|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Is it true, what they say about Clarence?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Is it true, what they say about Clarence?
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 01:36 am |        | Despite their usefulness in chronicling events,
cameras cannot always reveal character. Some
photographed people come out accurately, while
oters remain a mystery. The subject here has a face which fails to give answers. His eyes stare into uncharted distances, past the photographers.
Had something caught his attention just as the
picture was shot? His attire makes one think
of "pomposity," but this is unfair: his social
station required he wear those univorms with the
"whip cream" braiding, while resting his hand
on the pommel of the sabre. Preconceptions warp
our view of Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence
and Avondale, better recalled as "Eddy". He looks
like thousands of other princelings, possibly with
more nervous uncertainty than most. He looks nice, but so did Neville Heath. Does Eddy look
like a killer? Is it true, what they say about
Clarence?
The oddest fact about Eddy's life was that he
achieved fame eighty years after he died. From
1892 - 1970 he remained the forgotten man in
recent royal family history, except for his
nephew, Prince John (d. 1919) the only child of
George V who did not reach maturity. Eddy's
oblivion was due to his failure to survive his
father and grandmother to achieve the throne.
And then came Dr. Thomas Stowell, and his theory
that "S" was Jack the Ripper, and his hinting
that "S" was Eddy. Eddy finally made it into
history...sort of.
The arguments, pro and con, for Eddy being the
Ripper or being the cause of a MASON-ESTABLISMENT-
ROYAL FAMILY cover-up have been rehashed again and
again. Actually, for most of this essay, I don't
intend to discuss the various theories (most of
which have been discarded or exploded). Instead,
I wish to add a little more to our possible
knowledge of every Ripperologists favorite prince.
There is a sad lack of available material on
Eddy, probably because he lacked the forceful
personality to imprint itself on the public.
He had really hard competition there: his grandmother was ruler of the most powerful nation
and empire in the world and his father was the
best known playboy in the world. His mother
also held a vital social position. Even his
uncle Alfred was better known, not only as
Duke of Edinburgh (and heir to the duchy of
Saxe Coburg Gotha, from Eddy's grandfather Prince Albert), but because (as of 1888)Alfred had been
the only member of the Royal Family to be wounded
in an assassination attempt (in Sydney, in 1868).
The public was aware of the existance of Eddy
and his brother George, and their three sisters,
but just did not need to know that they were there
in the wings.
Due to this lack of information, modern scholars
have tried to fill in gaps. Michael Harrison
attempted to create a homosexual romance at
Cambridge between Eddy and his tutor, James
Kenneth Stephen (son of Mrs. Maybrick's judge,
Sir James Fitzjames Stephen). No real proof of
such a romance exists. In two recent studies of
the Clevelan Street Scandal of 1889, the sudden
sending of Eddy on a trip to India suggests the
government trying to cover-up for his involvement
in the homosexual brothel scandal. Again though,
no real proof.
But it is at this point that my own researches
can be presented, for what they are worth.
__________ __________ ___________ __________
Between 1975 and 1978 I attended New York Law
School in lower Manhattan. While not in my classes, I wandered into various bok stores in
the area. One on Duane Street had a large number
of old, out of date volumes. Here I ran across
a blue covered book entitled MY UNCLE, KING GEORGE
V. It was published in New York by Harhill Press,
Inc., in 1929. Harhill must have been a small
vanity press - the only type to publish such a
book. It could not have found a publisher in
Great Britain in the 1920s or 1930s very easily.
The book cost me only a dollar. I am glad I spent
the dollar, as the only other copy of the book
I have seen is at the New York Public Library,
listed in the card catalogue under the title and
name of the author.
The author, C.G.Gordon Haddon, beins his story in
1889. That year, Eddy is first sent to be with
his parents at the marriage of the Duke of Sparta
to Princess Sophie of Greece on 27 October. By
31 October Eddy was on the "Oceana" bound for
India. He reached Bombay on 9 November 1889,
meeting his uncle, the Duke of Connaught, who was
Governor of Bombay. This was the official beginning of Eddy's visit to India.
