Annie Crook

[Limehouse]

Hi Norma
I'm sure you're right that none of the known mentioned celebs were JTR and so many combinations of them have been thrown together by various authors.
I have always though been quite concerned by the idea that J.K. Stephen 'gave up food on hearing of the death of eddy',i mean they weren't that close were they? that he would want to die himself within weeks and then the case being closed almost immediately afterwards.Never mind ,just one of those concidences again i suppose.
I have seen mentioned on a forum that was not a jtr website,it was one about freemasons, that someone's research had led him to believe that someone (and he did mention the name but it was not one i knew) from the 'marlbrough club?' had got Mary Kelly pregnant at some point,this would presumably be while she was in the west end.What really caught my attention was that it wasn't a known name connected with JTR.If i can find this again i'll post a link.

Hi there - Sadly - J K Stepen suffered from a mental illness that may have affected his reaction to the news of the death of his friend and student in a more extreme way than others would have reacted. Various members of Stephen's family were affected by the illness - including his cousin - Virginia Woolf - who took her own life by drowning herself.

[Limehouse]

Hello all,

In the latest A-Z, page 17, the following is noted..

...Prince Albert Victor was central to several scandals, although the only one to become public was the Cleveland St scandal. In 1889 his name was linked with a homosexual brothel frequented by several young aristocrats, but a cover-up kept his name out of the British newspapers... (from various sources)

and further...

...The release of Special Branch papers in 2005 revealed both Palace and police had been at some pains to pay off and send them (Mrs Haddon and her son, Clarence abroad and there seems every possibility that the Haddon claim was true. A note written by the Duke Of Clarence in 1891 to his solicitor, George Lewis, dicussed paying £200 (almost £12,000 in today's money) for the return of the letters written to a Miss Richardson and another woman, thought by modern commentators to have been prostitutes, who were blackmailing the Prince following the announcement of his engagement to Mary of Teck....

It is therefore interesting to note that suggestions of 5 things here, blackmail, involvement with prostitutes, a love child, police involvement and a cover-up, were, although at the wrong time, with the wrong people, all part of the original story that came out in Stephen Knight's book as told by Joseph Sickert. The other thing to note is the date of the release of the Special Branch Papers, 2005. Joseph William Charles Gorman Sickert died in 2003.

Whether true or false, it leaves a very interesting little set of circumstances to ponder over.

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil

Great post. It just goes to show what these things can grow into! A royal scandal and a set of murders that rocked the nation eventually become entwined!

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma

I have heard that Randolph Churchill had syphilis too - in fact there was a probgramme on TV not so long ago that examined his last illness and came to that conclusion. However - I think they presumed he had contracted it abroad but I can't remember why. He may well have also used prosititutes as men of his type seemed to. Perhaps it was because they had strange attitudes towards sex with their wives once they had produced offspring.

.

Yes Julie,except that Randolph"s wife led an even more libidinous life than her husband Randolph! Poor Winston,he adored his mother "from afar" but she seems to have preferred to lead the life of Riley rather than attend to her two son"s as they grew into adults.

[Rubyretro]

He may well have also used prosititutes as men of his type seemed to. Perhaps it was because they had strange attitudes towards sex with their wives once they had produced offspring

.

I'm not sure that I agree with "men of his type" and "strange attitudes towards sex"..I think that 'prostitution' was a vastly different thing in the past than it is today (viz à viz the motivations of the two parties concerned :

Firstly you have 'respectable' single women refusing sex outside of marriage,
cutting down on the prospects of a single man getting any, considerably.

Next you have no, or very dodgy, birth control and high death rates in childbirth -so even for married women, sex was a bit like playing Russiun Roulette. Once they had done their 'duty' they might not have been overly keen.

Then, you still have 'arranged marriages' for people of Churchill's class...but not only them . I think that if any woman saw a good future for herself, not in the precarious life of a skivvy, and with children and grandchildren to see to her in her old age, she would think twice about refusing a proposal from any man in a position to afford a Family and wanting to make a home...she might not get another proposal. Therefore, there must have been many marriages where there was no sexual attraction, and people didn't even like each other, once the 'descendance' was secured.

Then you get all those poor men in the Doss houses, who have the same biological needs as everyone else, but lived 'hand to mouth' and couldn't afford to pay for a Family..

...and the women in the same boat, who at times had only this option of making money, open to them, resorted to prostitution.

