The From Hell letter is perhaps the most interesting Jack the Ripper letter. Both for its content. And for what was sent with the From Hell letter, a human kidney. It is for the latter, that this letter is the most significant. Some would argue that the other Jack the Ripper letters, particularly theSaucy Jack Postcard and the Dear Boss letter as hoaxes. Hoxes that were used to either taunt the police. Or used as pranks, as most of the Jack the Ripper letters were thought to be. But, with the From Hell letter, it is hard to just dismiss it as a joke or prank. It goes further than being just a prank. The From Hell letter stands out from the Saucy Jack Postcard and the Dear Boss letter. One of the reasons for that is, because of the human kidney that was sent to the police along with the letter. The other difference of the From Hell letter compared to the Saucy Jack Postcard and the Dear Boss letter is that the From Hell letter does not sign off with 'Jack the Ripper,' whereas, the other two do. Therefore, the nature of the From Hell letter seems to be different from the other two. There is also another way that the From Hell letter is different. Unlike with the Saucy Jack and Dear Boss letters, the hell letter was not delivered to the Central News Agency. It was delivered to the home of George Lusk. George Lusk was a chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. The Whitechapel Vigilance Committee were a group of volunteers who patrolled the streets of Whitechapel during the Ripper murders. Their aim was to keep the streets of Whitechapel safe, at the time of the Ripper murders. At the height of the Ripper murders, on the 15th of October 1888, the most infamous letter, the From Hell letter, was sent to Mr Lusk. The letter contained the following: ''from hell. Mr Lusk, Sor I send you half the Kidne I took from one woman prasarved it for you tother piece I fried and ate it was very nise. I may send you the bloody knif that took it out if you only wate a whil longer signed Catch me when you can Mishter Lusk "Tother" is a nonstandard regional expression meaning "the other." The letter does appear to be different from the other two letters. But most interesting, is the nature of the letter. In it, he is saying how he took a kidney from a woman. On the night of the Double Event, Jack the Ripper took out the kidney of his fourth victim, Catherine Eddowes. It's possible that the kidney which was sent to Mr Lusk was, in fact, Catherine Eddowes. With the lack of anatomical knowledge at the time of the Ripper murders, we will never now. Since then, most if not all of the physical evidence surrounding the Ripper case has vanished. Probably destroyed over time. This makes it impossible to determine who's kidney Mr Lusk was sent. If it was sent by Jack the Ripper, then this would be one of the few insights we have into the ripper.
0 Comments
The Dear Boss Letter was the first prominent letter of the Jack the Ripper case. It is the first time that we come across the name 'Jack the Ripper.' As the author of the letter signs the letter off with 'Jack the Ripper.' The second letter (or postcard), was sent around a week later. The second prominent Jack the Ripper letter is what is known as 'The Saucy Jack Postcard.' The Saucy Jack Postcard is shorter in length than the Dear Boss Letter. There is also another noticeable difference from The Saucy Jack Postcard and the Dear Boss Letter, and that is the writing on each of them. It looks like we are perhaps dealing with two different authors in these letters.
Therefore, both of these letters may not be written by the same author. They don't appear to be written by the same author. If that is the case and these two letters have different authors, then at least one of them must be a hoax. Like other Jack the Ripper letters, the authenticity of The Saucy Jack Postcard is debated. Some argue that the letter is a hoax, while others argue that the letter is authentic.