Most of the details of the Indian trip are culled
from an authorized memoir, H.R.H. THE DUKE OF
CLARENCE AND AVONDALE IN SOUTHERN INDIA, by James
E. Vincent and J. D. Rees, or from some articles in Indian and British journals. Gordon Haddon (if
we choose to believe him) puts a different light
on the subject. One of the ladies on the committee that handled the entertainment in Bombay
was a Mrs. Mary Gordon Haddon. Whoever was the
father of the author, she was his mother.
She was born Marie Jane Reid in 1865, daughter
of Mr. Robert Reid of the Indian Police Force.
Her early years were spent in Mysore and Ajamere,
but she was educated in England. She was a
Roman Catholic, and educated at a convent. A
marriage with another Roman Catholic was arranged. On 22 December 1883 she married Colonel
Henry Edmond Haddon of the Royal Engineers.
Gordon Haddon mentions that Colonel Haddon was
involved in railway construction, including the
Jumna River Bridge.
Although initially Eddy had not noticed Mary, soon
he began to take an interest in her, and she
recipricated. It did not please her husband that
he and she were attached to the Prince's party,
accompanying Eddy to Poona, Hyderabad, and Madras.
As Eddy and Mary fell deeper and deeper in love,
Colonel Haddon began to have scenes, demanded that
Mary leave with him from Mysore, and when she
refused he left without her.
From December 1889 to January 1890 Clarence was in
Rangoon. No provision was made for Mary to come
too, so she returned to the Colonel. When Eddy
reached Calcutta, Mary rejoined him. Then he
was sent into Northern India, and again no
provision made for Mary (Gordon Haddon suggests
the government was hinting to the Prince to give
her up - it is likely that Gordon Haddon is right
about that). Eddy kept writing to her. They
reunited in Bombay, and spent the last weeks of the tour together. Eddy left India on 20 March 1890. Mary left for London in late summer or
early fall of 1890, setting up a house on "Parke
Street" in Fulham. Gordon Haddon insists Eddy
was a frequent visitor there, and that Mary was
invited to all the parties Eddy attended. It
was at the house in Fulham, on 23 September 1890,
that Clarence G. Gordon Haddon was born.
Gordon Haddon would have us believe that Eddy woud
have been very happy with Mary (even if their
marriage was forbidden) so long as he did not
marry anyone else. But in December 1891 Eddy's
engagement with May of Teck was announced. Eddy
became very morose. Gordon Haddon says he even
talked about suicide. Mary Haddon tried to cheer
him up but was unsettled herself. She would always believe he did kill herself. During his
final illness she was able to comfort him.
After Eddy died Mary became an alcoholic. She
had an affair with a lover named Rogers, and a
marriage to a non-commissioned officer named Robert William Kingdom (of the Royal Warwickshire
Regiment) in 1898. After they divorced, she
married one Henry Gorbold of Calcutta in 1909.
Gordon Haddon lost track of his mother in 1910.
He assumed she died.
Aside from biographical details regarding his own
life throughout the world, and his difficulties,
what I have summarized is his tale.
________ ________ ________ _______ ________
In dealing with C. G. Gordon Haddon we soon
realize there is a lack of hard evidence. He
letter written by Eddy to Mary. Unfortunately
she burned some and the author claims that
others were stolen by British Agents who had
followed him to Taltal, Chile in 1912 (Gordon
Haddon had become an engineer). He rarely mentions a traceable person. Rogers was Lieutenant Rogers of the King's Own Scottish
Regiment, and possibly (Gordon Haddon is not sure)
a son of General Rogers. This lover died in South
Africa in the period just before the Second Boer
War began in 1899. WHO WAS WHO, 1897 - 1916
mentions Lieutenant General Sir Robert Gordon
Rogers (1832 - 1906), who had an active career in
the Empire but no children that are listed. I
found nohing on Kingdom or Gorbold. As for the
men in Mary's life before she met Eddy, the
evidence is poor. Her father is a Roman Catholic
officer in the Indian Police named Robert Reid.
