Druitt and Monro

[rjpalmer]

I'm guessing that "Isabel Majendie Hill" (referred to above) is the same lady who married Charles Druitt, (son of Robert Druitt) on September 15th 1888 in Wiltshire? I pulled the certificate in March 1984 as part of my quest to trace down all branches of the Druitt family. I think what caught my eye here is the date of the marriage but I don't have a note of whether I did a search to see if the wedding was covered in the local newspapers. Sometimes the guests are listed and it would have been interesting to see if MJD's name was listed.

KS

It's not absolutely proven that M.J. Druitt was present that day, September 15th, but a list of wedding presents shows that the Druitt brothers--William, Montague, Edward, and Arthur--presented the bride and groom with a set of dessert knives and forks.



Meanwhile, I can't think of any reason why Isabel Majendie Hill would have taken any notice of Henry Gyllis Majendie if she had visited Winchester College.

It's a real stumper.

RP

[Fiver]

Meanwhile, I can't think of any reason why Isabel Majendie Hill would have taken any notice of Henry Gyllis Majendie if she had visited Winchester College.

It's a real stumper.

RP

If Isabel Majendie Hill visited Winchester College during the time Henry Gyllis Majendie was a student and his surname was mentioned, she probably would have met the boy. But the two were step third cousins. How many of your third cousins have you met? If your family was facing scandal, would seek out your step third cousin for help?

Or in the case of Montague Druitt's siblings, would you seek out your cousin's wife's step third cousin for help?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Isabel Majendie Hill visited Winchester College during the time Henry Gyllis Majendie was a student and his surname was mentioned, she probably would have met the boy. But the two were step third cousins. How many of your third cousins have you met? If your family was facing scandal, would seek out your step third cousin for help?

Or in the case of Montague Druitt's siblings, would you seek out your cousin's wife's step third cousin for help?

But surely that’s something that we can’t quantify by likelihoods Fiver or by “what are the chances of.” We can’t prove that Majendie was Macnaghten source of private info but he might have been. If someone in the family was concerned about approaching the police and they wanted to be assured of discretion who better than someone like Majendie? If we are talking “what are the chances of” then “what are the chances of” a senior police officer naming a rather unlikely sounding suspect using information that he’d received via the family (whether directly or indirectly) and it turns out that one of that Officer’s best friends is related by marriage to the killers family?

[rjpalmer]

We can’t prove that Majendie was Macnaghten source of private info but he might have been.

Hi Herlock,

Personally, I doubt that Col. Majendie was the source of Macnaghten's "private information," and the Hainsworths never suggested that he was, but Fiver is simply 'trolling.' He doesn't know, either.

The well-known phrase "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing," is also relevant here, and Fiver's belief that the link between the Du Boulay family and the Majendie family was a weak one is provably wrong.

Let's return to the Rev. Du Boulay of Winchester College who taught and boarded Colonel Majendie's son (and who also knew Druitt). Remember that he is Isabel Majendie Druitt's uncle.

In April 1888, his daughter (Isabel's cousin) married a bloke named A. H. Evans.

Among the esteemed guest was none other than Colonel Majendie. Also present was Majendie's cousin, the Rev. Henry William Majendie.

But how can that be? Aren't they just step-cousins of some sort? In some people's world, it is utterly untenable--impossible....

The reality is that what we might call the 'lower upper classes' in Victorian England were insular, were proud of their family ties--including extended families ties--and frequently socialized.




The idea that they couldn't or wouldn't discuss shared acquaintances one is a bizarre one.

[rjpalmer]

By the way, the groom that day, the Rev. Du Bolay's son-in-law, A. H. Evans, was an Oxford man and a keen cricket player. He was a bit younger than Druitt (he got his B.A. in 1883, as opposed to Druitt's in 1880) but their time at Oxford overlapped.

I know they played cricket against each other on at least one occasion.

Small world.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi DW,

Both my brothers went to a prep school in London back in the 1960s, and all the boys knew that sexual abuse by a master was something to be feared and/or endured, and too often it was suffered in silence by a victim who might only have spoken about the "shame" of it many years later, if ever. I'm afraid the reality was that very few cases would have been reported to an adult, such as the headmaster, school nurse or a parent, out of sheer embarrassment as much as the fear of not being believed. I suspect it would have been worse in Victorian times, when young children were supposed to be seen and not heard, and older ones were taught to speak only when spoken to. Talk of unwanted sexual advances would have been - er - unwanted.