Let us look at what The Saucy Jack Postcard says. It was sent to the Central News Agency, just like the Dear Boss Letter, on the 1st of October 1888. It was sent to the agency just after the Double Event. The Double Event happened in the early hours of the morning on the 30th of September 1888. The event saw Jack the Ripper murder two women that night, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes. The letter reads: ''I was not codding dear old Boss when I gave you the tip, you'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow double event this time number one squealed a bit couldn't finish straight off. ha not the time to get ears for police. thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again. Jack the Ripper'' The writing on this letter looks messy, indicating that the letter could have been rushed. The similarity with this letter and the boss letter is that both of the authors talk about clipping ears. But, the postcard says that the killer did not have time to clip his victims ears off. On Elizabeth Stride though, her left earlobe was torn or cut. This indicates that it wasn't the killer who had written the Saucy Jack Postcard. However, if the killer did write the postcard, there could be an explanation as to why the killer didn't realise that Stride's ear had been cut. It's believed that the Ripper was interrupted when he was murdering Stride. It has been argued that the Ripper went on to kill again that night, because of that interruption. He was unsatisfied with the killing. Whatever the truth, three things remain clear about the Double Event. It seems that Jack lost control that night. He seems to have been erratic and not in control. He also left us a clue, the only clue we have of him. But another thing, it's also the night theJack the Ripper was nearly caught. Almost being caught perhaps startled him. Throughout the next month, in October 1888, no murders happened that we know about. The Double Event seems to have silenced the Ripper for over a month. Or did it? The next letter we are going to be looking at, is the From Hell letter. The From Hell letter seems to be the only letter which is authentic. The Dear Boss letter was sent to the Central News Agency on the 27th of September in 1888. It was sent just before the Double Event, at the height of the Ripper murders. The Double Event is the term used to describe the night that Jack the Ripper murdered two women. The two women that Jack the Ripper killed that night were Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddows. This was the height of the Ripper murders. The Double Event happened in the early hours of the morning of the 30th of September 1888. Before this, Jack the Ripper had murdered two other women previously. The first victim of Jack's, Mary Ann Nichols, was murdered in the early hours of the morning on the 31st of August. The second victim of Jack's, Annie Chapman, was in the early hours of the morning of the 8th of September 1888. Most historians and Ripperologists agree that Jack murdered five women in total. These five women are known as the Canonical Five, to Ripperologists. However, not everyone agrees that Jack murdered five women, some believe he murdered more women than that. Before the Double Event murders, someone sent a letter to Central News Agency in London. Originally the Dear Boss Letter was thought to have been a hoax. Since then, it has been debated whether or not it was a hoax. Perhaps it was written and sent by a journalist, who knew how the media worked. Or, could the letter have been written and sent on behalf of the Ripper? The Forensics Linguistics Institute has an interesting take onthis. The reason for the latter, that the Dear Boss Letter was written on behalf of Jack the Ripper is, what is in the letter. In the letter, the Ripper states that he will ''cut the ladies ear off.'' Which did happen a few days later. Was this just a coincidence? Or, did the writer of the letter know what was going to happen? Perhaps this question could be answered by a professional who is trained in linguistics or trained in statement analysis. A statement analysis approach to the letter could also tell us whether or not this was written by Jack. An expert in this field would be able to analyse it and reach the truth. Here is the Dear Boss Letter in full: ''25 Sept.1888.Dear Boss, I keep on hearing the police have caught me but they wont fix me just yet. I have laughed when they have look so clever and talked about being on the right track. That joke about Leather apron gave me real fits. I am down on whores and I shant quit ripping them till I get buckled. Grand work the last job was. I gave the lady no time to squeal. How can they catch me now. I love my work and want to start again. you will soon hear of me with my funny little games. I saved some of the proper Red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with but it went thick like glue and I cant use it. Red ink is fit enough I hope ha.ha. The next job I do I shall clip the lady s ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldnt you. Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work then give it out straight. My knife's so nice and sharp I want to get to work right away if I get a chance. Good luck. Yours truly Jack the Ripper Don't mind me giving the trade name Source: Courtesy of the National Archives. The Magna Carta is one of the most importanthistorical texts we have. It is also the foundation of our democracy. What is a democracy? And what is the Magna Carta? Democracy is where the citizens of a country elect their representatives. These elected representatives will represent their constituents and the country as a whole, usually in a parliament. In the UK, elected representatives represent their constituents and country in the House of Commons at Westminster. However, the UK democracy is bigger than that. It is much more than just the House of Commons. The UK people are also represented through two other groups of people in our democracy. The House of Lords, which is also at the Palace of Westminster and the monarchy, which is currently headed by Queen Elizabeth II. The UKs democracy is only one form of democracy, there are other forms of democracy. For example, the United States of America democracy is quite different in how it represents the people. It has two chambers where elected representatives represent the United States citizens. However, both of the United States chambers or houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives are elected by the people in the US. This is different from the UK. In the UK, it is only the House of Commons which is elected. The House of Lords works through a peerage system. Where either, Lords or Ladies are given seats in the House of Lords, either by the Prime Minister or by the serving monarch of the time (in this instance Queen Elizabeth II). Furthermore, some of those who attain their seats in the House of Lords, do so hereditary. Known sometimes as hereditary peers. These