In WHO WAS WHO, 1897 - 1916 the closes I found to
anybody that fit this character was James Robert
Reid (1838 - 1909) who was of the Indian Civil
Service, and involve in the Bengal and North
Western Provinces. He is listed as having two
sons, but Gordon Haddon said his grandfather disowned Mary. I found no reference to Col.
Henry Edmond Haddon of the Royal Engineers, or
his son Gerald (the author's step brother) who was
a naval officer.
On rare occasions the author mentions traceable
people. One is "Lady White". On pages 97 - 98
he says: "The Prince was able to arrange many
invitations for her [Mary] at gatherings he was
obliged to attend, and she had powerful friends
who did their share. Lady White was one of them.
She was the wife of Sir George White, and my mother had known her earlier in India. After I
was born she often wanted to adopt me, but my
mother even then could not bear to have me taken
from her." Sir George White was a prominent
Imperial soldier, who was one of the commanders
in the Second Boer War. He married Miss Amy Baly,
only daughter of the Archdeacon of Calcutta in
1874. She was in England from 1889 to the late
fall of 1890, so she could have seen the young
Gordon Haddon as a baby. But from the late fall
of 1890 to March 1892 she was in Quetta, India
with Sir George.
Gordon Haddon mentions two names and produces
photostats of letters from them. They are the
Rev. Canon Edgar Sheppard (1845 - 1921) and
Sir Bernard Edward Halsey-Bircham (1869 - 1945).
Both men were connected to the Royal Family:
Sheppard was Canon and Precenter of St. George
Chapel, Windsor Castle, and Halsey-Bircham was
Crown Solicitor. Sheppard (if we believe Gordon
Haddon)wanted to help him get a stable living.
The letter Gordon Haddon produces from Sheppard
is from 18 May 1921. The Canon died on 30
August 1921. As for Halsey-Bircham he was appointed private solicitor to the King in 1922. Gordon Haddon first received correspondence from
him on 18 February 1922, and sent him a final
letter on 26 September 1924. Although it
may not mean anything other than recognition of his position, WHO WAS WHO, 1941-1950 mentions that
Halsay-Bircham was knighted in 1925.
Occasionally Gordon Haddon makes things harder by
using mispellings or mistakes. He keeps calling
Lord Kitchener, "Kitchner". He totally fails in
giving the correct address for the house in
Fulham. On page 22 he says it was on "Park Street". On page 97 he calls it "Parke Street"
It does not help matters that although "Park"
appears in the names of several streets in
Fulham, there is no "Parke Street/Park Street"
per se. Judging from maps of Fulham in the
early 1880s and 1890s there was a tremendous
amount of urban development in the area. Again,
as he was an infant while he lived there he may have never hard the correct name or gotten it
confused. But his failure to get more specific
information weakens his story.
Despite these weaknesses he insisted on the depth
of the love affair between Eddy and Mary. On
page 86 he writes:
"But this was no mere clandestined affair, the prerogative of Royal blood through the centuries.
In public, and in all the gatherings in his
honour, the Prince showered attention upon the
woman whom he truly loved. He made no secret
of his passion, and the depth of the romantic
attraction for each other was known to everybody
in India who cared to observe it. All through
his visit they were together. My mother rode
with him and canced with him in every part of the country. But it was here in Madras, and later in
Calcutta, that they were able to be most alone, and it was the memory of these nights that my
mother always cherished."
As part of my natural skepticism, if so many people knew this was going on, why is so little
evidence of it available in memoirs or diaries or
letters? Reticence perhaps, or was it all a lie?
I am not the only person who points this lack of
detail out. An unnamed reviewer in the NEW YORK
TIMES of 19 January 1930 did the same: "His book
is a detailed story of his life and the only
connection "my uncle George" has with it is the
King's refusal to acknowledge any claim made upon
him by the author, whose only proof of his parentage seems to be his own assertions."
Since he cannot furnish documentary evidence,
Gordon Haddon feels obliged to fill up his book
with information of little real use. It is
apparent that he is cribbing Rees and Vincent
for some of the official background to the Royal
journey. He will digress on trifles, spending
several lines telling us about the wonderful
hospitality in the Indian state of Hyderabad
("Here as nowhere else, the meeting of distinguished visitors is reduced to a science.").
