PDA

View Full Version : How far they could have gone?!


j.r-ahde
03-29-2008, 11:45 PM
Hello you all!

I think, that the "Royal conspirary" is a kind romanticising nonsense.

Though, Eddie was gay. One of the weaknesses is, that he was on a trip in Scotland at the time of at least one murder.

It would have been too expensive even for The Royal Family to bribe hundreds of people, I think.

Or would they have done anything to hide, if he had been involved in the case somehow?!

All the best
Jukka

Limehouse
03-30-2008, 10:35 PM
Hi Jukka,

I think stories about a Royal being JTR are highly fanciful. Most of the evidence points to Prince Eddie being hundreds of miles away when most of the murders were committed.


As for the idea that Gull and others cooked up the murders to cover up an illegal Royal marriage and baby - well how did that happen? How did a minister of the church manage to marry a leading Royal without being aware of it? And if, as you say, Eddie was gay - why would he fall in love and marry a woman? More to the point, why did the conspiritors choose such an extreme method of killing the ladies involved? Gull could have disposed of them more efficiently than spreading them across the pavements of London. They could then have been neatly dissected by his medical students at Guys.
Alternatively, they could have been weighted down and drowned in the Thames.

No, I don't favour a Royal JTR or a Royal conspiracy at all.

Graham
03-30-2008, 10:44 PM
How the hell could a common street-walker 'blackmail the British Government' anyway? What would she do - knock on the door of No 10 Downing Street and ask for whoever is responsible for interviewing potential blackmailers?

The biggest mystery is how Stephen Knight was ever taken in by this nonsense in the first place. Joseph Sickert changed his story about as often as Mike Barrett.

But on the other hand, I thought Knight's book was a damn good read, to be honest! You just didn't have to believe what he was saying!

Cheers,

Graham

Sam Flynn
03-31-2008, 12:49 AM
How the hell could a common street-walker 'blackmail the British Government' anyway?
Prince Albert Victor was apparently blackmailed by two (female) prostitutes in 1891 - for which he stumped up a few hundred quid in "hush money", in return for some letters he'd written. Perhaps that was the original grit in the Royal Conspiracy oyster?

Story here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/nroyal228.xml).

Graham
03-31-2008, 01:05 AM
Prince Albert Victor was apparently blackmailed by two (female) prostitutes in 1891 - for which he stumped up a few hundred quid in "hush money", in return for some letters he'd written. Perhaps that was the original grit in the Royal Conspiracy oyster?

Story here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/nroyal228.xml).

Blimey, if it's that easy to make £12K, I think I'll have a bash meself!

Cheers,

Graham

Barnaby
03-31-2008, 07:55 AM
More to the point, why did the conspiritors choose such an extreme method of killing the ladies involved? Gull could have disposed of them more efficiently than spreading them across the pavements of London. They could then have been neatly dissected by his medical students at Guys.
Alternatively, they could have been weighted down and drowned in the Thames.


I suppose the thinking is that the Royal Family ok'ed the killings but Gull was, in fact, deranged. Which is why they eventually had him silenced.

Not that I believe it.

caz
03-31-2008, 08:10 PM
The biggest mystery is how Stephen Knight was ever taken in by this nonsense in the first place. Joseph Sickert changed his story about as often as Mike Barrett.



Hmmmmm. Well better men than Knight are still regularly taken in by Mike Barrett's nonsense about having written a certain diary. :laugh4:

"Go figure" (as I think the appropriate expression would be - there isn't a translation our side of the pond that quite hits the spot ;)).

Love,

Caz
X

Limehouse
03-31-2008, 08:21 PM
Prince Albert Victor was apparently blackmailed by two (female) prostitutes in 1891 - for which he stumped up a few hundred quid in "hush money", in return for some letters he'd written. Perhaps that was the original grit in the Royal Conspiracy oyster?

Story here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/nroyal228.xml).

An interesting story Sam, which only goes to show that the Royal Conspiracy is bunkham because if true, then surely these two ladies would have ended up being JRTs victims number 6 and 7 (or twelve and thirteen, depending on which score yoy believe).

BillyE
05-21-2008, 09:21 PM
Playing devil's advocate for a theory I absolutely have no belief in, the idea is the prostitutes who were blackmailing Eddy with compromising letters were not posing a threat to the throne, because nothing they had would call into question Eddy's right to rule, but fathering a child with a commoner, and a Catholic to boot, would negate Eddy's legitimacy to the throne. And some feared it would be the end of the monarchy itself, since this was a time ripe for revolution. At least those in power were afraid it was. I do find this unlikely, since England already went through a revolution led by Oliver Cromwell, and it didn't seem to go so well. After two years of Cromwell's son trying to lead the country they restored the monarchy, and it's been there ever since. But it's the threat against the monarchy that separates the letter blackmailing prostitutes from the baby blackmailing prostitutes. Hope that helps.

