Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victoria's
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
D. Spencer Hines
Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victoria's
Leo, what on earth have you been smoking or injecting?
You are retailing malicious, idle, jejune, childish FANTASIES -- through
rampant INSINUATION and HYPERBOLE.
Further, the ONUS is on YOU to PROVE your FANTASIES have some basis in
FACT -- not for ME to tell you who JACK THE RIPPER was.
You DO understand that BASIC PRINCIPLE of Genealogical and Historical
RESEARCH?
If you do NOT, you are in deep KIMCHEE indeed, Old Rugger.
PROVIDE us with the EVIDENCE or recant and withdraw the silly-buggers
CLAIMS -- as any honest man or woman would do.
Sincerely,
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:001401c4b164$b22dabc0$c3b4fea9@email...
| Dear Spencer,
|
| So good to see you reveal another area of your expertise. If you are
| able to detect the gibberish, surely you can enlighten us with the
| fact who was Jack the Ripper? If you are telling us what is wrong
| you are obliged to tell us what, according to you, is right. Why
| couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
| cover up to protect the monarchy? Have you read
| this book?
|
| ----- Original Message -----
|
| From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
| To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
| Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:14 AM
| Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
|
| > Leo, I'm quite surprised to see you retailing this gibberish.
| >
| > Now you bring Winston Churchill's father into it.
| >
| > DSH
| >
| > ""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:000401c4b15c$ff45f960$c3b4fea9@email...
| >
| > | Dear John,
| > |
| > | Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and
| > | the Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was
| > | done by several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to
| > | "protect the monarchy". You probably read about the surgical
| > | method by which the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no
| > | medical knowledge to do it himself. He may have caused it but did
| > | not do it, nor asked [sic] for it to be done.
| > | Leo
You are retailing malicious, idle, jejune, childish FANTASIES -- through
rampant INSINUATION and HYPERBOLE.
Further, the ONUS is on YOU to PROVE your FANTASIES have some basis in
FACT -- not for ME to tell you who JACK THE RIPPER was.
You DO understand that BASIC PRINCIPLE of Genealogical and Historical
RESEARCH?
If you do NOT, you are in deep KIMCHEE indeed, Old Rugger.
PROVIDE us with the EVIDENCE or recant and withdraw the silly-buggers
CLAIMS -- as any honest man or woman would do.
Sincerely,
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:001401c4b164$b22dabc0$c3b4fea9@email...
| Dear Spencer,
|
| So good to see you reveal another area of your expertise. If you are
| able to detect the gibberish, surely you can enlighten us with the
| fact who was Jack the Ripper? If you are telling us what is wrong
| you are obliged to tell us what, according to you, is right. Why
| couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
| cover up to protect the monarchy? Have you read
| this book?
|
| ----- Original Message -----
|
| From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
| To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
| Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:14 AM
| Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
|
| > Leo, I'm quite surprised to see you retailing this gibberish.
| >
| > Now you bring Winston Churchill's father into it.
| >
| > DSH
| >
| > ""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:000401c4b15c$ff45f960$c3b4fea9@email...
| >
| > | Dear John,
| > |
| > | Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and
| > | the Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was
| > | done by several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to
| > | "protect the monarchy". You probably read about the surgical
| > | method by which the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no
| > | medical knowledge to do it himself. He may have caused it but did
| > | not do it, nor asked [sic] for it to be done.
| > | Leo
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
Dear Martin,
Please always clean up e-mails
if you had done this I would not have
known about the
total brain drain Spencer Hines displayed in this message of when? One
message doesn't show a date but the other shows 14 October last year---five
months ago!
He asks me to justify----what do I have to justify? I mentioned a book and
quoted aspects about it. It is not up to me to justify every person who
writes a book, even Spencer Hines should agree with that. When trying to
find the truth we should be able to mention the fors and againsts; ignoring
aspects, because we don't like them, is a head in the sand attitude.
This crap I have to recant and withdraw what someone else claims? Next I am
guilty of the holocoast or the crucifixion----just because I might mention
those subjects? Talking about smoking or injection? I think Spencer is ready
for a straightjacket.......
Best wishes as always
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "martin reboul" <martin.reboul@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victoria's
Grandson
Please always clean up e-mails
known about the
total brain drain Spencer Hines displayed in this message of when? One
message doesn't show a date but the other shows 14 October last year---five
months ago!
He asks me to justify----what do I have to justify? I mentioned a book and
quoted aspects about it. It is not up to me to justify every person who
writes a book, even Spencer Hines should agree with that. When trying to
find the truth we should be able to mention the fors and againsts; ignoring
aspects, because we don't like them, is a head in the sand attitude.
This crap I have to recant and withdraw what someone else claims? Next I am
guilty of the holocoast or the crucifixion----just because I might mention
those subjects? Talking about smoking or injection? I think Spencer is ready
for a straightjacket.......
Best wishes as always
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "martin reboul" <martin.reboul@tiscali.co.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victoria's
Grandson
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Wf7Td.312$nQ5.3589@eagle.america.net...
Leo, what on earth have you been smoking or injecting?
You are retailing malicious, idle, jejune, childish FANTASIES --
through
rampant INSINUATION and HYPERBOLE.
Further, the ONUS is on YOU to PROVE your FANTASIES have some
basis in
FACT -- not for ME to tell you who JACK THE RIPPER was.
You DO understand that BASIC PRINCIPLE of Genealogical and
Historical
RESEARCH?
If you do NOT, you are in deep KIMCHEE indeed, Old Rugger.
PROVIDE us with the EVIDENCE or recant and withdraw the
silly-buggers
CLAIMS -- as any honest man or woman would do.
You know what this means, don't you?
Why don't you just 'fess up Spency, and call him 'great uncle
Jack' like you usually do? Nothing to be ashamed of, and although
the case is still open, I'm sure you have a good alibi.... don't
you?
""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in message
news:001401c4b164$b22dabc0$c3b4fea9@email...
| Dear Spencer,
|
| So good to see you reveal another area of your expertise. If
you are
| able to detect the gibberish, surely you can enlighten us with
the
| fact who was Jack the Ripper? If you are telling us what is
wrong
| you are obliged to tell us what, according to you, is right.
Why
| couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
| cover up to protect the monarchy? Have you read
| this book?
|
| ----- Original Message -----
|
| From: "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com
| To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
| Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:14 AM
| Subject: Re: Jack The Ripper & Queen Victoria's Grandson
|
| > Leo, I'm quite surprised to see you retailing this
gibberish.
|
| > Now you bring Winston Churchill's father into it.
|
| > DSH
|
| > ""Leo van de Pas"" <leovdpas@netspeed.com.au> wrote in
message
| > news:000401c4b15c$ff45f960$c3b4fea9@email...
|
| > | Dear John,
| > |
| > | Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The
Ripper and
| > | the Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it
was
| > | done by several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill,
to
| > | "protect the monarchy". You probably read about the
surgical
| > | method by which the murders were done, this dopey Duke had
no
| > | medical knowledge to do it himself. He may have caused it
but did
| > | not do it, nor asked [sic] for it to be done.
| > | Leo
-
Philster
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
Right. Time to put the record completely straight.
No person, whoever he or she may be or have been, has EVER been proven
to by The Whitechapel Murderer, a.k.a. Jack the Ripper. There are
literally hundreds of names that have arisen over the years, some more
famous than others.
The Duke of Clarence and Avon, Prince "Eddy", Queen Victoria'a
Grandson, was first suspected, as has rightly been pointed out, by Dr.
Thomas Stowell (1885-1970) in 1970. His paper in The Criminologist,
dated November 1970, entitled "Jack the Ripper-A Solution?" was not
only the first to point a finger towards Prince Eddy, but also the
first to associate Sir William Gull by name to the case.
In 1960 he invited Colin Wilson to a lunch and during the course of
this lunchen revealed the Sir William Gull's daughter, Lady Caroline
Acland, had in her posession papers that were "confidential". Wilson
thought that Stowell had told him that he had been invited to see these
papers in the 1930's. According to the Wilson story, the papers
revealed that Prince Eddy had NOT died of influenza in 1892, but had
died in a mental home near Sandringham of "softening of the brain"
caused by syphilis. From this, Stowell deduced that Prince Eddy was JTR
and the whole scandal had been covered up.
Wilson's story showed fundamental errors, which he himself willingly
admits, as his memory is unsure of details. This, combined with
Stowell's wobbly account brought glaring errors to light. Some of the
more obvious ones are..
Sir William Gull could NOT have had papers on Price Eddy's death/cover
up, because Gull himself died 2 years (1890) before Prince Eddy.
Caroline Ackland had died in 1929, so a meeting in the 1930's was
impossible.
The piece that was published in the Criminologist was heavy with
editorial amendments, by Nigel Morland. By Morland's account given to
Frank Spiering. Although the account did not NAME Prince Eddy,
sufficient details were added to show him to be the person named in the
article as "S".
Stowell argued that "S" found himself sadistically aroused when
watching deer being dressed and in 1888 was already suffering the
effects of syphilis, thereby his "warped" sexual passions manifested
themselves in the murdering of lowly prostitutes in Whitechapel.
Stowell then said that Gull had been seen in the area at the time of
the murders, although there is NO evidence whatsoever of any rumour,
true or otherwise, to involve Gull being in the area on any of the
nights in question. Therefore it is Stowell and Stowell alone who
dragged Gull into it, in saying,
"It would not surprise me to know that he was there (as the Royal
family Doctor) to certify the killer as insane."
Stowell then qualified the Gull theory, by linking it to the story told
by the medium Robert James Lees, that Caroline Acland, in a report told
in Fred Archer's "Ghost Dectectives" recalled a policeman and a medium
visiting the Gull household asking "impertinent" questions.
Stowell concluded by claiming that in Gull's diary , in an entry from
1889 was written,
"Informed BLANK that his son was dying of syphilis of the brain."
This is the source of the entire Stowell theory. However, in a letter
to The Times in November 1970, Stowell strongly DENIED ever having
associated Prince Eddy with the Whitechapel Murderer, nor having ever
suggested that the murederer was of Royal blood. The article was
printed, but Stowell died the next day. His family destroyed all papers
on the subject.
