Tossing out a scenerio

[RavenDarkendale]

This is just an exercise in possibilities.

1.)Prince Eddy, son of Edward VII is forever entangled in JtR lore, even though he can be proven to be elsewhere during the murders.

2.) Montague John Druitt, named as a suspect by MacNaughton, looks a lot like Prince Eddy. While a possibility exists that he could have committed at least some of the murders, there is no tangible prove he was even involved. Perhaps sufficient evidence for making a case for him once did exist, but has become lost as have many papers from the JtR files.

Now, here's the thing. Edward VII was an incurable rake and was believed to have bastard children by at least one mistress. Queen Alexandria was reported to have brought his mistress and children to say goodbye when the King lay dying.

Now suppose JtR was a bastard son of Edward VII. This could account for the suspicion of Prince Eddy, be the true reasoning behind the so-called Royal Conspiracy, and even might be the basis of Druitt's suspicion.

None of you will likely take this seriously but it isn't as far fetched as it initially may seem.

Not saying this is how it is, just musing on possibilities.

God Bless

Darkendale

[Phil H]

Well - on the basis on which you are working Dale, anything is possible.

I could equally argue that Princess Alexandra was the killer, seeking revenge on whores for her husband's infidelity! And I don't believe or promote such an idea.

There is no basis for such a hypothesis. Indeed, your proposal does not even cite a particular bastard, we have to accept there was one.

And where is any solid foundation for a belief that "Eddy" had any connection with the murders - or resembled Druitt. They might, in the flesh have looked very different, in build, colouring etc, so that no one could have mistaken them.

The "fascination" with Eddy is simply the glamour of the royal connection associated with the post-Watergate belief in conspiracies (which Stephen Knight rode all the way to the bank). I might add that he, at least, in the 70s found some connections (albeit not ones that stood up to scrutiny) and has "Hobo" Gorman's then unchallenged statements to support him. Your idea has not even that!

In my view, to be taken seriously you would have to produce evidence of a specific royal bastard, demonstrate that he resembled Eddy, discover some biographical details of pre and post 1888 activities and whereabouts etc etc. Without that there is nothing to discuss - you might as well assert that somewhere in the universe 2+2=5. It doesn't here, I suppose it MIGHT in a black hole!

There is a current thread on improving Ripperology - I'm sorry to say that I find this type of speculation does exactly the opposite. Based on nothing, it taints all of us interested in the subject with the suspcion that we are all lunatics with only a fragile fingerhold on reality. It degrades all those who seek to rely on genuine research, logic, established historical methods and gaining any sort of respect.

I'll be attacked, I know, for being too purist and censorious. But frankly, I regard threads like this as worse that those by Van Goghites and Sickerteenies - immature and deplorable.

Tossing off (sorry out) the scenario is an exactly correct terminology.

Sorry, Dale, but it had to be said.

Phil

[Jon Guy]

C`mon Phil, what about that open mind of yours ?!?!

[Sally]

Hi Phil...

I'll be attacked, I know, for being too purist and censorious

Ah Ha! Well at least you saw it coming, Phil…

There is a current thread on improving Ripperology - I'm sorry to say that I find this type of speculation does exactly the opposite. Based on nothing, it taints all of us interested in the subject with the suspcion that we are all lunatics with only a fragile fingerhold on reality.

Does it though? Consider – discerning readers familiar with the case are unlikely to adhere to this type of speculation; readers unfamiliar with the case may accept it at face value – but are hardly likely to suspect Ripperology to be the home of lunatics and fantasists due to their lack of case awareness.

I suspect a bigger problem in the ‘seen as a bunch of loons’ scenario is the frequent, insistent and at times aggressive pushing of factually weak theories (suspect orientated or otherwise) via rhetoric and misrepresentation. That does make ripperologists look like lunatics with only a fragile fingerhold on reality.

It degrades all those who seek to rely on genuine research, logic, established historical methods and gaining any sort of respect.

It isn’t what you or I may prefer, no – but really? I’d have thought that was a little strong, myself. There is nothing whatever to prevent those who seek to rely on the above from doing so.

But frankly, I regard threads like this as worse that those by Van Goghites and Sickerteenies - immature and deplorable.

Nah. They’re worse. Funny, but worse. Not that anybody with more than a handful of brain cells would adhere to any ‘famous Ripper’ theories – for obvious reasons. Famous does not equal obscure: famous equals known. There is simply no room in what is already known about the lives of the famous for a secret Ripper existence.

Tossing off (sorry out) the scenario is an exactly correct terminology.

