WI: Evidence is found that the Royal Family was Jack the Ripper?

[BlackentheBorg]

So there's a commonplace rumour that Prince Albert Victor, son of Queen Victoria, or at the very least members of the English Royal family (specifically the Marquess of Salisbury), were responsible for the murders that happened at the hands of Jack the Ripper. There isn't really much to back it up other than some other guy rambling about a grand conspiracy. But what if, lets say, a royal archivist finds concrete evidence that Ebby or someone in the Royals carried out the murders, like in the form of a written confession? How would that work out for the Queen and England on whole?

 

[Tibi088]

So there's a commonplace rumour that Prince Albert Victor, son of Queen Victoria, or at the very least members of the English Royal family (specifically the Marquess of Salisbury), were responsible for the murders that happened at the hands of Jack the Ripper. There isn't really much to back it up other than some other guy rambling about a grand conspiracy. But what if, lets say, a royal archivist finds concrete evidence that Ebby or someone in the Royals carried out the murders, like in the form of a written confession? How would that work out for the Queen and England on whole?

Depends - It happened really long ago and everyone directly involved is long dead. It would make headlines and the royal family would make a stance on it - distancing themselfs from it as much as possible but no real consequence.

It would be more interesting if the evidence proved that the royal family or parts of it including Queen Victoria knew it and covered it up.

 

[Madeleine Birchfield]

This discovery coming right after the Prince Andrew Jeffrey Epstein scandal would probably cause many Britons to question if they even need the monarchy in the first place, especially if there is some coverup involved.

Edit: Also shouldn't this be in Chat since this would presumably be current events?

 

[BlackentheBorg]

This discovery coming right after the Prince Andrew Jeffrey Epstein scandal would probably cause many Britons to question if they even need the monarchy in the first place, especially if there is some coverup involved.

Edit: Also shouldn't this be in Chat since this would presumably be current events?

You're the one who brought up Epstein. I think it's well and good.

 

[Madeleine Birchfield]

You're the one who brought up Epstein. I think it's well and good.

No but seriously your post needs clarification. When is this discovery made? The effects of this would be vastly different in 1891 when Queen Victoria is still queen, compared to 1902, when Queen Victoria has died already, compared to 1936 when Edward VII is king and all the scandal revolving his behaviour, etc...

 

[Dolan]

You're the one who brought up Epstein. I think it's well and good.

let's say that the discovery happened somewhere in a comfortably "past" relatively to our time, like in 1991, exactly a hundred year after the last confirmed murder of Jack The Ripper then...

I would bet that... It won't go anywhere, the Royal Archivist would be either sworn to secrecy, or if he/she refuses, getting fired and discredited.

Of course, once Diana died, there will be much more flak directed to the Royal Family too...

 

[BlackentheBorg]

No but seriously your post needs clarification. When is this discovery made? The effects of this would be vastly different in 1891 when Queen Victoria is still queen, compared to 1902, when Queen Victoria has died already, compared to 1936 when Edward VII is king and all the scandal revolving his behaviour, etc...

Valid point there bud.
If it floats your boat just pick whatever scenario would be spiciest.

 

[VVD0D95]

So there's a commonplace rumour that Prince Albert Victor, son of Queen Victoria, or at the very least members of the English Royal family (specifically the Marquess of Salisbury), were responsible for the murders that happened at the hands of Jack the Ripper. There isn't really much to back it up other than some other guy rambling about a grand conspiracy. But what if, lets say, a royal archivist finds concrete evidence that Ebby or someone in the Royals carried out the murders, like in the form of a written confession? How would that work out for the Queen and England on whole?

Except the rumour is founded on nonsense considering the Prince wasn't anywhere near the vincinity where the murders happened, and indeed I believe in one instance wasn't even in the country. Salisbury wasn't a member of the royal family.

What concrete evidence does he find? How does he know it's not a plant?

 

[SonOfSharknado]

What, like, all of them?

 

[Dave Howery]

this scenario was used in a book years ago, The Whitechapel Horrors. It's one of the 'Sherlock Holmes investigates the Ripper murders', a theme that has been used a few times. In this book, Prince Albert is mentioned as a suspect several times, and seems to be a real possibility... but the book ends without a clear suspect, although Watson seems to think that Holmes knows who the murderer really is, but can't say for some reason...

 

[DanMcCollum]

What, like, all of them?

That's how I read it too - and just imagined the entire royal family from Victoria all the way down being like "Hey! Let's so murder some people tonight. Whatcha think?"

 

[SonOfSharknado]

The Queen just chasing sex workers down the street with a pair of nunchuks.

 

[VVD0D95]

The Queen just chasing sex workers down the street with a pair of nunchuks.

“One must murder ones whores.”

 

[Madeleine Birchfield]

Wasn't there a Sherlock Holmes/Hercule Poirot/Jane Marple detective murder story where in the end the murderer confessed that they had royal blood?

 

[DanMcCollum]

The Queen just chasing sex workers down the street with a pair of nunchuks.

Annnnnnnd, I just laughed out loud. Bravo!