Now to Lord Randolph Churchill.
Frank Harris is the originator, in his memoirs, that Churchill had died
from syphilis contracted from a prostitute smuggled into his bed as a
practical joke by some of his companions on a youthful drinking spree.
Despite being banned from Royal circles (for involing himself in a row
between his brother and the Prince of Wales), he felt , according to
Joseph Sickert and Melvyn Fairclough, bound to take the side of Prince
Eddy when allegedly secrectly married the East End prostitute Annie
Crook, which also allegedly produced a Royal Bastard child. Mary Kelly,
the 5th canonical victim of JTR and other prostitutes tried to use the
knowledge of the secret marraige for the purpose of blackmail.
Churchill, through his maonic links, then organised the murders through
the use of Gull, John Netley, Frederico Albericci and possibly
J.K.Stephen. There are variations on this story in books such as The
Ripper and the Royals, JTR: The Final Solution and from Joseph Sickert
himself.
In 1992 Nick Warren, Editor of Ripperana, a quarterly magazine still
published, claimed that stories of Lord Randolph Churchill being a
suspect were known many years before Stowell published his article in
1970, incriminating Prince Eddy.
To get back to the first point made. There is not ONE scrap of factual
evidence that can pin any person, male or female to the title of being
JTR. It has not, as yet, been proven. HOWEVER, researchers ARE turning
up facts day by day, through patient background research, all over the
world.
Nick Warren's Ripperana is one excellent example of serious research
being put to good use.
So ANY finger pointing and naming of JTR, is pointless without facts
that can be proven. Otherwise, as has been done already, many a
fantastic name can be "fitted" to a "theory" and manipulated into
place. No other subject has been used with such vigour by individuals
ready to make a quick buck and 15 mins of fame. The streets are
littered with their names, and like yesterday's newspapers, are quickly
forgotten.
with best wishes to all,
No person, whoever he or she may be or have been, has EVER been proven
to by The Whitechapel Murderer, a.k.a. Jack the Ripper. There are
literally hundreds of names that have arisen over the years, some more
famous than others.
The Duke of Clarence and Avon, Prince "Eddy", Queen Victoria'a
Grandson, was first suspected, as has rightly been pointed out, by Dr.
Thomas Stowell (1885-1970) in 1970. His paper in The Criminologist,
dated November 1970, entitled "Jack the Ripper-A Solution?" was not
only the first to point a finger towards Prince Eddy, but also the
first to associate Sir William Gull by name to the case.
In 1960 he invited Colin Wilson to a lunch and during the course of
this lunchen revealed the Sir William Gull's daughter, Lady Caroline
Acland, had in her posession papers that were "confidential". Wilson
thought that Stowell had told him that he had been invited to see these
papers in the 1930's. According to the Wilson story, the papers
revealed that Prince Eddy had NOT died of influenza in 1892, but had
died in a mental home near Sandringham of "softening of the brain"
caused by syphilis. From this, Stowell deduced that Prince Eddy was JTR
and the whole scandal had been covered up.
Wilson's story showed fundamental errors, which he himself willingly
admits, as his memory is unsure of details. This, combined with
Stowell's wobbly account brought glaring errors to light. Some of the
more obvious ones are..
Sir William Gull could NOT have had papers on Price Eddy's death/cover
up, because Gull himself died 2 years (1890) before Prince Eddy.
Caroline Ackland had died in 1929, so a meeting in the 1930's was
impossible.
The piece that was published in the Criminologist was heavy with
editorial amendments, by Nigel Morland. By Morland's account given to
Frank Spiering. Although the account did not NAME Prince Eddy,
sufficient details were added to show him to be the person named in the
article as "S".
Stowell argued that "S" found himself sadistically aroused when
watching deer being dressed and in 1888 was already suffering the
effects of syphilis, thereby his "warped" sexual passions manifested
themselves in the murdering of lowly prostitutes in Whitechapel.
Stowell then said that Gull had been seen in the area at the time of
the murders, although there is NO evidence whatsoever of any rumour,
true or otherwise, to involve Gull being in the area on any of the
nights in question. Therefore it is Stowell and Stowell alone who
dragged Gull into it, in saying,
"It would not surprise me to know that he was there (as the Royal
family Doctor) to certify the killer as insane."
Stowell then qualified the Gull theory, by linking it to the story told
by the medium Robert James Lees, that Caroline Acland, in a report told
in Fred Archer's "Ghost Dectectives" recalled a policeman and a medium
visiting the Gull household asking "impertinent" questions.
Stowell concluded by claiming that in Gull's diary , in an entry from
1889 was written,
"Informed BLANK that his son was dying of syphilis of the brain."
This is the source of the entire Stowell theory. However, in a letter
to The Times in November 1970, Stowell strongly DENIED ever having
associated Prince Eddy with the Whitechapel Murderer, nor having ever
suggested that the murederer was of Royal blood. The article was
printed, but Stowell died the next day. His family destroyed all papers
on the subject.
Now to Lord Randolph Churchill.
Frank Harris is the originator, in his memoirs, that Churchill had died
from syphilis contracted from a prostitute smuggled into his bed as a
practical joke by some of his companions on a youthful drinking spree.
Despite being banned from Royal circles (for involing himself in a row
between his brother and the Prince of Wales), he felt , according to
Joseph Sickert and Melvyn Fairclough, bound to take the side of Prince
Eddy when allegedly secrectly married the East End prostitute Annie
Crook, which also allegedly produced a Royal Bastard child. Mary Kelly,
the 5th canonical victim of JTR and other prostitutes tried to use the
knowledge of the secret marraige for the purpose of blackmail.
Churchill, through his maonic links, then organised the murders through
the use of Gull, John Netley, Frederico Albericci and possibly
J.K.Stephen. There are variations on this story in books such as The
Ripper and the Royals, JTR: The Final Solution and from Joseph Sickert
himself.
In 1992 Nick Warren, Editor of Ripperana, a quarterly magazine still
published, claimed that stories of Lord Randolph Churchill being a
suspect were known many years before Stowell published his article in
1970, incriminating Prince Eddy.
To get back to the first point made. There is not ONE scrap of factual
evidence that can pin any person, male or female to the title of being
JTR. It has not, as yet, been proven. HOWEVER, researchers ARE turning
up facts day by day, through patient background research, all over the
world.
Nick Warren's Ripperana is one excellent example of serious research
being put to good use.
So ANY finger pointing and naming of JTR, is pointless without facts
that can be proven. Otherwise, as has been done already, many a
fantastic name can be "fitted" to a "theory" and manipulated into
place. No other subject has been used with such vigour by individuals
ready to make a quick buck and 15 mins of fame. The streets are
littered with their names, and like yesterday's newspapers, are quickly
forgotten.
with best wishes to all,
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
Good Post!
Thanks for sharing it with us.
New Subject:
What do you think of the story that Lord Randolph Churchill DID die of
syphilis?
| Frank Harris is the originator, in his memoirs, that Churchill had
| died from syphilis contracted from a prostitute smuggled into his
| bed as a practical joke by some of his companions on a youthful
| drinking spree.
That story seems to have some legs -- but do we have any convincing
evidence?
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Philster" <kellykilfie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109222115.788288.312620@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Right. Time to put the record completely straight.
|
| No person, whoever he or she may be or have been, has EVER been proven
| to by The Whitechapel Murderer, a.k.a. Jack the Ripper. There are
| literally hundreds of names that have arisen over the years, some more
| famous than others.
|
| The Duke of Clarence and Avon, Prince "Eddy", Queen Victoria'a
| Grandson, was first suspected, as has rightly been pointed out, by Dr.
| Thomas Stowell (1885-1970) in 1970. His paper in The Criminologist,
| dated November 1970, entitled "Jack the Ripper-A Solution?" was not
| only the first to point a finger towards Prince Eddy, but also the
| first to associate Sir William Gull by name to the case.
|
| In 1960 he invited Colin Wilson to a lunch and during the course of
| this luncheon revealed the Sir William Gull's daughter, Lady Caroline
| Acland, had in her possession papers that were "confidential". Wilson
| thought that Stowell had told him that he had been invited to see
these
| papers in the 1930's. According to the Wilson story, the papers
| revealed that Prince Eddy had NOT died of influenza in 1892, but had
| died in a mental home near Sandringham of "softening of the brain"
| caused by syphilis. From this, Stowell deduced that Prince Eddy was
JTR
| and the whole scandal had been covered up.
|
| Wilson's story showed fundamental errors, which he himself willingly
| admits, as his memory is unsure of details. This, combined with
| Stowell's wobbly account brought glaring errors to light. Some of the
| more obvious ones are..
|
| Sir William Gull could NOT have had papers on Price Eddy's death/cover
| up, because Gull himself died 2 years (1890) before Prince Eddy.
| Caroline Ackland had died in 1929, so a meeting in the 1930's was
| impossible.
|
| The piece that was published in the Criminologist was heavy with
| editorial amendments, by Nigel Morland. By Morland's account given to
| Frank Spiering. Although the account did not NAME Prince Eddy,
| sufficient details were added to show him to be the person named in
the
| article as "S".
| Stowell argued that "S" found himself sadistically aroused when
| watching deer being dressed and in 1888 was already suffering the
| effects of syphilis, thereby his "warped" sexual passions manifested
| themselves in the murdering of lowly prostitutes in Whitechapel.
| Stowell then said that Gull had been seen in the area at the time of
| the murders, although there is NO evidence whatsoever of any rumour,
| true or otherwise, to involve Gull being in the area on any of the
| nights in question. Therefore it is Stowell and Stowell alone who
| dragged Gull into it, in saying,
| "It would not surprise me to know that he was there (as the Royal
| family Doctor) to certify the killer as insane."
|
| Stowell then qualified the Gull theory, by linking it to the story
told
| by the medium Robert James Lees, that Caroline Acland, in a report
told
| in Fred Archer's "Ghost Detectives" recalled a policeman and a medium
| visiting the Gull household asking "impertinent" questions.
| Stowell concluded by claiming that in Gull's diary , in an entry from
| 1889 was written,
| "Informed BLANK that his son was dying of syphilis of the brain."