Women may have gone into 'heavy flirtations' with men that they did find attractive, and not neccessarily risked getting pregnant by them (how do we know that Jenny Jerome was "libidinous" ?)..and the men used prostitutes (even if they were emotionally involved elsewhere).

I think prostitution and using prostitutes was far more socially acceptable than today.

[Natalie Severn]

Women may have gone into 'heavy flirtations' with men that they did find attractive, and not neccessarily risked getting pregnant by them (how do we know that Jenny Jerome was "libidinous" ?)..and the men used prostitutes (even if they were emotionally involved elsewhere).

Hi Rubyretro,
There were two recent TV programmes about her ,both of which named her many lovers.Also the Prince of Wales set the tone and had lots of mistresses--Jenny was rumoured to have been one of them, as well as his frequent trips to Paris to go with prostitutes,go to the Moulin Rouge etc. It was something that was boasted about by the men that frequented the Jockey Club in Opera and the Prince was the most illustrious Englishman to be part of that set.They have even named the street next to the Jockey Club after him,in his honour as the "Royal Rake in Residence ".
Best,
Norma

[Rubyretro]

sorry -I see that I badly formed my phrase, Nats -obviously the men used prostitutes. what I mean't by Jenny being 'libidinious' or not, was that the word 'lover' had a slightly different meaning then..how do we know how many blokes J actually slept with?

I mean she bore children, so she was fertile -and there was no 'pill'-, and she didn't have loads of 'illegitimates'..so she might not have been up to half as much as we imagine.

[Krinoid]

Hi Norma

So - if the Prince was a likely or possible client of the brothel - he was unlikely to have entered into a marriage with a shop girl?

Can you jopin the WS even if you don't live in London and can't always get to lectures? The meetings sound so interesting.

He could have been bisexual

[Errata]

He could have been bisexual

It seems infinitely more possible that he was an idiot.

[Krinoid]

It seems infinitely more possible that he was an idiot.

or the poster?

[Natalie Severn]

or the poster?

Nobody is being an idiot Krinoid.He may have been bisexual and he may not have been very bright.But I actually read some things he said to the recruits at Toynbee Hall when it was newly built and he spoke like a person of average intelligence who had had the advantage of being well taught.

[Krinoid]

Nobody is being an idiot Krinoid.He may have been bisexual and he may not have been very bright.But I actually read some things he said to the recruits at Toynbee Hall when it was newly built and he spoke like a person of average intelligence who had had the advantage of being well taught.

That is why I think Eddy should not be called an idiot.

[HollyDolly]

Annie Crook

Couple of brief points:

1] don't think it's true that the Royal Family were held in much awe in those days - there were several attempts to assassinate Queen Victoria, and the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) was quite often booed when he appeared in public. Including a divorce case and the Tranby Croft case when both times he appeared in court.

2] I made a quick check of when Walter Sickert was first associated by a third party with the Ripper Case, and the best I've come up with was 1947 when Sir Osbert Sitwell mentioned in some memoirs that Sickert often talked about the case and claimed to know the identity of JtR. I think this was the origin of the Mad Veterinary Student. Not that I looked all that hard, so I won't be surprised if someone comes up with an earlier date for the first reported association of Sickert with the case.

3] The very concept of a bunch of East End whores blackmailing the RF always sounded totally preposterous to me - for a start, how would they have gone about it? How would anyone go about it today?? Did they plan just to write a simple letter - "All is known" - and take it from there???

Cheers,

Graham

I'll have to read the Cornwell book on Sickert again, but he was probably blowing smoke so to speak,if we don't know who the Ripper was, then neither did he most likely.
As far as the East End whores are concerned,I would assume they would have to send a letter detailing any activity between themselves and Prince Eddy or his father to prove they were telling the truth.You know,names, dates, places,etc.
The only reason I can think of Prince Eddy would go around with these women,if he indeed did, was to wallow in the mire,so to speak, getting back at most likely his grandma,Queen Victoria,rather than his mother Alexandra,but i could be wrong.Besides a payback sort of thing,you had women like Cora Pearl, Jose Collins, Gaby Deslys,and others who catered to the uppercrust,who i imagine were quite health consious if you get my drift.After all,it wouldn't do to give the King of Spain a veneral diease,and loose those lovely gifts and jewels he bestowed on you for services rendered.
Why any royal or nobleman would go after East End whores when you have the creme de la creme of the demimonde to choose from is beyond me.
Unless it was a payback to someone or a self abasement thing.
And why kill these women, why not give them money and sign a paper stating that if they ever try to extort more money or go to the press with their stories, they will be sent to jail for blackmail and slander.
And if the royals did have them killed, why in such a dramatic fashion? Why not just cut their throats or base them in the head and make it look like a robbery or something.After all this is a danger run by all prostitutes even in our times, of being killed by a client or serail killer.
Of course the prince could have visited a brothel rather than just some streetwalker which would make a little more sense.Some of them were quite well known.
And in regards to a secret marriage between Prince Eddy and a shopgirl, I seem to recall that King George the 4th,when still a prince married a Mary Herbert or Fitzherbert who was a catholic.I have forgotten what happend, but she never was made Queen of England.

