Thursday, 31 May 2012

Stuart Hearts, (a brief overview)

Left, an illuminated ' Dot Hetherington' sings through the tender light of shed blood at the Old Bedford.

Below, the Monument to Bonnie Prince Charlie's mother Maria Clementina Sobieska in St Peter's Basilica, Rome ( 'The Vatican') . It is just inside the main entrance. Maria holds her heart in her outstretched arm.  Stuart heirs proclaimed that they had 'divine right' as Kings, and that usurping their place (as Britain did) was flouting God. Exiled Stuarts with 'divine right' were, by their own decree, buried separate from their hearts while in exile. The symbolism denotes the Stuart's 'generous, broken bleeding heart' and martyrdom. The same symbolism is demonstrated in 'Pelican' heraldry used of the Stuarts, where the Pelican mother, who is portrayed naturally Christlike, plucks a continuous stream of fresh blood out of her heart for her evergreen young. The burial tradition is the complete antithesis of Catholic observance, it is flagrant Stuart Freemasonry. Yet not one Pope ever refused to countenance it, such was the Vatican's compassion in respect of the Stuart cause. 
Below Marie Clementina's statuette, just above the doorway, two distinct cherubs hold the symbol of a heart shaped urn between them, containing Maria Clementina's actual heart. The forbidden burial tradition is exemplified and celebrated in the Monument inside the entrance of St Peter's Basilica ( 'The Vatican').
These cherubs were a particular favorite of Henry Stuart,  he commissioned them all over his Italian properties. Note their appearance carefully.

Below, one of Walter Sickert's sketches of the 'Old Bedford'. And supposedly of cherubs on one of that Music Hall's balconies . Look again: the cherubs are not cherubs belonging to the old Bedford at all, are they. They plainly are the two cherubs that can be seen beneath the monument to Maria Clementina Sobieska, the exiled Stuart Queen, sketched by Walter Sickert in his Old Beford series and disguised as a part of the old Music Hall.
They're holding a harp rather than a heart, ( below) but it clearly is the same cherubs we have here. See the little boy in the balcony with the little cap on, this will be a 'little Stuart boy' ( presumably depicted with Walter Sickert, or some other guardian).

They're not holding a harp rather than a heart in the sketch below, they're holding both, look carefully. They've been sketched in the inverse by Walter Sickert below, exactly though they're appearing in a mirror ( typical of art containing stories relating to Stuart Freemasonry). The heart shape, shaped like the urn beneath Maria Clementina's Monument, held by one of the cherubs ( in the sketch below) is in the right place, if you consider that they are the Monument cherubs shown 'a l'inverse', as if seen in a mirror......

In the exquisite painting of little Dot Hetherington below, depicted much younger in appearance than in the painting shown at the top of this page, she is shown pointing up at a balcony, or rather at a slightly disguised image of the two Stuart Cherubs who hold Maria Clementina's heart in the St Peter's Basilica. Beneath the cherubs, a young prince Eddy is seen behind an animated looking curtain. Another figure behind a curtain stage left, looks in at little Dot. Princess Alexandra, evidently. This painting is called 'The boy I love is up in the gallery' or 'Little Dot Hetherington at the Old Bedford Music Hall.' 

There is nothing incidental about the way this ethereal little girl is pointing up, is there. And she is not wearing a back street Music Hall dress by any stretch of the imagination. She is wearing the dress that children serving the Vatican Cardinals wear, when carrying the incense through the pews up to the altar. She is pointing up at the Stuart Heart. 

The gallery little Dot is pointing to visibly contains, in other connected paintings, a little boy, (usually depicted wearing a flat cap when at the Music Halls.) The implication is that this boy is a little Stuart Prince. Here he is, (left) with Mary Kelly and Annie Crook. He's smiling. Can you see him?  He is behind Mary Kelly, who is wearing a plumed hat.

Bonnie Prince Charlie's heart is buried in a small Cathedral ( having the appearance of a Church) in Frascati, separated from the rest of his human remains. Bonnie Charlie died in Rome on 31 January 1788. He was first buried in the Cathedral of Frascati, where his brother Cardinal Henry Benedict Stuart was Bishop. His heart was placed in an urn there, and his partly desecrated human remains were placed in a separate case. At Henry's death in 1807, by order of the Pope, who would only put up with so much Stuart Freemasonry, most of Charles's remains were moved to the crypt of Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican where they were laid to rest next to those of his brother and his father ( James III). Bonnie Charlies' mother is also buried in Saint Peter's Basilica. Bonnie Prince Charlie's heart was not moved from Frascati to the Vatican when his other remains were moved; it is still there, beneath a large marble plaque on the wall that informs visitors of what lies beneath the slabs.
There are no separated Stuart hearts enshrined in the Vatican besides that of Cementina, the Popes will not put up with it. Not publicly, anyway. (This by the Bishop of Frascati last time I was there). They won't 'touch the Blackbird of Paradise' anymore than they have to, as it were.

The deposed King James II, Bonnie Prince Charlie's ancestor , died September 16, 1701, at the Château of St. Germain-en-Laye, when, according to Jacobite resistance, he was succeeded in all his British rights by his son James ( Bonnie Prince Charlie's father, shown left, as a boy). His body was lain (in a coffin, but not buried) in the Chapel of Saint Edmund in the Church of the English Benedictines in the Rue St. Jacques, Paris. His brain was sent to the Scots College in Paris, his heart to the Convent of the Visitandine Nuns at Chaillot, and his bowels divided between the English Church of St. Omer and the parish church of St. Germain-en-Laye. James' body remained in the Church of the English Benedictines, waiting translation to Westminster Abbey, until the French Revolution when it was desecrated by the mob and lost. Lost also during the Revolution were his remains at the Scots College, the Visitandine Convent of Chaillot, and the English Church of St. Omer. The praecordia which had been placed in the parish church of St. Germain-en-Laye, however, were rediscovered in 1824 and remain there to this day.

