Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, eldest son of Edward VII (1864-1892)

[Red Queen]

I believe the Freemason theory is true, but you have missed out some points.
Yes Eddy did marry Elizabeth Crook and they had a daughter. But what really made the situation reach boiling point was they subsequently had a son.
A male catholic heir to the throne. The freemasons were not going to allow that to happen.

Also Eddy was known to be sympathetic towards the Irish, so the freemasons were not keen on that either.

 

[cmkrcwi]

FWIW, King George VI's actual given name was Albert, not George.

Speaking of Jack The Ripper, weren't all his victims said to be cut with almost surgical precision almost as if a doctor had done it? Many biographies of The Duke of Clarence picture him as being somewhat mentally challenged or at the very least not particularly interested in scholarly pursuits. IOW, would he have been intellectually capable of being Jack The Ripper?

 

[Elspeth]

I believe the Freemason theory is true, but you have missed out some points.
Yes Eddy did marry Elizabeth Crook and they had a daughter. But what really made the situation reach boiling point was they subsequently had a son.
A male catholic heir to the throne. The freemasons were not going to allow that to happen.

Also Eddy was known to be sympathetic towards the Irish, so the freemasons were not keen on that either.

No such thing. If the marriage didn't have the consent of the monarch or Parliament, then it wasn't valid and therefore the children weren't legitimate, regardless of anyone's religion; illegitimate children are excluded from the succession.

Even if the marriage to a Catholic woman had taken place with the Queen's consent, Eddy would have lost his place in the line of succession; if his children had been Catholics, they would have lost their positions too.

I guess I'm a bit mystified why a son made that much difference. In Britain, daughters can succeed to the throne, so even a daughter would have been an heir if the marriage had been legal (which it wasn't) and if the daughter had been a Protestant.

 

[Warren]

I believe the Freemason theory is true...

Well, many members of the elite were Freemasons, including the then Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) who was Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England from 1874 to his accession as King. Membership of the Freemasons is not evidence or proof of a conspiracy.

 

[Roderick]

The 'marriage' of Prince Albert Victor has been completely disproved by historians....yet there are many people who refuse to let the story die....it is difficult to understand why....perhaps the whole tale seems far more salacious and exciting by tying a famous personage eg a royal prince to the the ghastly and heinous crimes of Jack the Ripper.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

No such thing. If the marriage didn't have the consent of the monarch or Parliament, then it wasn't valid and therefore the children weren't legitimate, regardless of anyone's religion; illegitimate children are excluded from the succession.

Even if the marriage to a Catholic woman had taken place with the Queen's consent, Eddy would have lost his place in the line of succession; if his children had been Catholics, they would have lost their positions too.

I guess I'm a bit mystified why a son made that much difference. In Britain, daughters can succeed to the throne, so even a daughter would have been an heir if the marriage had been legal (which it wasn't) and if the daughter had been a Protestant.

Especially as the RF had been through that topic already with George IV. He as well was secretly married to a catholic lady and nothing happened to her except that the marriage was declared invalid. She even was offered a peerage in her own right which she declined. So if prince Eddy really had married a catholic in secret, he must have know that this could never be a legal marriage, that his children would never be considered as being "in-line". So where was the danger this woman posed?

 

[Roderick]

I don´t think the point is that anyone really believed that Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper, I think the important part is that so many people believed he could have been .....that shows that there was something about Eddy that made it easy for people to think strange things about him. His mother in particular was heartbroken, she lost her first child, the others were very sad but in a way relieved that the future problem of his becoming the King of England was over and done with.
George V may have been rather slow and not very exciting but I think Princess May had a lucky escape.

No association was made between Prince Albert Victor and the Jack the Ripper murders until 1962....several decades after the prince died. The entire royal family was shocked and distraught at his death and there was no indication at that time that it was a relief to any of them.

 

[Menarue]

No association was made between Prince Albert Victor and the Jack the Ripper murders until 1962....several decades after the prince died. The entire royal family was shocked and distraught at his death and there was no indication at that time that it was a relief to any of them.

Of course not, the royal family never wear their emotions on their sleeves.
But I bet you Princess May was relieved.

 

[Roderick]

Why would you presume this?

Princess May was not in love with her fiance and in her position as a relatively minor royal in the 1890`s did not expect or look to marry for love. A marriage to the future king of England meant far more to May and her family than a love match and they were beside themselves with excitement at this prospect. It is hard to consider relief as the Princess`s reaction to her fiance's death, regardless of the known fact it was not a love match.

 

[Menarue]

I don´t know whether you just don´t understand what I am saying or you are pretending to not understand but I will try and spell it out to you simply.
What I am saying is this.
First Prince Eddy would not have been a satisfactory King for many reasons. No one in a family is happy when a member dies, especially a loved brother and son, it was not the fact that he died that was a relief, it was that they would have a much better suited monarch come to the throne.

Secondly. Princess May must have been relieved....... First because of his reputation that would frighten any young lady.

Thirdly, have you seen his photograph?

Now do you understand?