|
| This is the source of the entire Stowell theory. However, in a letter
| to The Times in November 1970, Stowell strongly DENIED ever having
| associated Prince Eddy with the Whitechapel Murderer, nor having ever
| suggested that the murderer was of Royal blood. The article was
| printed, but Stowell died the next day. His family destroyed all
papers
| on the subject.
|
| Now to Lord Randolph Churchill.
|
| Frank Harris is the originator, in his memoirs, that Churchill had
died
| from syphilis contracted from a prostitute smuggled into his bed as a
| practical joke by some of his companions on a youthful drinking spree.
| Despite being banned from Royal circles (for involving himself in a
row
| between his brother and the Prince of Wales), he felt , according to
| Joseph Sickert and Melvyn Fairclough, bound to take the side of Prince
| Eddy when allegedly secretly married the East End prostitute Annie
| Crook, which also allegedly produced a Royal Bastard child. Mary
Kelly,
| the 5th canonical victim of JTR and other prostitutes tried to use the
| knowledge of the secret marriage for the purpose of blackmail.
| Churchill, through his Masonic links, then organised the murders
through
| the use of Gull, John Netley, Frederico Albericci and possibly
| J.K.Stephen. There are variations on this story in books such as The
| Ripper and the Royals, JTR: The Final Solution and from Joseph Sickert
| himself.
| In 1992 Nick Warren, Editor of Ripperana, a quarterly magazine still
| published, claimed that stories of Lord Randolph Churchill being a
| suspect were known many years before Stowell published his article
in
| 1970, incriminating Prince Eddy.
|
| To get back to the first point made. There is not ONE scrap of factual
| evidence that can pin any person, male or female to the title of being
| JTR. It has not, as yet, been proven. HOWEVER, researchers ARE turning
| up facts day by day, through patient background research, all over the
| world.
|
| Nick Warren's Ripperana is one excellent example of serious research
| being put to good use.
| So ANY finger pointing and naming of JTR, is pointless without facts
| that can be proven. Otherwise, as has been done already, many a
| fantastic name can be "fitted" to a "theory" and manipulated into
| place. No other subject has been used with such vigour by individuals
| ready to make a quick buck and 15 mins of fame. The streets are
| littered with their names, and like yesterday's newspapers, are
quickly
| forgotten.
|
| with best wishes to all,
Thanks for sharing it with us.
New Subject:
What do you think of the story that Lord Randolph Churchill DID die of
syphilis?
| Frank Harris is the originator, in his memoirs, that Churchill had
| died from syphilis contracted from a prostitute smuggled into his
| bed as a practical joke by some of his companions on a youthful
| drinking spree.
That story seems to have some legs -- but do we have any convincing
evidence?
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Philster" <kellykilfie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109222115.788288.312620@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Right. Time to put the record completely straight.
|
| No person, whoever he or she may be or have been, has EVER been proven
| to by The Whitechapel Murderer, a.k.a. Jack the Ripper. There are
| literally hundreds of names that have arisen over the years, some more
| famous than others.
|
| The Duke of Clarence and Avon, Prince "Eddy", Queen Victoria'a
| Grandson, was first suspected, as has rightly been pointed out, by Dr.
| Thomas Stowell (1885-1970) in 1970. His paper in The Criminologist,
| dated November 1970, entitled "Jack the Ripper-A Solution?" was not
| only the first to point a finger towards Prince Eddy, but also the
| first to associate Sir William Gull by name to the case.
|
| In 1960 he invited Colin Wilson to a lunch and during the course of
| this luncheon revealed the Sir William Gull's daughter, Lady Caroline
| Acland, had in her possession papers that were "confidential". Wilson
| thought that Stowell had told him that he had been invited to see
these
| papers in the 1930's. According to the Wilson story, the papers
| revealed that Prince Eddy had NOT died of influenza in 1892, but had
| died in a mental home near Sandringham of "softening of the brain"
| caused by syphilis. From this, Stowell deduced that Prince Eddy was
JTR
| and the whole scandal had been covered up.
|
| Wilson's story showed fundamental errors, which he himself willingly
| admits, as his memory is unsure of details. This, combined with
| Stowell's wobbly account brought glaring errors to light. Some of the
| more obvious ones are..
|
| Sir William Gull could NOT have had papers on Price Eddy's death/cover
| up, because Gull himself died 2 years (1890) before Prince Eddy.
| Caroline Ackland had died in 1929, so a meeting in the 1930's was
| impossible.
|
| The piece that was published in the Criminologist was heavy with
| editorial amendments, by Nigel Morland. By Morland's account given to
| Frank Spiering. Although the account did not NAME Prince Eddy,
| sufficient details were added to show him to be the person named in
the
| article as "S".
| Stowell argued that "S" found himself sadistically aroused when
| watching deer being dressed and in 1888 was already suffering the
| effects of syphilis, thereby his "warped" sexual passions manifested
| themselves in the murdering of lowly prostitutes in Whitechapel.
| Stowell then said that Gull had been seen in the area at the time of
| the murders, although there is NO evidence whatsoever of any rumour,
| true or otherwise, to involve Gull being in the area on any of the
| nights in question. Therefore it is Stowell and Stowell alone who
| dragged Gull into it, in saying,
| "It would not surprise me to know that he was there (as the Royal
| family Doctor) to certify the killer as insane."
|
| Stowell then qualified the Gull theory, by linking it to the story
told
| by the medium Robert James Lees, that Caroline Acland, in a report
told
| in Fred Archer's "Ghost Detectives" recalled a policeman and a medium
| visiting the Gull household asking "impertinent" questions.
| Stowell concluded by claiming that in Gull's diary , in an entry from
| 1889 was written,
| "Informed BLANK that his son was dying of syphilis of the brain."
|
| This is the source of the entire Stowell theory. However, in a letter
| to The Times in November 1970, Stowell strongly DENIED ever having
| associated Prince Eddy with the Whitechapel Murderer, nor having ever
| suggested that the murderer was of Royal blood. The article was
| printed, but Stowell died the next day. His family destroyed all
papers
| on the subject.
|
| Now to Lord Randolph Churchill.
|
| Frank Harris is the originator, in his memoirs, that Churchill had
died
| from syphilis contracted from a prostitute smuggled into his bed as a
| practical joke by some of his companions on a youthful drinking spree.
| Despite being banned from Royal circles (for involving himself in a
row
| between his brother and the Prince of Wales), he felt , according to
| Joseph Sickert and Melvyn Fairclough, bound to take the side of Prince
| Eddy when allegedly secretly married the East End prostitute Annie
| Crook, which also allegedly produced a Royal Bastard child. Mary
Kelly,
| the 5th canonical victim of JTR and other prostitutes tried to use the
| knowledge of the secret marriage for the purpose of blackmail.
| Churchill, through his Masonic links, then organised the murders
through
| the use of Gull, John Netley, Frederico Albericci and possibly
| J.K.Stephen. There are variations on this story in books such as The
| Ripper and the Royals, JTR: The Final Solution and from Joseph Sickert
| himself.
| In 1992 Nick Warren, Editor of Ripperana, a quarterly magazine still
| published, claimed that stories of Lord Randolph Churchill being a
| suspect were known many years before Stowell published his article
in
| 1970, incriminating Prince Eddy.
|
| To get back to the first point made. There is not ONE scrap of factual
| evidence that can pin any person, male or female to the title of being
| JTR. It has not, as yet, been proven. HOWEVER, researchers ARE turning
| up facts day by day, through patient background research, all over the
| world.
|
| Nick Warren's Ripperana is one excellent example of serious research
| being put to good use.
| So ANY finger pointing and naming of JTR, is pointless without facts
| that can be proven. Otherwise, as has been done already, many a
| fantastic name can be "fitted" to a "theory" and manipulated into
| place. No other subject has been used with such vigour by individuals
| ready to make a quick buck and 15 mins of fame. The streets are
| littered with their names, and like yesterday's newspapers, are
quickly
| forgotten.
|
| with best wishes to all,
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
Dear Philster ~
Fascinating post. Thanks so much for taking the time to share this
information with all of us.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Fascinating post. Thanks so much for taking the time to share this
information with all of us.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Gjest
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think the Commander was born in Canada.
I am guessing he got American
citizenship when the parents were
naturalized.
David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think the Commander was born in Canada.
I am guessing he got American
citizenship when the parents were
naturalized.
David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
Renia
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
dcholiman@ev1.net wrote:
I never know what you are talking about because you never make a
reference to what you are replying to.
Renia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think the Commander was born in Canada.
I am guessing he got American
citizenship when the parents were
naturalized.
David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I never know what you are talking about because you never make a
reference to what you are replying to.
Renia
-
Philster
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
Having looked again at the posting I made, I would like to add a few
things, for your perusal. The question remains: Did Prince Eddy die in
1892?, or did he live on?
Melvyn Fairclough claims, in his book "The Ripper and the Royals" that
he did indeed live on, incarcerated in Glamis Castle in Scotland until
the 1930's. The book also prints a photograph from about 1910, that
supposedly shows Prince Eddy alive.
Stephen Knight, in his book "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution"
writes in his postscript that Prince Eddy lived on at Osbourne House,
on the Isle of Wight, until 1930. A marble tablet in the grounds
supposedly being his only memorial.
It should be noted that BOTH these books are strongly connected with
Joseph Sickert's Royal marraige and Royal bastard story. As for Mr.
Sickerts assertions, I will not comment except to say that many have
investigated his claims, with many "facts" now proven to be false.
Can a Royal person actually have been incarcerated away from the rest
of society without anybody actually knowing? Can it happen to anybody
infact? Well...with this in mind, I refer you to the following, which
does connect the possibility. I do not present it as fact that Prince
Eddy WAS incarcerated somewhere, but a fascinating possibility arises.
I posted a question on another Royal thread site, and was delighted to
recieve a reply fron "Gillian" which helped me considerably.