Suzi
05-21-2008, 11:54 PM
Hi all-
Well to be honest I reckon that Mr Knight was responsible for a lot of us who had an earlier interest in JTR thinking.....Uh Oh ....this is interesting....Quirky and more than likely a little lacking in reality though it was!...Then of course Mr Fairclough came cantering up behind with 'The Ripper and the Royals' and we all thought Ooooh yes...mad Royals closeted away that could be a point....

Then we took a deep breath and more water with it and read 'proper' books...The A-Z,Fido,Sugden,Begg et al and took up the back seats to sneak a giggle at the very thing that may have got us going in the first place!

Joseph Sickert and all of that semi truth is probably just that- but it did tweak our curiosity I reckon......Unlike Patsy who just IMHO discredited a superb artist (Odd he may have been ....but not THAT odd!)

And-------- then there's the Barrett nastiness....but I'm NOT going there!!!

Suzi x

BillyE
05-22-2008, 05:46 AM
On the subject of whether or not Joseph Gorman "Sickert" was actually the son of Walter, I know Walter was cremated, so no DNA can come from him, but what about his father, Oscar I believe his name was? I know the father passes down the same Y chromosome so that a great grandfather will have the same Y chromosome as his great grandson. It's similar to mitochondrial DNA passes from mother to daughter. If we could get Walter's father's Y chromosome we may be able to esablish once and for all if Joseph really was a Sickert.

Christine
05-22-2008, 06:29 AM
On the subject of whether or not Joseph Gorman "Sickert" was actually the son of Walter, I know Walter was cremated, so no DNA can come from him, but what about his father, Oscar I believe his name was? I know the father passes down the same Y chromosome so that a great grandfather will have the same Y chromosome as his great grandson. It's similar to mitochondrial DNA passes from mother to daughter. If we could get Walter's father's Y chromosome we may be able to esablish once and for all if Joseph really was a Sickert.

It wouldn't necessarily be of any use...it's quite possible Walter Sickert had some sort of relationship with Alice Margaret and Joseph without actually being the biological father of her child. She was married to another man at the time of Joseph's conception, so who knows who thought what for what reasons? Walter may have even shared his Ripper theories (or his knowledge of the awful truth) with them, regardless of what he thought of Joseph's paternity. Or Joseph may have made the whole thing up, even if he did turn out to be Walter's biological child.

On the other hand, knowing that Walter was the biological father of Joseph would prove that Patricia Cornwell is wrong in her theories about Walter's sex life. But the Sickert believers could revise that part of the theory without too much trouble.

But if you are interested in royal conspiracies, the way to go would to see if Joseph is really the grandson of Prince Eddy. If that were true, that would be a major shocker.

BillyE
05-23-2008, 10:21 PM
It would be a far more difficult task to prove Joseph the grandson of Eddy, than the son of Walter Sickert. If he were the prince's grandson being that far down the family line would delute some of the royal genetic material. Were we to get DNA from both Alice Gorman, and Prince Eddy it would be easier to make the royal connection, but still rather a stretch. However, if the Y chromosome from Walter Sickert's father could be taken, it would be able to prove if Joseph was Walter's son.

truebluedub
05-27-2008, 01:40 PM
Hi Christine,
At least one Sickert supporter has already taken into account Joseph's supposed parentage. Michael Sheridan argued in Frozen Blood that Patricia Cornwell's investigation confirmed the oral tradition from Walter Sickert's son.

Kind regards
Chris Lowe

Mitch Rowe
05-27-2008, 04:28 PM
Prince Albert Victor was apparently blackmailed by two (female) prostitutes in 1891 - for which he stumped up a few hundred quid in "hush money", in return for some letters he'd written. Perhaps that was the original grit in the Royal Conspiracy oyster?

Story here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/28/nroyal228.xml).

The original grit was probably the spelling Jewes. Some-one noticed this was how FreeMasons spelled it. Then after reading about the blackmailing put 2 and 2 together to come up with 5!

Its all a big joke to me. Prince Eddie/Gull/Sickert. We know better now. We know that JTR was most likely a wolf in sheeps clothing. He lived right there in Whitechapel. His life was probably more akin to Dahmers than a Prince. A very difficult Man to identify. That dont make for a best seller or even an also ran. He wasnt a needle in a haystack. He was a needle in a stack of needles. But this needle was slightly different wich means maybe someday we can identify him. Dahmer had run ins with Police. Police made a big mistake by not investigating him further. Maybe there is a clue left to help identify JTR. Maybe someday we will have the knowledge to know what that clue was. I would be looking within the general population of Whitechapel.

