|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2253
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 4:02 pm: | 
|
UK viewers may like to know there is a program on Channel 4 next Monday (Nov 21) at 9 pm entitled "Prince Eddy - The King We Never Had" the trailer for which suggests it may be pretty interesting
(Message edited by Chris on November 17, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1022
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 1:56 am: |
|
We can no doubt expect another rash of conspiracy nonsense here then!! [SIGH]
Thanks for the heads-up, Chris.
Phil |
Spiro
Sergeant
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 27
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Thanks for this curious snippet on this documentary. I found some further background on the film that may be of interest, or at least some basis for discussion.
It sounds interesting to me also but I'd be curious to hear of others views on the Royal family and it's transition to the House of Windsor and it's bearing or otherwise on the Royal conspiracy theory, now shown to be utterly baseless and highly speculative.
Do you agree or disagree with these claims of Andrew Cook that Prince Eddy was discredited for Royal politics and, for our purposes, any apparently resultant linking of his name with the Whitechapel murders in the 1970's to support that view?
It's not that I endorse the Royal conspiracy at all, just that I find the Royal family interesting in itself and in how the Ripper myth has grown around them.
BTW, Phil, I agree with your concept of the Royal/Masonic conspiracy gaining currency in an age of "conspiragates", yes indeed. Possibly the need to sustain sub-cultural mythologies would explain it's continuing fascination.
But it is now the Victorian social implications, I feel, that may well provide clearer insights into the period and murders that form part of the expression of that time and in informing our ideas and perceptions of the modern world.
Regards
Spiro
--------------------------------------------------
HISTORY DOCUMENTARY: Prince Eddy: The King We Never Had
Channel: Channel 4 104
Date: Monday 21st November 2005
Time: 21:00 to 22:00
Duration: 1 hour.
Prince Eddy was the great uncle of our present queen and had he not died in 1892, he would have become king instead of his shy younger brother George V.
In the years since, Eddy's reputation has become severely tarnished as people have sought to turn him into the nightmare of the Victorian age and a
byword for the dark and decadent side of Victorian life. Rumoured to be involved in a notorious gay sex scandal and eventually even accused of being
Jack the Ripper, Eddy's reputation grew horns and a tail, riddled with accusation and innuendo. And yet the Royal Family never talks about him.
Historian and biographer Andrew Cook has revisited all the evidence on Prince Eddy and has made some remarkable discoveries which could turn around
his stained reputation. This revealing film uses newly discovered letters written by Prince Eddy himself to explore whether his early death saved
Britain from a monster, or cheated us of a good king.
For the first time,Eddy's own words serve in his defence in a fresh investigation of this
remarkable king we never had.
The film also considers how the history of the
British royal family could have been very different had Eddy survived to inherit the throne. The House of Windsor is very much George V's creation and perhaps that is the real reason why the memory of Prince Eddy, the king we never had, has been allowed to be so thoroughly besmirched. |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1027
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
I don't think the royal family ever deliberately "besmirched" PAV's memory or reputation.
If you have visited the Albert Memorial Chapel at Windsor you'll see they have hardly brushed him under the carpet.
Queen Alexandra spent the day of George V's coronation in 1911, saying over and over, "It should have been Eddy".
There is a plaque on the royal pew at sandringham where he worshipped.
The fact is that eddy was an embarrassment in his lifetime, as letters of Queen Victoria and others show, and as the Cleveland St scandal indicates. There is no evidence that Eddy was not a nice guy, but he was handicapped - and he was treated no differently to his handicapped nephew Prince John (epileptic son of George V and Queen Mary) who was just kept out of sight and mind - in line with the accepted practice of that time.
Finally compare and contrast the treatment of a royal who has been deliberately stigmatised (Edward VIII) and his uncle Prince Eddy. It is clear Eddy has simply been neglected - there is no indication of deliberate misinformation.
In all likelihood, Eddy would have been incapable of ruling - there is nothing to indicate the contrary in his relatively long life - and either his brother would have been made regent; or he would have abdicated. History might then have been delayed rather than changed.
One might equally ask the question, how would things have differed if Edward VIII had not abdicated. in my view that would have been a far more radical change. But assuming Edward had not asked the Nazis (or their sympathisers) in, Elizabeth II would still have acceded in 1972ish.
Just some thoughts,
Phil |
Spiro
Sergeant
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 28
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 3:10 am: |
|
Phil,
Thanks for those sobering thoughts as usual from you. Yes of course, the situation with PAV doesn't need to be sensational for it to be of interest. He may well have been simply neglected as I agree that the word "besmirched" is a tad strong.
What caught my interest with Andrew Cook's recent work and to be released in a book in the new year, is an article he wrote that explains his position a bit more fully but that I can't reproduce here for copyright reasons.
Essentially, Cook claims he has found further corroborating evidence of PAV's support for the Home Rule Irish Bill and argues this is a strong reason for his Royal neglect and possible later views of him.
As we know, the Irish question was a thorny issue before and during the Whitechapel murders as it is challenging still today. Could Stowell have got wind of this and inadvertently stirred the wrong pot as he later attempted to recant unsuccessfully? I'm really not sure but this new angle may prove illuminating or possibly not.
