View Full Version : No smoke without fire

Billy Bulger
08-18-2008, 05:58 PM
While I admit that it is more likely that Jack the Ripper was a common East Ender than a Royal or associate of the First Family, I think its important to remember that far-fetched or apparently far-fetched theories sometimes turn out to be true. Dont stop reading, hear me out for a sec. This has proven to be the case in various instances throughout history, a similar case or one that bears a relationship here would be the infamous Manson Murders of 40 years ago I mean who would have believed that race wars nonsense?!? Dont worry I'm not going to start going on about JFK or 911 or anything like that but I do think it is very important to keep in mind that many a 'tale' of the ilk espoused by Knight, Speiring and Fairclough orginate from a place of fact; surely there is at least a germ of truth in Joseph Sickert's story and the writings of the above authors and their buddies.

As a footnote I might also add that the more 'romantic' aspects of Jack the Ripper account for a large bulk of people attracted to the case. Personally speaking I wouldnt have found The Great Victorian Mystery appealing had I not been brought up with the romance of the case (The Final Solution, From Hell etc) so at the very least, Stephen Knight and Co. should be commended for perpetuating interest in the Autumn of Terror.

Billy Bulger

__________________________________________________ _______________
It was Dr. Gull and you know it was!! :toff:

08-25-2008, 10:51 PM
Hi Billy,

I've only just seen your post. I'm surprised no-one has responded to it.

As far as I'm able to tell, the Royal Conspiracy was first publicised by Dr Thomas Stowell who put forward the theory that the women were killed by the Duke of Clarence (who, incidentally, bore an amazing resemblance to our old pal Montague Druitt). Stowell claimed that Gull followed the Duke around the East End on the murder nights - for what purpose, one asks? The fact that the Duke's movements on every murder night can be acocunted for didn't apparently cut any ice with Stowell. Some support for Stowell's theory came from a French author (sorry, can't remember his name), but the whole thing is so implausible as to be ridiculous.

And then there is the theory put forward by Joseph Sickert and written about by Stephen Knight that it was Gull who was the killer, bumping off the women one by one because they were planning to blackmail the Government over the naughty doings of Clarence at a 'gay' club in Cleveland Street. Oh, and his secret marriage to a commoner called Annie Crook, too. And the Masons got involved, as well...

I agree that Stephen Knight's book was a good read, but sadly it's all moonshine. Joseph Sickert eventually admitted that his 'theory', and what he'd told Knight about the case, were sheer fabrication.

There never was a 'Royal Connection'....I think most of it came from the excellent story-telling skills and vivid imagination of at least one old man.



08-26-2008, 12:05 AM
For me all these outlandish claims just come from the same mind-set that fuels modern day conspiracy theories - some people just can't accept that something so famous and enduring could be done by a, ahem, 'normal' east end citizen.

08-26-2008, 12:23 PM
Didn't Stowell change his theory and that he later said it wasn't Clarence but JK Stephen? I would like to know when and where he changed it.

08-26-2008, 12:26 PM
I recently saw a book called the jack the ripper: the victorian mystery by Paul Begg. I have looked for it but when i order it from amazon and etc it always gives me another Paul Begg JTR book? was it printed under another title
Any suggestions?

Billy Bulger
09-01-2008, 01:06 PM
...but sadly it's all moonshine. Joseph Sickert eventually admitted that his 'theory', and what he'd told Knight about the case, were sheer fabrication.


Hi Graham, I can certainly see what youre saying and I too have heard on numerous occasions of how Joseph Sickert referred to his story as 'a whopping fib' but in Melvin Fairclough's The Ripper and the Royals the author explains why Sickert retracted his story told to Stephen Knight. Now while attempting to resurrect an apparent 'whopping fib' as fact would be priority#1 for Fairclough and his publishing house in order to shift units I dont think Sickert's tale as fanciful as it is should be dismissed entirely.

Having said as much, it has been suggested on this site that the Royal Conspiracy originated with an 1890's Whitechapel club. Does anyone have any further information on this?

Leighton Young
09-22-2008, 07:01 PM
my great grandmother was born in 1886 and my mum used to tell me that at the time of the murders there was two theories that people in newcastle were talking about.. one was that the killer was a doctor who was angered that his son had caught VD but then she said "but that was rubbish because every one knew that it was the queens grandson because he was seen" now i dont know if this is true or false or anything like that but it goes to show that the theory of the royal connection was prevelent at the time of the killings and not thought up in the late 60s by Stowell.

09-23-2008, 11:15 PM
Maybe a case of mistaken identity, if you've ever compared photos of Clarence with those of Druitt...