are just two examples of how a democracy is made up. Though, democracies are not just about voting our representatives. Or having the right to vote. That's part of our democracy. But it goes further than that. Our democracy is also made up of things such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to practice religion, freedom and so on. We have many rights and freedoms with democracy. Many of the privileges and rights we have with a democracy, can be traced back to the Magna Carta. And its formation. What is the Magna Carta? The Magna Carta was written and published in 1215. The Magna Carta was signed and agreed by King John on the 15th of June 1215. The Magna Carter was signed by the medieval barons of the time and King John. It was created and signed in an attempt to be a practical solution to the political crisis that King John faced at the time. The British Library says that a third of the original Magna Carta document was rewritten on destroyed within ten years of its original creation. While most of the Magna Carta clauses have been repealed in modern times. However, at the heart of the Magna Carta is and was the decision made to make everyone subject to the law. Including the monarchy and the king. That still exists to this day. If you want to purchase your own version of the Magna Carta, click on the link below. Magna Carta, also known as the Great Charter, has 63 clauses. These clauses are as follows: ''JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting. KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin fitz Gerald, Peter fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects: + (1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity. TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs: (2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a 'relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of 'relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight 100s. at most for the entire knight's 'fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of 'fees'. (3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without 'relief' or fine.
(4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same 'fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us.
(5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear. (6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be made known to the heir's next-of-kin. (7) At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her. (8) No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of. (9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them. * (10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond. * (11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly. * (12) No 'scutage' or 'aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied. 'Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly. + (13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs. * (14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an 'aid' - except in the three cases specified above - or a 'scutage', we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared. * (15) In future we will allow no one to levy an 'aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied. (16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's 'fee', or other free holding of land, than is due from it. (17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place. (18) Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets. (19) If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to be done. (20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a villein the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood. (21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence. (22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice. (23) No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so. (24) No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other royal officials are to hold lawsuits that should be held by the royal justices. * (25) Every county, hundred, wapentake, and tithing shall remain at its ancient rent, without increase, except the royal demesne manors. (26) If at the death of a man who holds a lay 'fee' of the Crown, a sheriff or royal official produces royal letters patent of summons for a debt due to the Crown, it shall be lawful for them to seize and list movable goods found in the lay 'fee' of the dead man to the value of the debt, as assessed by worthy men. Nothing shall be removed until the whole debt is paid, when the residue shall be given over to the executors to carry out the dead man’s will. If no debt is due to the Crown, all the movable goods shall be regarded as the property of the dead man, except the reasonable shares of his wife and children. * (27) If a free man dies intestate, his movable goods are to be distributed by his next-of-kin and friends, under the supervision of the Church. The rights of his debtors are to be preserved. (28) No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this. (29) No constable may compel a knight to pay money for castle-guard if the knight is willing to undertake the guard in person, or with reasonable excuse to supply some other fit man to do it. A knight taken or sent on military service shall be excused from castle-guard for the period of this service. (30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent. (31) Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner. (32) We will not keep the lands of people convicted of felony in our hand for longer than a year and a day, after which they shall be returned to the lords of the 'fees' concerned. (33) All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast. (34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any holding of land, if a free man could thereby be deprived of the right of trial in his own lord's court. (35) There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russet, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly. (36) In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused. (37) If a man holds land of the Crown by 'fee-farm', 'socage', or 'burgage', and also holds land of someone else for knight's service, we will not have guardianship of his heir, nor of the land that belongs to the other person's 'fee', by virtue of the 'fee-farm', 'socage', or 'burgage', unless the 'fee-farm' owes knight's service. We will not have the guardianship of a man's heir, or of land that he holds of someone else, by reason of any small property that he may hold of the Crown for a service of knives, arrows, or the like. (38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it. + (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. + (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. (41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too. * (42) In future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm. People that have been imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the land, people from a country that is at war with us, and merchants - who shall be dealt with as