.....I believe you are thinking of two of the late Queen Mother's
nieces - Nerissa Bowes Lyon and Katherine Bowes Lyon. For many years,
Burke's Peerage claimed that the sisters had died unmarried in 1940 and
1961
respectively. In 1987, it was revealed that they had not died as
indicated,
and had actually spent most of their lives in either the Royal
Earlswood
Hospital in Surrey or Kentwin House (a care home that was later closed
following allegations of abuse) owing to the fact that they were
mentally
retarded. Nerissa Bowes Lyon died in 1986 at the age of 67, but AFAIK,
Katherine Bowes Lyon is still living.
You can read an article about Katherine Bowes Lyon here :
http://www.sundayherald.com/23673
It should be noted that the family home of the Bowes Lyon family, and
where the late Queen Mother lived and visited for many years is Glamis
Castle, Scotland, where Melvyn Fairclough claimed Prince Eddy had been
incarcerated. His book came out in 1991, the sensational news of the
two nieces came out in 1987, you may well conclude therefore that it
could well be concieveable that one influenced the other....
None of this actually presents itself as fact. We must asume that
Prince Eddy DID die in 1892. However, I am open to the possibility that
Royalty can be moved to do things that can be seen as "gently removing
a problem" as has been seen in the life of Prince John, born in 1905
and who suffered fron epileptic fits and seizures, and who was never
seen in public after he was about 5 years old until he died in 1919. A
television film about him came out called "The Forgotton Prince" in GB
a while back. Although this film is factually flawed, it gives an
interesting insight into Royal machinations in the Victorian and
Edwardian era.
Finally. Prince Eddy. He was almost certainly bi-sexual, almost
certainly visited brothels in the East End of London, had connections
within the area through dressing up and "going fire watching" with his
friends, and was of dubious character. He may well have contracted
syphilis, and may well have been a liability to Queen Victoria and her
son and heir to the throne, Bertie, later Edward VII. IF, and it is a
large if..he did live on in obscure circumstances, the questions to be
posed in 2005 is...
What harm could it do for the facts to be revealed about him and his
life/death? Would this threaten the security of the position of the
Royal family today? IF he didnt die, and WAS incarcerated until 1930 or
so, would his "true" story reveal his connection with Jack the Ripper?
And finally, should the unthinkable come to light, that he actually WAS
connected to the Jack the Ripper murders,an accomplice of sorts, or
involved through his supposed connections with lowly East End women,
would it not be better out in the open now after 117 years of supposed
cover up?
Before we go galavanting off on a wild goose chase...lets get back to
facts. Prince Eddy was seen and noted to be far away from the murder
sites on the nights in question.
Given the opportunity, perhaps unrealistically, the one thing I would
like to ask a member of the present Royal family to do, away from the
scrutiny of Government officials and advisers, is to actually DO
something to bring this out into the open. THAT SINGLE ACT would do far
more good for the name and reputation of the Royal family than any
other. Can you imagine the reaction of the public? At last, after so
many occurances that disenchanted the masses and have blackened the
Royal reputation....sheer open honesty. And even more intruigingly...on
the single most researched subject in the entire history of murder,
light shed from darkness. More ink has been used on JTR than blood that
ever flowed. Fitting indeed that the truth should come from the top,
putting a seal on the whole subject, once and for all. If not about
JTR, then about Prince Eddy.
It will never happen. Well...not unless a certain Royal or two suddenly
out of the blue email(s) me in a couple of years time saying...
"Watch the papers tomorrow...and thanks for the advice"
best wishes to all
things, for your perusal. The question remains: Did Prince Eddy die in
1892?, or did he live on?
Melvyn Fairclough claims, in his book "The Ripper and the Royals" that
he did indeed live on, incarcerated in Glamis Castle in Scotland until
the 1930's. The book also prints a photograph from about 1910, that
supposedly shows Prince Eddy alive.
Stephen Knight, in his book "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution"
writes in his postscript that Prince Eddy lived on at Osbourne House,
on the Isle of Wight, until 1930. A marble tablet in the grounds
supposedly being his only memorial.
It should be noted that BOTH these books are strongly connected with
Joseph Sickert's Royal marraige and Royal bastard story. As for Mr.
Sickerts assertions, I will not comment except to say that many have
investigated his claims, with many "facts" now proven to be false.
Can a Royal person actually have been incarcerated away from the rest
of society without anybody actually knowing? Can it happen to anybody
infact? Well...with this in mind, I refer you to the following, which
does connect the possibility. I do not present it as fact that Prince
Eddy WAS incarcerated somewhere, but a fascinating possibility arises.
I posted a question on another Royal thread site, and was delighted to
recieve a reply fron "Gillian" which helped me considerably.
.....I believe you are thinking of two of the late Queen Mother's
nieces - Nerissa Bowes Lyon and Katherine Bowes Lyon. For many years,
Burke's Peerage claimed that the sisters had died unmarried in 1940 and
1961
respectively. In 1987, it was revealed that they had not died as
indicated,
and had actually spent most of their lives in either the Royal
Earlswood
Hospital in Surrey or Kentwin House (a care home that was later closed
following allegations of abuse) owing to the fact that they were
mentally
retarded. Nerissa Bowes Lyon died in 1986 at the age of 67, but AFAIK,
Katherine Bowes Lyon is still living.
You can read an article about Katherine Bowes Lyon here :
http://www.sundayherald.com/23673
It should be noted that the family home of the Bowes Lyon family, and
where the late Queen Mother lived and visited for many years is Glamis
Castle, Scotland, where Melvyn Fairclough claimed Prince Eddy had been
incarcerated. His book came out in 1991, the sensational news of the
two nieces came out in 1987, you may well conclude therefore that it
could well be concieveable that one influenced the other....
None of this actually presents itself as fact. We must asume that
Prince Eddy DID die in 1892. However, I am open to the possibility that
Royalty can be moved to do things that can be seen as "gently removing
a problem" as has been seen in the life of Prince John, born in 1905
and who suffered fron epileptic fits and seizures, and who was never
seen in public after he was about 5 years old until he died in 1919. A
television film about him came out called "The Forgotton Prince" in GB
a while back. Although this film is factually flawed, it gives an
interesting insight into Royal machinations in the Victorian and
Edwardian era.
Finally. Prince Eddy. He was almost certainly bi-sexual, almost
certainly visited brothels in the East End of London, had connections
within the area through dressing up and "going fire watching" with his
friends, and was of dubious character. He may well have contracted
syphilis, and may well have been a liability to Queen Victoria and her
son and heir to the throne, Bertie, later Edward VII. IF, and it is a
large if..he did live on in obscure circumstances, the questions to be
posed in 2005 is...
What harm could it do for the facts to be revealed about him and his
life/death? Would this threaten the security of the position of the
Royal family today? IF he didnt die, and WAS incarcerated until 1930 or
so, would his "true" story reveal his connection with Jack the Ripper?
And finally, should the unthinkable come to light, that he actually WAS
connected to the Jack the Ripper murders,an accomplice of sorts, or
involved through his supposed connections with lowly East End women,
would it not be better out in the open now after 117 years of supposed
cover up?
Before we go galavanting off on a wild goose chase...lets get back to
facts. Prince Eddy was seen and noted to be far away from the murder
sites on the nights in question.
Given the opportunity, perhaps unrealistically, the one thing I would
like to ask a member of the present Royal family to do, away from the
scrutiny of Government officials and advisers, is to actually DO
something to bring this out into the open. THAT SINGLE ACT would do far
more good for the name and reputation of the Royal family than any
other. Can you imagine the reaction of the public? At last, after so
many occurances that disenchanted the masses and have blackened the
Royal reputation....sheer open honesty. And even more intruigingly...on
the single most researched subject in the entire history of murder,
light shed from darkness. More ink has been used on JTR than blood that
ever flowed. Fitting indeed that the truth should come from the top,
putting a seal on the whole subject, once and for all. If not about
JTR, then about Prince Eddy.
It will never happen. Well...not unless a certain Royal or two suddenly
out of the blue email(s) me in a couple of years time saying...
"Watch the papers tomorrow...and thanks for the advice"
best wishes to all
-
martin reboul
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
"Philster" <kellykilfie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109222115.788288.312620@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for that Phil, most interesting.
You have obviously investigated this matter in more depth and detail than I, and
must have come to some vague suspicion about what probably happened (perish the
thought I am asking for a name here!)
I just put up a suggestion, which I haven't seen mentioned (though I daresay it
has been), and am curious to know what you think? As with most of these matters,
the truth is probably far more dull and mundane than the flights of romantic
fancy that have entertained us for over a century - no amount of wishful
thinking can change that.
I'd like to know (tall order though it may be!), if you think the culprit ever
will be finally identified, and what standard of evidence would satisfy you
after all this time?
The investigation of ancient crimes and mysteries is a peculiar fascination of
mine (be it the Princes in the Tower, the Strange Case of the Kensington
Runestone, or 'our Jack'), and the more difficult, the more intriguing. It goes
without saying that i am always brutally objective!
Cheers
Martin
news:1109222115.788288.312620@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Right. Time to put the record completely straight.
No person, whoever he or she may be or have been, has EVER been proven
to by The Whitechapel Murderer, a.k.a. Jack the Ripper. There are
literally hundreds of names that have arisen over the years, some more
famous than others.
The Duke of Clarence and Avon, Prince "Eddy", Queen Victoria'a
Grandson, was first suspected, as has rightly been pointed out, by Dr.
Thomas Stowell (1885-1970) in 1970. His paper in The Criminologist,
dated November 1970, entitled "Jack the Ripper-A Solution?" was not
only the first to point a finger towards Prince Eddy, but also the
first to associate Sir William Gull by name to the case.
In 1960 he invited Colin Wilson to a lunch and during the course of
this lunchen revealed the Sir William Gull's daughter, Lady Caroline
Acland, had in her posession papers that were "confidential". Wilson
thought that Stowell had told him that he had been invited to see these
papers in the 1930's. According to the Wilson story, the papers
revealed that Prince Eddy had NOT died of influenza in 1892, but had
died in a mental home near Sandringham of "softening of the brain"
caused by syphilis. From this, Stowell deduced that Prince Eddy was JTR
and the whole scandal had been covered up.
Wilson's story showed fundamental errors, which he himself willingly
admits, as his memory is unsure of details. This, combined with
Stowell's wobbly account brought glaring errors to light. Some of the
more obvious ones are..
