Sunday, 23 August 2015

New blog !

This blog is progressively coming down over the next couple of weeks as I transfer and update everything I think relevant onto the new blog via this link here. I'm still calling the new blog 'research notes' but still, it's a considerable write up of all the discoveries and much more too as I continue to work on History of Art and the 1880s London case. Enjoy :-) 

Thursday, 23 July 2015

Part 2 Marie Jeanette Kelly escapes ... :-) .. Part two

Marie Jeanette Kelly escapes Whitechapel x 'Part two' 

You can access the post on Marie Jeanette and how she escaped Whitechapel according to the Belle Epoque artists via this link here. 


Monday, 15 June 2015


Over the past few weeks there has been a very exciting discovery showing definitively that the 1888 Royal family ( in particular Prince Eddy) were indeed very involved, and entirely innocent, in the matter of the 1888 Whitechapel murders. I will be blogging on all this later ( busy right now x ). :-) .. also interesting comment on the Olsson Inquest evidence, added to the post on Elisabeth Stride's identity below.  :-) 

Below, Prince Eddy wearing his wedding ring in 1887. 

Evidence being collected at present. 

Sunday, 14 June 2015

Gustafsdotter Vasa

The Belle Epoque artists illuminate the story of Elisabeth Gustafsdotter 

.. at this post here (click). 

Wednesday, 7 November 2012

Jimmy Whistler, Walter Sickert, and the 1880's House of Hanover's and British Polices' conspiracy...

Post is still on the blog, delivered as promised while the website 'Walter Sickert and Company' is being developed. As with other pages on this blog, click on the pictures to see them in full.There is a lot here about the police and Hanoverian conspiracy suggested by Walter Sickert's and othe artists' art work and the Special Branch police files. However, it can't be as extensive as the panorama that will go ont the website, for space/technical reasons.

Above,  Monet's 'Sunlight on the Houses of Parliament, stormy sky, '  painted in  1904, on his return to England which saw him complete the series begun in 1871, during his early friendship with James McNeil Whistler.

Handel was obliged to compose opera in support of the Duke of Cumberland's defeat of the Jacobites at Culloden in 1746,  but his heart was against doing so, apparently. ( Not that this affected the quality of  work such as 'Joshua'  - or  opera such as'Judas Maccabeau', its title being an intended Judaic reference to Jacobites whom William designed to portray as treacherous.) His beautiful Serses (Xerses) opera, quite different in style, was all but ignored in its era, given its content...but it came to be appreciated in the 1880s, when the story of the Stuart Hanover conflict raised its head again, and all things Stuart became desirable in society.  Here, a beautiful rendition of 'Ombra Mai Fu' from Xerxses. An aria about a tree, seen as a safe shade, a shelter from corruption, and a place of spiritual rest. 

Frondi tenere e belle 
Del mio Platano amato,                  
Per voi risplenda il Fato  
Tuoni, Lampi, e Procelle  
Non vi oltraggino mai la cara pace, 
Ne giunga a profanarvi Austro rapace. 
Ombra mai fu          
Di Vegetabile,          
Care ed amaile                       
Soave piu.          


The tender branches of my beloved tree
Let fate smile upon you.
May thunder, lightening, and storms
never disturb this peace.
May the winds of corruption never reach your branches.
There never was a shelter such as this tree's shade,
Or one more loving and gentle.

Throughout the 1880s ( 1881-90) Walter and his much adored master Jimmy (James McNeil Whistler) would go out sketching together, often in the evening, at twilight.
Prior to his Renaissance style  apprenticeship experience with Whistler, Walter had sketched throughout his schooldays ( no formal lessons, one surreptitious cartoon of a schoolmaster was confiscated and then framed on the wall, a charismatic achievement in Dickensian times ) and in the company of his father, Oswald Sickert, and their kindly neighbour, the artists Otto Scholderer. Jimmy's were the sketches and paintings that enchanted him while he was involved in 'The Lyceum Young men' . Age seventeen, visiting the Grosvenor Gallery exhibition in Bond Street he said 'To a few, a very few, these and other five canvases by Whistler came as a revelation, and thing of absolute conviction, admitting no doubt or hesitation. Here was the finger of God. Everything else was mere paint.'

In the early 1880s, Walter Sickert, Jimmy Whistler, Oscar Wilde and many other art and society luminaries ( who we will see in significant detail on the up and coming website 'Walter Sickert and Company' ) would regularly meet at the home of the theatrical 'Forbes Robertsons' in Charlotte Street. Charlotte Street, where Walter Sickert took a studio in the 1880s ( Constable's old studio) is, as we have seen, only a stone's throw from numbers 19 and 21 Cleveland Street, homes to the little Cleveland Street  charnel house and the secret letter delivery service respectively . The soirees hosted by the Forbes Robertsons every Friday were graced by stars of the galaxies of art, letters and theatre.  "Young actors, actresses , new painters and old lions". These soirees were perceived by inspiring artists and utlity players such as Walter as the privileged place to be.

Notice the stylistic manner in which Jimmy's top hat is tilted over his right eye there, and observe carefully the posture with the kane, the wry smile,  the coat draped as a shawl in the style of a renaissance artist's overall. In 1881, Walter Sickert, as a regular among the 'Lyceum young men' ( one of the more trusted extras or 'utility players')  in Henry Irving's troupe, or at Saddlers Wells, or at the Connaught Theatre in Holborn, and as a touring actor with Rignold, or performing at the McCarthy's, and as a Charlotte Street, Gower Street and Tite Street, was an 'aspiring  Lion of the Butterfly', doing everything he could to catch Jimmy Whistler's anticipated  attention. He adopted the 'Whistler posture' with a new top 'opera' hat he bought from his hard earned savings. In one Maggie Cobden letter she suggests 'I wonder why all the managers in London are not after him!' According to her copious observations Walter was 'magnificent in his dandified persona', in a 'splendid opera hat' of 'Irving like proportions', which he wore 'slightly inclined over one eye to fascinating effect'.
From his early 1880s thespian life Walter went on to train at the Slade school of art, ( then a cranky, stuffy and freezing cold form of artists' workhouse run by disinterested 'has beens' who disliked teaching altogether- on a par with the chemistry lessons the forensic student Sir Conan Doyle had to suffer in Edinburgh.... " 'This, is purgatory'. 'Worse- we have to pay for our torment!' ")  which he joyfully abandoned when Whistler invited him to become his apprentice. With the impressionist master Walter was trained to sketch an outline of a scene very quickly 'Whistler Style' , to get it all down on paper very fast before said vibrant scene faded before his eyes. Ostensibly, Jimmy  felt it important that his 'Lions of the Butterfly' ( among whom Walter now took first place in his formal instruction) got as much spontaneous swift sketch practice as possible. You won't find an art tutor that doesn't think sketch practice supremely important, but Jimmy had his own particular reasons.