We know about the punishments for breaking Hanoverian Freemason allegiance that were distributed by Hanoverian Freemasons in the 19th Century, they have been well documented and compared against the pictures drawn by Hogarth, who spent half his life pointing a satirical, sharp finger at British Hanoverian Freemasons. In Hogarth's picture 'The Reward of Cruelty', one of their assassinations is ostensibly performed ( and figures of educated society such as judges, lawyers, philosophers and medics are suggested.) Wiki link to Hogarth's picture series here. There is not much need to repeat detail about Hanoverian Freemasonry retribution and punishments here, suffice to say an entered apprentice or initiated Hanoverian Freemason made different vows at different levels, and expected to be punished for unfaithfulness by such as having his 'eyes gouged out', his 'toungue torn out by its roots' and 'his throat cut from ear to ear', and his 'lung removed and placed over his shoulder' , his 'thumbs cut off', and his face 'marked with squares and angles'. Second degree involved self invoking curses to the heart and chest on the instance of  betrayal of the brotherhood; the Hanoverian Royal Arch degree vows also involved invoking curses on the stomach and womb area of women in the family, should the participant break bonds with his fellow Freemasons. The York rite stated that a 'traitor' 'shall have his breast torn apart, and his vital organs removed and exposed to rot on a dung hill.'

Thus the Stuart Freemasonry tradition is deemed to be retaliative; the heart of the exiled Stuart is removed expressly by Stuart Freemasons and treated as a supposed powerful symbol of divine martyrdom in exile, and other vital organs of the deceased are carefully preserved separately. ( Left,  Pelican Heraldry, showing the Pelican plucking blood from her heart for her young.)
Bearing in mind all the above, not half of it, take another look at the supposed desecration of 'Mary Jeanette Kelly' whose remains were reportedly found in Miller's Court ( Forensics evidence Jack the Ripper case, main extract):

"...The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat but the axis of the body inclined to the left side of the bed. The head was turned on the left cheek. The left arm was close to the body with the forearm flexed at a right angle and lying across the abdomen. The right arm was slightly abducted from the body and rested on the mattress.

............The whole of the surface of the abdomen and thighs was removed and the abdominal cavity emptied of its viscera. The breasts were cut off, ( this will have been in an effort to get to the heart) the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds and the face hacked beyond recognition of the features. The tissues of the neck were severed all round down to the bone.

..The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

..The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, and on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about two feet square. The wall was by the right side of the bed and a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in several places. ( apparent assassination via the throat).

..The face was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyebrows, and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched and cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features.

..Both arms and forearms had extensive jagged wounds.
..The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about one inch long, with extravasation of blood in the skin, and there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition.

..The neck was cut through the skin and other tissues right down to the vertebrae, the fifth and sixth being deeply notched. The skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis. The air passage was cut at the lower part of the larynx through the cartilage.

..On opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away. The left lung was intact. It was adherent at the apex and there were a few adhesions over the side. In the substances of the lung there were several nodules of consolidation.

..The pericardium was open below and the heart absent.   ....... " ....

Presumably the heart was absent having been sent to the Stuarts associated with the woman 'Mary Kelly'?  

( The full forensic version here via Wiki, I have selected the most relevant, which is nearly all of it)

The supposed body of 'Mary Kelly' contained  evidence of Hanoverian Freemasonry retribution that can be found in  Hanoverian rites that derive from almost all  its different lodges. This would suggest her apparent status was deemed a very significant outrage and insult within the governing hierarchy of Hanoverian Freemasonry. The desecration of Cathrine Eddowes was the second most significant of all the 'Jack the Ripper' victims in terms of Freemasonry, ( her status as a Special branch police spy who betrayed them and betrayed Hanoverian Freemasonry is relevant to that) and yet her body was less marked with symbolism than the supposed corpse of 'Mary Kelly'.
That forensic display is denotes one of four possibilities in its epoque: 1, Hanoverian Freemason retribution on a Stuart princess for her liaison with a Hanoverian Prince, 2, Stuart Freemasonry retribution on one of their own for her liaison with a Hanoverian Prince, 3, a display of Hanoverian Freemasonry retribution on a corpse that was after all not that of Mary Kelly', which was carried out in order to devastate Jacobites and Fenians in London, give them the impression that their plans were truly over, and get the girl away to safety after her fake death. 'The face was hacked beyond recognition of the features.'

Possibility 2 is the least likely, because it was in Jacobite interests to form a link with the throne; possibility 3 will have had to have involved negotiations between the Royal family and Special Branch police... Walter Sickert's secret sketches ( to be shown on my coming website) denote that there were negotiations between the Royal family, certain aristocrats, and Special Branch police in late 1888.

In 2003 the ripperologists, Bonnie Prince Charlie being the very last thing on their minds, forensically constructed a replicate of beautiful 'Mary Kelly' from photographic evidence available.

The video linked here, is set to the Music Hall song that 'Mary Kelly' was heard singing, by several Inquest witnesses, on the night she died - or disappeared, never to return to England.  She seems to have been singing it for her little boy, the 'Lost Prince'. Her son by Prince Eddy ( Albert Victor Christian Edward). 'Only a violet I plucked when but a boy, and oft times when I'm sad at heart, this flow'r has given me joy, so while life does remain, in memorial I'll retain, this small violet I plucked from mothers grave. Mary Kelly seems to have been expecting herself and her son to be rescued and simultaneously separated.( Below, the lost Prince by Walter Sickert, it's one of a number of pictures of him).

Two coaches appear to have been seen outside the little ground floor room in Miller's Court that night, according to Inquest witnesses.

 Painting below: evidently a 'violet plucked from mother's grave', by Walter Sickert. He called the painting 'Violets'.

Another Inquest witness specified that she had seen on the evening of the night Mary Kelly was lost to England, a little boy's clothes and those of a little girl's lain over the back of a chair in that little room in Miller's Court, inside Dorset Street. It does seem that there was a plan to get 'Mary Kelly,' Alice and the little prince 'Joe' out of Whitechapel that night. 'Mary Kelly' was eager to borrow 'sixpence' that night, from the lookout, Hutchinson, according to the man himself. ( at the Inquest).

. ..'Sixpence' was the price of the Evening Standard Newspaper in that year, 1888. Mary Kelly was undoubtedly trying to look in the personal ads for updates midway through the evening. She was clearly expecting rescue.