stated above - are excepted from this provision. (43) If a man holds lands of any 'escheat' such as the 'honour' of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other 'escheats' in our hand that are baronies, at his death his heir shall give us only the 'relief' and service that he would have made to the baron, had the barony been in the baron's hand. We will hold the 'escheat' in the same manner as the baron held it. (44) People who live outside the forest need not in future appear before the royal justices of the forest in answer to general summonses, unless they are actually involved in proceedings or are sureties for someone who has been seized for a forest offence. * (45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well. (46) All barons who have founded abbeys, and have charters of English kings or ancient tenure as evidence of this, may have guardianship of them when there is no abbot, as is their due. (47) All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested. River-banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly. *(48) All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice if we are not in England, are first to be informed. * (49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as security for peace or for loyal service. * (50) We will remove completely from their offices the kinsmen of Gerard de Athée, and in future they shall hold no offices in England. The people in question are Engelard de Cigogné, Peter, Guy, and Andrew de Chanceaux, Guy de Cigogné, Geoffrey de Martigny and his brothers, Philip Marc and his brothers, with Geoffrey his nephew, and all their followers. * (51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its harm, with horses and arms. * (52) To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgment of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgment of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (§61). In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgment of his equals by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once render justice in full. * (53) We shall have similar respite in rendering justice in connexion with forests that are to be disafforested, or to remain forests, when these were first afforested by our father Henry or our brother Richard; with the guardianship of lands in another person's 'fee', when we have hitherto had this by virtue of a 'fee' held of us for knight's service by a third party; and with abbeys founded in another person's 'fee', in which the lord of the 'fee' claims to own a right. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice to complaints about these matters. (54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband. * (55) All fines that have been given to us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all fines that we have exacted unjustly, shall be entirely remitted or the matter decided by a majority judgment of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (§61) together with Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he wishes to bring with him. If the archbishop cannot be present, proceedings shall continue without him, provided that if any of the twenty-five barons has been involved in a similar suit himself, his judgment shall be set aside, and someone else chosen and sworn in his place, as a substitute for the single occasion, by the rest of the twenty-five. (56) If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of land, liberties, or anything else in England or in Wales, without the lawful judgment of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them. A dispute on this point shall be determined in the Marches by the judgment of equals. English law shall apply to holdings of land in England, Welsh law to those in Wales, and the law of the Marches to those in the Marches. The Welsh shall treat us and ours in the same way. * (57) In cases where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgment of his equals, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. But on our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice according to the laws of Wales and the said regions. * (58) We will at once return the son of Llywelyn, all Welsh hostages, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace. * (59) With regard to the return of the sisters and hostages of Alexander, king of Scotland, his liberties and his rights, we will treat him in the same way as our other barons of England, unless it appears from the charters that we hold from his father William, formerly king of Scotland, that he should be treated otherwise. This matter shall be resolved by the judgment of his equals in our court. (60) All these customs and liberties that we have granted shall be observed in our kingdom in so far as concerns our own relations with our subjects. Let all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen, observe them similarly in their relations with their own men. * (61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security: The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter. If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us. Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command. If one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his place, at their discretion, who shall be duly sworn in as they were. In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five, whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear. The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power. We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party. * (62) We have remitted and pardoned fully to all men any ill-will, hurt, or grudges that have arisen between us and our subjects, whether clergy or laymen, since the beginning of the dispute. We have in addition remitted fully, and for our own part have also pardoned, to all clergy and laymen any offences committed as a result of the said dispute between Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215) and the restoration of peace. In addition we have caused letters patent to be made for the barons, bearing witness to this security and to the concessions set out above, over the seals of Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, Henry archbishop of Dublin, the other bishops named above, and Master Pandulf. * (63) IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fullness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever. Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and many others. Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May). Primary source courtesy of the British Library. https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-english-translation
Buy On Amazon Now
Jack the Ripper, a mysterious figure who lurks in the shadows of Whitechapel, London, even to this day. He terrifies us. He fascinates us. The mysterious figure of Jack the Ripper will forever be a mystery to us. Who was he? Was Jack the Ripper a he, or was he, actually a she? Or was it those Freemasons? So many questions.