 The 1880s found the unique impressionist master and his exceptional apprentice at the heart of the impressionist movement wherein the three precepts of line, tone and shade were held sacred as a basis for every good work in any paint ( unlike today's times, wherein imbecility as a mental exercise counts for modern art). Painting was divided into three essential elements (upon which the new genius was to elaborate, while only the imbecile would digress entirely). Traditionally the three precepts were applied in several stages: sketches were squared up and transferred onto large canvas in pencil outline; then tonal (some select base colour) values were applied thinly, and left to dry. Then light effect was put in place in thin layers of paints which conveyed light and shadows. Then came a combination of oil colours and finally, a transparent or translucent oil paint glaze. The impressionist contemporaries ( we can't go into them all here on this post unfortunately)  sometimes use 'long haired whipping brushes for the last two stages.

Whistler used to like to sketch, transfer sketch to canvas, and then paint 'in one wet'; that is, complete the picture before the first round paint was dry,  to have the thing done in one sitting, to keep the pure, smooth look and the beautiful, melodic 'hazy' appearance of his portrait and landscape scenes. It was his trademark. Along with the 'butterfly' signature, his irascible, easy wit and his condescension toward his admirers ( his formal and less formal apprentices and his admiring entourage).

"Stick it, Sickert', and "Shove along, Walter, shove along".... were often repeated, apparently.

 See the Whistlerian outfit on Oscar to the left here, self adorned during his early acquaintance with Jimmy Whistler. The hat carefully slanted over the right eye. 'I wish I'd said that,' Oscar Wilde would often admit, after Jimmy'd flaunted  his witticisms. 'You will, Oscar, you will!'... the 'take Britain by storm  impressionist would reply.

It was during those sketch walks with Jimmy, and the soon after painting 'in one wet' that Walter Sickert developed his 'contre jour' light:  the light  of secret history, the light of erotic love, ( a statement in the Victorian era which repressed its expression in society), the light of love in memory.

The light of love in memory.

I repeat:

 Contre jour. 'Against the daylight'. 

Throughout the 1880s, James McNeill Whistler and his apprentice  would sketch a few scenes together, return to 'The Whistler', the studio at Tite Street, Chelsea, London, and develop them from there.....The sketches were used as a basis for further tutorials, during which which scenes that had been sketched were often transferred onto large canvas. Sometimes these scenes were used as a basis for several different paintings- often involving exercises in paint and light; the light of morning, noon and evening, or the lights at the docks, or the evocative lamp light of our Victorian streets. The painting sessions also served  as exercises in highlighting different details observed while sketching.

'Walter, go and and walk up and down in front of that shop window.' ( Whistler, 'nocturne in Grey and Gold'.)

Below, Walter Sickert, 'The little shop'. 1883. This is the early morning sun, isn't it, after one of Walter's morning sketch wanderings with the master. Walter was in his early twenties, twenty three. It's something of a 'butchers' shop, you can see the legs of mutton or cleaves in the window, just.

Below, Whistler, 'The little shop'. Painted 'In one wet.' Early morning sunlight, isn't it.

Above: Whistler, 'The shop window,' c 1885. We seem to have apprentice Walter Sickert on the left in the sketch there. In his togs, looking at his canvas. Compare the figure in the above sketch that looks like Walter with Whistler's known portrait of Walter, left, dated by critics 1895 ( though  the painted version may well have gone to canvas earlier e.g. c 1889). In which Whistler seems to have painted his apprentice silenced and distressed. And at the centre of the sketch above Jimmy's depicted a man who looks like himself as he was in younger years. The sketch is a reflection: the apprentice Walter is seen reflected in the shop window. ) Do you see that?

The sketch date written on the sketch to the bottom right of the picture could almost read 1858, and yet clearly the scene is set in the 1880s; look at the togs ( style of the clothes), and clearly that's our Walter in the sketch, isn't it, with a large sketch book. Look at the distinctive Sickert ears in the sketch :-)  ) The mark 'Whistler, 1859' or it could read '1889' does not appear to match any of Whistler's signatures or annotations.It  seems to have been written by a clerk at some stage, with insufficient thought going into the analysis of the date of the sketch. 

In almost every art course you'll take part in ' eye to brain' lessons where you simply train your sketching hand to follow very accurately exactly what you eyes see before you, keeping your eye fixed very closely upon the subject while you draw. You learn to perfectly represent the subject before you rather than allow imperfect conception to run away with you... as Oswald Sickert phrased it, it's about learning 'to draw what you see, rather than what you think you see'.  Whistler's tutorial is interesting and imaginative; he's apparently got his apprentice to study and transpose reflections he sees in a shop window. ( And he's obviously very good at his himself). You have to focus very attentively on a reflection in a window to get it down on canvas accurately.

Walter enjoyed painting reflections throughout life, following this precious epoque with the master.  ( Click on the pictures below, to see them in full.)

All over 1880s London,  little shops were secretly used as 'secret post offices' that facilitated a private 'secret letter delivery service' which used informal couriers who delivered correspondence between confederate Fenain Irish, confederate Jacobites, and, most often, lovers ( all kinds, from  all classes) who wanted to keep their affairs secret. These 'secret letter delivery services' employed women and children from over back street London as couriers. Such couriers were paid by arrangement directly from the wallets of the deliverers (or recipients) of secret correspondence. Below, one such little shop, one that facilitated a 'secret letter delivery service', by Jimmy Whistler. A lovely old London early evening shop scene, yes, and what do you notice besides this? The toff with his newspaper striding past the door? The Madam looking on? The Catholic nun and the boy in the window in the maisonette above the shop? Do you notice the cart and the young men lounging beside it at the side of the painting, ( a Whistler sketch speciality) which could almost double up as a canon and soldiers lounging around beside it ( with a stretch of the imagination?)