"...this small violet I plucked from mother's grave".... Knowing the Stuarts as we do, this 'violet' flower that Mary chose to sing about perhaps has some significance. In the collection of secret sketches that Walter Sickert drew for the little prince (to show the little prince his beautiful Stuart ancestry and to illustrate what a 'rotten and usurping lot' English Hanoverains are) there is a small collection of imaginative sketches of the French revolution. Featuring people in obvious disguise with joyous faces leaping out of fake coffins and caskets, and so on.

Here are some of Walter Sickert's lovely 'Scarlet Pimpernel' sketches drawn for the little prince- an advance preview! 

Look at the fat queen, Marie Antionette, being hauled along by the man who's holding her captive- she's been eating too much cake apparently. Her crown is French- see the French crown jewels below:

But who is the man drawn beneath, with the truck, wheeling it along- oh no, is that a truck full of heads decapitated by Madame La Guillotine?

Or is it a Stuarts or a Jacobite- are they sneaking aristocrats off who are hidden inside the truck?

The man pulling Queen Marie Antoinette along-  he seems to be wearing some sort of a diadem- is he a Stuart? Is he trying to get Marie Antoinette to safety? Perhaps the Stuarts had to stop saving her because she was such a heave ho to pull along, with all that cake she had eaten.

Oh! It's King Louis, isn't it, pulling his wife Marie Antoinette along- look at the diadem beneath his crown in the picture of the French crown jewels, and compare it against the one in Walter Sickert's picture. It's King Louis- he is trying to haul his wife to safety! And what a heave ho she is. ( That's very Sickert isn't it.)

And below, look at the poor French aristocrat being pulled out of a coffin in which he has been hidden in order to sneak him away away from Madame La Guillotine!

 And there are more beautiful pictures.

Walter Sickert seems to have been implying ( in the whole of his pictures) that Stuarts and Jacobites organized the escape to England of a handful of the French aristocracy, and he seems to have been telling the little prince about it.
One doesn't immediately think of the Stuarts as being behind the hearsay and legend relating to what is now known as the story of the 'Scarlett Pimpernel', because of course George III of Hanover, hated of the Stuarts, was presiding ( if you can call it that) over England at the time of the French revolution. And yet, 'needs must'. The Stuarts may well have got their Catholic French aristocrat friends over to England- of course they had contacts who aided exiled aristocrats, who better to have organized it all?
An interesting theory of Walter Sickerts. 

The Baroness Orczy  was living in Fitzrovia in the 1880's. In Great Portland Street. As a student of fine art she will undoubtedly have had significant contact with the artists of West London's Cleveland Street, including Walter Sickert. It may be that Walter Sickert's theories or knowledge about the Stuarts and Jacobites helping French counter revolutionaries and aristocrats to escape the violent purges of revolutionary France inspired the Baroness to write her novel, 'The Scarlett Pimpernel.' Certainly, some of the characters in her book, including the more fleeting, amusing ones, are very like some of Walter's personal sketches ( his sketches incorporate characters from Cleveland Street).

Perhaps the theory that the 'league' that helped the French aristocrats escape were Stuarts and Jacobites was held by all the 'Stuart Masons' of the late nineteenth century. Perhaps, inside Stuart Freemasonry, it wasn't just a theory. Perhaps the Stuarts and their confederates got extremely close to George III, close enough to spy on his every move, perhaps they were inside his court as the 'league' that was later widely known as 'The league of the Scarlett Pimpernel' and were spying on him and simultaneously helping French aristocrats , and having a grand time.

King Louis and the Stuarts were united in their abhorrence of George III.

Whatever the secret case may have been, Walter Sickert's sketches of the escaping French aristocrats are utterly lovely. They are a combination of eighteenth century portraiture and kindly caricature.

The 'Violet' flower, it is widely reported, was sold in the markets during the French revolution. Here, 'Violets in legend and lore'. It is very like a 'Pimpernel' in appearance and perhaps it was a counter revolutionary symbol of some kind that the aristocrats used? "Only a violet I plucked when but a boy, And oft' times when I'm sad at heart, this flow'r has given me joy, But while life does remain, in memoriam I'll retain, This small violet I plucked from mother's grave". The meaning that Mary Kelly gave to the song she sang to her little boy perhaps being that the little Violet flower should in the future signify to her little son, the little prince, that she was alive and well and not the corpse that had been found in Miller's Court.

Below, a lovely rendition of Baraness Orczy's  send up of the revolutionary French Agents of National Security, where Chauvelan is  is delayed in ambushing aristocratic confederates by a ridiculous jig. ( With Lady Hamilton?) Helas, couriers  in 1880's Whitechapel were ostensibly not so lucky.

Is it just Stuart hearts that are removed on death when in exile or does the Freemason tradition belong to all Catholic royalty in such circumstances? The matter of the missing heart in the room in Miller's Court, ( if we assume  'Mary Kelly' herself was a Stuart, and her heart a Stuart heart, as it appears to have been) and the matter of a possible switched identity- a corpse being placed in the room in Miller's Court and disguised to look like that of 'Mary Kelly', with the corpse's heart removed- is remarkably similar to the stories of the lost Dauphin of France, Marie Antionette's son. .The Wiki on that matter here. 'The Dauphin: Prison and rumours of escape.'

Some affirm that Louis Charles Capais died in prison during the French revolution; others insist that a substitute body was put in his place, and he was spirited away to safety.. Compare the the Dauphin's story with the Stuart's story:

Philippe-Jean Pelletan was one of the doctors who attended Louis-Charles shortly before his death and subsequently Pelletan performed the autopsy. He removed the heart and this was not interred with the rest of Louis-Charles's body. Philippe-Jean Pelletan tried to return Louis-Charles's heart to Louis XVIII and Charles X, both of whom could not bring themselves to believe the heart to be that of their nephew. It is not known if Pelletan tried to approach Marie-Thérèse, Duchess of Angoulême.