Jack the Ripper gives us more than just a Victorian mystery, it also expresses the reality of the poor and vulnerable of Victorian Britain. Specifically London. Through modern media, we often get a glamorised version of what Victorian Britain was like. Jack the Ripper has helped keep the reality of the era alive. The reality being that for many, if not most, people in Victorian Britain, life was anything but glamorous. Life was tough for the average Victorian. If you were poor, you had the unfortunate reality of ending up in a workhouse (poorhouse). Or, if you were a poor woman, you ended up being a prostitute (like Jack the Rippers victims). Or, if you were mentally unwell, you ended up with the horrible fate of being committed to an asylum. These were just some of the main injustices of Victorian Britain, they are not the only ones. Through reading primary sources about Jack the Ripper, we also learn that there was prejudice towards Jewish people and immigrants. The mob violence during the Ripper murders shows that many people at the time were convinced that Jack the Ripper was a Jew. It seems that this assumption was based on bigotry and hate, rather than having convincing evidence. Surprisingly, the case of the Ripper has a lot of evidence. Given that Jack himself remains a mystery. And his reason for the murders remains a mystery. It is surprising that there is a lot to go on. The only exception to that is the Ripper suspects themselves. The reason why many of the Ripper suspects, in my opinion, don't seem to be convincingly named as Jack, is because there isn't any concrete evidence to suggest that any of these candidates are Jack. For me, I have my own theories about Jack. My own favoured suspects as to who the Ripper was. I'm going to keep my suspect theories to a small group of people and myself. I will say that my suspect theories and favoured suspects are not outlandish...therefore...I will say that Jack the Ripper was nothing to do with the Royal Family or the Freemasons. I'm not convinced of either of those theories. A member of the Royal Family wondering about the most destitute part of London would have attracted attention. Many people would have probably known what the Royals looked like too, with the birth of photography and mass media happening at around this time. Neither am I convinced with the Freemason theory, a theory which seems more like a Dan Brown novel, than a theory with historical conviction. That's as much as I'm saying about my theories on Jack the Ripper... Over the Summer, I'm going to finish my Jack the Ripper book, which I aim to finish next month. Then, prepare for Jack the Ripper real time, which I'm starting on August. Though I haven't come up with a date for that, yet. It will either start at the very beginning of August, as that is when Martha Tabram was murdered in 1888. Some think she was the Rippers first victim. Or, it will start in the last week of August. On the 12th of June, 1942, Anne Frank received a diary for her birthday. Two days later, Anne Frank would begin writing what is now known as 'Anne Frank: The Diary Of A Young Girl.' Anne Frank: The Diary Of A Young Girl, gives us an insight into what it was like for Jewish people hiding from the Nazis across Europe. Although it can give us an insight into Nazi-occupied Europe, we also have to take into consideration that diaries are subjective experiences. In other words, diaries give us an insight into how an individual sees things. That's not to say that diaries or Anne Frank's diary are any less valid. It doesn't mean that her diary is not a reliable source. It just means that we are seeing things from Anne Franks point of view. If we had diaries from each of her family members while hiding, we would probably have variations in what happened during their time of hiding. Anne Frank and her family went into hiding, just under a month after she had received the diary for her birthday. Her sisterMargot was summoned to go to a Nazi work camp, on the 5th of July 1942. A day later, on the 6th of July 1942, Anne and Margot, with their mother (Edith) and their father (Otto), went into hiding. They were joined by another family. The other family that the Franks were joined by, were the Pels. Peter Pels the son. With his parents, Hermann Van Pels (Peters father), and Auguste (Peters mother) went into hiding with the Franks. Herman Van Pels was Otto Franks business partner.