 Below, a canvas painting by Walter Sickert which he named 'Twilight', apparently based on his own sketch of the shop sketched by Jimmy Whistler ( above). Walter's sketch will have been done during one of his walks with Jimmy in c 1883. Have a good look.

Looking at the above painting you can see that Walter's transferred his sketch to canvas and painted the canvas 'in one wet', in one sitting, using just one set of paints'. He seems to have carried this out  in 1889, as if to commemorate an earlier 1883 sketching walk with Jimmy Whistler, ( he loved their excursions). Do you see that? The same scene was sketched before either painter put their scene to canvas; see the same little shop as the one depicted by Jimmy. And see there, in Walter Sickert's painting, soldiers' canons at that greatly resemble the cart painted by Whistler in his rendition. See in Walter's picture there's a Chief Commissioner in the shop doorway instead of the lovely back street 'Madam' depicted in the Whistler rendition of the same place. The Commissioner is posturing in a  theatrical manner, and he's taking off his hat with his right hand, in a salutary gesture. Do you see that?

And you can see how in his left hand, he's carrying the 'gladstone bag', (a very important forensic detail relating to the 'Whitechapel murderer'.)  And in front of the senior officer posturing, there are dead butcher's pigs, carcasses hung out for display. Evidently, Walter is ( in the painting on canvas in1889) suggesting that a shop that during the 1880s, one that doubled up as a secret letter delivery service base, ( a 'secret post office' with its own informal couriers) was infiltrated by senior police who transformed it into a 'butcher's shop' and hung carcasses out to dry. ( The animal carcasses appear to be metaphorical in Walter's painting,  human carcasses would appear to be inferred by the carcasses of the pigs.)

Look at the canons on the left of the Sickert painting, above. They are clearly pointing straight at the officer in the doorway of the little shop. The implication being that a Jacobite/Fenian attack on the state and senior police was the cause of the carcasses displayed beside the triumphant looking officer, seen in his salutation. Would you agree? The officer's features in Walter's painting are not everso straightforward to make out, though it's very clear he's depicted is a senior officer with some particularly senior togs on. Experienced students of the Whitechapel murder case may find that said features seem to be something of a combination of Commissioner Anderson's, Chief John Littlechild's and Sir Charles Warrens features....  they seem most suggestive of Sir Charles Warren, have a good look.  Sir Charles Warren in his particularly senior togs and medals, below.

In the Sickert painting above, on the face of the senior officer in the doorway, there seems on scrutiny to be that great mustache that Warren wore right up to his  resignation on the day following 'Marie Jeanette Kelly's' carefully organized removal from Whitechapel. Sir Warren appears to have helped orchestrate her staged brutal murder ( she was apparently removed from Whitechapel in November 1888, the Royal family having negotiated with the House of Hanover and Special Branch Police, assisted in organising the young woman's removal from the East End of London and out from the centre of confederate Jacobite and Fenain plans.) That plan for Marie's escape was, according to Walter Sickert's art work, put together by  dite "spymaster" Jenkinson and Randolph Spencer Churchill and practicably carried out with the assistance of Special Branch police: Chief John Littlechild  and Commissioner Anderson in particular . The plan seems to have been performed at the last minute, at the request of Bertie and Alexandra, and of course, Prince Eddy, the Duke of Clarence, who was evidently present to help Marie Jeanette out of Whitechapel in the early hours of the 9th November 1888. 

Below, 'The Butcher's shop', Jimmy Whistler, dated by Whistler, 1888. Notice that this painting depicts the same shop as the one in the Whistler painting above called 'the little shop'-only this time Whistler's used his sketch as a basis for a painting of a butcher's shop; and notice, too, the dastardly looking fellow in the bowler hat to the left of the shop, apparently in some sort of clerical outfit, who we see sneaking a read of something that looks very much like personal ads in a newspaper, on top of some sort of table or counter. At a glance, you could almost see the newspaper that the man is clearly investigating as a shopping till ( and again we see the great advantage of impressionism for conveying 'secret history':  two possibilities can at times be conveyed at the same time....). It seems that in Jimmy Whistler's butcher shop painting, the dastardly gent is none other than that very clever Special Branch Chief  Inspector John Littlechild, who seems to be sneaking a look at the personals in the Standard Newspaper . It does seem to be a newspaper he's got open there, on top of the counter/table at the side of the shop .The implication from Jimmy Whistler being that this dastardly gent and his snooping in the personal ads in the Standard newspaper is what caused the little shop to be transformed into a butcher's shop and the carcasses that are seen hanging out on display ( which again appear to be a metaphorical representation of human dead bodies). These dead bodies, according to evidence from the old Special Branch police 'Jack the Ripper' files ( in which Littlechild's own cuttings of personal ads in the Standard newspaper can be found) must ostensibly be the Whitechapel murder victims ( the women killed during the Whitechapel murders were delivering letters on behalf of Prince Eddy and Marie Jeanette 'Kelly' on the nights they died.)

And interestingly,  Chief John Littlechild seems to be dressed as a clergyman in Whistler's painting! And he's  in his world famous bowler hat, too. And moreover he is depicted with a scarf tied lightly around his neck, quite apparently.... this rather dastardly looking chappie sneaking a look at newspaper personal and/or letters in the shop. Whoever heard of a butcher dressed as a curate like that! However, dressing up as a curate was one of Chief John Littlechild's many disguises as he went round the West and East End of London, as he states himself, in his memoirs ( as previously shown on this blog):

According to the current Special Branch Officer Lindsay Clutterbuck's angle on Littlechild's memoirs published in 1894, quoted in his thesis published in 1998:
'In order to minimize the risks of discovery when on surveillance, the use of disguise was employed by detectives. Littlechild states that its use was disapproved of by some of his colleagues, perhaps as a result of the Popay case and its aftermath or for other, more practical reasons. However, he personally found it most useful...he gives several examples of the disguises he used and the reasons behind their selection ; dressing as a curate disarms suspicion, whilst access to premises can be readily gained when disguised as a Serveyer or Sanitory Inspector. A Cabman is a familiar sight throughout London but sometimes something more specialized was required:-
"So I made up by selecting a 'wardrobe cap' and spotted scarf, to be lightly tied round my neck, and the other essentials of the Whitechapel rig-out. My face I left unshaven for a week or two, and in such natural disguise- which you will see does not correspond atall with theatrical ideas upon the subject- I began to frequent the street market."
Littlechild, 1894, pp82 '
......So it is quite clear from the memoirs of Chief Inspector Littlechild ( the passage cited above and many others) that he went about the West End and Whitechapel in various different disguises - including the disguise of 'curate,' in order to carry out his spying, snooping and various dreadful Special Branch police related operations. He took delight in disguising himself in the 'Whitechapel rig out'... which often comprised a scarf loosely tied around his neck.