Sir William Gull could NOT have had papers on Price Eddy's death/cover
up, because Gull himself died 2 years (1890) before Prince Eddy.
Caroline Ackland had died in 1929, so a meeting in the 1930's was
impossible.
The piece that was published in the Criminologist was heavy with
editorial amendments, by Nigel Morland. By Morland's account given to
Frank Spiering. Although the account did not NAME Prince Eddy,
sufficient details were added to show him to be the person named in the
article as "S".
Stowell argued that "S" found himself sadistically aroused when
watching deer being dressed and in 1888 was already suffering the
effects of syphilis, thereby his "warped" sexual passions manifested
themselves in the murdering of lowly prostitutes in Whitechapel.
Stowell then said that Gull had been seen in the area at the time of
the murders, although there is NO evidence whatsoever of any rumour,
true or otherwise, to involve Gull being in the area on any of the
nights in question. Therefore it is Stowell and Stowell alone who
dragged Gull into it, in saying,
"It would not surprise me to know that he was there (as the Royal
family Doctor) to certify the killer as insane."
Stowell then qualified the Gull theory, by linking it to the story told
by the medium Robert James Lees, that Caroline Acland, in a report told
in Fred Archer's "Ghost Dectectives" recalled a policeman and a medium
visiting the Gull household asking "impertinent" questions.
Stowell concluded by claiming that in Gull's diary , in an entry from
1889 was written,
"Informed BLANK that his son was dying of syphilis of the brain."
This is the source of the entire Stowell theory. However, in a letter
to The Times in November 1970, Stowell strongly DENIED ever having
associated Prince Eddy with the Whitechapel Murderer, nor having ever
suggested that the murederer was of Royal blood. The article was
printed, but Stowell died the next day. His family destroyed all papers
on the subject.
Now to Lord Randolph Churchill.
Frank Harris is the originator, in his memoirs, that Churchill had died
from syphilis contracted from a prostitute smuggled into his bed as a
practical joke by some of his companions on a youthful drinking spree.
Despite being banned from Royal circles (for involing himself in a row
between his brother and the Prince of Wales), he felt , according to
Joseph Sickert and Melvyn Fairclough, bound to take the side of Prince
Eddy when allegedly secrectly married the East End prostitute Annie
Crook, which also allegedly produced a Royal Bastard child. Mary Kelly,
the 5th canonical victim of JTR and other prostitutes tried to use the
knowledge of the secret marraige for the purpose of blackmail.
Churchill, through his maonic links, then organised the murders through
the use of Gull, John Netley, Frederico Albericci and possibly
J.K.Stephen. There are variations on this story in books such as The
Ripper and the Royals, JTR: The Final Solution and from Joseph Sickert
himself.
In 1992 Nick Warren, Editor of Ripperana, a quarterly magazine still
published, claimed that stories of Lord Randolph Churchill being a
suspect were known many years before Stowell published his article in
1970, incriminating Prince Eddy.
To get back to the first point made. There is not ONE scrap of factual
evidence that can pin any person, male or female to the title of being
JTR. It has not, as yet, been proven. HOWEVER, researchers ARE turning
up facts day by day, through patient background research, all over the
world.
Nick Warren's Ripperana is one excellent example of serious research
being put to good use.
So ANY finger pointing and naming of JTR, is pointless without facts
that can be proven. Otherwise, as has been done already, many a
fantastic name can be "fitted" to a "theory" and manipulated into
place. No other subject has been used with such vigour by individuals
ready to make a quick buck and 15 mins of fame. The streets are
littered with their names, and like yesterday's newspapers, are quickly
forgotten.
Thanks for that Phil, most interesting.
You have obviously investigated this matter in more depth and detail than I, and
must have come to some vague suspicion about what probably happened (perish the
thought I am asking for a name here!)
I just put up a suggestion, which I haven't seen mentioned (though I daresay it
has been), and am curious to know what you think? As with most of these matters,
the truth is probably far more dull and mundane than the flights of romantic
fancy that have entertained us for over a century - no amount of wishful
thinking can change that.
I'd like to know (tall order though it may be!), if you think the culprit ever
will be finally identified, and what standard of evidence would satisfy you
after all this time?
The investigation of ancient crimes and mysteries is a peculiar fascination of
mine (be it the Princes in the Tower, the Strange Case of the Kensington
Runestone, or 'our Jack'), and the more difficult, the more intriguing. It goes
without saying that i am always brutally objective!
Cheers
Martin
-
Philster
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
Martin,
Thank you for your comments, and indeed the original posting you made.
I'm a researcher, unpaid, but like many fascinated with JTR. My
Grandmother was born 2 streets away from and 2 weeks after the first of
the murders in 1888. She was brought up on the stories, the legends and
the lies.The only thing she ever impressed upon me more than anything
was, try to always stick to fact. So much rumour can only destroy the
truth. It will take far longer to get to the truth if it is
contyinually shrouded in rumour and half-truths. She died, aged 90, in
1978. Before which, each Wednesday evening, I read her a bit more about
the JTR latest theory from Stephen Knights book,. at the end of it, she
said the following...
"If that is true, and believe me, there WERE "toffs" hanging around the
East End at night time, the truth will not be told. Not in my lifetime.
However, I've a suspicion that the story comes from an enterprising
Londoner (meaning Joseph Sickert) who is more interested in revenge
because his mother had no known father. I know cockneys, and there are
good ones and bad ones. The bad ones are in it for money. The good ones
are generally just ordinary people with no axe to grind about their low
status in life. I've met some who even despise being born out of
poverty, and deny their past. Im proud of it. Most of us are. Remember,
there are bastards...and then there are bastards..."
Based on that, then I have always been very wary of putting forward a
name to the Whitechapel murderer. I tend, when asked, to quote another
researcher, who said that when we get to heaven, and ask who JTR
was...we will be given a name and we will say "Who?"...because nobody
has got near him yet.... however...that said....
I DO think the culprit will be identified, if he hasn't already. The
thing isnt the culprit..it's the factual evidence that is needed. That
is why researchers investingating old newspapers and stories connected
with every saying, quote and happening are doing invaluable work...by
blocking the holes. When all the holes are blocked...and there are
many, then, and only then, can we start to enclose the ring around the
real suspects...and eliminate them once and for all.
As for evidence, then it has to be evidence that cannot be shaken. 2nd
hand evidence is accepted only when it is backed up with fact. After
such a long time, there is nobody that can give a
first-hand-eye-witness-I-lived-there accounts any more. But they DID
give them to people at the time...and for many years afterwards. Some
obscure story somewhere will suddenly become the firelighter..of that
I'm convinced. It could well be connected with a known suspect, and
then make the case against that person solid. It may need investigation
and time to let the facts emerge to back up the story, but I'm
convinced that someone, somewhere KNOWS something more than we do at
preesent. One thing that REALLY annoys me is the purloining of the
police files and Case files during the time at the Public Records
Office that the papers were not on Microfilm (which they are now). That
some of this stealing, because that is exactly what it is, was also
done by police officers themselves during the years after the murders
and up to the 1960's...at LEAST. The Post Mortem report into the death
of Mary Kelly for example, with the details of the state of the body
with what was missing, taken etc only turned up in 1987 when some
retired policeman's family posted it back to Scotland Yard when the
former PC had passed on. That I find annoyingly wrong. Therefore I
would encourage ANY former PC to return any paper. Nobody is going to
prosecute them. All we researchers need are the facts before us.
Now, after such time, the list of reliable suspects has been shortened
considerably, by researching the facts. There are perhaps 4 or 5 that
are POSSIBLY JTR. Not one is, as yet, PROBABLY JTR. That is an
importance difference.
My Grandmother always thought about George Hutchinson, that he COULD
WELL have been involved. "Lookout" she said." He was a lookout. Local,
knew the locals and their movements. Paid lookout while someone was in
there (Mary Kellly's room) doing the job." Cockneys speak their
mind.Known for it throughout the world. Blunt and to the point too.
Real Cockneys that is. That was Grandma's comment. It has a sense of
reality about it. She thought that Hutchinson's story to the police was
a red herring, to point the light elsewhere. It is a good point that
she made.
I myself am still wondering. At the end of the day, I suppose that I
adhere to these things.
1.) The murderer (s) MUST have known the district well. The myriad of
back streets at the time meant that he or they must have slunk away
unnoticed very quickly.
2.) The murderer (s) MUST have had advanced knowledge of the human
anatomy. In order to do what was done, in such limited space and light,
in such a quick time, indicates strongly medical knowledge far beyond
that of a Pork Butcher. It could have been done by someone who at an
amateur level was connected with dealing with the human body. Mortruary
attendant as an accomplce in hand even. It's speculative, but worth
remembering.
3. ) The murderer (s) MUST have had a level of intelligence that was
beyond the average intelligence shown in the area. To avoid detection
and even leave clues (the bloody apron left beneath the writing on the
wall for example) is a tease and and thumbing of the nose at the local
police.
4.) The murderer is obviously psychopathic, possibly sexually insane.
We are talking here of a person, or persons that have an increasing
desire to destroy, which has become uncontrollable to the point of how
each job is executed. The culprit has obviously found his "total limit"
with the dissection of Mary Kelly, in a warm room and with time on his
hands. Here, without pressure, his "experiment" or "goal" has reached
its climatic edge. Nothing this man does in future can better this
total destruction of the human body.
5.) The murderer is either captured as insane sometime after this last
event, and locked away forever, not necessarily having been KNOWN to be
the culprit of the Whitechapel murders, or has died, or has fled far
away, or even fled abroad.He could well have started on another form of
murder..poisoning for example. My own feelings here tend to narrow the
gap towards some sort of capture and incarceration, or death through
illness. Illness would at least explain why the murders stopped, and
then illness leading to death would explain why they never started up
again.
Should you be interested in further examining of the facts, please feel
free to email me. I can put you on to certain research groups that DO
take this subject seriously, without trying to enhance their reputation
nor try to find fame
with best wishes,
Thank you for your comments, and indeed the original posting you made.