A little less Hyderabad, and more on Mary and
Eddy's personal adventures together would have
been better.
Finally the high-strung character of the author
hurts his book. The fact is that the book is a plea (or whine) for financial assistance from the
Royal Family. Gordon Haddon insists on this as his just right. The only documents in the book are photostats at the end of it, addressed to the
King, and a couple from Sheppard and Halsey-Bircham. The Canon seemed willing to meet the
author,but he died. The solicitor's letter of
26 September 1924 has the definitive comment:
"I can do nothing for you and you have no claim
whatever upon those whom I represent." Despite
Gordon Haddon's story, I could not blame this
sound rejection. Gordon Haddon did have the makings of a good sponge. There were also
traces of paranoia and massive egotism in him.
Witness this passage on page 246:
"I am never going to get away, I could see, from the damning circumstance of my birth and parentage. Why should that disqualify me to play my part in the world? It is no disgrace to have
royal blood in your veins. In the old days the
illegitimate children of royalty were honored peers and ladies. But the passing years have
improved all that. Today a king must not admit
he may sin as others do. Whoever suffers for it,
Royal must stand without foult or blemish before
the people of the nation."
He also tries to be philosophical, and sounds
pompous instead: "The Empire has passed the peak
of its power. The ties with the colonies are
loosening...." He tries to show a gift for political prophecy, with mixed results: "No
destined ruler of a nation could be more popular
than the Prince of Wales. But he has shown no
great eagerness to reign. I have heard it said many times that he will reuse the throne. If
he does England will never have another King."
If he ever read this, after 1936, I am sure it
would have surpised George VI.
For a person who should know all about the love
affair, Gordon Haddon makes one historical error.
He never mentions the attempt made by Eddy to get
official consent to his engagement to Princess Helene of Orleans in 1890/91. This was of
considerable notice at that time due to the relitious controversy involved (the Princess was
a Roman Catholic, and the Pope refused to allow
her to change her faith). Most accounts of this
affair suggest that Eddy and Helene were deeply in
love. As an infant, Gordon Haddon may not have been aware of it. Mary Haddon may not have
wished to discuss it, or perhaps he himself did not wish to discuss it.
By now it is clear that I have a very weak story
to add to the information on the Duke of Clarence.
From a legal point Halsey-Bircham was absolutely
right regardingthe claims Gordon Haddon made.
Yet I cannot totally reject the story. His
strongest card is his photograph, which is in
the book. His chin looks very much like Queen
Alexandra, and his nose and brow (with balding
head) resemble King Edward VII. This is not
conclusive as strangers do look alike. It is
suggestive in that he shares features with the parents of the man he claims as his father. I
should add that Gordon Haddon was well aware of
his resemblance. On page 65 he says, "Those who
compare my picture with pictures of the Duke of
Clarence and Edward VII will notice the stature,
the same rounded lower face and jaw, the similar
nose, and the identical curl of the eye brow."
________ ________ ________ ________ ________
Can anything be uncovered to support Gordon Haddon, besides an interesting set of facial
resemblances? Probably if one digs through records in India, such as any surviving party
lists or entertainments that Eddy attended (say
at Poona, Calcutta, or Bombay) Mary Reid's name
may appear. But even if it did, as she was on the
entertainment committee at Poona, her appearance
might have other explanations. Also, one wonders
if such records could survive, or be uncensored. In any case it would take quite a while to make
such a search.
Gordom Haddon said he was born on 28 September
1890. Therefore I became curious about what the Duke of Clarence was up to that month. I searched
the TIMES of London for September 1890. My search
revealed the confusing nature of Court Circulars.
In every issue was at least one Court Circular, but it was dated one or two days back. However,
it did show that Eddy was socially active that month, but on certain days did not seem to be at
Balmoral.
