Thursday, January 21, 2016

A Muddle Past Holds No Certainty


Back in the 19th century, the dangers of inbreeding were already known, but common rules did not apply to the wealthy and royalty, so no one objected or thought it the least bit risky when Victoria marries her first cousin, Prince Albert Francis Charles Augustus Emmanuel of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Royals had been inbreeding for a long time. After all, there were only so many royalties available around the world.
The intermarrying and weakening of the future generations is what, I believe, changed the future of Britain from a monarch driven society to a Parliamentary ruled country, which is a good thing. But how specifically this played out was not so good.
While England had had deranged Kings before, when young Queen Victoria came to reign, the members of Parliament saw an opportunity to grab power without madness ever coming into the conversation.
Initially, Queen Victoria had planned to never marry and rule England on her own. Even so, Parliament immediately pulled her authority to condemn or absolve prisoners charged with a sentence of death, because that would be too much for a young lady to bear. 
Soon enough, she was talked out of the ‘never marrying’ idea and not only did she marry her first cousin, but bore him 9 children. Having so many children took a great deal of time, so naturally the parliament kindly took more responsibilities upon their shoulders. Then her beloved husband died, and she went into permanent mourning. An old, heart-broken queen, should not be burdened with the weight of the world, so Parliament took over even more responsibilities.
At this point the facts have become muddled, erased, and modified, so the truth can never be known for sure, but her grandson, Prince Albert, in line to be king after his father Edward, was reputed to be mentally impaired, and some believe he might have been Jack the Ripper.
Yes, everyone and their uncle might have been Jack the Ripper. One of the oddities of this mystery is the massive quantity of people who 'might' have been Jack the Ripper.
However, there remains compelling evidence that it might have been Prince Albert. But be warned, my speculations lead to a very dark story.
If you sort through the pictures of the women killed by Jack the Ripper and remove those where the body was cut in two, which were clearly the works of a different serial killer, and the face slashers, you’ll find all but one of the women resembled the queen, and the one who didn’t look a thing like the queen, resembled Prince Albert’s mother. Could that be a coincidence? Yes, it could be. Or it could be a young man who hated his domineering grandmother because she admantly disapproved of his life-style and considered him unfit to ever be king. As an author, I can very see how his rage against his grandmother might have resulted him in taking his anger out on women who looked like grandmother, but he believed no one would care if he killed. 
A compelling timing coincidence is that when Albert was sent away to India, Jack the Ripper ceased killing, and when Albert returned and his plans to marry fell apart, deaths, in the same manner as Jack the Ripper began again. 
Oddly, the police refused to acknowledge these new deaths belonged to Jack the Ripper. However, in short order, Prince Eddy Albert caught ‘a cold’ and died and this 'new killer' that happened to kill like Jack the Ripper, stopped killing as well. And within a short time, (weeks) after Albert died, Albert’s tutor, who might have been his co-conspirator in the deaths, starved himself to death (or perhaps was silenced so no one lived to tell the truth…)
And yes, I do know of the recent DNA of a barber was found on the clothes of prostitute. All that proves is a local barber of the Victorian time had sex with a prostitute, which was nothing abnormal. There is no evidence that Jack the Ripper had sex with any of his victims.
The Queen’s grandson was rumored to be gay. When he got caught in a raid of Gay Club, it got him sent to India). If Albert was Jack the Ripper, he would have had no interest in having sex with his victims. His mad rage would come from his inability to be good enough in the Queen’s eyes. And frankly he wasn’t good enough. Due to the inbreeding, he was mentally impaired and would have been a disastrous king.
Everyone believes Queen Victoria hated her first son, Edward VII because she held him responsible for the the death of her husband who supposedly caught a cold and died. (Albert had traveled to scold the Edward for womanizing and died months after.) But the Prince Regent did not die of a cold. He had Crohn’s disease which had been miss-diagnosed as Yellow Fever. He’d also been sick for a long while, so I find it hard to believe his death would cause her vendetta against her son.
However, if she blamed her son for having spawned a deranged, violent child who would later become a psychopath, presuming the child had become so wantonly and out of control due to Edward’s proliferate ways, that might be a very good reason why she planned to never let Edward rule a single day and why his first born died of a mysterious ‘cold’ soon after Jack the Ripper returned the second time. But since the world couldn't know this reason, the blaming Edward for Albert's death might have been concocted after the fact.
IF Albert was Jack the Ripper, even if the secret was kept from the common people, those in Parliament would have known and acted upon the situation, allowing them to strip away the last vestiges of power from Queen Victoria…which they did.
And, she never objected. But how could she if her grandson were Jack the Ripper? Had such a fact been known, her line of rule would have been destroyed.
Despite her efforts, Queen Victoria did not outlive her son Edward VII. When she died, instead of preserving all her diaries, her daughter, after rewriting the sections she wished to keep, burned the original diaries. Those diaries could have revealed the truth in this matter, but they were destroyed, so the truth could never be known.
And how did her son perform as king? Since he just needed to be a front man for the Parliament, he did his job rather well. But he only reigned 9 years before he died. Then, Edward’s second son George V took reign through the trying times of WWI.