Isn't that a 'Gladstone bag' there in Jimmy Whistler's painting, opened, ( a light brown one) beneath the dite animal carcasses ? It looks like it's opened, and  turned upside down.

Sir Charles Warren retired on the morning that an entirely unrecognizable corpse was found in 13 Miller's Court, allegedly purporting to that of a be a woman who at times wore the name 'Mary Jane Kelly' about whom no detail whatever has ever been voluntarily formally produced by any police officer in the whole British history of the establishment - a total exception and  absolute phenomenon in criminal case history. ( Can you imagine that happening today, and people accepting it? For example, an extremely high profile murder case, with the entire British police force suddenly refusing flatly to disclose anything whatever, even the very name, about the allegedly murdered woman concerned?)  No questions were asked of the top officer as he stepped down. Likewise, none were asked of the figure Prime Minister Salisbury who society rumoured as responsible for the ruined careers of Sir Warren, Chief Constable Williamson, and Commissioner James Monroe ( The two secret operatives Chief Inspector Littlechild , in charge of undercover operations for Special Branch police and Commissioner Anderson , in charge of all counter Fenian operations, stayed in place after the murders, and professionally survived.) 

 Below, a sketch from Walter Sickert's secret and personal sketch collection. See the Hanoverian aristocratic orchestrator of the Whitechapel murders stirring a cauldron full of heads that have ostensibly rolled. Look at his salutation, isn't it just like the salutation shown by the officer in the shop doorway in the Walter Sickert painting 'Twilight'? Look, he's taken off his hat and waves it about in a strikingly similar manner. Look at the cauldron containing the heads of Chief Commissioner James Monroe, ( head far left of the heads in the cauldron) Chief Constable Williamson  ( possibly, centre, with his beard smarter, which would sense)  or else that one at the centre is Commissioner Anderson, and the head to the far right in the cauldron, ( I think) Sir Charles Warren ( the bone structure is the same).  There appear to be numerous other rolled heads in the soup, too, besides the most visible .The implication being that the murderous spree the senior officers were ordered to engage in called 'The Whitechapel murders' ruined their careers, or ruined them morally as people.


Below, Commissioner James Monro. In Charge of City and Metropolitan police, connected to Special Branch police officially but his involvement practice was very minimal compared with that of Littlechild, Melvile, Anderson and Jenkinson.

Below, Chief Constable Frederick Williamson, responsible for disorganising the beat officers in the East End of London while Special Branch police intercepted letters between Prince Eddy ( the Duke of Clarence) and his lover/young wife Marie Jeanette and committed the Whitechapel murders. ( The women were couriers working for a secret letter delivery service). He followed orders from Special Branch police in respect of the same.

Is Commissioner Sir Robert Anderson's head in the soup? Or doesn't he figure in the sketch, is it rather more Williamson in the centre of the cauldron? A vous de voir aussi :-)

  No sign in the cauldron Walter Sickert sketched of Chief John Littlechild, who was indubitably involved in every possible aspect of the Whitechapel murders, masterminding them in every practical sense, with the direct assistance of Commissioner Anderson, without which he could not have accomplished anything, of course. See the posts here, and here ( post includes pictures of him dressed as a conspirator/coachman as he went about his Whitechapel business.)   

Who is stirring the cauldron? Who was in charge of the Whitechapel murders?  Often when depicting a contemporary aristocrat, Walter Sickert would depict ancestral faces, or aspects of ancestral faces of the character in question- we've seen several examples already ( Walter Sickert's depictions of The Duke of Atholl, here, and of Lord ( Sir Arthur) Somerset, here, to give two examples). Pierre Auguste Renoir tended to do the same ( example cited here.) When looking at all these newly surfaced pictures of Walter Sickert's, which clearly are a priceless treasure allowing amongst other revelations, very significant revelation in the Whitechapel murder case, it's important to make sure that any available/National Gallery portrait being compared to any one of these said sketches matches exactly, down to the hairstyle and specific facial features and idiosyncrasies. ( No wishful thinking or jumping to conclusions!)

Let's compare historical faces of the various Marquis' Salisbury with Walter Sickert's evidently very telling and incriminating picture of the political aristocrat stirring the cauldron.

Above, the 1st Marquis of Salisbury, bearer of the title created by King George III, a King hated of the Stuarts who consider(ed) the monarch an atrocious usurper of their rightful place according to the Act of Succession.

Above, the 1st Earl Salisbury, ancestor to the 1st Marquis ( above.) And look below. 
It is him. 

Prime Minister Salisbury.

( This cauldron sketch is just the sort of picture to avoid showing American Patrica Cornwell and her cronies in isolation as they tend to go off on a wild bender wildly accusing Walter Sickert of committing the Whitechapel murders, which is clearly not what his witness evidence ( or any of the other artists' witness evidence) is saying.) That lot do not care to research material  in its full context, allowing research context to speak as clearly as research material. (And you see how important that is).

Prime Minister Salisbury, Marquis Salisbury of the 1880s' (aka 'The lost epoque') can be found outlined in the Wiki here.  Note that this 1880s aristocratic Prime Minister carried the family crest and peerage conferred on his ancestors by King George III. 

Below, King George III of Hanover, hated of the Stuarts and Jacobites. The loathing was always mutual. King George III of Hanover  conferred the title of the 'Marquis of Salisbury' on the men of the family line in return for their faithful allegiance.

Various depictions of George III below.