I'm a researcher, unpaid, but like many fascinated with JTR. My
Grandmother was born 2 streets away from and 2 weeks after the first of
the murders in 1888. She was brought up on the stories, the legends and
the lies.The only thing she ever impressed upon me more than anything
was, try to always stick to fact. So much rumour can only destroy the
truth. It will take far longer to get to the truth if it is
contyinually shrouded in rumour and half-truths. She died, aged 90, in
1978. Before which, each Wednesday evening, I read her a bit more about
the JTR latest theory from Stephen Knights book,. at the end of it, she
said the following...
"If that is true, and believe me, there WERE "toffs" hanging around the
East End at night time, the truth will not be told. Not in my lifetime.
However, I've a suspicion that the story comes from an enterprising
Londoner (meaning Joseph Sickert) who is more interested in revenge
because his mother had no known father. I know cockneys, and there are
good ones and bad ones. The bad ones are in it for money. The good ones
are generally just ordinary people with no axe to grind about their low
status in life. I've met some who even despise being born out of
poverty, and deny their past. Im proud of it. Most of us are. Remember,
there are bastards...and then there are bastards..."
Based on that, then I have always been very wary of putting forward a
name to the Whitechapel murderer. I tend, when asked, to quote another
researcher, who said that when we get to heaven, and ask who JTR
was...we will be given a name and we will say "Who?"...because nobody
has got near him yet.... however...that said....
I DO think the culprit will be identified, if he hasn't already. The
thing isnt the culprit..it's the factual evidence that is needed. That
is why researchers investingating old newspapers and stories connected
with every saying, quote and happening are doing invaluable work...by
blocking the holes. When all the holes are blocked...and there are
many, then, and only then, can we start to enclose the ring around the
real suspects...and eliminate them once and for all.
As for evidence, then it has to be evidence that cannot be shaken. 2nd
hand evidence is accepted only when it is backed up with fact. After
such a long time, there is nobody that can give a
first-hand-eye-witness-I-lived-there accounts any more. But they DID
give them to people at the time...and for many years afterwards. Some
obscure story somewhere will suddenly become the firelighter..of that
I'm convinced. It could well be connected with a known suspect, and
then make the case against that person solid. It may need investigation
and time to let the facts emerge to back up the story, but I'm
convinced that someone, somewhere KNOWS something more than we do at
preesent. One thing that REALLY annoys me is the purloining of the
police files and Case files during the time at the Public Records
Office that the papers were not on Microfilm (which they are now). That
some of this stealing, because that is exactly what it is, was also
done by police officers themselves during the years after the murders
and up to the 1960's...at LEAST. The Post Mortem report into the death
of Mary Kelly for example, with the details of the state of the body
with what was missing, taken etc only turned up in 1987 when some
retired policeman's family posted it back to Scotland Yard when the
former PC had passed on. That I find annoyingly wrong. Therefore I
would encourage ANY former PC to return any paper. Nobody is going to
prosecute them. All we researchers need are the facts before us.
Now, after such time, the list of reliable suspects has been shortened
considerably, by researching the facts. There are perhaps 4 or 5 that
are POSSIBLY JTR. Not one is, as yet, PROBABLY JTR. That is an
importance difference.
My Grandmother always thought about George Hutchinson, that he COULD
WELL have been involved. "Lookout" she said." He was a lookout. Local,
knew the locals and their movements. Paid lookout while someone was in
there (Mary Kellly's room) doing the job." Cockneys speak their
mind.Known for it throughout the world. Blunt and to the point too.
Real Cockneys that is. That was Grandma's comment. It has a sense of
reality about it. She thought that Hutchinson's story to the police was
a red herring, to point the light elsewhere. It is a good point that
she made.
I myself am still wondering. At the end of the day, I suppose that I
adhere to these things.
1.) The murderer (s) MUST have known the district well. The myriad of
back streets at the time meant that he or they must have slunk away
unnoticed very quickly.
2.) The murderer (s) MUST have had advanced knowledge of the human
anatomy. In order to do what was done, in such limited space and light,
in such a quick time, indicates strongly medical knowledge far beyond
that of a Pork Butcher. It could have been done by someone who at an
amateur level was connected with dealing with the human body. Mortruary
attendant as an accomplce in hand even. It's speculative, but worth
remembering.
3. ) The murderer (s) MUST have had a level of intelligence that was
beyond the average intelligence shown in the area. To avoid detection
and even leave clues (the bloody apron left beneath the writing on the
wall for example) is a tease and and thumbing of the nose at the local
police.
4.) The murderer is obviously psychopathic, possibly sexually insane.
We are talking here of a person, or persons that have an increasing
desire to destroy, which has become uncontrollable to the point of how
each job is executed. The culprit has obviously found his "total limit"
with the dissection of Mary Kelly, in a warm room and with time on his
hands. Here, without pressure, his "experiment" or "goal" has reached
its climatic edge. Nothing this man does in future can better this
total destruction of the human body.
5.) The murderer is either captured as insane sometime after this last
event, and locked away forever, not necessarily having been KNOWN to be
the culprit of the Whitechapel murders, or has died, or has fled far
away, or even fled abroad.He could well have started on another form of
murder..poisoning for example. My own feelings here tend to narrow the
gap towards some sort of capture and incarceration, or death through
illness. Illness would at least explain why the murders stopped, and
then illness leading to death would explain why they never started up
again.
Should you be interested in further examining of the facts, please feel
free to email me. I can put you on to certain research groups that DO
take this subject seriously, without trying to enhance their reputation
nor try to find fame
with best wishes,
-
Rhonda Jordan
Re: Jack The Ripper
I have no suggestion as to the identity of JTR. I only have a
recommendation to those with an interest: Take the walking tour offered of
the Whitechapel district in London. I have only had a chance to visit
England once, but possibly the best of all the tours we took was this
night-time tour. It was guided by a volunteer Beefeater from the Tower of
London, with most theories discussed as to plausibility.
The fellow -- an excellent, enthusiastic guide -- did tell us that some of
his colleagues at the Tower are Masons, and that they conduct some tours for
Masons only. The fellow said that they would not even tell him the details
of such tours, only that they differed greatly from the info given in the
general tour.
Anyway... Take the tour if you have any chance whatsoever.
Rhonda
recommendation to those with an interest: Take the walking tour offered of
the Whitechapel district in London. I have only had a chance to visit
England once, but possibly the best of all the tours we took was this
night-time tour. It was guided by a volunteer Beefeater from the Tower of
London, with most theories discussed as to plausibility.
The fellow -- an excellent, enthusiastic guide -- did tell us that some of
his colleagues at the Tower are Masons, and that they conduct some tours for
Masons only. The fellow said that they would not even tell him the details
of such tours, only that they differed greatly from the info given in the
general tour.
Anyway... Take the tour if you have any chance whatsoever.
Rhonda
-
nemo
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
Philster wrote:
http://www.casebook.org/suspects/eddy.html
Here is the page on Prince Eddy from the excellent "Jack the Ripper"
casebook website- accurate and unbiased information on the case.
You can see that in 1978, an author named Frank Spiering who wrote a
book, "Pince Jack", accusing Prince Eddy of being the murderer
challenged the Queen to either open the Royal Archives or make a
statement detailing the Prince's role as the Ripper. A palace spokesman
said that the Queen would not make a statement, but offered Spiering
access to the Royal Archives, which he then declared he was not
interested in seeing, leaving many to assume that the challenge to the
Queen was a mere publicity stunt.
There are many published letters of Queen Victoria, who was incapable
of concealing her feelings and let everyone know exactly how she felt
about everything, which got her into trouble on many occasions in her
life. After the death of Prince Eddy, Queen Victoria wrote to her
granddaugher Princesss Louis of Battenburg on 3 Feb 1892:
"Was there ever anything so sad, so tragic? It is really an
overwhelming misfortune, and I believe Auntie has written to you some
of the sad, sad details! The real and actual illness only lasted from
the Saturday 9th on the 14th ( that fatal date ) [the day her husband
Prince Albert had died years before] - and the last 48 hours had flown
to the brain and caused fearful delirium........Poor darling Eddy, he
was so good and gentle, and I shall miss him greatly".
It is not credible that the Queen, in this private letter to her
granddaughter, is taking part in some elaborate plot to conceal the
truth.
Anyone who thinks that Eddy was the Ripper and the royal family covered
this fact up must explain this letter Queen Victoria wrote to Henry
Matthews the Home Secretary and therefore in charge of the police and
law enforcement on 13 Nov 1888 - (Victoria always wrote her letters to
anyone except her own family in the third person):
"The Queen fears that the detective department is not so efficient as
it might be. No doubt the recent murders in Whitechapel were committed
in circumstances which made detection very difficult; still, the Queen
thinks that, in the small area where these horrible crimes have been
perpertrated, a great number of detectives might be employed, and that
every possible suggestion might be carefully examined and, if
practicable, followed.
Have the cattle boats and passenger boats been examined?
Has any investigation been made as to the number of single men
occupying rooms to themselves?
The murderer's clothes must be saturated with blood and must be kept
somewhere.
Is there sufficient surveillance at night?
These are some of the questions that occur to the Queen on reading the
accounts of this horrible crime."
This is obviously not the letter of someone who knows who the murderer
is and is trying to cover up the truth, but quite the opposite.
Having looked again at the posting I made, I would like to add a few
things, for your perusal. The question remains: Did Prince Eddy die
in
1892?, or did he live on?
Melvyn Fairclough claims, in his book "The Ripper and the Royals"
that
he did indeed live on, incarcerated in Glamis Castle in Scotland
until
the 1930's. The book also prints a photograph from about 1910, that
supposedly shows Prince Eddy alive.
Stephen Knight, in his book "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution"
writes in his postscript that Prince Eddy lived on at Osbourne House,
on the Isle of Wight, until 1930. A marble tablet in the grounds
supposedly being his only memorial.
It should be noted that BOTH these books are strongly connected with
Joseph Sickert's Royal marraige and Royal bastard story. As for Mr.
Sickerts assertions, I will not comment except to say that many have
investigated his claims, with many "facts" now proven to be false.
Can a Royal person actually have been incarcerated away from the rest
of society without anybody actually knowing? Can it happen to anybody
infact? Well...with this in mind, I refer you to the following, which
does connect the possibility. I do not present it as fact that Prince
Eddy WAS incarcerated somewhere, but a fascinating possibility
arises.