 

[Roderick]

I don´t know whether you just don´t understand what I am saying or you are pretending to not understand but I will try and spell it out to you simply.
What I am saying is this.
First Prince Eddy would not have been a satisfactory King for many reasons. No one in a family is happy when a member dies, especially a loved brother and son, it was not the fact that he died that was a relief, it was that they would have a much better suited monarch come to the throne.

Secondly. Princess May must have been relieved....... First because of his reputation that would frighten any young lady.

Thirdly, have you seen his photograph?

Now do you understand?

I would appreciate if you did not patronise me thank you.

The reply I made to your post did not refer to whether or not the prince would have made a suitable monarch. It was in reply to your claim that Princess May must have been relieved by his death. She was evidently not "frightened" enough of him as you suggest to decline his offer of marriage and there are written accounts by her and her mother attesting how pleased they were about the betrothal.

I have seen photographs of the prince and there are also several on this thread but I am not sure of the relevance of this to what we are discussing. There was certainly nothing about his appearance that would render him less worthy as a husband than his younger brother George.

 

[Menarue]

Roderick you are obviously a man! Or you would see the significance of the photo.
A mother who had arranged a very advantageous marriage to a young man who is to be the future King of England will also be absolutely sure to say she is "delighted" and make sure that in her daughter´s correspondence she will say the same, that is not to say that despite his reputation, looks etc she wasn´t enchanted with the idea of being Queen of England. As it happens we can see for ourselves she made a wonderful Queen. If we are going to bring up the subject of her declining the marriage proposal, I notice she didn´t refuse George´s not that long after her bereavement.....

 

[Warren]

Menarue, I understand what you are saying but the facts are different. Refer to "Queen Mary" by James Pope-Hennesy where he goes into some detail about Princess May's reaction to the death of the Duke of Clarence ("bereaved and desolate...numbed and without hope...") and the events that followed.

The engagement with Prince George, although privately agreeed upon by Queen Victoria and the Prince of Wales, had not initially been discussed with May or the Tecks:

"This highly delicate subject was, obviously, never mentioned to Princess May at this period, nor was it apparently discussed between the Wales and Teck parents. But Princess May was no fool. She was affronted and embarrassed by the idea, and her parents found that when, in March 1892, they took her abroad to recuperate from her sorrow, she refused to go back to England when they wished to do so... Her resistance did not discourage any of her relations. They knew her to be dutiful and patriotic. They also knew that she had always liked her cousin, Prince George."

Prince Eddie died in January 1892; the Tecks did not return to England until July of that year, and Georgie made his proposal on the 2nd of May, 1893.

 

[Menarue]

Hi Warren,
In his official biography of King Edward VIII Philip Ziegler says this about the engagement of Princess May and Prince Eddy. "To the Tecks the marriage was all that they had dreamed of; May´s morganatic blood would have proved an impediment to an alliance with any of the grander continental royal families, while the upper reaches of the British aristocaracy had shown little eagerness to embrace this peripheraly royal and penniless princess. Only May hesitated. "Do you think I can really take this on>?" she asked her mother. "Of course you can," was the robust reply, and of course she did. Her future husband was given equally little opportunity to object. "I do not anticipate any real opposition on Prince Eddy´s part if he is properly managed and told he MUST do it, " wrote the Prince of Wales´s private secretary, Francis Knollys," - that it is for the good of the country etc etc.
May was spared what must have seemed an unappealing match - and the narrative continues.....along the same lines. (Chapter 1, page 3.)
I believe she was very lucky and managed to fulfill her family´s ambitions by becoming Queen and marrying the best of the two brothers to boot.
Perhaps she never knew the full extent of Prince Eddy´s depravations but it was no love match, and "devasted by the news", "distraught" were the usual Victorian (even though this era was over for a few years) terms for anything like this. All she missed out on luckily was "she died of a broken heart".
No love match here, she was doing her duty...
BTW the bereaved, numbed and without hope probably referred to the dashing of her family´s ambitions and not becomig the Queen of England she would really have thought that she had let her family down, even though it was not her fault.
Her hesitation about her marriage to the other brother, even though she had shown some affection for him probably stemmed from a great sense of propriety and dignity that she always had but then as she always said throughout her life "duty first" and by pure luck King George V and Queen Mary seemed unusually suited for a royal arranged marriage.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Edward the VII being a Freemason and having his son "done in" sounds remarkably like claims that Diana Princess of Wales was killed by the Masons, one of whom is her brother. Conspiracy theories can never be entirely disproved, because the nature of them is that there's no really hard evidence one way or another. That's why they keep circulating and being adapted by each generation, I believe.

Well, many members of the elite were Freemasons, including the then Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) who was Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England from 1874 to his accession as King. Being a Freemason is not evidence or proof of a conspiracy.

 

[Menarue]

I don´t believe for even one second in a conspiracy. That is the only problem with a Monarchy that I can think of, they take the heir they get. Sometimes the heir is such a problem that he is "asked in a persuasive way" to abdicate, but they, the RF, are very respectful of the first born´s rights. As for Freemasons, aren´t all the male members of the BRF Freemasons....I have always heard this. Poor Prince Eddy with all his faults died of some disease, sometimes called ´flu, sometimes pneumonia, and these diseases quite often killed in his time, which was before anti-biotics. A natural death much regretted by his family but a happy release for Britain.