Sailsbury: 'He was three times Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, from 1885 to 1886, 1886 to 1892 and 1895 and 1902, and he also served four times as Foreign Secretary. His time as Prime Minister coincided with a great expansion of the British Empire. Lord Salisbury is also remembered as an adherent of the policy of "splendid isolation", the desire to keep Great Britain out of European affairs and alliances, [ and little wonder at this, since the Stuart/Jacobite network had permeated that territory before, during and ever since the Jacobite rebellion lead by the Bonnie Prince Charlie]. He was also the last British Prime Minister to serve from the Lords.'

Below, a Hanoverian confederate, the very Hanoverian face quite clear, ( and very precise, which is worth bearing in mind) dressed as a Hanoverian soldier, from Walter Sickert's secret and personal sketch collection.  He too appears to be 'in some hot water', or more precisely, wading through some sort of mud; the inference perhaps being ( in context)  that he too is put in danger by the confederate assassin exploit known colloquially to the East End of London as the 'Whitechapel murders' or the 'Jack the Ripper' murders.

Having examined the House of Hanover characters of the era and compared theirs and their ancestors' faces against Walter's art evidence, it seems to me that in the sketch above, Walter is probably inferring the involvement in the Whitechapel murder plot of Prince Ernest Augustus, Crown Prince of Hanover, and rendering his face equally  like that of his direct ancestor King George III. Walter Sickert, when painting an 1880s aristocrat, often tended to expressly infer the face of their ancestor(s) ( as we've seen several times, including the example with Sailsbury, above.)

Ernst Augustus of Hanover, shown as a young boy below:

And below as an older man, in the 1880s. 

Ernest Augustus is the relevant British Hanover whose interests were greatly at stake in the 1880s. However if we are to note that the 1880s artists are suggesting the House of Hanover are responsible for the 'Whitechapel murders', and I think we must, then we must not omit any prominent European male members of this aristocratic Royal house of Hanover.

The covert plan to put forward the union of Prince Eddy of the British Royal family and his Stuart girl Marie Jeanette and their little boy was evidently cruising quite happily right up until late 1886, when unexpectedly, the bill for Home Rule supported by Gladstone did not go through, defeated by a margin of only thirty votes.

 Here, the Wiki on 'Irish Home Rule' and its 1870's and 1880s progress ,  most specifically 'Home Rule in sight'. 

And I want you to watch these videos below, if you've got the time, specifically noting matters that relate to the rise of Fenianism and Irish nationalism, the story of Fenian fire in the 1880s precedent to the Jubilee assassination attempt on Queen Victoria, and the general unrest in London during the 'Lost epoque'. I've noted ( briefly here on this blog) how planned assassination attempts during the 1880s on Queen Victoria, and the Prince and Princess of Wales Bertie and Alexandra of the British Royal family by extremists in the Fenian/ Irish National movement did not happen in isolation ( why would they?)  - they were evidently directly connected to Fenian plans surrounding a Stuart-Irish Royal boy, the son of Prince Eddy and Mary 'Kelly' ( Stuart), who was in line for the British throne. So watch these videos, take relevant information, and note the researchers' errors in respect of certain issues - such as saying that in 1886 spymaster Edward Jenkinson ( who at first was charged with protecting Prince Eddy and his Stuart and Irish liaisons in the early 1880s) was sending all sorts of unusual spies all over London simply 'because he went pretty strange...' ( fact he didn't 'go strange at all, why would he?) ... he was employing Catharine 'Kitty' Eddowes as a spy in Whitechapel at that time for example.... in the early 1880s, central Whitechapel murder victim Catherine Eddowes was at first charged by Special Branch police with protecting Prince Eddy's lover and young undeclared wife Marie Jeanette in Whitechapel.) I'll leave the viewing to your initiative..videos three and four are particularly relevant, I have included them here, you can access the videos 1-6 of this series via the youtube connection you have.

** note to the videos re the attempted assassination of Queen Victoria: According to the ledgers currently retained by Special Branch police, Spymaster Edward Jenkinson was only formally dismissed in 1887 and was functioning as a 'spymaster' throughout 1887 and 1888. ( Of course, you don't just shut down a spy office and all the agents in a fell swoop like that without great detriment to your organization, and of course, he was secretly kept on.)  Also, according to the ledgers, Commissioner James Monro was really only superficially in charge of Section d Special Branch in 1887-8. It was continually run by Chief John Littlechild and Commissioner Anderson, with considerable involvement from Jenkinson and Melville. (These issues are very relevant in my view, and one of the many reasons the ledgers should be released to the public.)

Jimmy Whistler's glistening preoccupation with various city docks and their aura ( often Venice, London and Southampton) had more than a little to do with the near endless stream of immigrant Fenian Irish, particularly those of Jacobite disposition, sailing in to the British capital city. Jimmy and Walter would often walk along the docks at Twilight in the 1880s. If you look, you can see the migrant rebels on the pier, at the forefront of the painting. Some of them are dancing in.

Whistler's 'The Solent', a nocturne in blue and gold, below. Jimmy was preoccupied with the docks and the ports throughout the epoque wherein Irish Fenian immigrants were coming in so thick and fast the Commissioners had officers mounted at every landing place and harbor in the country, quite as though they were expecting a full territorial invasion. 

There was clearly a Fenian connection with this Irish/Stuart girl Marie Jeanette, 'A lost woman in Miller's Court'. Bear in mind that this woman and her evident boy child evidently were, at the time outlined in the helpful documentary above, considered to be a threat to the British Constitution sufficient to warrant very focused attention from Parliament and the british Secret Service (  Mostly Special Branch police). There is only one family who historically are exactly that. Only one. Ask any decent historian.

Bless them, it is not any of the many Kellys of 1880s Whitechapel, or the Crooks of 1880s Cleveland Street. It is the historical House of Stuart.  In the 1880s, Stuarts were not just pretty pearls with blue ribbands in their bonnie hair; they owned the Act of Succession. They still do. One link up with any of them,  let alone with a direct descendant of  Prince Charles Edward Stuart ( as evidently inferred by Oscar Wilde, Walter Sickert and James McNeill  Whistler among others) had the capacity to throw the whole Hanoverian British power cabal out entirely. The Stuarts were, and are, a complete threat to the British throne and power cabal. Pas vrai? Did the 1880s Fenian/Irish Nationalist network ( incorporating Parnell and other members of Parliament) have the capacity to construct such a plan as a Stuart bid for England, secretly put it in place and support it? Yes of course, it could not be clearer. Does it looks as if that's exactly what they were doing? Yes it does.