Regards
Spiro |
John Savage
Chief Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 537
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the tip. I shall be looking in desperate to hear a mention of Oakley Crescent.
Rgds
John |
belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 4:41 am: |
|
Chris, this documentary's a debate about the old stuff by the looks of it, not anything revelatory. Eddy never wrote anything terribly significant in his letters. It'll be a historian trying to make his name because he's won some Eddy letters at an auction. This happens whenever Eddy letters surface. It would be more honest and better science to develop a hypothesis about Eddy and then go and do some research, including into his correspondence, if nessecary. Still, let's watch it, and obtain some stray facts. I expect though, it will make people laugh, going on about the criminologist in 1970, comparing it to the odd letter by Eddy to his chemist etc. Lots of old facts about Eddy and Georgie. Chris, never be afraid to watch bungling researchers and get stray facts. Ambitious people get hold of good leads, and make a mess of it. Phil, there can be no doubt that Eddy is on the edge of the 1888 matter. There is no point trying to fight that fact, surely. As I say though, nothing revelatory. Just expensive auction items in a pretty box, some slap dash research into ripperology, and an ambitious director at channel 4. |
Belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 9:26 am: |
|
I had a look at the business as advertised, before lunchbreak, half an hour ago. The trailer reveals how the documentary makes the point that it was perhaps down to Eddy and the whole business that the royal family changed their names to 'Windsor', and refuse to dicuss the matter.
Astounding!
Whatever will the British broadcasting companies, think of next?
Still I suppose one should see it before getting too verbose!
Belinda |
Belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:02 am: |
|
Furthar to my previous post, isn't it crazy how the media compromise research integrity about this man? Two letters, written by Eddy to some colonel, probably, surface at an auction, demonstrating that instead of being a henious madman, Eddy was a sweet, docile person. Then they put it all on TV , asking whether he was a henious murderer, or might he have been a good king. What about research integrity? They've taken their cue from Michael harrison perhaps, since he bought some Eddy letters to Harry from an auction, wrote a book, and then put himself forward as an authority.
I say, go and get your data, then come bothering us. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 268
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
The letters mentioned in the programme were letters from Eddy to his cousin Prince Louis of Battenburg , which Cook found in the University of Southampton records library.
There was an implication that , because Eddy was in love with Alix of Hesse in 1889 , that it was unlikely he used the brothel in Cleveland Street. Yeah , but who says he was a customer in 1889 - why not an earlier year ? |
Belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
Hi Simon.
It was as I predicted entirely! Eddy writes some formal letters to a prince, and it seems he always was very formal in his letters - and the historians try and make it look as if they are experts into the matter and come up with mere theorising and surmise, as you say, Phil. Nothing new or revelatory- frankly just alot of condescending old fogies getting it all wrong again! Yes that's right, Simon, the letters turn out to be to Louis. But I thought they seemed quite formal, and certainly weren't confessional in nature. More or less what you'd expect at the time. And do people think we are stupid? Everyone knows he had a people person type intelligence, and we're not so confused about that that we need alot of old fogie historians to tell us. But what exactly did I tell you? Letters surface, and a historian tries to make his name after discovering them. |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1038
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Well, I'm not sure that I agree with you 100% Belindaetc.
Philip Zeigler is certainly no old fogey, and made some good points. It was one of the women and the two younger men who seemed to seize on nothing and try to make it something.
For instance I saw nothing in the Australian newspaper reports of the visit beyond typical deferential attitudes, in which royal princes were godlike (as of course they are). Nothing was brought forward to conflict with the view that Eddy was difficult, painfully reserved (outside the family circle), severely deaf and unable to concentrate for very long.
I didn't see a man being depicted who matched up in any way to the matchless model of kingship they claimed he might have been.
They were also very very out of period (anachronistic) in their depiction of attitudes. I have mentioned the Tsar in a previous post today. But Britian (or at least the establishment) threw out one would-be populist king in 1936 and chose as his successor a second George V. George V was much more what the empire needed in the period either side of the Great War and he effectively founded the modern constitutional monarchy we have today.
The sort of politically "engaged" monarchy they seemed to associated with a King Eddy could easily have been swept away. George's continues and endures - Long live the Queen!!
Phil |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 270
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 8:28 pm: |
|
The programme didn't even mention Eddy's partial deafness and the problems it caused him !!! |
Belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 8:54 pm: |
|
Oh I do think it was alot of establishment cronyism and old fogieism. Phil, you've said alot more in a paragraph than Channel 4 said in an hour. They never spoke of the intimate friendship between Georgie and Eddy, which was a strong feature of Eddy's life. A blunder, I say.
It was fun to see that clip again. "Hello. My name is Joseph Sickert". What an utterly extraordinary moment in Ripperology. Doesn't he come across as a poseur of some kind..? There are so many about it seems. But he was an interesting one.
What I thought was rather impudent in the programme was that they used Rumbelow's and Begg's points to validate their own obscure ones, and then seemed to make out that they'd themselves discovered the Court circulars that proved Eddy could not have been Jack the Ripper , and up and down the country we were all subjected to seeing a long film of themselves reading them. Not pompous in any way atall?
Best of luck everyone. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