Beginning with 29 August 1890 Eddy was stuck at
Balmoral, visiting not only his grandmother
but the Duke and Duchess of Fife at Mar-lodge. He
does not appear to break free until 1 September,
but he probably could not go far for he had to be attending the Queen and his mother on the second
and fourth. But he was free on the fifth and
sixth, although he apparently attended divine
services at the castle on the seventh. He is
definitely mentioned as being there on the ninth. For the next three days he seems not to be
there, and may have been at York on Friday, 12
September. He joined his parents to visit Victoria again on the 13th. His whereabouts on
the 14th are not stated, but he may have been
being briefed. From the 15th through 18th
September Eddy was on the first official visit made by a member of the Royal Family to South
Wales in decades. Eddy returned to Balmoral for
the 20th and 21st. His activities from the 22nd
to the 26th are unsettled, but on the 24th it was
announced that he was appointed Honorary Colonel
of the Poona Horse Cavalry. As the Duke of
Cambridge was inspecting the regimental barracks
at York on the 26th, Eddy would have been with
his local cavalry regiment. He was at Balmoral
for the 27th and 28th, and then is not mentioned for two days. On 1 and 2 October he is back at Balmoral, and while not mentioned on the 3rd
from 4th to 9th was there to assist his grandmother in entertaining "Carmen Sylva," the
Queen-poet of Roumania.
There are some interesting outside details. When
the month started Eddy was still seen publicity
with Helene at a party thrown by the Fifes. During the month she would be seeing her father
off on a trip he was taking to America, and
she and her mother would go to Edinburgh and thence to Loch Kennard on 24th September. In the
first half of the month it looks like Eddy is
being kept under watchfu eyes in Scotland. The
turning point for the Duke was the second week of
September. It was a week that would bring embarrassment to the Royal Family, but not due
to Eddy.
It is a funny feeling when one reads a newspaper of a century ago with an unfair gift of prescience
regarding future events that contemporary readers
of the newspaper could not have imagined. The
TIMES announce on 8 September 1890, "The Prince
[of Wales] will be the guest of Mr. Arthur Wilson,
at Tranby Croft, East Yorkshire, during the
Doncaster races, and is expected to arrive today."
If the public read the same newspaper on the
10th, it would have listed at that charming house
party the name of Sir William Gordon Cumming. No
contemporary reader would have foreseen that honourable name tied to a major card cheating
scandal and a trial the following summer, where
Bertie would be one of the witnesses. The readers
might have been surprised to see in The TIMES
of 12 September announcement that the Prince had
left Tranby Croft, due to "the sudden death of
Mrs. Wilson's brother." Well, sad things do end
fine social occasions. The Prince spent the night at his son's quarters (with Eddy's regiment). Possibly Eddy was there too. The following week Eddy had to be exiled to South Wales for four days. Bertie had to spend his
exile in Austria-Hungary, though part of it was on a visit to his friend Baron de Hirsch.
Considering how much time Eddy had in the second
half of the month (including the 29th and 30th)
he could have found some time to visit Mary.
Although grandmother would not have approved of the relationship, it would have been difficult to criticize Eddy after Bertie's little escapade.
In the course of the newspapers for September 1890 I kept checking the birth announcements on the front page of The TIMES. I did find two interesting announcements. The first was in the newspaper on Thursday, 25 September 1890. It said
said "On the 5th of Sept. at Serralves, Oporto,
the wife of Robert Reid, of a son." The use
of Mary's father would be clever, but why would she be in Oporto? Could Gordon Haddon have been
lied to about being born in London? The date
is a little early, but given Gordon Haddon's
track record for verifiatility that would not be
unusual. There is a second announcement worth
consideration: in The TIMES of Wednesday, 1
October 1890, and said "On the 28th Sept. at 7
Elthfron-road, Fulham, the wife of W. G. Hinton
of a son." It is possible that there was a couple, Mr. and Mrs. W. G. Hinton, who had a son
that day, but it may be an altered name, somewhat
reminiscent of Gordon Haddon. I went through the
announcements up to 14 October but found nothing
else regarding the birth of a boy in Fulham.