It seems rather unlikely to me that Valentine would have involved the police if word had reached him about any such abuse happening under his roof, when he could have quietly sacked any member of staff for unspecified 'serious trouble' and saved himself and his school's reputation a whole lot of unwanted grief. Walls of silence have gone up over the years in schools, scout groups and church choirs, which by rights should have had young victims shouting instead from the rooftops.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

You may well be right about the reasons Valentine acted the way he did. It is certainly true that sexual abuse was said to be common in public schools, and that a wall of silence tended to be the result. Maybe something caused the wall of silence to collapse momentarily, Valentine was informed, believed the allegations, and reacted quickly, and somehow the wall of silence was then rebuilt, and Valentine was able to hush the whole thing up.

Yes, if only Valentine knew, and there was no risk of anyone else finding out it's likely that he wouldn't inform the police. But if others knew, and there was the possibility of parents learning about it, then I think he would have had to inform the police to demonstrate that he was looking after his pupils and not his errant staff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Personally, I doubt that Col. Majendie was the source of Macnaghten's "private information," and the Hainsworths never suggested that he was, but Fiver is simply 'trolling.' He doesn't know, either.

The well-known phrase "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing," is also relevant here, and Fiver's belief that the link between the Du Boulay family and the Majendie family was a weak one is provably wrong.

Let's return to the Rev. Du Boulay of Winchester College who taught and boarded Colonel Majendie's son (and who also knew Druitt). Remember that he is Isabel Majendie Druitt's uncle.

In April 1888, his daughter (Isabel's cousin) married a bloke named A. H. Evans.

Among the esteemed guest was none other than Colonel Majendie. Also present was Majendie's cousin, the Rev. Henry William Majendie.

But how can that be? Aren't they just step-cousins of some sort? In some people's world, it is utterly untenable--impossible....

The reality is that what we might call the 'lower upper classes' in Victorian England were insular, were proud of their family ties--including extended families ties--and frequently socialized.




The idea that they couldn't or wouldn't discuss shared acquaintances one is a bizarre one.

Hi Roger,

What I should have said of course is the Majendie was a potential conduit between Macnaghten and the Druitt family as opposed to the source of the information.

I don’t know about you but I’ve always felt that it’s often the case that more stringent requirements are made of Druitt as opposed to some other suspects. I’m not accusing Fiver of taking the following approach but it’s often a case with some of “there’s no evidence that Druitt could have been a killer therefore Macnaghten must have simply plucked his name out of thin air.” With no consideration of the possibility that Macnaghten might have known something that we don’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Caz,

You may well be right about the reasons Valentine acted the way he did. It is certainly true that sexual abuse was said to be common in public schools, and that a wall of silence tended to be the result. Maybe something caused the wall of silence to collapse momentarily, Valentine was informed, believed the allegations, and reacted quickly, and somehow the wall of silence was then rebuilt, and Valentine was able to hush the whole thing up.

Yes, if only Valentine knew, and there was no risk of anyone else finding out it's likely that he wouldn't inform the police. But if others knew, and there was the possibility of parents learning about it, then I think he would have had to inform the police to demonstrate that he was looking after his pupils and not his errant staff.

Hello Doc,

Sad to say but I expect that even the parents of children who had been abused whilst in the care of these types of schools would have wanted it hushed up; with the poor child probably moved quietly to another school. It’s that horror of scandal that was so paramount in those days. It’s another terrible thought but I wonder how many were unlucky enough to be moved from one place of abuse straight to another? We can only wonder how many Victorian upper class fathers simply told their terrified sons to “man up,” and fight back. How many were mentally scared for life? Some of them finally escaping from these places to find themselves a couple of years later in the horror show of the First World War trenches.

Sobering thoughts.