I posted a question on another Royal thread site, and was delighted
to
recieve a reply fron "Gillian" which helped me considerably.
....I believe you are thinking of two of the late Queen Mother's
nieces - Nerissa Bowes Lyon and Katherine Bowes Lyon. For many years,
Burke's Peerage claimed that the sisters had died unmarried in 1940
and
1961
respectively. In 1987, it was revealed that they had not died as
indicated,
and had actually spent most of their lives in either the Royal
Earlswood
Hospital in Surrey or Kentwin House (a care home that was later
closed
following allegations of abuse) owing to the fact that they were
mentally
retarded. Nerissa Bowes Lyon died in 1986 at the age of 67, but
AFAIK,
Katherine Bowes Lyon is still living.
You can read an article about Katherine Bowes Lyon here :
http://www.sundayherald.com/23673
It should be noted that the family home of the Bowes Lyon family, and
where the late Queen Mother lived and visited for many years is
Glamis
Castle, Scotland, where Melvyn Fairclough claimed Prince Eddy had
been
incarcerated. His book came out in 1991, the sensational news of the
two nieces came out in 1987, you may well conclude therefore that it
could well be concieveable that one influenced the other....
None of this actually presents itself as fact. We must asume that
Prince Eddy DID die in 1892. However, I am open to the possibility
that
Royalty can be moved to do things that can be seen as "gently
removing
a problem" as has been seen in the life of Prince John, born in 1905
and who suffered fron epileptic fits and seizures, and who was never
seen in public after he was about 5 years old until he died in 1919.
A
television film about him came out called "The Forgotton Prince" in
GB
a while back. Although this film is factually flawed, it gives an
interesting insight into Royal machinations in the Victorian and
Edwardian era.
Finally. Prince Eddy. He was almost certainly bi-sexual, almost
certainly visited brothels in the East End of London, had connections
within the area through dressing up and "going fire watching" with
his
friends, and was of dubious character. He may well have contracted
syphilis, and may well have been a liability to Queen Victoria and
her
son and heir to the throne, Bertie, later Edward VII. IF, and it is a
large if..he did live on in obscure circumstances, the questions to
be
posed in 2005 is...
What harm could it do for the facts to be revealed about him and his
life/death? Would this threaten the security of the position of the
Royal family today? IF he didnt die, and WAS incarcerated until 1930
or
so, would his "true" story reveal his connection with Jack the
Ripper?
And finally, should the unthinkable come to light, that he actually
WAS
connected to the Jack the Ripper murders,an accomplice of sorts, or
involved through his supposed connections with lowly East End women,
would it not be better out in the open now after 117 years of
supposed
cover up?
Before we go galavanting off on a wild goose chase...lets get back to
facts. Prince Eddy was seen and noted to be far away from the murder
sites on the nights in question.
Given the opportunity, perhaps unrealistically, the one thing I would
like to ask a member of the present Royal family to do, away from the
scrutiny of Government officials and advisers, is to actually DO
something to bring this out into the open. THAT SINGLE ACT would do
far
more good for the name and reputation of the Royal family than any
other. Can you imagine the reaction of the public? At last, after so
many occurances that disenchanted the masses and have blackened the
Royal reputation....sheer open honesty. And even more
intruigingly...on
the single most researched subject in the entire history of murder,
light shed from darkness. More ink has been used on JTR than blood
that
ever flowed. Fitting indeed that the truth should come from the top,
putting a seal on the whole subject, once and for all. If not about
JTR, then about Prince Eddy.
It will never happen. Well...not unless a certain Royal or two
suddenly
out of the blue email(s) me in a couple of years time saying...
"Watch the papers tomorrow...and thanks for the advice"
best wishes to all
http://www.casebook.org/suspects/eddy.html
Here is the page on Prince Eddy from the excellent "Jack the Ripper"
casebook website- accurate and unbiased information on the case.
You can see that in 1978, an author named Frank Spiering who wrote a
book, "Pince Jack", accusing Prince Eddy of being the murderer
challenged the Queen to either open the Royal Archives or make a
statement detailing the Prince's role as the Ripper. A palace spokesman
said that the Queen would not make a statement, but offered Spiering
access to the Royal Archives, which he then declared he was not
interested in seeing, leaving many to assume that the challenge to the
Queen was a mere publicity stunt.
There are many published letters of Queen Victoria, who was incapable
of concealing her feelings and let everyone know exactly how she felt
about everything, which got her into trouble on many occasions in her
life. After the death of Prince Eddy, Queen Victoria wrote to her
granddaugher Princesss Louis of Battenburg on 3 Feb 1892:
"Was there ever anything so sad, so tragic? It is really an
overwhelming misfortune, and I believe Auntie has written to you some
of the sad, sad details! The real and actual illness only lasted from
the Saturday 9th on the 14th ( that fatal date ) [the day her husband
Prince Albert had died years before] - and the last 48 hours had flown
to the brain and caused fearful delirium........Poor darling Eddy, he
was so good and gentle, and I shall miss him greatly".
It is not credible that the Queen, in this private letter to her
granddaughter, is taking part in some elaborate plot to conceal the
truth.
Anyone who thinks that Eddy was the Ripper and the royal family covered
this fact up must explain this letter Queen Victoria wrote to Henry
Matthews the Home Secretary and therefore in charge of the police and
law enforcement on 13 Nov 1888 - (Victoria always wrote her letters to
anyone except her own family in the third person):
"The Queen fears that the detective department is not so efficient as
it might be. No doubt the recent murders in Whitechapel were committed
in circumstances which made detection very difficult; still, the Queen
thinks that, in the small area where these horrible crimes have been
perpertrated, a great number of detectives might be employed, and that
every possible suggestion might be carefully examined and, if
practicable, followed.
Have the cattle boats and passenger boats been examined?
Has any investigation been made as to the number of single men
occupying rooms to themselves?
The murderer's clothes must be saturated with blood and must be kept
somewhere.
Is there sufficient surveillance at night?
These are some of the questions that occur to the Queen on reading the
accounts of this horrible crime."
This is obviously not the letter of someone who knows who the murderer
is and is trying to cover up the truth, but quite the opposite.
-
Philster
Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victori
Nemo
1.) The book "Prince Jack" is riddled with factual errors. Frank
Spiering is NOT regarded in very high esteem amongst "experts" on the
subject.
2.) At no point have I suggested that Prince Eddy WAS JTR, infact, I
said the opposite, that he was not, and could not have been, because he
was not anywhere near the scene of the murders on the nights in
question. I DID however leave the possibility open that he may have
been connected to the case.
As far as Queen Victoria's involvement with the machinations of the
Police, Home Office and Government, the actual files on the subject
contain every piece of correspondance that came from Buckingham
Palace.There is no doubt at all that Queen Victoria was very aware of
the murders and that she gave the situation some consideration. To
place her role into perspective, let's start at the very start of her
"awareness".
In October, George Lusk, Chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilante
Committee, presented a petition to Queen Victoria who was at that time
staying at Balmoral. She did not reply, as it was deemed unappropriate
to do so. In her journal, dated 4th October 1888 referred to "the
dreadful murders of unfortunate women of a bad class, in London."
After Mary Kelly's murder, a cypher telegram from Queen Victoria at
Balmoral to the Marquis of Salisbury, the Prime Minister, dated 10th
November 1888 stated the following.
"This nes most ghastly murder shows the absolute necessity for some
very decided action. All these courts must be lit, and our detecives
improved. They are not what they should be. You promised, when the 1st
murders took place to consult with your colleagues about it."
The reply dated the same day stated that "At cabinet today it was
resolved to issue a Proclamation offering free pardon to anyone who
should give evidence as to the recent murder except the actual
perpetrator of the crime..."
The next day, The Marquis of Salisbury replied again telling the Queen
that" Sir Charles Warren had resigned before the murder" and that "it
had been accepted". "The horrid murder was committed in a roomNo
additional lighting could have prevented it."
The Queen's concern continued folowing a draft letter to Henry
Matthews, the Home Secretary:
...."The Queen fears that the detective department is not so efficient
as
it might be. No doubt the recent murders in Whitechapel were committed
in circumstances which made detection very difficult; still, the Queen
thinks that, in the small area where these horrible crimes have been
perpertrated, a great number of detectives might be employed, and that
every possible suggestion might be carefully examined and, if
practicable, followed.
Have the cattle boats and passenger boats been examined?
Has any investigation been made as to the number of single men
occupying rooms to themselves?
The murderer's clothes must be saturated with blood and must be kept
somewhere.
Is there sufficient surveillance at night?
These are some of the questions that occur to the Queen on reading the
accounts of this horrible crime."
This you have already quoted. What you have OMITTED is the fact that
the letter was written in the handwriting of Sir Henry Ponsonby,
Private Secretary to the Queen. He added a note at the end: "Perhaps
these details might be omitted?" Mr. Matthews sent the Queen a detailed
explanation from Scotland Yard of all the things that the police were
doing.
This concern showed by the Queen started the gossip and rumour
mongers.There has been this ground of suspicion ever since and has
become enshrined with the facts of the case ever since.
The Queen was obviously NOT trying to cover up her concern or knowledge
of the murders. This I do not deny. I again point out that at no point
did I believe that Prince Eddy was JTR. I DO point out that his
behaviour at this time was quite remarkable, visiting Whitechapel in
the dead of night (not on the night of the murders, I add again) and
gaining a very adverse reputation amongst the men that ran the country
and the "Upper Classes." His behaviour was without doubt quite a
talking point and it is NOT surprising that he sent on an extensive
tour to the Indian Sub Continent in 1889and 1890. This tour was
conducted by The Secretary to Secret and Political Department, India
Office, London, Col. Sir Edward Ridley Colbourne Bradford, Bt
(1836-1911). who in 1890 became Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan
Police Force and remained at the post until 1903.
