Holmes and Watson waited for night to fall and following a cue from Helen Stoner, made there way into Julia’s bedroom. They then sat and watched the ventilator until they saw a light. They then made sure nothing could come through the ventilator into the room and that anything that did try to get in would return from where it came from. The plan was perfectly executed and Roylott had been killed!
It was apparent to Holmes that Roylott had killed Julia and would try to kill Helen with a venomous snake by putting the snake through the ventilator. Roylett’s plan had backfired and had gone horribly wrong for him. Thus Holmes and Watson had triumphed yet again.
Now that I have given a brief overview of the story and introduced the characters and the plot, I will examine the character of Roylett.
The first piece of information we have of Roylott is from page 154. Helen Stoner speaks about Roylott, and thus it is indirect information we have received. Direct information is where Roylett would be speaking, himself or actually doing something. Helen Stoner immediately tells us that he is her stepfather. I believe that just this small bit of information helps because I feel that she would have said this very cold, sad and in a detached manner.
We learn that he is from a very rich family one of the richest in England although not much of that wealth is remaining any more after four heirs wasted their money. They still have quite a big house remaining, though that is on a mortgage loan. Violence occurs in his family previously this could be hereditary, which is something passed down through a family. Roylott obtained an advance from a relative which meant he took a medical degree in India. There he established a large practice. He then beat his native butler to death after a series of internal robberies and spent a long time in prison for murder. This was a brutal crime and illustrates a physical and aggressive character when angered. He has thus murdered before and probably quite capable of murder again. Some people could ask what would happen if he got angry again?
When he was in India he married the mother of Helen and Julia. She had a considerable amount of money. This could well be one of the reasons why he married her, in order to ensure he had a stable financial future. Then he lost his wife in a railway accident, I believe this had quite an affect on him as he abandoned attempts to set up a practice in London. He was pleasant to Helen and Julia up until this point but they then saw a different side to him.
He had trained as a doctor. Consequently, he would have medical knowledge on how to kill someone without being discovered. He would also, no doubt, have learnt from his previous experience of killing his butler. He was convicted for that murder thus he would be determined to plan the murder well and cover his tracks and not get caught again and be imprisoned again. Prison would have been a horrible place, full of awful people and an experience he would not want to repeat.
Roylett had quite strange interests and passions. He liked Indian animals and kept a Cheetah, a Baboon and a snake. The snake was a swamp adder, the deadliest snake in India. This was a fictional snake made up by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. These are very unusual and dangerous pets so he could be keeping them as potential killers. Alternatively he could be keeping them to guard his premises and keep people away. It is likely that both explanations are true.
Although the local people and neighbours at Stoke Moran were very happy to see Roylett move back home, he was very unfriendly and had furious quarrels with local people. This shows his aggressive and volatile character. It is clear that Roylett would probably have had little in common with local people in view of the time he had spent in India and his unusual pets. It may also have been part of his plans to ensure that Helen and Julia had few local friends they could turn to.
Helen also pointed out that Roylett had a violent temper approaching mania. This was hereditary and inherited through the males in his family and probably intensified with his long stay in India. There were two reported brawls which ended in Court. He had a reputation as the terror of the village so consequently people kept clear of him. It was clear that Rowlett was a violent, aggressive, argumentative, and a very strong man who had an uncontrollable temper.
Besides his Indian interests, he is friendly with gypsies who are usually not well liked by other local people. He may could use this friendship to help him achieve what he wants.
His behaviour is characteristic of some murderers. He gets very angry and wound up over small things and we see him give out threats. He certainly doesn’t hide the fact that he gets angry very quickly because he demonstrates that he does this in public several times. We get direct information when he has followed Helen Stoner. He threatens Holmes and insults him a few times and then he bends the fire poker to show his strength. This illustrates his aggressive behaviour and probably that he is fearful of Holmes, the master detective, as he has something he is hiding.
He called Holmes, “Holmes the busybody.” I think that this is the point where Holmes is certain that Roylott is behind Julia’s death. The fact that he follows Helen is suspicious because it shows that he does not trust his stepdaughter and is worried that she may have suspicions about her sisters death. He has also been violent with them because Helen has marks on her hand where Roylott grasped her very tightly. We also have indirect information of his violence because Helen tells Holmes that he “Hurled the local blacksmith over a parapet into a stream.” This again shows he has a violent temper. He was probably fortunate that he did not kill the blacksmith like his butler.