The powers that Victoria lost were never regained by any king or queen since, and in my opinion, that is a good thing. For mad or not, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'll take a Parliament or Democracy over a Monarchy any day.

Nothing I've stated proves Albert was Jack the Ripper.
However, using logical deduction, I find the possibility compelling.
There are dates in schedules kept by the Queen that prove Albert was not in town at the time of some of the murders. Once such date if for a murder that shows no resemblance to Jack the Ripper. The other three dates are close to the end or beginning of the dates written in the schedules. They could have easily have been altered when they needed an extra day to hide the truth, so I've ignored it as unreliable evidence. 

Given two very different communications to the police, it is possible Albert and his tutor were both involved in the murders, thus explaining the two very different letters. 

However, if my conjectures are right, then this had to be one of the most massive coverups ever, where over five hundred people were identified as the possible killer to keep anyone from focusing on Albert. 

A second serial killer's work was declared the work of Jack the Ripper in an effort to muddy the water (It was not the same M.O. and Scotland Yard should have known that, even back then.) To be honest, they appear to have thrown any woman who died into the mix to help muddy the water. 

Evidence was lost or not preserved at all. Witness statements were never taken. Schedules of the Queen could have been modified, and friends of the Queen might have lied when they swore Albert had been visiting them when the murders occurred.
So, in the end I focused on a few compelling items:
When Albert left the country, Jack the Ripper stopped killing. 
When Albert returned and his love marriage didn't happen, the murders began again.
The murdered victims resembled the queen except for one that resembled Albert's mother.
When Albert died, the new murders stopped.
Albert's tutor starves to death two weeks later.

Do I think Albert died of the flu? Not at all. I think the Queen, realizing there was no other way to stop her grandson, ordered his death. And for the tutor's part in these horrors, the fellow suffered a slower, torturous death.
And those in the Parliament, who knew the truth, secured Queen Victoria's last vestiges of power and England moved to parliamentry rule for the better of all.
But here's the very strange thing:
There continues, to this day, efforts to further muddy the waters (such as the DNA of the barber found on one of the murdered prostitutes clothes which proves nothing but the woman serviced her clients). The DNA fiasco had an 'expert' giving lectures and sharing on twitter that finally the matter was resolved. 

Given a three year old child could see the DNA evidence wasn't proof of anything, you have to ask who would work so hard to muddy the waters further over something that happened over a hundred years ago. 

Another present day muddying the water efforts, there is a website that presents all known probable killers, ranking over half of them far more likely than Albert. Yet, the 'evidence' is weak at best in these others cases, while I believe the evidence against Albert is compelling. So how did so many get ranked so much higher than Albert? Not by honest evaluation of verifiable facts, that is for sure.
I can only think of two entities that would try to silence this puzzle once and for all a hundred years after the event. The British Royalty or the Parliament. But sadly, their efforts only make me more certain that Albert was indeed Jack the Ripper. 

Liza O'Connor is the author of a Late Victorian Sleuth Series called The Adventures of Xavior & Vic


by
Liza O'Connor
When the pot has too many cooks a feast can be ruined, and that’s exactly what happens with Xavier and Vic’s new cases. Each proves more complicated than initially thought with criminals dropping out of the sky, wreaking havoc upon Xavier, Vic, and their excellent employees. By the end, Vic threatens to open a school that teaches criminals how to stay out of each other’s way.

Worse yet, a treasured member of the staff is shot in the heart while attempting to save Vic and the Queen’s cousin.

5 comments:

  1. Interesting read. I wish that people would have saved the evidence. I would like to be able to prove this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Queen Victoria's diaries had not been burned by her daughter upon her death, we would know if it were true. However, if the possibility I present is the truth, then it is best for Britain at that time, for the truth to remain 'unknown'. I fail to grasp why they go to such effort to hide it now. It's history. I cannot imagine why it would topple the current queen.

      Delete
  2. Loved your post! I've read a fair amount about the Ripper killings (I'm macabre that way)so I know a lot of the theories and find them all fascinating. I actually really like the one put forth in the Johnny Depp movie From Hell. It implicates Albert not as the Ripper but as the reason for the Ripper's murders. If you haven't seen it, you really should. Depp is wonderful as always. :) Tweeted

    ReplyDelete
  3. Was it the Tutor in that accounting? That would fit the timing as well, for the tutor died two weeks later. While the tutor would have less reason to kill than Albert, there were implications the two were lovers, so it's possible he could be driven to kill women of the street who had the misfortune to resemble the Queen, or Albert's mother who would berate his lover. But I'm thinking it's Albert because those who protected the Queen would have had no issues with killing the tutor the moment they realized he was the problem, but if it was Albert, the future King of England, removing him had to be a painful, reluctant order that is worthy of justifies the continued efforts to hide the truth a 100 years later. It also gives her a far greater reason why she was so angry at her first son and vowed to outlive him so he could never be king. The 'Albert died after see you' reason never made sense to me.

    ReplyDelete

Authors love to get comments. It's candy to our souls.
Please take the time to leave one.

After 3 days, comments require moderation.