Ostensibly, that genuinely was: 'A problem for Salisbury'. ( That's putting it mildly! It's 'all or nothing', this 'Lost epoque' story,  is it not.)

 Special Branch police called the lost Prince 'Jo' 'King of the Fenians'. He's there noted in the ledgers the British police still refuse as yet to release to the British public, I have photographed some of the entries. The era artists are clearly identifying  him and his mother, Stuart descendants, drawing pictures of their historic Stuart beauty and that of the Lost Prince's father Prince Eddy, and of the intercepted secret letter delivery service.

Look, below,  from Walter Sickert's secret and personal sketch collection... the Prince Eddy, his loyal confederates and the traitors....and the man who is writing on the wall... 'The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing'... all wearing Masonic regalia..Do you see it, below? Look at the sketch drawing beneath the sketch of the man with the hat drawn bold in the forefront of the sketch-picture.  At the centre of the sketch picture, there's a Prince wearing his crown; and look, to the left (on  the Prince's right) a man writing upon the wall! He must be the man who wrote 'The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing' on the wall on the night of the double 'Jack the Ripper' murders! And see, this writing..... according to Walter Sickert's sectret and personal sketch collection,  it is indeed interpreted by the Stuart Masons as a threat against them ...... a threat to the aristocrats involved in the Jacobite ( Stuart) confederacy! See how those to the right of the sketch, to the left of the depicted Prince Eddy, see how they look at the writing on the wall, then look at the Prince, then turn and flee, in fear or with the look of betrayal upon their faces..... The Prince hold hands with the Stuart Freemason confederates of him...on either side.. are the ones who are depicted turning and running, to the far right of the sketch picture, young Hanoverian Freemasons? That would make sense.

 Perhaps those fleeing the prince, to his left, are the pretty things of Knightsbridge who abandoned and betrayed him for the sake of the House of Hanover and corrupt ministers of state...... 

The character in bold in the forefront of the sketch appears to be a possible caricature of Commissioner Anderson.

  So 'The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing' ... ostensibly implied....  'Those Jacobite/Stuart Mason confederates are acting like men who are above blame and punishment'.... if it was written by  Hanovarian Freemason..If it was written by a Stuart Freemason, it will have been a confederate sign for Catharine 'Kitty' Eddowes for her meeting place where she was to wait for a letter from Albert Edward's messenger. Either way, we know that Catherine Eddowes stood in that little alleyway that night waiting to deliver a letter....before being intercepted by Special Branch police.

Let's zoom in on the face of the one writing on the wall...he is not as young as the others shown....and.. he too is in Masonic Costume! 

 And said costume does indeed appear to be slightly different from the lighter and more elegant costume worn by the Stuart Freemasons in the same sketch shown worn by Prince Eddy and his friends.... The Masonic costume worn by the man writing on the wall shows a heavier sash tied round the waist, denoting a very senior Freemasonry position, and there is a cape in addition on the costume, whereas the younger men are not wearing capes.  The Freemason costume worn by the man writing on the wall resembles the costume worn by the 1880s senior Freemasons of the House of Hanover! ( Prince Eddy was obliged into formalities with Freemasons from the House of Hanover, as the photo below shows, but he also apparently participated in Stuart Freemasonry where his allegiance seems to have lain.) See below, how the most senior Freemason in the photo, the Prince of Wales, wears a cape with his Masonic regalia. That cape is about as senior in terms of the regalia as you could hope to see in the 1880s It is Freemason Royalty.  It will be a relief at first to see how the face of the man writing on the wall doesn't resemble Bertie ( Prince of Wales) but, oh dear, it does rather resemble the face of the senior Special Branch operative at his beck and call, Chief John Littlechild, or could it perhaps be Melvile?.......or is a deliberately Hanoverian face, like that of Ernst August of Hanover? It does look very like him!

  Withut the Masonic Royal cape in the sketch, we might have been able to conclude that the Masonic character depicted near the writing on the wall is depicted inspecting the 'Writing on the wall'  after the event? Sir Charles Warren, perhaps? It does look abit like him, too. Or it might have been thought that it looks like torturer Sir William Gull, depicted here. There is no suggestion that Bertie is depicted literally holding the pen, the inference seems to be that Hanoverian Royalty were in charge of the murders of the couriers  ( the Whitechapel women who died, murdered by Special Branch police while delivering letters) and the threats to the 'Stuart Masons'.

 This is the fifth time Walter has pointed the finger at Bertie ( Prince Edward of Wales) and his Hanoverian allegiance, and we've already very reluctantly seen how Bertie was the only British Royal really capable of giving orders to Special Branch police in the epoque , and, of course, situated to do it. For a Prince of Wales of that Fenian penetrated era (who was dominated to a certain extent by Freemasons from the House of Hanover and their associates)... allowing his officers to assassinate confederate couriers in the back streets, allowing Special Branch police to read confiscated correspondence and imposing himself on his son's plans, that is not in any way out of the question..... It is however very suggestible from Walter Sickert's and others' work that for the future King Edward VII ( Bertie) assassinating the Stuart girl mother was out. She and the boy were evidently removed from Whitechapel. Perhaps Eddy pleaded for her life with the House of Hanover Freemasons; in any event, removing the girl was done in utmost secrecy with only a few informed that Marie Jeanette's death was staged.

Who are those pretty things depicted apparently betraying our Prince Eddy and his friends to the House of Hanover? This soon. This Andreas Scholl version of 'Ombra Mai Fu' is also a wonder. ( Here, click, sorry this should have gone in earlier.) See also linked here the French version of that part of the Dangerous Liaisons script...) (Isn't Eddy just 'the friend' associated with the 'pauvre reponse' 'Ce n'est pas ma faute?' :-)  As it is perhaps with all his Stuart/Jacobite associates.)

Below a beautiful picture by Walter Sickert (just surfaced ) ostensibly of his girl Alice Margaret, his and darling Annie Crook's daughter born in the mid 1880s. Looking at her reflection, wondering who she perhaps is, apparently.

