was jack the ripper a member of the royal family?what became of him?

Answer 1

Hmmm, why does everyone think that Jack was part of the Royals? It's quite disappointing to see so many people tricked by the foolery the media portrays.
The theory you are possibly thinking of is the Royal/Masonic Conspiracy and is one of many theories. The idea of the 'Ripper' being of royal blood or had dealings with royals is absurd.
The idea and basis of the theory, for those who do not know, is that Prince Albert Victor, and the story goes that he impregnated an 'Unfortunate', a woman, a prostitute. This infatuation would bring Albert to ruin, and the child being bred from Royal blood would legally gain heirship to the throne. This couldn’t be done, so the Royals, along with the Freemasons, would contrive to rid the truth.
They employed the Royal doctor, Sir William Gull (as Albert was unable to perform the murders himself due to illness) to murder those who knew of the truth, the infatuation and the child. These just happened to be Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Liz Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Kelly.
Now, with the theory explained, let me get to the logical bias of this theory.
First of all, the idea of William Gull making his way through the streets of Whitechapel alone can be dismissed as that, as his stature promotes, wouldn’t have known about the layouts pf the East End, the "Ripper' however clearly knew Whitechapel, East End and its Slums.
So why not have Sir William travel by carriage with an accomplice by the name of Netley... Logically, wouldn’t someone have heard the loud noise of wheels rolling on cobblestones in the claustrophobic streets of Whitechapel? Yet no one noticed these sounds or made mention of them at the time of the murders.
Another interesting thing to note is that, at the time of Dark Annie's murder, a woman saw miss Chapman outside 29 Hanbury Street (the place she was killed) negotiating with a man, most likely the 'Ripper'. In case you haven’t caught on yet, the witness saw ONE man, not two... she also saw no carriage. Would it help if i mentioned that the man she saw didn’t match any of the Royals?
Okay, another thing is that, if the theory was correct, all of the victims knew each other and had a regular friendship... it is a known fact that none of the victims knew each other... doesn’t this throw the theory into shaky realism?
So, why do so many movies, such as the comic book adaptation From Hell and the earlier TV miniseries 'Jack the Ripper', base there story and plot on this theory? Simply because it has the most dramatic, interesting and playful affect. They make the theory their movie because of the plot value, not for truth and accuracy.
There was never a grape vine found at the scene of the murders, Mary Kelly did in fact die, Inspector Abberline did not know Mary Kelly, no mention or evidence of laudanum or opium was found.

If i were you, I'd do as much research as you can and find a much more worthy and reliable suspect. I found one; he goes by the name of Francis Tumblety.
Tumblety; the first and earliest notion of this subject came from one of the police officials on the case, a Mr Littlechild, who later wrote a letter describing his thoughts and theory and presenting his idea of who the murderer was. This letter was only discovered in the twentieth century when a literature collector and librarian was cleaning out his books, ridding of any to be sold. He came across the letter and dismissed it as another hoax. However, when he sent it to a Ripper collector and Ripperologist, Stephen Evans, who later sent it for analysis which found the ink and paper to be authentic. This letter later became known as the 'Littlechild Letter' and is the absolute basis of this theory.
Tumblety himself, and American Doctor, or 'Quack' as referred to in the letter, was known to be a hater of women, a misogynist. This man made regular visits to London, one of which was in 1888 at the time of the murders. Known to have disguised himself on various occasions.
Now for the interesting parts, STRONG evidence against him was that Tumblty collected Uteruses, preserving them and such... Annie Chapman's uterus was taken.
More interesting to note, is that on the night of the double murders, of Stride and Eddowes; upon Tumblety's returning to his lodge house, the lodging lady discovered that his clothes had visible bloodstains on them.
He was arrested on November 7th, 1888 on charges of gross indecency and indecent assault with force and arms against four men between July 27th and November 2. These eight charges were euphemisms for homosexual activities. Tumblety was then charged on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders on the 12th (suggested he was free to kill Kelly between the 7th and 12th). Tumblety was bailed on November 16th. A hearing was held on November 20th at the Old Bailey, and the trial postponed until December 10th. Tumblety then fled to France under the alias ‘Frank Townsend’ on the 24th, and from there took the steamer La Bretagne to New York City.