The heart was stolen by one of Pelletan's students, who confessed to the theft on his deathbed and asked his wife to return it to Pelletan. Instead, she sent it to the Archbishop of Paris, where it stayed until the Revolution of 1830. It also spent some time in Spain. By 1975, it was being kept in a crystal vase at the royal crypt in the Saint Denis Basilica outside Paris, the burial place of Louis-Charles's parents and other members of France's royal family.
In 2000 Philippe Delorme arranged for DNA testing of the heart as well as bone samples from Karl Wilhelm Naundorff. Ernst Brinkmann of Münster University and Belgian genetics professor Jean-Jacques Cassiman of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, conducted mitochondrial DNA tests in 2000 using samples from Marie-Antoinette, her sisters Maria Johanna Gabriela and Maria Josepha, their mother, Maria Theresa, and two living direct descendants in strict maternal line of Maria Theresa, Queen Anne of Romania and her brother, Prince André de Bourbon Parme. The tests proved that Naundorff was not the dauphin, and the heart was that of Louis-Charles. It was buried in the Basilica on 8 June 2004.[8]'

This DNA evidence is disputed, with many carrying on about how unreliable a latter day test is ( fair enough), how mitochondrial DNA does not prove the identity of any one individual, ( true) and how the body that was reportedly found and identified as the Dauphin's in the dreadful Temple prison was ostensibly older than ten years old- its owner had for example cut wisdom teeth, and seemed to have been a teenager of about fourteen. Many thus argue that the French Dauphin never died in the prison after all, and may have been got away to safety.

Sunday, 20 May 2012

Birds, plumes and poison - 'Ennui' .

When Walter Sickert produced art work full of clues about society, Cleveland Street, Whitechapel an the Jack the Ripper murders, he (almost always) put paintings into a 'painting series' which told a story. He produced a prolific number of 'painting series'.

'Ennui' is a series of works. There are four different renditions of the painting 'Ennui', and a number of sketches, too.

Walter would often give away paintings belonging to a series to different friends, and in this way, keep the story ( his evidence) that he communicated through his paintings safe from the prying eye of the British secret service. His paintings usually reveal a part of a story which is often fully revealed by the series to which the painting belongs.

This rendition of 'Ennui' below is  the one Walter Sickert spoke about to Joseph Sickert, his grandson. ( You can click on it to view the full painting which can't be transposed in the full original size on blogger.)

You can see that the painting makes a clear reference to the Maybrick case, featuring James and Florie Maybrick. In the glass on the table there's evidence of arsenic poison. There's a decanter on the mantlepiece ( such features in the Maybrick case, traces of poison were found in a decanter.) . Florie Maybrick, ostensibly 'bored', leans against the chest of drawers, and James Maybrick sits smoking his cigar. 

The case referencing is highlighted in the preparatory sketch for 'Ennui' here ( courtesy Tate Galleries.) There's a clear reference to James Maybrick, Florie too, and the decanter has taken on a life of its own; it holds its hand over an astonished and quizzical face! :-) Again, the clear reference is to James rather than Florie Maybrick.

Notice that in this sketch rendition James Maybrick holds a letter close to his chest. 

On prime time television in 1974, Joseph Sickert, Walter Sickert's apparent grandson, told a vast audience of British people that when he was a boy Walter Sickert had showed him a number of his works, and told him that his paintings contained clues about the 'Jack the Ripper' murders, as indeed they do. According to Joseph, Walter apparently stated that 'a painting titled 'Ennui' '( French for boredom) contained a 'major clue' or 'clues' in respect of the Jack the Ripper case.

 'Ennui' has since come to be known as containing the 'supreme clue' about the 'Jack the Ripper' case. The words 'supreme clue' are often used.

'Ennui' is a 'painting series'. 'Ennui' is a full series that tells a part of the Jack the Ripper story.

Walter Sickert didn't point everything about the 'Ennui' painting series to his grandson Joseph, ( or he did, and between childhood and late adulthood a lot of it got forgotten by Joseph.) The 'Ennui clue' that Joseph recalled best in later life, was  a 'gull' on Queen Victoria's shoulder in a little painting hanging on the wall in one of the paintings in the series , which, he claimed the artist had told him, represented Sir William Gull.

 Walter told Joseph that Sir William Gull was responsible for  the torture of Joseph's grandmother, Annie Crook, of 1880s Cleveland Street ( West London).

 Annie Crook was ostensibly Walter Sickert's lover ( and early wife). 

 There are four different painting on canvas versions of 'Ennui'. Walter evidently showed Joseph the painting version above, where a 'gull on Queen Victoria's shoulder' is undeniably apparent in the little painting on the wall.

Did Walter Sickert mention to Joseph that the image of Queen Victoria in the painting hanging on the wall is painted showing her wearing the wings of a 'Blackbird', the sign of Jacobite rising and Stuart rebellion? 
Did he tell him that the suggestion in this is that Queen Victoria approved of Prince Eddy's union with a Stuart girl who passed in Whitechapel as 'Mary Kelly' ( final Jack the Ripper victim)?

 In the rendition of 'Ennui' shown below, the gull has diminished and the blackbird wings are more in prominence. Note also that the chappie smoking the cigar has changed somewhat. It's been suggested by web boffins that he looks more like Michael Maybrick than James Maybrick. The arsenic tumbling into the glass is very apparent. 
Perhaps the arsenic tumbling into the glass ( on the table) is more apparent here (below).

 A picture of Michael Maybrick for comparison.

 There are various possibilities that arise from the Sickert implication, which appears to have tempted a number of amateurs and/or ambitious authors to rush to judgement. It might be suggested that James Maybrick poisoned his brother 'in league' with Florie and her lover, and then framed Florie for unique involvement. Or, that "as a dastardly Freemason in league with the government, Freemasons and all that is corrupt and unhip"  he " poisoned his bother himself, and framed Florie Maybrick who is a miscarriage justice victim to sob about."

The more realistic implication in the 'Ennui' series however is that Sickert is suggesting that Florie Maybrick attempted the life of both Maybrick bothers in planting arsenic about the house. ( Hence, Micahel Maybrick's reaction in having her arrested.)   In any event, we must let Sickert's full works explain his individual paintings, and not try to take the paint and pen from him at any stage. 

 The blackbird wings on Queen Victoria in the little painting hanging on the wall in Walter Sickert's 'Ennui'  resemble the wings that he  painted on 'Mary Kelly' in his lovely satire of her  titled 'Blackbird of Paradise' , shown below- .