The other thing I looked at was the death of
Eddy. Gordon Haddon wrote (pages 98-99):
"Meanwhile Christmas came, and before it was well
passed a special dinner was arranged to celebrate the birthday of the Duke of Clarence on January 8, 1892. He would then be twenty-eight. But the
dinner and celebration had to be held without him. Very soon after the gathering of the family at Sandringham, during Christmas week, his illness
was upon him. On the day when the doctors were first summoned my mother was with him, and he spoke to her with calm assurance of approaching death. He was taken at once to Sandringham and
there, on a Sunday evening the announcement of his
illness was made. He was said to have influenza.
Tuesday and Wednesday there was no improvement,
"Pneumonia had set in." On Tuesday, January 14th,
a message was received at Mansion House from the
Prince of Wales: "Our beloved son passed away 9
A.M. -- Albert Edward."
There is a lot of confusion in this passage, as events are telescoped. It appears that Gordon Haddon believed Eddy got ill around 25-28 December
1891. But his illness was first reported 7 January 1892. According to Michael Harrison,
Eddy had complained of illness but attended a hunt. He collapsed the next day at Sandringham.
Did Eddy see Mary after that hunt on 7 January 1892, or (given the passage I quoted above) was
Mary actually summoned to Sandringham to take
her farewell of her lover. The problem is
complicated by Gordon Haddon's style of writing,
wherein it seems the doctors are called to the
palace before Eddy is. Another interpretation
is that Mary was allowed to accompany the doctors
to the palace. If this is what actually happened,
it was a very rare occurance. Only once did the
girlfriend of a dying member of the Royal Family
get admitted for a final farewell, and that was
some eighteen years later.
Most people dealing with the Royal Family agree that while Bertie teased Eddy and thought little
of him, his wife adored their older son. Alexandra's biographer, Georgiana Battiscombe,
said it was because Eddy was a premature baby
and he shared (with his mother) a hearing loss.
After his death, her actions attested to her love.
The hat that he doft and waived to her when he
went out on the hunt she always hung in her room.
According to Edward VII's biographer, Giles St.
Aubyn, Alexandra kept her son's bedroom at Sandringham exactly as he left it when he died,
as long as she lived. Perhaps the most shocking thing was her anguish before the coronation in
1911. Anne Edwards, in her biography of Queen
Mary reports tht Alexandra bitterly shouted,
"Eddy should be king, not Georgy!" This was
a very deep love, and would recognize and reward
any acts of kindness by others to the dead son.
When Edward VII lay dying in 1910, Alexandra allowed Mrs. Alice Keppel, the King's mistress,
to visit him and give a last goodbye to him.
Of all the actions of the Queen in her long life,
this gesture has always been remembered as her
most gracious act. Usually it is regarded as
an example of the Queen's deep love for her
husband, for despite all his infidelities she
considered herself his truest love. But the
fact is she did not like Alice Keppel, and made
scenes when the King escorted Mrs. Keppel to
public occasions that Alexandra attended.
The question arises, did Alexandra forget her
jealousy and dislike for Mrs. Keppel on this final
occasion to bring comfort to a dying man, or was
she trying to repay a similar debt to the dying
man that he may have performed for their oldest
son as he lay dying? Bertie had never liked or
understood Eddy, and had been responsible for
even giving his son the name "Collars and Cuffs"
after a photograph supposedly showing Eddy fishing
(Bertie told the name to Henry Labouchere, who
popularized it). But he too could be gracious.
One can imagine him allowing his oldest son the
pleasure of a final visit from his mistress.
Alexandra would note the gesture, and keep it in
mind for future reference.
It is all romantic, and even sweet, but it is
all in the realm of supposition. Again, there
is no hard evidence to back any of it up. I wish
there was solid proof to support Gordon Haddon
and his claim, for it would have done one thing which so far has not been done by anyone writing about Eddy: if it all was true it shows that briefly he was happy and contented with his Mary.
If the love affair took place, it humanizes the
personality behind the vacant face in the
photographs.
Jeff Bloomfield
May 25/26, 2001 |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 06:34 am | | Not to be one for a conspiracy theory...
Notice Alexandra's words on the death of her husband - ' Eddy should be king not Georgy '. Not ' Eddy SHOULD HAVE been King , not Georgy ' but rather the present tense ; if Eddy was still alive then Alexandria's extraordinary fury would be explainable , 18 years after the ' death ' of her son.