Tsk Tsk Phil. I dunno…

[Phil H]

Well, Sally, you have gone down in my estimation for providing a defence for this idea. Though as always I admire, your grace and humour in doing so.

Surely you cannot condone statements like:

This could account for the suspicion of Prince Eddy, be the true reasoning behind the so-called Royal Conspiracy,

There WAS, IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a royal conspiracy!!!!

There has never been any evidence of one. Not a shred.

So there cannot be any "true reasoning" behind it except in the minds of the logically chanllenged and perhaps bored (Casebook is a bit like that at the moment).

But if you think that serious people don't judge us by drivel like this thread, I believe you are sadly mistaken.

Maybe I was wrong to return - I didn't intend to.

Phil

[miss marple]

A little knowledge of English history might help you Darkdale.

AffAIRS amongst the aristocracy were common, once the wife produced the heir and spare, wives had discreet affairs as did husband. Cuoples were placed in rooms near their lovers at weekend parties.

Most kings of England have had a mistress or two. King Edward like other members of the ruling class took his mistresses from discreet married ladies from the aristocracy. In the 1890s it was Daisy, Countess of Warwick.

The mistress who was permitted to visit Edward at his deathbed was Alice Kepple. A much younger married woman [ Edward had no children by his mistresses] who is an ancestor of Camilla, herself a mistress later wife of Prince Charles. She was the companion of Edward's last years and would be placed near him at dinner parties etc.

Alexandra would have been fully aware of Edward's mistresses, Edward treated her with the greatest respect in public and expected others to.
It may be immoral, but they had a code and were powerful enough to behave as they wished as long as they behaved well in public and were discreet.

Miss Marple

[DVV]

Well, RavenDarkenDale was merely musing.
Is it forbidden ?
He even admitted that his scenario was far-fetched.
And we have all read equally far-fetched posts on serious threads, which is certainly worse for ripperology.

[Sally]

Hello Phil,

Well, Sally, you have gone down in my estimation for providing a defence for this idea. Though as always I admire, your grace and humour in doing so.

Thanks – I think!

I wasn’t providing a defence for the idea – I was defending the right of people to present their ideas regarding the case on a public message forum. Whether you or I agree with them or not has little to do with the principle.

Surely you cannot condone statements like:

This could account for the suspicion of Prince Eddy, be the true reasoning behind the so-called Royal Conspiracy,

Quite right – I don’t.

There WAS, IS NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a royal conspiracy!!!!

There has never been any evidence of one. Not a shred.

Absolutely. Not a shred. A popular myth only.

So there cannot be any "true reasoning" behind it except in the minds of the logically chanllenged and perhaps bored (Casebook is a bit like that at the moment).

I can't agree. Reasoning is dependent on the state of knowledge one possesses – you cannot reason with what you do not know.

But if you think that serious people don't judge us by drivel like this thread, I believe you are sadly mistaken.

I think the repetitive, obsessive posting wars do more damage than the ‘drivel’, as you put it. The drivel can be easily dismissed – and invariably is – by more knowledgeable members of the forum. You only have to look at (e.g.) the Van Gogh thread to see that.

Anyway, I think perhaps I’m on the wrong thread for a conversation of this sort, so…

Maybe I was wrong to return - I didn't intend to.

It’s your decision, of course – but I hope you’ll stay, Phil, as you know.

[C. F. Leon]

C`mon Phil, what about that open mind of yours ?!?!

An 'open mind' refers to being willing to LISTEN, not blindly AGREEING.

Was there ANY reference to Prince Eddy in ANY connection with the crimes BEFORE Stephen Knight or Stowall (if Eddy actually was his suspect)?? As far as I know, the closest reference to a 'Royal Conspiracy' before the late 1960s/early '70s was referring to a cover-up by police/government officials, more along the line to cover butts that no one was ever convicted.

[RavenDarkendale]

Phil, this is disgraceful of you and very ugly of you. Pay attention.

I said from the start that this was far fetched and I did not expect anyone to believe it. As for the Royal Conspiracy, I said, quote: "SO-CALLED" unquote. Look at pictures of Prince Eddy and Druitt and you can see the resemblance.

Attacking me on a public forum, using my real name and not my pseudonym, belittling my post-- absolutely revolting and totally unforgivible BTW I always thought that the most powerful and poignant religious statement I ever read was in a Peanuts cartoon by Charles Schulz: Snoopy is writing a book on religious debate entitled "Has It Ever Occurred to You that You could Be Wrong?" Maybe more people should ask themselves that question before resorting to libel.