The two families went into hiding in what has now become the Anne Frank museum. It is also referred to as the 'Secret Annex.'
Anne began to write her diary before she entered the Secret Annex. Two days after receiving the diary on her 13th birthday, Anne began writing the diary. She continued to write the diary throughout her time in the Secret Annex. The two families spent just over two years in the Secret Annex. Here are some extracts from Anne Franks diary: October 9th 1942: “Today I have nothing but dismal and depressing news to report. Our many Jewish friends and acquaintances are being taken away in droves. The Gestapo is treating them very roughly and transporting them in cattle cars to Westerbork, the big camp in Drenthe to which they’re sending all the Jews. Miep told us about someone who’d managed to escape from there. It must be terrible in Westerbork. The people get almost nothing to eat, much less to drink, as water is available only one hour a day, and there’s only one toilet and sink for several thousand people. Men and women sleep in the same room, and women and children often have their heads shaved. Escape is almost impossible; many people look Jewish, and they’re branded by their shorn heads. If it’s that bad in Holland, what must it be like in those faraway and uncivilized places where the Germans are sending them? We assume that most of them are beingurdered. The English radio says they’re being gassed. Perhaps that’s the quickest way to die. I feel terrible. Miep’s accounts of these horrors are so heartrending… Fine specimens of humanity, those Germans, and to think I’m actually one of them! No, that’s not true, Hitler took away our nationality long ago. And besides, there are no greater enemies on earth than the Germans and Jews.” November 19th 1942: “Mr. Dussel has told us much about the outside world we’ve missed for so long. He had sad news. Countless friends and acquaintances have been taken off to a dreadful fate. Night after night, green and gray military vehicles cruise the streets. They knock on every door, asking whether any Jews live there. If so, the whole family is immediately taken away. If not, they proceed to the next house. It’s impossible to escape their clutches unless you go into hiding. They often go around with lists, knocking only on those doors where they know there’s a big haul to be made. They frequently offer a bounty, so much per head. It’s like the slave hunts of the olden days… I feel wicked sleeping in a warm bed, while somewhere out there my dearest friends are dropping from exhaustion or being knocked to the ground. I get frightened myself when I think of close friends who are now at the mercy of the cruelest monsters ever to stalk the earth. And all because they’re Jews.” July 15th 1944: “It’s utterly impossible for me to build my life on foundation of chaos, suffering and death. I see the world being slowly transformed into a wilderness, I hear the approaching thunder that, one day, will destroy us too, I feel the suffering of millions. And yet, when I look up at the sky, I somehow feel that everything will change for the better, that this cruelty too will end, that peace and tranquility will return once more. In the meantime, I must hold on to my ideals. Perhaps the day will come when I’ll be able to realize them.” The two families were found by Nazi officers in August 1944. It's up for debate whether or not the finding of the two families was an accidental discovery, or, they were betrayed. For decades since the end of the Second World War, it was believed that the two families were betrayed. And given over to the Nazis. However, recently it has been suggested that that may not have been true. A new theory suggests that the families weren't betrayed. Instead, the discovery of those in the secret was accidental. It has been suggested that the raid which took place in August 1944 wasn't to do with the Secret Annex, but a raid that took place because of suspected fraud at the complex. Two men who worked in the complex were arrested for possession of illegal ration coupons. It is suggested that illegal activity, such as this, in the building, was the reason why the complex was raided. That raid was responsible for the discovery of the Franks and the Pels. The tragic thing is that this raid happened just several months before World War Two ended. What is even more tragic, is that Anne Frank died just weeks before the British liberated the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. The Bergen-Belsen concentration camp was liberated on the 15th of April 1945. While Anne Frank died in either February or March that year, in 1945. It seems like a cruel twist of fate. The story of Robin Hood is a mixture of myth, legend and history. Often, Robin Hood is seen as someone that was mythical, a legend who has survived the test of history. Since medieval times, the tales of Robin Hood have captured the imaginations of people. To this day, the tales of Robin Hood captures our imagination. In modern times, the tales of Robin Hood have been displayed on; TV, film, books and audio books. It seems that with each passing generation, or