IMHO of course... |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 08:58 am | | Hi Simon:
"Not to be one for a conspiracy theory..."
I'm sorry, Simon, if I miscategorize you, but I thought you are our resident conspiracy theorist??? 
Simon, I don't quite see the point of you saying "Notice Alexandra's words on the death of her husband - ' Eddy should be king not Georgy '. Not 'Eddy SHOULD HAVE been King , not Georgy ' but rather the present tense." I don't think this can be taken to mean Eddy was still alive, locked away in an asylum as has been rumored, if that is what you are implying. Is that what you meant???
Hi, Jeff:
Thank you for your long and interesting post about your enquiries into the life (and loves) of Prince Eddy.
I wonder if you are right about the name of the regiment in which Lieutenant Rogers served? You describe it as the "King's Own Scottish Regiment." Possibly you miswrote. A website on Scottish regiments at http://www-saw.arts.ed.ac.uk/army/regiments/ shows "The King's Own Scottish Borderers" but no Scottish regiment with a name such as you show it.
Lieutenant Rogers should be easily traceable through the Army List which gives details on the service of career officers in the British Army. The major place to go to find information on him is the PRO at Kew. The PRO would also be the place to go for information on Col. Henry Edmond Haddon of the Royal Engineers and his son Gerald, who you believe was an officer in the Royal Navy.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 10:37 am | | Ah...irony...
I agree that the phrase doesn't prove anything - but if... |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 11:15 am | | | If anyone is able to access the 1891 Census , it might reveal a Mrs Mary Reid , or a Mrs Mary Gordon Haddon or Hatton in the Fulham area. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 26 May 2001 - 12:13 pm | | Dear Chris and Simon:
Please keep in mind that being stuck in NYC I
had limited access to the army lists and other
sources in Britain (the essay that I wrote about
Eddy and his possible romance with Mary Reid was
written in 1990 for a book that never got printed
- this was before I bought my first computer in
1998). The misnomers of regiments and names are
not mine, but Clarence G. Gordon Haddon's. You
can take it from there. Please feel free to look
them up if you have the opportunity or curiosity.
I happen not to be a conspiracy theorist either
(the original essay had some pointed comparative
points to make about the Gull-Netley-Sickard
theory). I don't think Eddy was spirited away
to an asylum, where he lived past 1910/11, in
times for a bitter Alexandra to make her comment.
The phrase seems to me to be a last bitter statement on the loss of a beloved son who would
have been King had he been alive.
Actually, I hope someone will dig deeper into this
matter. It certainly won't solve the Ripper
mystery, but it does add a bit more color to the
personality of Eddy.
Jeff |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 07:13 am | | Splendid background piece Jeff, illustrating Paul Begg's and my longstanding conviction that 'Ripper studies' are a splendid way into all manner of wider historical studies. Especially earning my deep respect for your putting it all together without benefit of British resources.
Martin |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 27 May 2001 - 10:41 am | | Thank you Martin, for your kind comments. The
main issue is where to go on from here. Obviously, the background has to be checked out
regarding the India trip, and Mary Reid's background with (1) her father's "police career";
(2) her husband, Col. Haddon; (3) the entertainment committee work; (4) the Duke in
India. Then you have the matters about (1) Mary's
voyage from India to England; (2) Mary's home
in Fulham (on "Parke/Park" Street); (3) the Duke's
final days. Proof for the actual date of birth
of Gordon-Haddon would be good too.
It would also help to know about Gordon-Haddon's
death (when it occurred) and whether he left
descendants. I can help a little here - a bit
of hearsay that I latched onto back in the late
1970s while working in an apartment building in
New York City (on weekends). A tenant in the
building, a painter named Robert Woodeson, talked
to me about the book and said he knew Gordon-Haddon in Paris in the 1930s, and Gordon-Haddon
was married. Woodeson also said that the British
Colony in Paris knew Gordon-Haddon as the son of
the Duke of Clarence.
Jeff |
|
|
|
|