Jay Batsford
02-07-2009, 03:11 AM
There was a strong Republican movement in late Victorian era and this crock was started by them as a way of drumming up anti-monarchy sentiments in the country! It sells movie tickets and shifts a few books but is as realistic and factual as Eric Cartmens essay on how Karl masterminded 911!

01-14-2010, 10:06 AM
Conspiracy theories whether it was the Royals or the Mason or the PTA provide both closure and explanation. Here is a guy going around killing women in the most inhumane ways. We don't know the who or the why, and officially, he got away with it. Now, who in England would have the power to be untouchable? I mean, the police cannot be all dumb, right? So, we focus our anger, and rage, and solutions on those people who can evade the law, that can "buy" their way out of the justice system. People who are untouchable. And who are the most untouchable people in England at this time--the Royals. Even with all of their scandals and bloodletting--I mean the wars of Europe were nothing more than one side of the family fighting the other side--they are the people that everyone loathes, while, ironically, admire at the same time. I mean look at the two princes. Here are two good looking guys who are rich beyond means, yet some working class bird always thinks she is going to end up with one of them. I mean, did anyone really think that poor old Abberline--who was just a working class slob--was going to go up to Buckingham Palace and put the Queen in the handcuffs? Of course, it doesn't help that you have people who took advantage of the murders, and turned Jack the Ripper into a royal terrorist, preying on the poor and lower, lower middle class. Not to mention some writers and hacks who call themselves journalists who had a bone to pick with "the system." The class system in England is still a major dividing point, and let's stick it to the Royals to make the Ripper one of their own! I mean just look what they did with Diana. Here is a woman who divorced herself from the Royal family--didn't want anything to do with them--yet when she is killed the newspaper's make her into the "people princess" ie a middle-class a person who everbody could relate to. (BTW, see The Queen with Helen Mirren, great movie!)

In a way though, I would wish that was the royals or the masons. At least, we would the why of what was happening that autumn of terror.

01-14-2010, 10:47 AM
There is a field of study among anthropologists called called geo-mythology. It concerns the study folklores and legends and how they relate to geologic events. There is one striking feature of this field of study. Any event or phenomena can spawn a much larger story. The murders were without doubt real, and the question very quickly becomes what surrounding the murders falls in the realm of human embellishment, misinterpretation, deceit, and misidentified patterns? I have no solid answers in this regard, but wanted to point out that we are dealing with a story that has been highly convoluted. Given the very poor understanding of the police of the time, even if an arrest, prosecution and punishment had been present, we could even still doubt the validity of the conclusion. Respectfully Dave

03-30-2010, 02:44 AM
i dont believe this conspricy theory but it does make a cracking good yarn much mor fun than the more likely theorys

The Grave Maurice
03-30-2010, 02:58 AM
Quite right, nug. That's why many of the films and novels on the subject adopt that theory. It makes a good story. By comparison, most of the other theories are, well, boring.

07-18-2011, 07:40 PM
My first post on The Casebook. I like the OP; am a fan of the Royal Theory. Stephen Knights book was a cracking read and i would so love this to be the final proven theory, but alas i just cant ever see it being proven.
However all the clues pointing to this theory are hard to ignore, so i remain open minded about it. There are lots to discuss on this but I cant help wonder why Warren and other top Scotland Yard officers were called to Goulston Street in response to the "juwes" writing. Surely if it were merely an anti semetic comment the attending detectives could have sorted it, but i see the calling out of Warren as a response to the potential Masonic implications! After all he was a part of the Order as were many of the Top Brass at SY.


07-18-2011, 10:45 PM
Hello alex,

However all the clues pointing to this theory are hard to ignore, so i remain open minded about it.

Knight's book continues to fascinate people because, as nugnug mentioned, it makes a very good read and offers a solution to the case, as far-fetched as it may be. It should be noted however that quite a few of its claims have been proven wrong or corrected, including parts of the masonic connection (Dr Gull was not a mason for instance) and the fear of the Royals of a possible danger to the monarchy caused by the alleged marriage between Clarence and a Catholic girl (such a marriage would have been illegal back in the day and thus null and void in the first place), etc.

I also try to keep an open mind about it but as things stand, there is little substance left from Stephen Knight's theory. It's difficult for me to blend out its glaring holes, that's why I rate it as little more than well-written fiction centered around an old murder mystery. I don't doubt that Knight believed in what he wrote, he also was the first to unearth a few interesting tidbits about the case in the official documents he accessed. My personal doubts should not be seen as a personal attack against him, I just think he jumped to conclusions too quickly. That and the inclusion of quotes from the made-up and antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion nailed the coffin shut for me.