Of course she's his.She belongs to him and the early love if his life. Who could doubt the love gone into that picture? Do you see how her reflection resembles the picture of Walter taken with Edgar Degas in 1885? Can you see that? ;-) 

We love you Mr Sickert. :-)

Monday, 29 October 2012

...another one! ( and more...)

Click on pictures to see them in full if need be. More added! :-)

Who is this, below? 
It's another dandy gent in the business of the Whitechapel murder and the 'Cleveland Street Scandal,' by Walter Sickert. There was quite a crowd, wasn't there! 
Who is it? 
( That is a waiter style cloth beneath his arm n'est ce pas. Perhaps he waited at a  restaurant above a pub in Chelsea. Not necessarily though. Very poshe features, aren't they.)

Every time I find evidence of yet another character, I'm asking How on earth did Section d Special Branch police manage to wipe out the history of a generation like that.

But anyway, they haven't achieved it. 

Nearly did! 

But as Marjorie Lilly phrased it in 1945, on visiting Walter Sickert's old studio, the studio that had previously been Whistlers', 'The Frith', seeing it had been bombed out: 

' Lost, all lost! But then I remembered, the pictures, the pictures had survived!'  Then I closed the door and made my way down the silent street.'

Here, a Telegraph article on the threat to the pub 'The Cross Keys', also under threat from sleazy  foreign renovators and unscrupulous British merchants who run after foreign money.

"Turner, Whistler and Sargent used to drink there." ( The Cross Keys.)
“It is the last original pub around here,” says Terrence Bendixon, who has lived in the area for 45 years and is part of the Chelsea Society, which works to protect the borough’s history. Despite its location and starry alumni, the Cross Keys is an “ordinary local” and was used as exactly that by residents. They are aghast at the thought of it becoming yet another millionaire’s home."

Oh! Look at that Pelican on the wall of the Cross Keys pub there. That's a Stuart Freemason symbol, rarely displayed in England, as we've seen. ( Here, an earlier post, 'Stuart Hearts' which covers the matter.) In eighteenth and nineteenth century England, pubs were often local Freemason's haunts; different lodges would often own the various drinking places with their various Freemason symbols.  Here is yet more stunning evidence, clear as day, right in our eyes. Evidently the favourite Chelsea drinking haunt of the 'Stuart Masons' of the 'rebel cell'.

So are 'Cross Keys' a Stuart/Jacobite symbol too then, do you think? They certainly are a Papal symbol. Here, the Wiki on the matter.   There's another 'Cross Keys' pub in Ladywood in Birmingham, and it's situated in 'Stewart Street'. ( Some people are calling the location 'Stuart Street'). 

John Singer Sergant was ostensibly a part of a 'Rebel Cell' that often gathered at Whistler's studios. ( Gone into in this post here.) Therefore in all probability, Walter Sickert and Edgar Degas drank at the Cross Keys and the Phene too, the Cross Keys in particular. And of course Oscar Wilde was there, and, presumably, the other 'Stuart Masons', many of whom were artists and era aristocrats with Jacobinism prominently figuring in their ancestry.

Pencil sketch by Singer Sargent in 1887, below, 'Woman with bow.'  This is a very interesting sketch picture isn't it, Whitechapel murder case keenies. Who is this? 

 Look at this. Below, 'A youth', John Singer Sargent  date unknown, c 1880-1920 ( forensic testing needed as with all these revelatory pictures, I am confident as to the testing result.) The son of the woman above? The features are very like.

Who else is it!  Compare this Singer Sargent sketch picture 'A youth' with the picture of Walter Sickert's very personal sketch picture of 'Jo', ( Walter Sickert's study of the lost prince 'Jo', the son of Prince Eddy and Mary Jeanette, link here)
You'll be aware of course that the emergent pictures of 'mother and son' and 'woman and child' ( in all cases referring ostensibly to Marie Jeanette aka Mary Jane Kelly and her son Jo) are personalised by the individual artist that drew or painted  them , and there are ostensibly slight variations between the artists; drawings are more subjective that photographs, even if they are evidence. -----
This Singer Sargent sketch 'Woman seated before a piano', c 1880s, below, is worth comparing with the sketch 'Woman with a bow' above; she seems to be one and the same woman, and she seems to be the mother of the boy in the sketch above. The woman seems to be wearing a shawl of exactly the type described by the witnesses at the 'Mary Kelly' inquest. Isn't this a beautiful, melodic picture? (Is that a letter in her hand or is it some sort of tasseled purse? Or is it the top of the back of a chair.) Beautiful still pathos here.

  Do you notice that the woman in the sketch 'Woman seated before a piano' and the youthful boy in 'A youth' are in exactly the same pose, with the right hand back in exactly the same way? The two sketches are from two different Singer Sargent collections. John Singer Sargent c 1905  must have decided to sketch the youth, 'Jo', in the same pose as he had once sketched (and possibly painted) his young mother Marie Jeanette 'before the piano' in the early 1880s.  You can see a trace of reconstructed piano keys in the sketch picture 'A youth.' Beautiful. ( The two sketch pictures were not done in the same sitting, were they; the materials used and the approach to canvas were different for the two pictures.)

To have gone to the lengths of emotive perfection and then to keep silent on secret history . Each one of these artists.

Mendelssohn was the favorite of 'Jo's great grandmother when she was young ( Victoria.) The composer visited the palace.

Here, below, a very helpful 1888 newspaper artist's picture of 'The murdered woman's room', referring to the room at Miller's court, no 13, where Marie Jeanette often lived in the 1880s,  where the body of a woman purporting to be 'Marie Jeanette Kelly' or 'Mary Jane Kelly' was found in November 1888. ( Marie was not there continuously in 1888, according to  Inquest witnesses.) Notice that in said room, there is, just behind the bed, a writing desk, washstand, or piano like the one in the picture 'Woman before a piano',  and  two chairs that appear to be exactly like the one on which the woman in the Singer Sergant picture  is seated.
There is certainly no reason to conclude that there wasn't a piano in the room at 13 Miller's court at some point in the 1880s. We can see from the newspaper drawings of 1888 that the room was large and that it was 'shabby genteel', 'rag tag and bob tail dandy': suggestive more of aristocratic poverty than anything else. And we know that Marie Jeanette loved to sing-  she was heard singing  ' A violet from mother's grave', a music hall ditty, ( apparently sung for her son) on the night she either died or was removed from Miller's court, never to return to the East End of London. 