 

[Roderick]

Dear Menarue: we cannot know that his death was a happy release for Britain really can we? That is perhaps personal opinion rather than fact. Not many had faith in King George VI when he unexpectedly ascended the throne either but with guidance and support in most people`s opinion he did quite an admirable job. Perhaps Prince Albert Victor might have done so as well?

 

[Warren]

If Edward VII had died as Prince of Wales the historical opinion (together with his mother's) would probably have been that he was a womaniser who wasted his life, was invloved in scandal, and achieved nothing. In the event he was a conscientious, successful and popular King.

On the other hand, another handsome and dashing Prince of Wales was wildly popular throughout the Empire yet his Kingship lasted less than twelve months. The early signs for the Duke of Clarence may not have been promising, but who knows what may have happened had he not died young.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As for Freemasons, aren´t all the male members of the BRF Freemasons....I have always heard this.

Then you have heard wrong - currently only the Duke of Kent is a Mason as is his brother Prince Michael of Kent. The only other current royal who has been inititated is the Duke of Edinburgh who was initiated shortly in 1952 to honour a promise he made to George VI but once initiated has refused to take any further part. Lord Mountbatten was fiercely anti-Mason and influenced both his nephew and great-nephews not to join. Charles is on record as saying that he wouldn't join due to the 'secret' nature of the organisation but at the moment I can't actually find the reference due to poor googling. The following link is from the Royal Insight;

Royal Insight > March 2006 > Mailbox > Page 4

Another link that says that Philip hasn't been active since being initiated is the fiercely anti-masonry site:

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/siteindex.html

There is no reason to assume that this official record is wrong, particularly as the current British government really went after the Masons some years ago it would have been public knowledge and used heavily against Charles if he was a Mason (at the time of the real anti-Charles sentiment following the death of Diana).

The royal links to freemasonry were stronger in past generations than now.

 

[Mermaid1962]

AFAIK Prince Charles isn't a Freemason. I don't believe in the conspiracy about the Duke of Clarence either. Many young people in those days died of pneumonia or the 'flu, and so it's not so unusual that a Prince would.

I don´t believe for even one second in a conspiracy. That is the only problem with a Monarchy that I can think of, they take the heir they get. Sometimes the heir is such a problem that he is "asked in a persuasive way" to abdicate, but they, the RF, are very respectful of the first born´s rights. As for Freemasons, aren´t all the male members of the BRF Freemasons....I have always heard this. Poor Prince Eddy with all his faults died of some disease, sometimes called ´flu, sometimes pneumonia, and these diseases quite often killed in his time, which was before anti-biotics. A natural death much regretted by his family but a happy release for Britain.

 

[lac2003]

So we can assume that with the supposed link between the Duke of Clarence and Jack the Ripper that Clarence won't be used for the foreseeable future?!

 

[Warren]

There is no link between Albert Victor and Jack the Ripper although some have tried to infer as much (along with William Gladstone and even Lewis Carroll).

 

[iowabelle]

I'm sure that most people today don't know about the alleged connection to Jack the Ripper. It's going on 120 years, that shouldn't be a problem. After all, they've used Culloden, which I find to be distasteful and inauspicious.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Culloden

I'm sure that most people today don't know about the alleged connection to Jack the Ripper. It's going on 120 years, that shouldn't be a problem. After all, they've used Culloden, which I find to be distasteful and inauspicious.

I have been reading this thread with great interest and love that more than a century later people have differing views about the poor lamented Prince. Iowabelle, what is the reference to Culloden?

 

[Warren]

Xan, the young son of the Earl and Countess of Ulster and grandson of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester is known as Lord Culloden. Baron Culloden is a subsidiary title of the Duke of Gloucester dating from the current creation in 1928.

The Battle of Culloden spelt the end of hopes for a Stuart restoration when the Jacobite army was routed by Hanoverian forces led by the Duke of Cumberland. To the victor go the spoils; the defeated resent being reminded of it.

 

[lac2003]

You say defeated. The Scots, very rightly, say massacred.
Albert Victor will always be one of the royal family's "might have been"'s.
He's buried at the mausoleum at Frogmore, isn't he?

 

[Iluvbertie]

You say defeated. The Scots, very rightly, say massacred.
Albert Victor will always be one of the royal family's "might have been"'s.
He's buried at the mausoleum at Frogmore, isn't he?

The fact that there were more Scots in the English army than in the Scottish army is often forgotten.

Yes he is buried at Frogmore.

 

[Roderick]

His tomb is in the Albert Memorial Chapel, St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle.

 

[maria-olivia]

Queen Mary's first boy was called Edward and the second Albert ( future Georges VI).
Was is a remember of Mary's first fiance ?

 

[Roderick]

The first child was named Edward after Prince Albert Victor (Eddy) as his father wished. The second child was named Albert as per Queen Victoria's wishes that a child from each family bear the name of her late husband.