseph very well.
"He was a very kind and generous man who had suffered much malicious spite and falsehood during his eventful life. He also had stalwart and true friends, among whom I count myself. He will be remembered by me as someone who was a moral Christian man, who told the truth, as he understood it, without fear, or favour, even at great cost to his reputation. He should not be sneered at, but should be an example to us all".
Sue and I would like to add a couple of comment's to Alan's words. Few people know that Joseph worked tirelessly on behalf of the deaf and hard of hearing, of which he himself suffered, as do his children and grandchildren. Any money he received from books or talks was donated to this worthy cause.
Coincedently deafness is an ailment that affects the Royal family and especially affected Prince Albert Victor who Joseph Sickert claimed was his grandfather.
A&S. |
Author: Kieran Brakes
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 04:57 pm | |
| Was there any truth to the claim by Paul Feldman that Joseph was supposedly the grandson of Mary Kelly? |
Author: simon daniels
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 05:22 pm | |
Kieren,
I thought it was Margaret Crook the grandmother?//.....No? |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 08:29 pm | |
, ?nd Simon..actually, if I remember correctly, the story goes like this: Annie Crook and Mary Kelly were friends. Crook secretly married HRH Eddy, and had Margaret. The child was either 1) hidden with Kelly 2) hidden BY Kelly, or 3) Kelly and the others of the Canonical Five were blackmailing the Royal family over the existence of the marriage and the child. The child is raised by Walter Sickert, who marries her when she grows up, and THEIR child is Joseph.
PLEASE someone correct any boo-boos....
J |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 02:04 am | |
| Please excuse the naive question, but didn't Joseph have a birth certificate? Were any DNA tests done on Joseph (or attempted) to see if there is some similarity with the royal family? Did Joseph have any old family photos? I suspect that there must have been some research into his claims, if only by him to prove his heritage. |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 05:03 am | |
Hello Jeff,
Re Joseph Sickert. Let's just forget anything to do with Jack the Ripper, Prince Eddy marrying Annie Crook (which I do not believe for one moment) and Walter Sickert being JTR (that is rubbish).
Joseph was a complex character. He did own several of Walter Sickert's paintings and sketches. He also was an artist of note himself.
He had a remarkable memory when talking of the Royal family and especially Queen Elizabeth of whom he showed great affection, (they are nearly the same age). He talked of the times he was taken to Buckingham Palace as an infant and played in the Royal gardens alongside the two young princesses and other young members of the aristocracy. He descibed this in great detail.
Much of what he said about the Queen's early life is now proven what with the many biographies that are published nowadays. The thing is this: Joseph was saying these things long before they were in the public domain. He also talked in great depth about Queen Mary the wife of George the 5th (the youger brother of prince Eddy).
Make of this what you will. But I do believe along with many others, who, are now having second thoughts about the Joseph Sickert story, that somewhere there is a kernel of truth.
A. |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 01:50 pm | |
Hi Andy.
This isn't meant to be a knock on Joseph, but was there any objective evidence backing his claims? Did he provide a birth certificate (showing both his mother and fathers names?) Later in life did he attempt to have DNA testing done?
I forget the name of the woman, but remember that sweet old lady who for decades claimed to be Anastasia, the "lost Russian princess" (and was believed by many to be one and the same?) She also had what appeared to be very convincing memories of her childhood living with the Russian royals. If I recall correctly, DNA testing was finally done comparing her samples to some Romanov descendants. Nope. No match. Just a sweet old lady living a life of fantisy
If what Joseph claims is true, I am surprised that he didn't pursue more objective means of backing his claims. Memories and a ring (which could have been custom made at any time) are not ojbective proof of his claims. |
Author: John Savage
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 02:16 pm | |
Jeff
Regarding the possibility of using DNA evidence to check Joseph's story. I presume that it would also be neccesary to get DNA samples from some member of the Royal Family, if that is the case, then I feel it is something that will never happen, and Joseph I'm sure would have realised this.
Best Wishes
John Savage |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 02:20 pm | |
Hello Jeff,
Yes I agree with what you are saying. But irrespective of any claims, there will be no chance for one moment of any Royal having a DNA scan. Judith Stock is so correct when she mentions about any number would be making claims to the throne.
All I am saying is that when we were in Joseph's presence there was definetly something about the man. Don't ask me what as I don't know. Perhaps he did know more than he actually said.
A. |
