The jewels themselves were estimated to be worth about £40,000 in 1907, but of course their symbolic value was much greater. The public amazement over the theft was nothing compared with the official consternation. Nothing quite like it had happened since Colonel Blood made off with the English Crown Jewels from the Tower of London in 1671. From the very beginning, the Vice-Regal Commission which investigated the theft suspected that that it was an inside job, because both the Irish police force and the detective staff had their headquarters in Dublin Castle. Arthur Vicars, who denied all complicity, was made the official scapegoat, and was compelled to resign in 1908.

Subscribe Today

• Did you enjoy our article?
• Read more in British Heritage magazine
• Subscribe online and save nearly 40%!!!
 

The report stated that those concerned had showed "a strange want of a sense of responsibility and in fact deliberate carelessness not only for failing to ensure that the priceless crown jewels were kept in a suitably fitted strong room, but also because after the jewels had disappeared there was a strange delay in reporting their circumstances." The use of the word "strange" in the report hardly seems adequate to describe the unusual circumstances surrounding the whole affair. Not only did it appear that the theft had been an inside job, but also that there was almost certainly an official cover-up regarding the real culprit and the fate of the jewels. State jewels had been stolen before, only to be recovered, so for some time there was hope, even expectation, that the Irish Crown Jewels would reappear and the thieves be identified. But this never happened, at least not formally. The unsolved mystery coloured the King's personal attitude to Ireland for the brief remainder of his reign. Finally, he abandoned the investigation, disgusted, it is said, with the inept detective system of Dublin.

Philip Magnus, writing about the theft in 1964, noted that King Edward, though he remained profoundly dissatisfied, was also thankful that worse scandal had been avoided. What was this "worse scandal"? Did King Edward actually know the identity of the thief? There seems no doubt that the Official Report was tampered with, for it contains significant omissions.

Rumours persisted that the thief was a highly placed person. Vicars' three assistants, all of whom resigned, were: Pierce Mahony (the son of Vicars' half-brother and therefore his own nephew) whom he had made Cork Herald; Francis Bennett-Goldney, and Francis or Frank Shackleton.

The last of these seems the most likely culprit. Brother of the famed Antarctic explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton, Frank Shackleton was a charismatic personality who lived by his wits and his charm, ingratiating himself into the highest social circles. But his real friends were not of the type "to inspire confidence among the police or the public." Frank Shackleton was a practising homosexual at a time when such behaviour almost frequently led to secrecy and blackmail. (There is strong circumstantial evidence that all four of the heralds indulged in "scandalous stag-parties.") The consequent nervousness in royal circles was understandable–one of the associates and confidantes of Frank Shackleton was none other than the Duke of Argyll, who was the King's own brother-in-law. Shackleton was also in severe financial difficulties.

While attending a luncheon party on 4th July, 1907, Shackleton remarked that he would not be at all surprised to learn that the Irish Crown Jewels would one day be stolen. Two days later, the theft was discovered.

Each of the heralds ultimately met with unpleasant, and, in most cases, highly suspicious ends. Pierce Mahony died in 1914, victim of what has been described as "a very peculiar shooting accident." Francis Bennett-Goldney died as the result of a motor accident in 1918. Sir Arthur Vicars was assassinated in 1921.

The prime suspect, Frank Shackleton, met with a less dramatic, although no less disagreeable, fate. Just two days after the death of King Edward in 1910, Shackleton came to financial grief when one of the companies in which he was involved failed. Three years later, he was declared bankrupt and was imprisoned for fraud. After his release he lived under a pseudonym and died in obscurity in the inter-war years, exactly when and where, like the rest of his life, being shrouded in uncertainty.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to