I will be polite, however. Maybe it's time I LEFT. I have read more drivel here than in the many books on JtR I have on my shelves, and I have Richard Wallace's Lewis Carroll anagram BS.

God keep you

Darkendale

good-bye I was enjoying my time here, but best I go before I resort to saying something I will certainly regret.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Wow yall, wow. Well, I hope neither of you decide to leave, as I have enjoyed both of your inputs and takes on many different things. Many blessings to all of you. Except for Van Gogh and Sickert supporters. That's my 99 cents worth.

[Phil H]

Well, I doubt you'll read this Dale, but I too am now leaving Casebook for the foreseeable future as a result of this thread.

My apologies if my remarks offended, but I do feel strongly on this issue. Certainly, I cannot remain if what I said directly caused another member to leave.

So goodbye from me too.

Phil

[Sally]

I hope neither of you decides to leave.

We've all been shot down on the boards - comes with the territory, peer-reviewed forum and all that.

And none of us always behave perfectly - whatever our good intentions.

But at the end of the day, we all have the same interest at heart - otherwise we wouldn't have come here and participated in the forum to begin with.

Please reconsider, both of you.

[The Good Michael]

... [ Edward had no children by his mistresses]

You can't know this.

Mike

[Errata]

I'm going to get my butt kicked for this but I'm doing it anyway.

So from what I understand, Phil H. thinks that tossing out random speculation on suspects, especially the famous ones, is both irresponsible and detrimental to Ripperology.

Raven Darkendale thinks that this is an overly harsh judgement, especially since this was specifically framed in such a way as to admit that the entire question is based off of wild speculation.

And now they are both leaving.

...huh?

First of all, Ripperology is to social science what chiropractors are to doctors. Which is to say that it isn't. Ripperology is not a social science. In fact it's not even an -ology. It's an -ography. This is not a niche that gets any kind of respect from Historians or social scientists. Nor should it. It is far too specific. There is no Napoleonology, nor Bundyology, nor even Falklandology. Which does not mean people don't do excellent work on this topic. But it's not a field of study. God forbid anyone should be able to major in it in college.

We have three choices. We can treat this like what it is, which is frankly more investigative journalism/possibility bombing than academia, we can elevate it to the level of academia, or we can accept that both exist and simply ignore the bits you don't like. And I don't have a horse in the race, so whatever. But what we can't do is swear that that it is only one thing and throw a fit when the other way crops up. It's like a Jew and Christian arguing over whose god is better. You can do it, but then everyone gets offended and no one ends up benefiting.

For example, I don't especially engage in suspect discussion unless it involves Jews or the mentally ill, and the reason for suspicion depends on one of those two conditions. Why? Because I'm Jewish and mentally ill. No grand reason. Just enlightened self interest. It's to my benefit to educate people on both of those things, because it makes my life easier. What I don't do is hop into every suspect discussion and tell people they are tilting at windmills because it's been 125 years and we will never know. I may feel that way, but that is not productive to any discussion, and what do I care what other people are interested in?

Raven Darkendale was spit-balling. Why that isn't fine I have no idea, but apparently it drew some fire. And Phil is not wrong. Tossing out random what ifs does not make this a more respectable field of study. My argument would be that it isn't a respectable field of study as it is. It's like ripping on the actors in a high school play for not being believable.

And then add to the mix that this is not a forum for serious social scientists trying to understand this 6 month span of history. It's a forum for people who are interested in the Ripper. Some are serious historians and social scientists. Most are people who just got into this topic somewhere along the way. And some are learning about this through this site. I mean, I should hope none of us are the kind of people who criticize the literary style of facebook posts, we should not criticize the posts of people who may not be as serious about this as others, or as knowledgeable of others, or who see this mystery with a different goal in mind. We certain should not criticize people who treat this as an internet forum for people who like to throw out ideas and ask questions. Because that's what it is. If you want a forum for serious scholars who are only focused of certain aspects of the case, go find one. Or go make one.

For god's sake people. It's the internet. It isn't a thesis review panel. If I find pleasure in the intellectual exercise of building a case against the ghost of Ulysses S. Grant and I want to show that off, who cares? If I want to submit a PhD level thesis on the psychological markers of mutilation and cannibalism in the LVP, who cares? You don't have to read it. You're not trapped in a crappy hotel conference room forced to listen to me drone on about something. Click on something else.

If your objection stems from the idea that you don't want to be judged by what other people say about the Ripper on the internet, then you lost that battle a long time ago. There's really no recovering from that. And if you find something personally offensive, but are pretty sure that the person did not present it solely to offend you, what's wrong with a private message? Perspective people. That's all I'm asking.