Many of Walter Sickert's paintings and sketches reveal that 'Mary Kelly' was a Stuart woman, an heir of the Stuart line, ( the line of the Bonnie Prince Charlie) who had a child by the Prince Eddy, Queen Victoria's and Prince Edward's heir, whose existence was deemed, by some, to be a threat to the prevalent 1880's British constitution and the British throne.

Queen Victoria is of course part Stuart herself; a direct descendant through several lines of Mary Queen of Scots, and yet it seems that in 'Ennui' Walter Sickert is emphasizing her 1888 allegiance - he seems to be implying that Queen Victoria was cooperating with an apparent plan to promote a Royal and powerful union with the Stuarts ( and with Stuart Freemasonry) via Prince Eddy's union with  'Marie Jeanette Kelly- and via the couple's little son, the third in line to the British Empire throne.

 Queen Victoria was apparently supportive of the decisions of her grandson and heir, who had apparently secretly married a Stuart girl.  

The 'gull' perched on Queen Victoria's shoulder in the painting on the wall (according to Walter Sickert's apparent advice to Joseph Sickert) represents 'Sir William Gull', who worked for Special Branch Police from time to time as a torturer.  In the 1880s 'Special Branch police was the British secret service, which has developed in many ways since that era.

Theoretically Queen Victoria was supposed to be in authority over 1888 Special Branch police, though of course she did not get a look in, except to be lied to about its goings on by smarming parliamentary ministers. The Special Branch police ledgers that have not yet been released to the public, which I have seen, reveal that when there were Fenian assassination attempts on the Royal couple Bertie and Alexandra, ( Prince and Princess of Wales in the 1880s )  this couple were mostly not in the know until the very last minute, when preventative intervention by Special Branch Spies was imminent. And there were several attempts on their lives. On many occasions the Royal family had almost no say in Special Branch police goings on whatever.

Above, a close up of the painting hanging on the wall in the rendition of 'Ennui' that Walter Sickert showed Joseph Sickert, his grandson. ( In some browsers you will need to click on it to see the full picture).  Queen Victoria has 'Blackbird' wings, a 'Gull' is perched on her shoulder, and in the bottom right of the picture, there is a 'Gladstone bag', which was associated with supposed sightings of 'Jack the Ripper' in early police documents and newspaper articles. The 'Abominable Coach' in which the Whitechapel murder victims were desecrated ( according to Walter Sickert via Joseph Sickert) is suggested by the little horse whip that Queen Victoria appears to be holding in her hand. The little horse whip is just a little like a pen plume.

 On the bottom left of the painting hanging seen on the wall in the version of the 'Ennui' painting that Walter showed Joseph there is a book, which may be either a bible or a diary- it's quite a heavy looking book. Or is it a pile of letters? I wish that part were just a little but clearer . Quite possibly the pre painting sketch that Walter Sickert drew and 'squared up' for 'Ennui', before transferring the picture to broad canvas contained a sketch of a pile of letters and another sketch of a bible or other book superimposed on the top of that, (as with the little preparatory sketch of 'Kelly's Library', which contains a sketch of a gentleman going through his letters inside a little tobacconists superimposed upon a sketch of a rosy faced dame doing the laundry .)

Walter Sickert seems to be suggesting in his 'painting on the wall inside a painting' ( shown in detail above) that contrary to the wishes of the Royal family, the state organized these 'Jack the Ripper' murders, via the auspices of Special Branch police, of course, with the assistance of Sir William Gull, the 1880s police torturer. 

Instantly noticeable about the 'painting on the wall' inside the version of 'Ennui' that Walter

.. Sickert showed Joseph is that Queen Victoria is depicted young, and wearing red. She isn't depicted as 'a rigid old oppressor dressed permanently in black, old hater of all things erotic, the embittered, sex starved, angry widow'.  Presumably Walter Sickert is suggesting her red robes of state. She was painted in these robes by numerous artists when she was young. Is Walter Sickert suggesting that Victoria was never the cruel ageing old Hanover 'Jack' you've all been lead to believe?

That she was deceived, 'bamboozled' and manipulated by Salisbury and Special Branch police during the 1888?

Other evidence ( including Sickert's) suggests they didn't even ask Victoira's permission before beginning their rampage. 

It is also noticeable that Walter Sickert's Victoria is wearing what looks like a clear suggestion of a barrister's or judge's wig . ( British Judges' and barristers' wigs have not altered greatly in two centuries.) Walter Sickert must have been suggesting that there was corruption in the British Justice system, suggesting that the Judiciary under Queen Victoria were involved in covering up the Jack the Ripper murders.

In the version of 'Ennui' depicted below, Queen Victoria seems to be depicted in the 'painting on the wall' holding a fanciful golden  plume. From one perspective, a strange figure seems to be creeping up on her, on her left; again there is the suggestion that she is being imposed upon by deceitful figures of state- or perhaps this resembles Sir William Gull's imposition upon her uniquely.

Did Walter tell Joseph Sickert that the two people in the forefront in the 'Ennui' paintings are two state scapegoats, one of whom  Special Branch police may have framed for the Jack the Ripper murders- James and Florence Maybrick?

Did Walter Sickert show his grandson the little fly paper sachet emptying the poison arsenic into the gentleman's glass in the rendition above? 

By the Tate 2010:  ....' in a letter to his friends, Ethel Sands and Nan Hudson, He (Walter) catalogued the abuses to which working class wives were vulnerable: men ‘hitting them with hammers, putting poisonous powders on cakes, trying to cut their throats, drugging their whisky’. ..'

Wiki on Florence Maybrick's arrest below:

'In April 1889, Florence Maybrick bought flypaper containing arsenic fom a local chemist's shop and later soaked it in a bowl of water. At her trial, she claimed that this method allowed her to extract the arsenic for cosmetic use. James Maybrick was taken ill on 27 April 1889 after self-administering a double dose of strychnine. His doctors treated him for acute dyspepsia, but his condition deteriorated. On 8 May Florence Maybrick wrote a compromising letter to Brierley, which was intercepted by Alice Yapp, the nanny. Yapp passed it to James Maybrick's brother, Edwin, who was staying at Battlecrease. ( The Maybrick family home). Edwin, himself by many accounts one of Florence's lovers, shared the contents of the letter with his brother Michael Maybrick, who was effectively the head of the family. By Michael's orders Florence was immediately deposed as mistress of her house and held under house arrest.'