Tumblety fits many requirements of what we now know as the ‘serial killer profile.’ He had a supposed hatred of women and prostitutes (the abortion with the prostitute Dumas, his alleged failed marriage to an ex-prostitute, his collection of uteri, etc.)
Tumblety was in London at the time and may indeed have been the infamous ‘Batty Street Lodger’ -- he therefore may have had fair knowledge of the East End environs.
Tumblety may have had some anatomical knowledge, as inferred by his collection of wombs, his ‘medical’ practice, and his short-term work with Dr. Lispenard in Rochester.
He was arrested in the midst of the Autumn of Terror on suspicion of having committed the murders.
There were no more murders after he fled England on the 24th November, if one counts only the canonical five murders.
Chief Inspector Littlechild, a top name in Scotland Yard, believed him a ‘very likely suspect,’ and he was not alone in his convictions.
Tumblety was fond of using aliases, disappearing without a trace, and was the subject of police enquiries before his arrest.
Scotland Yard and the American police had been in touch numerous times concerning Tumblety’s flight from France to New York.
One of the three detectives inspectors assigned to the case was sent to New York at the same time, perhaps to pursue Tumblety.
Tumblety evaded capture in New York City once again.
Tumblety had the wealth necessary for frequent travel and could afford to change his clothes frequently should they have become bloodstained.
He was an eccentric; but shrewd.
He had a tendency toward violence at times, and his career may have included other offences both at home and abroad.
Several acquaintances of his in America believed it likely that he was the Ripper when interviewed in 1888.

As a sidenote, I have to mention that Patricia Cornwell's Sickert theory is rediculous. She bakes up many ideas that she forgets to support and base them and make truth out of them. Do not beleive it.

Anyways, i'll leave it here before I make this a "Ripper" book, hope it helps in any way.
Cheers ;)

Answer 2

I seriously doubt that any member of the Royal Family at that time possessed the requisite knowledge of anatomy and surgery that the Ripper obviously had. I tend to go with the theory that he was a butcher or someone with experience in surgery (perhaps a doctor or medical student).

As to what became of him, that's anybody's guess. Given what we know of serial killers nowadays, it's likely that he left a trail of unsolved murders in addition to those he perpetrated in London, and that only his death put a stop to it.

The tantalizing question is, did any similar crimes occur elsewhere?

Answer 3

That theory has been discredited pretty well. Prince Eddie was a suspect, according to some, but others show he was not even in London when most of the murders occurred. Who else in the royal family itself would be suspected? Dr. Gull, the royal physician, is mentioned by some as a suspect, but he was obviously not a member of the royal family. He was old and in poor health and thus unable to commit such murders alone. We do not know for certian who he was, so we cannot say what becaame of him. Patricia Cornwell said in her book that Walter Sickert was the murderer, and her ideas make more sense than any theories involving the royal family.

Answer 4

The idea that Jack was a royal was only put forward in 1970 by a guy claiming to be Jack's illigitimate grandson. There's really no evidence supporting it.

I'm guessing Jack died in 1888. Serial killers don't just decide to stop killing. There are other options (he was arrested for another crime, for example) but dying is the most straightforward.

Answer 5

Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water Jack fell down and broke his crown And Jill came tumbling after. Up got Jack, and home did trot As fast as he could caper He went to bed and bound his head With vinegar and brown paper.

Answer 6

He was likely a man with a little surgical skill---maybe someone worked with animals, maybe a dentist or something of that nature.....as far as what became of him---he died---plain and simple....but few people have been able to strike fear into an entire city the way he did

Answer 7

There must be something the matter with people here.
There isn't a shred of evidence for the royal family theory.
It contradicts a lot of what we know.
It requires an extraordinary twisting of the known facts.
So why isn't it EXTREMELY POPULAR???

Answer 8

Nobody knows for sure. I'm inclined to think it was Druitt.
See wikipedia article for details.

Answer 9

Probably not - he was more likely to be someone extremely unimportant that no-one had ever heard of.

No-one knows, because no-one knows who he was.

Answer 10

Probably and he either died or has lived to be the oldest man alive