[GBinOz]

This also interests me. I think that as Druitt got into "serious trouble" and was dismissed, he would probably have been required to leave his accomodation at the school at once. So possibly we don't know where he resided at that time. The 30th December date is also confusing, as it surely would have been some time after William commenced his investigation if he was advised on 11th December, as he would surely have wanted to resolve the problem before Christmas. "That was on 30th December" could mean that William went to the school on 30th December. If so, William was extremely slow to react. Or it could mean that the school dismissed Monty on 30th December. But if the latter, it seems unlikely to be correct as it was long after Monty's death. A mistake for 30th November has been suggested, and this being a Friday, does make some potential sense.

As to why William might have had someone else search through Monty's belongings, I can't imagine, as it seems to be totally inappropriate.

Hi Doc,

It seems to me unlikely that, had he been dismissed on 30 Nov. that he would have accomplished a move the next morning. I think it more likely that the dismissal was close to or on 30 Dec, possibly as a result of Monty's failure to appear at start of term. That would explain why he hadn't moved out of Blackheath. It needs to be remembered that on 30 Dec it was not known that Monty was dead.

"Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die."
Once again, it appears that the "suicide" note, addressed to William, was concerned with his mother being committed to a mental asylum rather than a dismissal.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Suppose for the sake of argument suppose that Herlock's suggestion that the "suicide" note may have been written some time before and put in a drawer is correct.

Yes, that and other possibilities have previously been considered, like the Friday of the last murder (Kelly), and likewise those you suggested, but did he change his mind and the note sat in his desk drawer?
We simply do not know.

Perhaps the Friday in question was when the mother was committed to Brooke Asylum, or when Monty stayed with his brother for a night towards the end of October. These are likely as the undelivered note was addressed to William who would be privy to the knowledge of the day in question and that it was referring to his mother's committal, rather than a purely speculated dismissal. Suppose that Monty decided to go to the Manor House Asylum in Chiswick, as RD suggested, to explore the possibility of having his mother transferred into the care of the Tukes. This is William's testimony to the inquest:

"William H. Druitt said he lived at Bournemouth, and that he was a solicitor. The deceased was his brother, who was 31 last birthday. He was a barrister-at-law, and an assistant master in a school at Blackheath. He had stayed with witness at Bournemouth for a night towards the end of October. Witness heard from a friend on the 11th of December that deceased had not been heard of at his chambers for more than a week. Witness then went to London to make inquiries, and at Blackheath he found that deceased had got into serious trouble at the school, and had been dismissed. That was on the 30th of December. Witness had deceased's things searched where he resided, and found a paper addressed to him (produced). The Coroner read the letter, which was to this effect: - "Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die." Witness, continuing, said deceased had never made any attempt on his life before. His mother became insane in July last. He had no other relative.

His testimony is in the third-person, so not exactly the words spoken by William.

Monty leaves Blackheath on December 1 and calls into his law chambers where he is noticed by someone. He then buys a return ticket to Chiswick, only half of which was used. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it would be reasonable to conclude that he didn't return from Chiswick. I agree with your final paragraph in the suggestion that it was someone at Chiswick was probably the last person to see him alive.

The return ticket was from Hammersmith to Charing Cross, not Chiswick
I'm getting the urge to delve into the archives because the questions running through my mind have been asked before, I just can't remember the answers.

[Wickerman]

. . .

Then there is the further ambiguity of what took place on 30 December. Was that the day of his dismissal, or the day William found out about the dismissal (the latter, I think). Having been informed that his brother was missing on 11 December, would William wait until 30 December to make inquiries at Blackheath. Possibly, if he, like the cricket club that removed Monty from office, thought Monty had gone abroad. Would Monty's failure to report for work (at start of term?) have constituted "serious trouble"? Was Monty's law practice impinging on his duties at the school and his failure to appear for classes the last straw? Sugden speculated that 30 Dec was a misprint for 30 Nov., but his speculation is now quoted as fact. The fact is that we don't know when Monty was dismissed, or for what reason.

It is a shame the dates on the two cheques were not mentioned, so perhaps the dates on both cheques were prior to 1st Dec.?
If they were towards the end of December, surely this would have been mentioned somewhere as an indication of when he died.
So, this may also be taken as a factor in support of the dating error suggested (30th Dec. = 30th Nov.)?

Also, I can't see William waiting for 3 weeks to go to Blackheath after learning on the 11th that his brother was missing.
Perhaps you are not aware, the term "gone abroad" was a euphemism in the 19th century, usually used as a means of avoiding inquisitive questions.
You may recall the suspect John Sanders, the insane medical student, who being searched for by police was told by a relative (mother?), that he had "gone abroad".
It could be literal, but it could also be a euphemism for him being incarcerated in a prison, or an asylum.