decade even, a new telling of the medieval English outlaw is told to a new generation. Sometimes the retelling of Robin Hood in modern times can often display a modern quality to it. Forgetting it's medieval surroundings. Or, sometimes the modern tales of Robin Hood portray an almost fictional retelling of medieval times - a bit like Braveheart. Perhaps we can give Robin Hood a bit of a break when it comes to historical accuracy, given that it is a tale which is largely seen to be mythical. But even when we retell mythical tales, from whatever the historical era, do we not have a duty to retell it in a way that is honest about the era. In other words, when we retell historical things, whether they are mythology or historically factual, do we not have a duty to tell history as it was, rather than glossing it over and pretending it was something else? If we want people to learn about history, then we do. Though, at the same time, it's understandable why modern historical TV shows or films try to make things modern. People are looking to be entertained when they watch historical (or mythological) TV shows. However, at the same time, we are also looking to learn something about the historical era, or figure, when we watch something. Often the desire to entertain with historical shows can see history being retold in a way that is more like fiction, than fact. This can happen with shows centered on mythology, which is also part of our history. Even with mythology, or fiction, there has to be a realism about it. If there is no realism, then people lose interest. Despite all of this, I actually do like the modern retelling of Robin Hood. Even if at times, they seem to portray a medieval England which is more fiction-like than reality. But, with Robin Hood being seen as largely folklore, we can forgive that. So, how much of Robin Hood is actually folklore? Is the Robin Tale all mythology? Is it a mixture of mythology and historical accuracy? Or, perhaps it's historically accurate? The disappointing answer is, is that there isn't much if any, facts or historical evidence about Robin Hood. On BBC History Extra, historianDavid Baldwin argues that there are seven myths surrounding Robin Hood. He states those seven myths as being: 1. That Robin Hood was a real person 2. That Robin lived during Richard I reign 3. That Robin robbed from the rich and gave to the poor 4. That Robin was Earl of Huntington. A nobleman 5. Maid Marian married Robin 6. Robin was buried at Kirklees Priory 7. That his merry men were real people These are the seven myths that we think about Robin Hood, according to Baldwin. So, is there anything to suggest that there is some historical accuracy to the so-called mythology surrounding Robin Hood. Perhaps. Historians have tried to comb through historical records from the middle ages to find the real Robin Hood. In some instances, they have been successful. For example, there are records of known ''Robehod'' and ''Rabunhod'', criminals who lived Nottinghamshire in the 13th century. The figure known as ''Robehod'' has the full name of William Robehod. On the website, 'The Legend of Robin Hood,' the following is said about the figure: ''David Crook discusses these Latin references in his article. William the son of Robert le Fevere from Enborne in Berkshire is indicted for various larcenies and the harbouring of thieves. He takes to flight, is outlawed, and his chattels are taken without warrant by the prior of Sandleford. The prior is pardoned by the king for this act and in the receipt for this writ, the fugitive is referred to as William Robehod. Crook felt that the apparent change of the surname from William son of Robert le Fevere, in one reference, to William Robehod in the second, meant that Robin Hood was already a well-known name for a fugitive criminal. The old French words forgeron, faverges, or favarges, mean a ‘forge’, hence blacksmith. Lefevre appears to be originally a French occupational surname meaning ‘smith’ (pronounced ‘le fur’), thus the name Robert le Fevere, according to general consent, suggests his occupation, a blacksmith. Stephen Knight (Robin Hood, A Complete Study of the English Outlaw, 1994, p. 25) thought that ‘William Robehod is just a miswritten or misunderstood version of name and patronymic – William Robert would be a common way of recording this man’s name at the time. The record is certainly a slender basis on which to assume the outlaw, definitely known by the 1370s, was already notorious over a century before’.' In other words, what this is saying is that William Robehod was an outlaw. And the the name, Robin Hood, was a common name for an outlaw or criminal. This could tell us two things. It could either tell us that firstly, this is a coincidence. Or, that this is where the legend of Robin Hood started. And is based on William Robehod. This indicates that there is perhaps truth in the legend of Robin Hood. That we know there probably was a real person called Robin Hood. It's also possible that he did rob from the poor, to give to the rich. As the Scottish historian, John Major (not to be confused with the former British Prime Minister), said