 Did Walter Sickert show his grandson Joseph the 'meat juice bottle' full of poison on the ledge over the fireplace in the 'Ennui' rendition above? ( it looks like a sherry decanter, but the clear implication is that its contents are deadly.)

Wiki on the 'meat juice bottle' in the Maybrick case, below:

'On 9 May a nurse reported that Mrs Maybrick had surreptitiously tampered with a meat-juice bottle which was afterwards found to contain a half-grain of arsenic. Mrs Maybrick later testified that her husband had begged her to administer it as a pick-me-up. However, he never drank its contents. James Maybrick died at his home on 11 May 1889. His brothers, suspicious as to the cause of death, had his body examined. It was found to contain slight traces of arsenic, but not enough to be considered fatal. It is uncertain whether this was taken by Maybrick himself or administered by another person. After an inquest held in a nearby hotel, Florence Maybrick was charged with his murder and stood trial at St George's Hall, Liverpool, before Justice James Fitzjames Stephen, where she was convicted and sentenced to death.'

Florence Maybrick, the Victorian public knew, was unlikely to have touched said meat juice bottle without being asked, or known much about fly papers and arsenic, except to do her husband's bidding. She had her sentence commuted, after a public outcry.
 'After a public outcry, Henry Matthews, the Home Secretary, and Lord Chancellor Halsbury concluded 'that the evidence clearly establishes that Mrs Maybrick administered poison to her husband with intent to murder; but that there is ground for reasonable doubt whether the arsenic so administered was in fact the cause of his death'.

Many people think James Maybrick seems to have been artfully killed, and Florie Maybrick artfully framed ( it seems a tad clumsy a frame up to our modern eyes, but in the Victorian era where British judges and medics could throw their weight about even more than they do today, the perpetrators got away with their frame up). If arsenic poison didn't kill James Maybrick, what did? Why didn't the Maybrick autopsy look for anything except arsenic? Could another poison have been used to kill James, or mixed with arsenic to kill him? Florie's accusers stated that James died of arsenic poising because they knew she was giving it to him from time to time as a recreational drug on his request.

The evidence tends to suggest that James Maybrick was on the list of Special Branch 'patsies' ( scapegoats) who had been selected to be framed for the 'Jack the Ripper murders', and that he had to be got rid of in the process, along with his innocent wife, incase either of them objected. Below, a painting by Walter Sickert titled 'The American'. ( He's dated it 1908, which was nine years after Florie's trial). A clear portrait of the often lovely looking Florence Maybrick, which Walter painted when he had a studio at no 6, Mornington Crescent. Compare it with the photo of her, above. Walter Sickert seems to be suggesting that Florie was one of the socialites who visited Cleveland Street and Whitechapel while everyone was there.  See how in the painting Florie is placed in front of the mirror and chest of drawers that appear in Walter Sickert's painting 'Mornington Crescent' .....the title 'Mornington Crescent', as we saw in the post 'Walter Sickert and Annie Crook',  is a 'cover title' for a painting depicting the lovely Annie in a bedroom at 'no. 19 or no 21, Cleveland Street'. ( Click here for the post on Walter and Annie.) 

It's a beautiful painting isn't it: on the one hand, Florie could be being tempted, thinking of her lover, and contemplating poisoning her husband - on the other hand, she could be a sweet picture of innocence, an abused miscarriage of justice victim. 

In other words, Florie Maybrick may have used the secret letter delivery service that was nnamed 'Kelly's Library' . Florie was an admired and outwardly desirable young aristocrat and socialite and the West End of London was a desirable and fashionable, bohemian/anarchic place to be.

Here below, a Walter Sickert painting from the 'Jack ashore' series, using the same models. Walter Sickert seems to suggest Florie Maybrick in the process of murderous meditation. I think it's probably an illustration of the Prosecution case against Florie.Ostensibly, Sickert thought she Florie had indeed murdered her husband, and that the poor man had consequently been seen as a target for a "false allegation of his being 'Jack the Ripper'?"

Michael Maybrick, James Maybrick's brother, was a Royal Arch degree  Freemason who had participated in the London Music Hall scene in 1888. ( As did the Maybrick couple from time to time apparently). A Stuart Mason too? 

Notice that the dressing table from which Florie 'turns in murderous rage' is also suggestive of a piano. The series title 'Jack ashore' is relevant given the implications in the Music Hall song 'They all love Jack.' This song was written by Michael Maybrick ( apparently in collusion with Walter Sickert.)


When the ship is trim and ready, and the jolly days are done,
When the last good-byes are whispered, and Jack aboard is gone;
The lasses fall a weeping, as they watch his vessel's track,
For all the landsmen lovers are nothing after Jack-
For all the landsmen lovers are nothing after Jack.

For his heart is like the sea. ever open, brave and free,
And the girls must lonely be till the ship comes back;
But if love's the best of all that can a man befall,
Why, Jack's the king of all, for they all love Jack!

Where he goes their hearts go with him; e'en his ship he calls her she!
Up aloft that "little cherub, " sure a maiden she must be;
And as o'er the sea he travels, the mermaids down below,
Would give their crystal kingdoms for the love of Jack, I trow-
Would give their crystal kingdoms for the love of Jack, I trow.
For his heart is like the sea, &c.

When he's sail'd the world all over, and again he steps ashore,
There are scores of lasses waiting to love him all the more.
He may lose his golden guineas, but a wife he'll never lack,
If he'd wed them all they'd take him, for they all love Jack-
If he'd wed them all they'd take him. for they all,they all. love Jack!
For his heart is like the sea, &c.
'Jack Ashore' was originally a series of cartoons about Scottish Sailors 
that appeared in Harpers magazine in 1873. Here. 
( an example cartoon below.) As a Music Hall song of that reference 
'They all love Jack'  would seem to be entirely innocent.
All four of these; James Maybrick, Michael Maybrick, Florie Maybrick and Richard Brierly are likely to have been in the know about 'Kelly's Library'. 

It may be that Michael Maybrick was a "spy" acting for Chief John Littlechild in the Music Halls. It is equally likely that Sickert simply employed the Music Hall reference as a 'clue' item for his paintings, as he was wont to do.  Neither makes Michael Maybrick a lone Jack the Ripper. Michael has alibis for all the 1888 Whitechapel murder dates.