[Wickerman]

. . .

William goes to London. He arrives and finds out that Monty had been sacked from the school. Why did he have someone else search Monty’s things ‘where he resided’?

Once William arrived at the school, I expect one of the school officials would show William to his brothers rooms, and presumably helped him search for personal possessions. Perhaps that is all it means?

[Wickerman]

Hi Doc,

It seems to me unlikely that, had he been dismissed on 30 Nov. that he would have accomplished a move the next morning. I think it more likely that the dismissal was close to or on 30 Dec, possibly as a result of Monty's failure to appear at start of term. That would explain why he hadn't moved out of Blackheath. It needs to be remembered that on 30 Dec it was not known that Monty was dead.

Don't forget, the report did say the body was decomposed, which is consistent with it being in water for weeks.

"Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die."
Once again, it appears that the "suicide" note, addressed to William, was concerned with his mother being committed to a mental asylum rather than a dismissal.

Thats how I see it too.

[Fiver]

But surely that’s something that we can’t quantify by likelihoods Fiver or by “what are the chances of.” We can’t prove that Majendie was Macnaghten source of private info but he might have been. If someone in the family was concerned about approaching the police and they wanted to be assured of discretion who better than someone like Majendie? If we are talking “what are the chances of” then “what are the chances of” a senior police officer naming a rather unlikely sounding suspect using information that he’d received via the family (whether directly or indirectly) and it turns out that one of that Officer’s best friends is related by marriage to the killers family?

Could Macnaughton have gotten his information from Vivian Majendie? It's possible, but the Hainsworths are stating it as proven fact.

"Macnaghten believed that if he been on the Force the year before - and not been rudely fired by Warren before he even started - he would have, as a favour to a close friend, checked and presumably cleared M. J. Druitt. Such a connection to the East End horrors could only do reputational damage to both prominent, respectable families.

Then in 1891 came the shocking revelation from Majendie. He had been approached by a distressed Isabella Druitt, the widow of Dr Robert and Montie's aunt who divulged that their deceased member had indeed been "Jack the Ripper". The aunt had approached Dr Robert Anderson via the Earl of Crawford (his sister was married into the Majendies) without divulging her name. Anderson had assured her the maniac was still alive and stalking victims, so no need to worry."

If the Druitts had already contacted Anderson by way of the Earl of Crawford, why would they contact Macnaghton by way of Majendie?

If the Druitts wanted to be assured of discretion, then Macnaughton was an abysmal choice as he repeatedly claimed that Montague Druitt was the Ripper.

The Hainsworth's theory contradicts itself. After already finding a discrete police contact, Robert Anderson, by way of the discrete Earl of Crawford, the Druitts then, even though they don't need to, also pass that information on to:

* Charles Druitt, who violates the confessional and blabs the secret to a vicar.
* The nameless vicar, who shares a thinly fictionalized version that becomes public.
* Henry Farquharson, a malicious gossip who blabs the whole thing in public.
* Melville Macnaghton, who spreads the secret and eventually makes it public.
* Vivian Majende, who keeps his mouth shut, but doesn't end his friendship with Macnaghton even though Macnaghton is repeatedly passing along gossip that "could only do reputational damage to both prominent, respectable families."

And why would Montague Druitt's siblings have to reach out to a cousin's wife's step-grandfather's nephew's friend?

Surely some of Druitt's closer relatives, who were solicitors, would have had trusted police contacts - cousin Robert Druitt (1847-1914), uncle James Druitt (1816-1904), cousin James Druitt Jr (1846-1929), cousin John Druitt (1862-1931), cousin Alan Druitt (1863-1933), cousin Melville Druitt (1866-1951), brother William Druitt (1856-1909). Uncle James Druitt Sr and Montague's brother William also served as coroners.

[Fiver]

It's not absolutely proven that M.J. Druitt was present that day, September 15th, but a list of wedding presents shows that the Druitt brothers--William, Montague, Edward, and Arthur--presented the bride and groom with a set of dessert knives and forks.


RP

BTW, thanks for the source. Newspapers.com did not give a guest list.