the following in 1521: ''At this time (the reign of Richard the Lionheart) there flourished the most famous robbers Robin Hood and Little John, who lay in wait in the woods, and robbed those that were wealthy... The feats of Robin are told in song all over Britain. He would allow no woman to suffer injustice, nor would he rob the poor, but rather enriched them from the plunder taken from abbots.'' If we are to believe John Major, then there was a Robin Hood and Little John and they were outlaws in the woods who robbed from the rich, to give to the poor. But, as promising as this seems to us, that it seems to give us the real Robin Hood, the problem is, John Major gives us no evidence to support his claims. We are left assuming two things about Major's claims. Either, that he was writing a historical fiction piece. Or, that he had knowledge that made him believe that there was an historical Robin Hood and Little John. Who robbed from the rich, to give to the poor. And, who lived in Sherwood Forest. Major was a historian, not a fiction writer. An indication that he was writing history, not fiction. It's also possible that other evidence that tells us something about this Robin Hood figure, could have been destroyed. It wouldn't be the first time in history that there was or had been an attempt to destroy history. These are just thoughts and assumptions though. Other parts of the Robin Hood story are added later. Such as the character of Maid Marian. Therefore, we can make up our mind of Robin Hood being one of the following: 1. That the tales of Robin Hood are completley fiction 2. That the tales of Robin Hood have some truth to them 3. Or, that the tales of Robin Hood are historical fact Either one of these three are correct. Which one do you believe? Perhaps with folklore and mythology, there is always some truth. And this is the case with Robin Hood. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle... Winston Churchill is the iconic image of a British Prime Minister and on the 4th of June 1940, this iconic British Prime Minister gave one of, if not thee most iconic speech in the history of the United Kingdom. The We shall fight them on the beaches speech, which was given to Parliament on the 4th of June 1940. And broadcast around the United Kingdom. The speech was given to the House of Commons, at Parliament in Westminster. This speech was given several months after World War II had broken out. World War II started the previous year, in September 1939. The aim of the speech was to show strength and determination to win the war. The speech is Churchill's finest hour. Here is the last few paragraphs of Churchill's speech: ''Turning once again, and this time more generally, to the question of invasion, I would observe that there has never been a period in all these long centuries of which we boast when an absolute guarantee against invasion, still less against serious raids, could have been given to our people. In the days of Napoleon the same wind which would have carried his transports across the Channel might have driven away the blockading fleet. There was always the chance, and it is that chance which has excited and befooled the imaginations of many Continental tyrants. Many are the tales that are told. We are assured that novel methods will be adopted, and when we see the originality of malice, the ingenuity of aggression, which our enemy displays, we may certainly prepare ourselves for every kind of novel stratagem and every kind of brutal and treacherous maneuver. I think that no idea is so outlandish that it should not be considered and viewed with a searching, but at the same time, I hope, with a steady eye. We must never forget the solid assurances of sea power and those which belong to air power if it can be locally exercised. I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His Majesty’s Government-every man of them. That is the will of Parliament and the nation. The British Empire and the French Republic, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.'' To see the speech in full, go here. New images of the Titanic's replica have been released. The Titanic replica is being built in China, in the Sichuan Province, and is scheduled to be complete this year. The Titanic replica will be complete by the end of this year and will be open to the public in 2019. It will be part of a new theme park. The theme park is set to be open throughout the year.
The theme park will also have a manmade beach.
The aim is to build a life-sized replica of the Titanic so that people can experience what the Titanic would have been like. The original idea was to have the replica hit an iceberg through a simulation, but that has since been scrapped. Instead, the focus will now be on creating this replica as a sort of museum.
The families of the relatives that were lost in the Titanic tragedy didn't want there to be a simulation of the Titanic hitting the iceberg. Therefore, the idea was scrapped. The outline of the Titanic replica already looks eerily similar to the now, Titanic wreck.
When open, cabins will be £315 a night
|
Archives
April 2023
Categories
All
← Resize me
|