Another interesting link here, showing  Florence Maybrick as a much older woman reduced to ruin by an allegedly infamous miscarriage of justice ..The link also shows that the mock up photo of James Maybrick dates to the Victorian era and was kept by James Maybrick's son all his life.

'Ennui' perhaps portrays the selection of James and Florence Maybrick as 'patsies'.  ( Scapegoats). It was quite easy apparently. In 1888, Florie was very bored in her domestic life, married to an an older man, ( James Maybrick) and the relationship had in some ways petered out ( though there seems to have still been some fondness between them). She's shown gazing into what is usually seen as the most boring of Victorian ornaments, a collection of dead, stuffed birds. She was having an affair in 1888. She was starting to behave in a somewhat compromising manner in front of  nosey vindictive servants at the Maybrick home, Battlecrease house, such was her frustration with her situation. 

Another somewhat alarming picture of Florie Maybrick, below. ( In the same photoshoot it would seem.)  She's "got the killer eyes, hasn't she?"
Any many such like to try to make fools of us. It's their game, let's face it.

Did Walter Sickert tell Joseph about the little matchbox in all the painting and sketch renditions, including the rendition above which ostensibly  indicates the one found beside the body of Catherine Eddowes, who was murdered on the night of the 'Jack the Ripper' 'double murder'? The matchbox that was described in Special Branch papers that were not released to the public in any shape or form until the later part of the twentieth century? The little matchbox that extraordinarily appears in the 'Maybrick Diary', which is widely acknowledged to be a very interesting (probably Victorian) forgery?

By one advocate of the 'Maybrick diary': 'The diary refers to a tin box, which was empty, and which was found and left by Maybrick at the murder of Catharine Eddowes, the fourth victim. There was indeed '1 tin matchbox, empty,' in the list of her effects drawn up  up by the police, but this list did not appear in the public domain until 1987, and the existence of the empty tin matchbox was unknown before then.'

Above the chest of drawers in the sketch rendition of 'Ennui' shown above is a portrait of a woman in a stylish travelling bonnet. Compare it the one that appears in Tissot's 'Travelling coat', 1882: 

The bonneted woman does not appear in any of the painting renditions. Bonnets  were a particular favorite of Florie Maybrick, needless to say. She even wore a fancy bonnet when leaving prison. (Very few British Justice System victims bother with that sort of touch).

Then again, perhaps Walter Sickert is inferring Mary Kelly's one time journey to France "With a gentleman" that was discussed at her makeshift inquest.

Or is the woman in the painting above the chest of drawers in the preparatory sketch reading a letter? :-)  

On the chest of drawers in the sketch rendition of |'Ennui' shown above, there again appears a glass case of preserved dead birds ( gloomily fashionable in the era ), at the centre of which Walter Sickert has drawn the image of a face beneath a top hat which looks very like an expressly distorted photograph of James Maybrick which is in the public domain ( seen left). The distorted photograph of James Maybrick was constructed during the Victorian era . 
In fact the said photograph is two photographs joined at the centre via use of Victorian photographic equipment. Two different glass plates will have been used on separate occasions, each half covered with an image, then projected onto one sole plate through light. 
Look (for example) at the light on the left of the top hat in the Maybrick photo, and the absence of light on the right of the photo. The photo is a mock up. The half picture of a man on the right of the photo looks like James Maybrick's corpse could well have done. What 1880's Special Branch police doing is this? Or might we ask 'What Hanoverian Masonic doing is it?' Was the photo used in 1889 as false evidence, perhaps, of James Maybrick's alleged state when with his beautiful wife, Mrs Maybrick? Or was it simply used to dress him up as a candidate for 'Jack the Ripper?' There is some evidence that it may have been constructed expressly to misrepresent him at the trial, alongside evidence of diary forgeries associated to the Maybrick case in 1889.

In the West Coast Times, Issue 7582, 27 December 1889.

'The Bogus Diary

A diary said to be the work of Mrs. Maybrick but bearing internal indications of having been judiciously "vamped-up," has passed into the possession of a weekly journal, and will see light in its columns before long. Baroness Von Roque admits that some of her daughter's private papers were stolen from Battlecrease House, but denies that this particular manuscript is authentic. The recent photo of Mrs. Maybrick which her relatives judiciously restrained from Medrington, the Liverpool photographer, from setting before the trial, has never been published. It represents her fatter and more sensuous than she looked in the dock, and couldn't by any stretch of imagination be called the likeness of a handsome or nice woman'.

An excerpt from a letter written by Florence Maybrick's mother published in the Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XXIII, Issue 327, 28 December 1889, below :

...'A statement was circulated in London recently that three volumes of my daughter's diary had been taken from one of her boxes at Battlecrease House by a relative of the family and offered for sale; and that I had given a large price for them in order to suppress them. There is no truth whatever in this statement. My daughter did not keep a diary. It is quite true that some books are missing; it is supposed that they have been taken away by someone interested in my daughter's downfall. We have wanted these books since my arrival in England after my daughter's arrest. If these books had not been missing, much that is yet mysterious would have been made clear. I shall be able to tell you more about them when I see you. It is always a matter of regret that my daughter's papers and effects, as well as the household effects, were disposed of with such undue haste before the trial....'

 The distorted eyes of James Maybrick in the mocked up Maybrick photo above are exactly repeated in the sketch of the face inside the ghastly stuffed dead bird glass on the chest of drawers in Sickert's 'Ennui' sketch shown above. The eye on the right of that photo. The mocked up photo has the effect of presenting Poor James Maybrick as someone with something of a 'lunatic' appearance, psychopathic , a candidate for 'Jack the Ripper'. It differs from natural photos of him which present him as a gentle person, a simple Victorian gentleman doing his best to get by in unforgiving Victorian financial business. As in the photos below, for example.

Of course the fraud is unkind. Poor man had nothing to do with the murders.

 The Sickert sketch shown here was given to Lady Hamilton, one of Sickert's patrons and protectors, and signed in pencil. It was dedicated 'To Lady Hamilton' and annotated 'An Idyll of Peace'.