Sasha
06-25-2008, 06:29 AM
Okay, I'll play devil's advocate here. If Gull - on behalf of the Royal family - is not the killer, why is he depicted as the ripper in both Michael Caine's "Jack the Ripper" in 1988 and in Johnny Depp's "From Hell" more recently? If there are better, more viable, suspects then why not frame these films around them? Sure you can argue that these films are not documentaries but still why not choose a "better" suspect as the main character?

Dan Norder
06-25-2008, 04:53 PM
Some-one noticed this was how FreeMasons spelled it.

There's never been any evidence that the Freemasons used the word Juwes (or Jewes for that matter). It appears to be something Stephen Knight made up for his book.

Sure you can argue that these films are not documentaries but still why not choose a "better" suspect as the main character?

"Better" as judged by historians and people concerned with reality isn't the same yardstick as used by fiction writers and film directors. People making and watching entertainment general aren't concerned with what actually happened and what is it all even remotely plausible. That's too much work. They want to have fun, not use their brains.

This, incidentally, is the reason why Patricia Cornwell's theory about the Ripper, along with many other authors in this field, are so ridiculous. They approach writing from a fantasy fulfillment mindset ("What would be most dramatic to happen here?" or "How do I get things moving toward the ending I already have in mind?").

j.r-ahde
06-25-2008, 04:58 PM
Hello Dan!

I might add:

"And the lab, I paid for, confirmed my results!":rolleyes2:

All the best
Jukka

joelhall
07-01-2008, 02:45 AM
the two biggest problems with a conspiracy of this nature as i see it are...

why would they other with these murders? its pointless sending out a 'message' when noone knows youre doing it. theyd just have made them disappear.

if it was this high-level wed probably never have heard of it in the first place.

plus theres no evidence anyway...

joel

Jeff Leahy
07-03-2008, 03:39 AM
Okay, I'll play devil's advocate here. If Gull - on behalf of the Royal family - is not the killer, why is he depicted as the ripper in both Michael Caine's "Jack the Ripper" in 1988 and in Johnny Depp's "From Hell" more recently? If there are better, more viable, suspects then why not frame these films around them? Sure you can argue that these films are not documentaries but still why not choose a "better" suspect as the main character?

Hi Sasha

If I were you i'd leave conspiracy theories..they usually crumble on the grounds that those in authority are incompident..rather than capable of maintaining deceit...so, 911, princess dianna, kennedy...forget it.

However there is sometimes smoke, with the odd tender of fire.

We should be careful of dismissing every detail without question.

Prince Eddy for instance did have an affair in india, and an illegitimate son. Whom the royal family never recognised and denied existed. He was cut out and died broke.

So there may be some truth, entwined in the smoke screen...

The problem is seeing it.

Yours Jeff

Iain Wilson
08-06-2008, 07:01 PM
Okay, I'll play devil's advocate here. If Gull - on behalf of the Royal family - is not the killer, why is he depicted as the ripper in both Michael Caine's "Jack the Ripper" in 1988 and in Johnny Depp's "From Hell" more recently?

Because, as someone said earlier, it makes for a good STORY. Some of the other suspects, whilst more plausible, don't have the same draw and dramatic potential as a conspiracy that includes the very highest movers and shakers in the land! What's going to be more appealing to an audience (especially an audience that knows NOTHING about the crimes) - secret societies, a royal baby, clandestine marriages, a monarchy on the brink of revolution, shadowy police officers and a murderous doctor; or a local with mental problems murdering women for his own twisted reasons?

For the facts we read stuff like Sugden's Complete History. For enterainment Allan Moore's From Hell makes a good read!

nancyrowina
08-15-2008, 12:42 PM
Okay, I'll play devil's advocate here. If Gull - on behalf of the Royal family - is not the killer, why is he depicted as the ripper in both Michael Caine's "Jack the Ripper" in 1988 and in Johnny Depp's "From Hell" more recently?

Sorry to contradict but in "From Hell" didn't they go with it was a free mason surgeon who was developing a degenerative nerve disease that was making him shake so he wouldn't be able to do surgery anymore so he went mad and killed loads of prostitutes under the supervision of other free masons? I don't actually remember the Prince being involved in that movie.
I may be wrong please correct me if I am, I was so horrified by Johnny Depp's shockingly bad cockney accent in that movie I had to keep averting my eye's and groaning so I may have missed something.:sad2:
I remember he (the ripper) gave one of the women grapes and there was coach involved but are you absolutely sure the prince was involved as I only remember the surgeon.