Now, as regards the Queen's feelings as to the fast demise of her
Grandson. I do not deny in ANY WAY that the letter written that you
have quoted from shows genuine grief and concern. However, and I state
this in light of the facts regarding both Prince John and the two
nieces to the late Queen Mother, the Royal family HAS in the past, not
only quietly put "problems" away from the public eye, but in the cases
of the two nieces to the THEN QUEEN, Elizabeth, mother of the present
Queen, strenuously denied the EXISTANCE of these two poor sisters. The
shame of the fact that it took 27 years AFTER Debretts stated, in 1960,
that they were dead, is considerable in the least. Now, in this day and
age, it is INCONCIEVABLE that any child, born within Royal circles,
should be hidden away from public knowledge due to a mental disorder.
But we are NOT talking about now. We are talking about
ultra-conservative Victorianism, which did not let up until after the
Queen's death in 1901. The Edwardian Era was far more relaxed by
comparison, yet it was during this era that Prince John was born, and
died only 9 years after King Edward VII died in 1910. Yet Prince John
was also hidden away from view, for fear of public embarrassment should
an epileptic seizure occur, amongst other things.
So with that in mind, the letter you quote, although touching, is by NO
MEANS a yardstick to the personal attitude of Royalty to anything
within their own family regarded as unusual or abnormal, NOT in
Victorian Times. You must also remember that Queen Victoria's attitude
towards her own son, Bertie (later King Edward VII) was not very
positive either. His involvements with women, the famous Court case
involving the playing of the game Bacarat in which he was involved, and
the attitude of his father towards him before Albert died in 1861,
influenced Her Majesty enormously. I cannot believe, that given these
KNOWN facts, her attitude towards Prince Eddy's nightime escapades in
Whitechapel and the surrounding areas went uncommented upon either. It
would be VERY unlikely that she would accept such behaviour. Had he
also mental problems towards 1888, I'm absolutely sure that the
combination of his "departures" into East London at night and the
Whitechapel murders would have left a question mark that COULD have
rocked the monarchy to it's very roots had the two facts had chance to
fester together at the time. It should also be remembered that
Republicanism was at it's height at this time, with many attempts upon
her life.
No. It IS concievable that Prince Eddy did NOT die in 1892. I don't say
he didn't. I say that a Royal cover up could well have taken place,
given the circumstances. If Eddy WAS mentally unbalanced, even with
periods of Insanity, I can ONLY assume that he would have been hidden
away, taking into account what we already know happened in future
"embarrassing" circumstances.
The Question, however, is: Is there any proof of this insanity, and
incarceration occurring? Factually, we have nothing. There is plenty of
rumour. Not a good starting point for the researcher to approach from.
So at the moment, I stay lodged on the side of the factual, that he did
die in 1892. But given his past, his record of behaviour (which was
FACT and started rumours amongst the loftier circles, I might add), the
rumours of sexual insanity due to syphilis are quite plausible to
accept. If one lot of rumours, started by fact, is true, then why
should the other lot of rumours NOT be true? It is a possibility.
Finally, I am in NO WAY Anti-Royalist. Quite the opposite infact. Just
to put that fact down. So I have no axe to grind here. The present
Royal family has a publicity record which is basically shameful.
Everybody admits that. Good publicity has been very hard to come by in
the last 15-20 years. That was why my suggestion came up. Simple.
Thank you for your reply to my previous posting.
with best wishes,
1.) The book "Prince Jack" is riddled with factual errors. Frank
Spiering is NOT regarded in very high esteem amongst "experts" on the
subject.
2.) At no point have I suggested that Prince Eddy WAS JTR, infact, I
said the opposite, that he was not, and could not have been, because he
was not anywhere near the scene of the murders on the nights in
question. I DID however leave the possibility open that he may have
been connected to the case.
As far as Queen Victoria's involvement with the machinations of the
Police, Home Office and Government, the actual files on the subject
contain every piece of correspondance that came from Buckingham
Palace.There is no doubt at all that Queen Victoria was very aware of
the murders and that she gave the situation some consideration. To
place her role into perspective, let's start at the very start of her
"awareness".
In October, George Lusk, Chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilante
Committee, presented a petition to Queen Victoria who was at that time
staying at Balmoral. She did not reply, as it was deemed unappropriate
to do so. In her journal, dated 4th October 1888 referred to "the
dreadful murders of unfortunate women of a bad class, in London."
After Mary Kelly's murder, a cypher telegram from Queen Victoria at
Balmoral to the Marquis of Salisbury, the Prime Minister, dated 10th
November 1888 stated the following.
"This nes most ghastly murder shows the absolute necessity for some
very decided action. All these courts must be lit, and our detecives
improved. They are not what they should be. You promised, when the 1st
murders took place to consult with your colleagues about it."
The reply dated the same day stated that "At cabinet today it was
resolved to issue a Proclamation offering free pardon to anyone who
should give evidence as to the recent murder except the actual
perpetrator of the crime..."
The next day, The Marquis of Salisbury replied again telling the Queen
that" Sir Charles Warren had resigned before the murder" and that "it
had been accepted". "The horrid murder was committed in a roomNo
additional lighting could have prevented it."
The Queen's concern continued folowing a draft letter to Henry
Matthews, the Home Secretary:
...."The Queen fears that the detective department is not so efficient
as
it might be. No doubt the recent murders in Whitechapel were committed
in circumstances which made detection very difficult; still, the Queen
thinks that, in the small area where these horrible crimes have been
perpertrated, a great number of detectives might be employed, and that
every possible suggestion might be carefully examined and, if
practicable, followed.
Have the cattle boats and passenger boats been examined?
Has any investigation been made as to the number of single men
occupying rooms to themselves?
The murderer's clothes must be saturated with blood and must be kept
somewhere.
Is there sufficient surveillance at night?
These are some of the questions that occur to the Queen on reading the
accounts of this horrible crime."
This you have already quoted. What you have OMITTED is the fact that
the letter was written in the handwriting of Sir Henry Ponsonby,
Private Secretary to the Queen. He added a note at the end: "Perhaps
these details might be omitted?" Mr. Matthews sent the Queen a detailed
explanation from Scotland Yard of all the things that the police were
doing.
This concern showed by the Queen started the gossip and rumour
mongers.There has been this ground of suspicion ever since and has
become enshrined with the facts of the case ever since.
The Queen was obviously NOT trying to cover up her concern or knowledge
of the murders. This I do not deny. I again point out that at no point
did I believe that Prince Eddy was JTR. I DO point out that his
behaviour at this time was quite remarkable, visiting Whitechapel in
the dead of night (not on the night of the murders, I add again) and
gaining a very adverse reputation amongst the men that ran the country
and the "Upper Classes." His behaviour was without doubt quite a
talking point and it is NOT surprising that he sent on an extensive
tour to the Indian Sub Continent in 1889and 1890. This tour was
conducted by The Secretary to Secret and Political Department, India
Office, London, Col. Sir Edward Ridley Colbourne Bradford, Bt
(1836-1911). who in 1890 became Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan
Police Force and remained at the post until 1903.
Now, as regards the Queen's feelings as to the fast demise of her
Grandson. I do not deny in ANY WAY that the letter written that you
have quoted from shows genuine grief and concern. However, and I state
this in light of the facts regarding both Prince John and the two
nieces to the late Queen Mother, the Royal family HAS in the past, not
only quietly put "problems" away from the public eye, but in the cases
of the two nieces to the THEN QUEEN, Elizabeth, mother of the present
Queen, strenuously denied the EXISTANCE of these two poor sisters. The
shame of the fact that it took 27 years AFTER Debretts stated, in 1960,
that they were dead, is considerable in the least. Now, in this day and
age, it is INCONCIEVABLE that any child, born within Royal circles,
should be hidden away from public knowledge due to a mental disorder.
But we are NOT talking about now. We are talking about
ultra-conservative Victorianism, which did not let up until after the
Queen's death in 1901. The Edwardian Era was far more relaxed by
comparison, yet it was during this era that Prince John was born, and
died only 9 years after King Edward VII died in 1910. Yet Prince John
was also hidden away from view, for fear of public embarrassment should
an epileptic seizure occur, amongst other things.
So with that in mind, the letter you quote, although touching, is by NO
MEANS a yardstick to the personal attitude of Royalty to anything
within their own family regarded as unusual or abnormal, NOT in
Victorian Times. You must also remember that Queen Victoria's attitude
towards her own son, Bertie (later King Edward VII) was not very
positive either. His involvements with women, the famous Court case
involving the playing of the game Bacarat in which he was involved, and
the attitude of his father towards him before Albert died in 1861,
influenced Her Majesty enormously. I cannot believe, that given these
KNOWN facts, her attitude towards Prince Eddy's nightime escapades in
Whitechapel and the surrounding areas went uncommented upon either. It
would be VERY unlikely that she would accept such behaviour. Had he
also mental problems towards 1888, I'm absolutely sure that the
combination of his "departures" into East London at night and the
Whitechapel murders would have left a question mark that COULD have
rocked the monarchy to it's very roots had the two facts had chance to
fester together at the time. It should also be remembered that
Republicanism was at it's height at this time, with many attempts upon
her life.
No. It IS concievable that Prince Eddy did NOT die in 1892. I don't say
he didn't. I say that a Royal cover up could well have taken place,
given the circumstances. If Eddy WAS mentally unbalanced, even with
periods of Insanity, I can ONLY assume that he would have been hidden
away, taking into account what we already know happened in future
"embarrassing" circumstances.
The Question, however, is: Is there any proof of this insanity, and
incarceration occurring? Factually, we have nothing. There is plenty of
rumour. Not a good starting point for the researcher to approach from.
So at the moment, I stay lodged on the side of the factual, that he did
die in 1892. But given his past, his record of behaviour (which was
FACT and started rumours amongst the loftier circles, I might add), the
rumours of sexual insanity due to syphilis are quite plausible to
accept. If one lot of rumours, started by fact, is true, then why
should the other lot of rumours NOT be true? It is a possibility.
Finally, I am in NO WAY Anti-Royalist. Quite the opposite infact. Just
to put that fact down. So I have no axe to grind here. The present
Royal family has a publicity record which is basically shameful.
Everybody admits that. Good publicity has been very hard to come by in
the last 15-20 years. That was why my suggestion came up. Simple.
Thank you for your reply to my previous posting.
with best wishes,