Below: 'A lost woman in Miller's court' - contemporary picture by a newspaper artist ( unknown artist, but it's very helpful isn't it. He deserved a little credit). Bear in mind though, that this artists impression below will be less accurate than the impressions drawn and painted by Walter Sickert and his artist associates who knew Marie Jeanette personally..or is it much less accurate? It depends on the quality of the forensic artist doesn't it, if he asked around the witnesses for a likeness he will have been capable of producing at least a reasonable one.. 

Below, another 1888 newspaper picture of 'Mary Kelly', not nearly so good as the one above ( which ostensibly interested Sickert), but it does suggest that the buttoned up, frumpy stoic back street outfits that lovely Marie Jeanette wore in Whitechapel ( which amounted to disguise in her case, really) could have a bit of a 'dowdy' effect on her otherwise lovely appearance. __

The many other pictures of dite 'Mary Kelly' can be found via the links on the side bar. Below, my favorite of Walter Sickert's pictures of her, from his secret and personal sketch collection:

And how about this?
These Singer Sargent sketches below also interest me very much, for reasons apparent. The eighteenth century costume, the angel herald, the pen and the letter, ( or is it a pencil and  sketch paper, yes I think it is...) the woman and her baby child. 

It's a shame there has been so much abuse of my work and my life- if my work had been ready and completed, instead of suffering delays from all the interference that I have received, it could of course have helped with issues such as the Phene and Cross Keys pub matter. This continuous desecration of historic artifacts of great relevance to intriguing secret history and history of art, must be fought. It is quite apparent that the Phene and the Cross Keys must have been confederate artists' and aristocrats' meeting places in the 'Lost Epoque', the 1880s. (As for modern day "'sloanes' and fiancees" and so on, who apparently frequent the pubs, are they a historic beauty?)

Still the  research serendipity continues, this secret history is definitely meant to come out isn't it. I'm grateful for this. 

More Singer Sargent. Is this Elizabeth Stride? Titled 'heads'. She looks like a Whitechapel lady.

Here, below,  the mortuary photo of Elizabeth Gustafsdotter aka  Stride, regrettably the only photo we have: with mortuary photos of course you don't always have the exact life likeness- if the throat was cut there will be a certain sagging of the skin and flesh round the face that appears in a mortuary photo - and you can see that poor Elizabeth's mouth was tampered with by her assassin too. The face in the Singer Sargent picture above is more likely to be exact. The right ear ( the woman in the picture's right ear) seems exactly representative of Elizabeth's, and it is quite particular. The cheekbones are exactly like, too ( very important). I find that Singer Sargent's woman does have a Swedish air, would you agree?

Witness contributions from prominent 1880s artists associated with Walter Sickert are very helpful in terms of acquitting Walter Sickert of the accusation that he was the 'Whitechapel murderer' ( which is not my only aim, obviously!) and pointing the finger of blame for the monstrosity at Special Branch police and Hanoverian Freemasonry, where it belongs. The mainstay of the accusation leveled at the artist Walter Sickert is that he clearly knew about the murders and all the characters involved in the matter. Well: so, clearly, did all his artist associates, including Degas, Whistler, Renoir, Wilde and Singer Sargent! And furthermore, they are all telling the same story! ( The Special Branch police attack on a Jacobite confederacy and a secret letter delivery service which was intercepted, Special Branch police killed the women couriers working for the service). Which is exactly what you would expect if Walter, and inevitably, his artist associates too, were witnesses to British State corruption and murder.
We could do with some evidence that Walter Sickert and John Singer Sargent sketched together. Is there any? It seems there is, and that the sketches might have occurred during tuition from Jimmy Whistler. Look at Singer Sargent's sketch book page titled 'men', here below:

And look here, below, at these sketches from Walter Sickert's secret and personal sketch collection:

And here's a lovely picture of a woman sweeping, also from Walter's secret and personal sketch collection:

 This may be evidence that while under Whistler's tution, Walter Sickert also took some tution from Singer Sergant.

Alternatively this may simply be evidence that both artists took example and tuition from Whistler, helpful nonetheless. The sketches look like exercises in body form and activity to me. The sketching is very similar, it looks as if both artists studied during the same session.

 How reasonable is that ( cravat) bow, below?

Singer Sergant's picture of William Butler Yeats, whose socialism followed that of William Morris, who -according to the Special Branch police ledgers - was followed all about by Special Branch police, particularly while giving lectures in the 'Berner Street Working Men's Club', outside which Prince Eddy and Marie Jeanette's courier Elizabeth Stride was found assassinated in August 1888. 
How reasonable is this Yeats poem, 'The Secret Rose'?  

William Morris, leading confederate socialist of the 1880s. I love this historical person. Special Branch police hounded him endlessly, out of the country on several occasions, to the point he had to abandon his home - to an artist who considered himself finer, who'd taken his wife. Special Branch police very likely caused William's early death. They were particularly interested in spying on him heading up the Berner Street Club meetings. It was a confederate rebel hub.

And I love his ( unfinished) blackbirds and roses designs. They're the best.

Walter Sickert's picture of William Morris and the little prince, Jo. 

William Butler and William Morris - Jacobite confederates, yeees, and I can't help thinking they're two British socialist classics. One's a supreme poet who lead an absolute plonker of a young life with an angry tired looking frump who didn't give much for him, mundane at best, and the other, devoted and genuine, born before his time, was dogged and hounded, as sidelined and kicked around as his fiery ideas were marvelous. 

Below, 'The pelican in her piety' , by Sir Edward Croley Burne Jones, 1st Baronet. ( Pre Raphaelite associate of William Morris, click here for more information. 

This is a major issue here on these blog pages, ( and in the files of my work which I have not yet published) rendered stunning not by me, but by the artists whose work I put forward. It will break through at some point, I know, the pompous resistance to the discoveries ( which I have encountered in many institutions ) will have to break down.  Isn't it tragic the way Europe disrespects secret history and anything an artist has to say about his or her own life. I said to my son, "I have to live on air and water. You'll find me lying in a pauper's grave like Mozart, with my feet sticking up in the air" :-) xx 

The outline of the current situation in respect of the libel campaign against me and the legal stuff (click).