Re: Jack The Ripper, Lord Randolph Churchill & Queen Victoria's Grandson

[D. Spencer Hines]

| Dear Spencer,
|
| So good to see you reveal another area of your expertise. If you are
| able to detect the gibberish, surely you can enlighten us with the
| fact who was Jack the Ripper? If you are telling us what is wrong
| you are obliged to tell us what, according to you, is right. Why
| couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
| cover up to protect the monarchy? Have you read
| this book?

Leo van de Pas
------------------

So, as we clearly see, Leo van de Pas is the fellow who raised the issue
of the real identity of Jack The Ripper -- not I.

DSH
------------------------

Indeed, Leo seems to have quite a fascination with Jack The Ripper.

Hilarious!

And he is still very angry with me these many months later -- because I
exposed his foolishness and kicked him in the arse for good measure.

So, Leo raised the issue again just recently and whined about how angry
he still is with me for doing that.

Hoist With His Own Petar!

Pitiful!

Bottom Line:

Leo read a sensational, demagogic book that intrigued him and led him to
post some very foolish things to USENET -- including accusations against
Lord Randolph Churchill and even Queen Victoria herself and other
members of the Royal Family -- by clear implication -- without a
scintilla of proof.

If Leo uses this standard of proof in Genealogy and History he is
surely in deep kimchee.

The Burden of Proof is clearly on Leo to extricate himself -- not for
anyone else to pull him out of the hole he has dug for himself.

DSH
-----------------------------

"The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years,
at least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved."

"The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed
not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his
illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that
he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that
he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were
then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into
the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."

Greg King 8 Nov 1997

[GRHa...@aol.com]

In what years of Medieval times did this Jack the Ripper live? This it,
isn't it, the topic covered on this site?

Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas
In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is
bacteria.

[mj...@btinternet.com]

Unfortunately, the only person who looks foolish and stupid in these
posts is their originator, not Mr van de Pas. Kindly stick to
mediaeval genealogy, if you have anything worthwhile contributing.

Gordon, during the course of your Hale(s) researches, have you come
across much on the Hales of Coventry (ff. Elizabeth I)?

[D. Spencer Hines]

"Why couldn't Lord Randolph Churchill (and others) be involved in a
cover up to protect the monarchy?"

"Why not protect the Monarchy? When the heir of [sic] the throne is
allegedly married to a Catholic girl far beneath his station? Even an
Orleans princess was not regarded as suitable."

| Several years ago someone sent me a book called "The Ripper and the
| Royals". It maintains it was NOT Albert Victor but it was done by
| several people, including Lord Randolph Churchill, to "protect the
| monarchy". You probably read about the surgical method by which
| the murders were done, this dopey Duke had no medical knowledge
| to do it himself. He may have caused it but did not do it, nor
| asked [sic] for it to be done.

Leo van de Pas
-------------------------

Leo van de Pas wants to lend credence to that absurd conspiracy theory
for which he cannot provide any EVIDENCE.

THAT'S what I'm calling rampant gibberish.

Greg King, in ATR, effectively said the same thing about the SAME BOOK
Leo is relying on for his air-headed remarks about a "conspiracy to
protect the Monarchy of Queen Victoria" -- ALMOST EIGHT YEARS AGO.

Mr. King dismissed it thusly:
----------------------------

"The body of literature on the Ripper is vast; in the last five years,
at least four books have posited that the Royal Family were somehow
involved.

The most amusing is "The Ripper and the Royals," in which it is claimed
not only that the Duke of Clarence fathered a bastard child through his
illegal marriage to a Catholic girl, but that his death was faked, that
he died imprisoned at Glamis Castle, of all places, in the 1930s, that
he was sent there by arrangement with the Bowes-Lyon family who were
then promised that one of their daughters would be allowed to marry into
the Royal Family, and even that George V was the product of an illicit
affair between Alexandra and Alexander Alexandrovich, the future Emperor
Alexander III of Russia."

Greg King 8 Nov 1997

------------------------------

Even Dan Rather wouldn't jump on board that cuniculan-pygan fantasy.

The book is clearly a pot-boiler -- best used as a doorstop. Yet Van de
Pas touts it as some sort of reasoned account.

SHAMEFUL!!!

Further, Leo has NOT been able to present ONE SHRED of EVIDENCE to back
up his airing and defense of the idea that a group of men including Lord
Randolph Churchill are somehow responsible for the Jack The Ripper
murders in Whitechapel in 1888, because they were trying to "protect the
monarchy" -- in the person of the Duke of Clarence.

Leo is quite willing to throw mud at Lord Randolph Churchill, the Duke
of Clarence and others long dead -- as believable co-conspirators in
some feverish, diabolical plot to "protect the monarchy" of Queen
Victoria.

Totally Irresponsible Behavior On Van de Pas's Part -- And A Very Low
And Scurrilous Blow.

Then, when challenged on the facts, Leo comes a cropper -- and runs for
the tall grass.

Hilarious!

How Sweet It Is!

'Nuff Said.
-------------------

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

[D. Spencer Hines]

"The Ripper and the Royals" is the tawdry book Leo van de Pas has been
seduced by.

Vide infra.

Hilarious!

DSH
---------------------

"1. There are five accepted canonical victims of the Ripper:

A. Mary Ann Nichols, killed 31 August, 1888.
B. Annie Chapman, killed 9 September, 1888.
C. Elizabeth Stride, killed 30 September, 1888.
D. Catherine Eddowes, also killed 30 September, 1888.
E. Mary Anne Kelly, killed 9 November, 1888.

During these times, the Duke of Clarence was at the following locations:

29 August-7 September 1888 he stayed with Viscount Downe at Danby Lodge,
Grosmont, Yorkshire.

7-10 September, 1888 he was at the Cavalry Barracks in York with his
regiment.

27-30 September, 1888 he was at Abergeldie, Scotland staying with the
Royal Family at Balmoral.

2-12 November, 1888 he was with his parents the Prince and Princess of
Wales at Sandringham.

Nevertheless, he has featured in several recent Ripper books. The story
of his marriage and fathering a bastard child with Annie Crook has been
proven as a falsehood; he also is alleged to feature in several other
Ripper explanations, whether using Dr. William Gull as the actual
killer, a combination of the Duke's friends, his former tutor (and
alleged lover) James Kenneth Stephen, or even a conspiracy to hide the
involvement of his father the Prince of Wales with Mary Kelly, the last
victim.

Take your pick! They're all nonsense.

My sources for Ripper information are varied. The best basic reference
available in the United States is "Jack the Ripper A-Z" from which the
dates of the Duke of Clarence's whereabouts in the autumn of 1888 are
drawn, quoting from published court circulars. Mention is also made of
these locations and the Duke's whereabouts on these dates in Michael
Harrison's "Clarence," in "The Ripper Legacy" by Martin Howells and
Keith Skinner, in "The Complete Jack the Ripper" by Donald Rumbelow, and
in "Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld" by Theo Aronsen.

[cj.b...@virgin.net]

With four books in the last five years surely there must be at least
one which embroiders Diana into the story somehow. What with dirty
portcard sellers from Egypt and the like, there must be a neat shoe-in
to the whole conspiracy.