[Mayerling]

Many years ago I came to the conclusion that despite "democracy" or"republicanism" most people in Great Britain, the Commonwealth, and the United States have a degree of social snobbery they do not like to drop. They will even transfer it to certainl families who are not really noble or royal.

In the U.S. it is the Kennedys. If you are a fan or not you can still get tied down to debates about Chappaquiddick or Marilyn Monroe. A stupid comparison of Lincoln's and Jack Kennedy's assassination "coincidences" which lies contiuously (Booth running from a theater to a tobacco barn is not the same as Oswald running from a book warehouse/depository to a movie house!) has been changed with a "funny ending" that a week before Lincoln died he was in "Monroe, Maryland" and the week before he was killed JFK was "inside" Marilyn Monroe - who had actually been dead a year.

Same with the Brits and the Royal Family. Look at the continuous interest almost fifteen years after her death with Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed.
Or two generations ago Princess Margaret and her first love, a married war hero. It is because these people allow us to live a different lifestyle vicariously.

Victoria was not always liked - yeah, because she overdid the morning for Albert and for years was barely seen by the public (until they began making remarks about her having a highland fling with her ghillie John Brown). But the assassins that were mentioned earlier were for the most part mental cases. One, was a nephew of a leacing chartist, and tried to force the Queen to sign a reform intended document. As for Edward, yeah he certainly got into scrapes with the Mordaunt Divorce and Tranby Croft, but he also was popular because he had the common touch - which aided him when fe finally became King in 1901. Oh, whereas Victoria was attacked seven or eight times from 1840 - 1882, only one attack on Edward occurred in 1900, while on a trip to Belgium by a foreign anarchist. That is hardly a great deal of dislike.

John Sickert (if we can call him that) , and Stephen Knight, and Dr. Stowell tapped into that romantic / raffish snobbery in the Royal Cover-up. That it survives even now just shows how powerful popular urban myth can be

Jeff

[harry]

I am related to a Nell Crook.She was my aunt by marriage.I have a copy of her marriage certificate kindly given by a former poster,a person who attempted to trace a relationship between Nell and Annie.No relationship could be established.

As early as the 1930's ,I became aware of rumours from Nell's children,my cousins,of a royal relationship to their family.This was reinforced by another aunt,a sister-in-law of Nell,who also at that time,1930's,mentioned such a connection.This aunt would have first met Nell prior to 1920,not sure of exact year,

It is a queer coincidence that two independent families of the same name have been so linked to a supposed royal connection,but beyond remembering that it was spoken of in regard to Nell,I cannot recall any details being given.

One other mystery.On the death of my uncle,Nell's husband,she having pre deceased him,a total stranger called at the house and wished to buy two paintings which were in the families possession.He offered one hundred pounds each,but gave no details of who he was or how he knew of the paintings,or why he wished possession.

The above is true.Make of it what you will.

[Graham]

Fascinating, Harry. And I think this underlines the reason why Stephen Knight's book was so popular, as Jeff points out. (By the way, it was Joseph Sickert, not John). At the back of the popular mind and imagination there always lies the concept that there ain't no smoke without fire, and I would never discount the possibility that Eddy had some kind of liason with a working-class woman. His old man had a serious liking for actresses. But I can't really buy the Royal Conspiracy - doesn't really make any sense to me.

Harry says that an unknown person bought 2 paintings from his forebears, giving no reason why he wanted them. Didn't Sickert claim that someone walked into his Dieppe studio out of the blue and paid him over the odds for a poor painting, without discussion, negotiation or explanation?

Graham