Dan Norder
08-15-2008, 05:36 PM
Hi Nancy,

The part you remember is right, but the impetus for the Freesmason surgeon you refer to (same as the Dr. Gull referred to earlier) to start the killings in the first place was to silence some women who knew about the fact that the prince had a quickie marriage and a child with a poor East End girl.

Christine1932
07-31-2009, 01:36 AM
The whole theory is rubbish. 1988 TV series has wonderful costumes, sets and photography and atmosphere could be cut with Jack“s knife. But the Psycho-logy and theory of Gull as the Ripper belong in the Whitechapel sewers.

RavenDarkendale
10-26-2012, 02:22 PM
How far could they have gone? There is no upper limit on how far people will go to cover the tiniest suggestion of scandal. However...

Let us assume that Prince Eddy did, indeed have a child by a prostitute. He would hardly be the first Royal to do so. His own father had mistresses and children by them. Despite the Wiki entry that states Edward never acknowledged any illegitimate children, I have read that "Bertie" was unusual in that he doted on all his children, bastards included. I have also read that when "Bertie" lay dying, Queen Alexandra sent for his mistresses and kids to say goodbye.

Arrangements were usually made for Royal bastards to be given the means to live comfortably but not extravagantly, education provided, etc. with the warning to say nothing of their Royal parent. Eddy's health and simple mind were a far greater worry to the Royal family than if he entered an unwanted marriage and had bastard children.

Would they have gone so far as the bloody terror of 1888? Yes. But it was not necessary and therefore unlikely to have taken place. Was Eddy "offed" by the Royal Family because they felt him unfit for the throne? Certainly possible, but there was an influenza pandemic at the time of his death, and pictures shot of him close to his death show him looking gaunt and ill. I think it unlikely that the Royals would seek a wife for someone they had no intention of allowing to ascend the throne.

God bless

Raven

Smoking Joe
05-08-2013, 04:02 PM
Not that Im subscribing to the Royalty theory...Im not ,but If a member of the Royals WAS the Ripper ,the public would never be allowed to know,and an alibi would of course be in place to prove it was not so.....I mean being at sandringham ,or on a cruise at the time of any of the murders would be a cast iron defence.The alibi would be easy to construct ,giving the circles royalty moves in,and almost impossible to disprove. You pays yer money,and you takes yer choice.:scratchchin:

Cogidubnus
05-08-2013, 09:58 PM
Erm...no!

If the court minutes (published in the newspapers) said that Prince Eddie was at Balmoral for a social do (8 hours train ride away from London plus local travel) for one of the murders, then there were probably countless servants, guests etc who could've testified otherwise if it wasn't true...how are you on grassy knolls?

All the best

Dave

London Fog
02-22-2015, 04:36 PM
To all of you with such great secret knowledge, can you tell us, with irrefutable proof, who JTR was? I mean, if you know for sure who he WASN'T, then you must know who he WAS. At least Stephen Knight gave reasons why he believed what he said, unlike many here who's favorite word is "rubbish." The truth is, you don't know who Jack the ripper was, and you don't know who he wasn't. Otherwise you would show your proof.

GUT
02-22-2015, 06:07 PM
To all of you with such great secret knowledge, can you tell us, with irrefutable proof, who JTR was? I mean, if you know for sure who he WASN'T, then you must know who he WAS. At least Stephen Knight gave reasons why he believed what he said, unlike many here who's favorite word is "rubbish." The truth is, you don't know who Jack the ripper was, and you don't know who he wasn't. Otherwise you would show your proof.

Did you even read Dave's post above yours.

Knight's little idea has been rejected because the evidence doesn't support it.

Applying your logic, "You don't know who it was, so you don't know who it wasn't" is simple faulty logic, many people can be excluded, those who weren't alive, those who can be shown to have not been in London on relevant dates, those who can be proven to have been in prison or asylums at the times, you see many people can be said with great confidence "Not him".

London Fog
02-22-2015, 06:26 PM
Did you even read Dave's post above yours.

Knight's little idea has been rejected because the evidence doesn't support it.

Applying your logic, "You don't know who it was, so you don't know who it wasn't" is simple faulty logic, many people can be excluded, those who weren't alive, those who can be shown to have not been in London on relevant dates, those who can be proven to have been in prison or asylums at the times, you see many people can be said with great confidence "Not him".

I agree with you. So show me where Gull was in prison, or in an asylum, or on a voyage at the times of the murders. Show me the same for Nettley or Sickert.