As with some of the paintings of Annie Crook and Mary Kelly, Walter Sickert used readily accessible artists models in order to enable him to depict the human form accurately when the original people he wanted to paint were not available. He used two artist's models called 'Hubby' and 'Marie' for the 'Ennui' paintings shown above. "Hubby' was also used as a model for Sickert to depict a Special Branch torturer in his paintings 'Jack Ahoy' and 'Jack ashore'. Some commentary has it that 'Hubby' was himself a sailor: 'a vous de voir ce que vous en pensez de cela'. :-) 'Drowning women' were depicted by the Pre - Raphaelite brotherhood ( famous for frequenting Cleveland Street, where they had their base) as figures of eroticism. (It does not mean that a model an artist used was once a sailor, simply because a painting is titled 'Jack ashore!')

Is Walter Sickert suggesting that Sir William Gull wrote the infamous Maybrick diary forgery in order to frame James Maybrick for the Ripper crimes? Where to with that then? Are there any handwriting similarities between Gull and the diary writer at all? Bearing in mind that were he the diary author, Gull would have been falsifying his own handwriting as much as is really possible, and writing a punctilious forgery. In handwriting examples which are in the public domain ( there are a spartan few) there seem to be two striking incidences of similarity :  Here is the widely published diary forgery photo:

Notice the diary writer's very stylistic 'I have' in 'for all I have done', and the stylistic 'this', where the stylistic bar on the 't' crosses the entire word. Compare these evidently stylistic features with Sir William Gull's handwriting of the same words 'I have' and 'this', in a letter shown below, ( first exhibited by Stephen Knight) dated twelve years earlier than 1889. ( In the letter Sir Gull is going on about his grapes, which he refers to as 'raisins', which have apparently been given way too much significance by researchers of the 'Royal conspiracy theory'. The Whitechapel girls ostensibly were not seduced into that awful coach with grapes.They were intercepted while delivering letters on behalf of 'Mary Kelly' and the young Prince).

There are real stylistic similarities. The only place in Sir William Gull's letter where he is as 'swirly' as the Maybrick diary forgery is his signature.
 It has historically been thought that a medical practitioner who had evidently dispensed with regular practice committed the Catharine Eddowes murder, removed her kidney, and sent it with this letter. Dr Gull does fit the profile as a retired medic still in charge of wards at Guy's hospital- and apparently a Special Branch police torturer.  Dr Gull will have been too old to commit the murder alone in 1888, with or without an accomplice. That does not mean that Special Branch police didn't take him with them on the nights of the 'Jack the Ripper' murders and use his services in that 'Abominable Coach.' The 'Mr Lusk ' letter is thought to have been written by a guilty party experiencing a post traumatic psychotic episode- the reason being it was posted before any information about the Catharine Eddowes murder ( such as the missing kidney) was released to the public.It was sent with a kidney supposedly obtained from Catharine Eddowes.Stephen Knight felt it could contain  a distortion of Sir William Gull's handwriting:

Although the letter is rigid, there is a certain 'swirly' in it in places that does resemble the 'swirly' apparently Victorian Maybrick diary forgery. The 'S' on the 'Signed' is clearly the same as letters in Gull's repertoire. ( Note the 'J' at the base of the page on the date mark of Gull's letter.)

Walter Sickert did tell Joseph about an 'Abominable Coach' in which the Whitechapel women were desecrated before being left on the side of the road- it appears in his own personal sketch collection:

William Gull was a powerful medic and had worked in the Royal Household.  No question, he could get away with a great deal and order the medical profession about as he liked. He didn't have the same influence with the medical students though. Many loathed him, and rioted against him. In one reception to his visiting lectures in Edinburgh the young Doctors booed and shouted him down so strongly, he had to cease speaking and leave.

What about Sir William Gull and poison? Is there another case that amplifies  the suggestion that William Gull administered poison to get rid of Special Branch patsies ( sacapegoats) or other deemed 'inconvenients'?

According to the Early Stephen Knight research, Gull was often called upon to get rid of 'inconvenients' on the part of Special Branch police and various society figures. Apparently this is what Walter Sickert told Joseph Sickert, who passed the story on to Stephen Knight. Walter Sickert originally suggested to Joseph that Sir William Gull was in the "Abominable Coach", assisting Special Branch police with the Whitechapel murders. So far no evidence has surfaced to discredit that assertion.

There is the famous Bravo case- Dr Gull, in the shape of a concerned expert and 'family Doctor' is supposed to have rushed to the rescue of a poisoned man . But did Gull supply the overdose of laudanum composition that did the killing in the first place? Or was the laudanum that murdered poor old Bravo mixed with arsenic by Sir William Gull?

'The Bravo's lived in a huge attractive house called the Priory in Bedford Hill, Balham, London. He administered to himself some Laudanum, a well know cure at the time for tooth ache.
At about 9:45pm Bravo was heard calling from his bedroom, he and Florence had separate rooms, he dashed from his room shouting for hot water to drink. Mrs. Jane Cannon Cox, a companion of Florence ( Florence Bravo) who lived in the house, heard the cries for help and rushed to the aid of Bravo, he was very ill and soon lapsed into unconsciousness. Florence was called from her sleep, and the doctor was called, the doctor suspected poison, but could find no trace.
When Florence Bravo was questioned, she stated that her husband had taken the Laudanum for neuralgia and may have swallowed some. Florence called in Sir William Gull one of the most notable doctors of the time. He questioned Bravo who continued with her story of Laudanum, Gull told the family that Bravo was dying from poison, Bravo eventually died on 21st April.'

What do Guy's Hospital they think they are doing continuing to name a children's ward after Sir William Gull after all these years? Does the Whittington have a 'Shipman wing'? No. It should have been enough that Gull was a Ripper suspect. 

 James and Florence Maybrick.

'Ennui' is definitely a major clue picture series. In that the clues mark essential aspects of the case, evidently. Not the most intricately woven, or the most poignant of the 'clue painting series' Walter painted, but the essential nature of the clues in  'Ennui' is undeniable. I wonder what Walter's exact words were to Joseph about it? Did he say the rendition he showed him was a 'supreme' clue painting, or a 'central' clue painting, or the 'easiest' clue painting, or what exactly? 

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