We know he is terrorising the neighbourhood because Helen says that he is feared as much as his cheetah and his baboon. He even quarrelled with neighbours this shows he is ferocious. The only friends he has are the local gypsies and I think the only reason they like him is because he lets them stay in his grounds.
He also killed his butler out in India this tells the reader that he is capable of murder, apparently this is when he was angry, what would he do if he was really angry.
We know he shouts a lot because he did this when he was speaking to Holmes. He was ignoring what Holmes was saying and was only interested in the answers to his questions. He said, “I will do nothing of the kind.” Usually a villain behaves in one of two ways, they are very quiet and keep themselves to themselves. This is in order to ensure they are not suspected. The other way is how Roylott behaviour is loud and aggressive. This usually makes them the prime suspect.
Roylott had one main motive, money. The money is from the mother of Helen. It is left to Roylott but with conditions should the twins get married. If Julia was to marry then Roylott would have to give a third of the money to her. If Helen was also to marry then she would also get a third and that would leave Roylott with the other third. He obviously did not want either of them to get married. When Julia told him that she was to marry he did not reject this he seemed happy for her. I believe that this was just an act and a cover for his real feelings, so that she would not see why he did not want her to get married. As he could see that his inheritance was threatened, the easiest way to protect the money, he saw as his money, was to kill her. I think that money is the only real motive for the murder as Julia and Helen ran the house doing a lot of the cleaning and housework.
His physical characteristics are described in a villainous way. He is tall and fills the doorframe so that indicates he is a physically imposing figure tall, wide, muscular and probably strong. Helen confirms he is a man of immense strength
He probably drinks a lot because we know this from, “bile shot eyes.” This could ,however, also be anger or possibly using drugs as he has experience of both India and medicine. It shows that he is possibly an unstable character.
Although one of the things, which don’t make him look, like a villain are his clothes because he wears a top hat which makes him look upper class, although for his type of murder it does fit in quite well.
His attitudes to women are very Victorian because he thinks that lower class women should be servants and maids, whereas lower class men should be a butler or work in the fields. He also believes that upper class women should stay in the house and supervise the maids. He also thinks he can hit women. We see this by the marks on Helen’s hand. He thinks that his children (stepchildren) should listen to him and do what he says, they obviously don’t because he does not trust Helen as he follows her.
When Holmes is speaking about Roylott he sounds very bitter and the same can be said about Watson. So I think when we use indirect information about Roylott from those to we have to be careful that it is not their opinion, which is likely to be biased as Roylott has threatened and insulted Holmes.
The language that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle uses to describe Roylott is very cold and he makes him sound like a villain right from the start. This could manipulate the audience’s opinion of him before we have heard all the facts. For example it says, “living the life of an aristocratic pauper; but his only son…” this is right at the start and it puts a picture into your head of Roylotts father, quite often sons turn out like there fathers.
I think Roylott is quiet scared that Holmes might find out what he has done when he follows Helen because Holmes would have a reputation of a master detective and much better than the police at Scotland Yard. In Victorian times crime was slowly on the decline. There were occasions though when appalling offences were committed. The most common offenders were young males but only for petty offences. Domestic violence rarely came in front of the courts.
Two famous criminals were Palmer and Pritchard they both poisoned people. Both were mentioned in ‘the Speckled Band’ by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I could not find information on Dr Edward Pritchard but I have researched Palmer. Dr William Palmer was born in Rugeley near Stafford on 6th August 1824. He was heavily in debt, guilty of attempted bribery, fraud, forgery and overly fond of the ladies and of gambling on the horses is beyond doubt! He was only tried for one murder although he was found guilty of the murders by poison of his wife and his brother. He was then found guilty of the murder of John Parsons Cook in the ‘Talbot Arms’ in Rugeley. They tried to get him to admit it but he wouldn’t. For this murder he was publicly executed in saw it. He was nicknamed, “The Prince of Poisoners.”
In conclusion I say that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s fictional villain Dr Grimesby Roylott is a lot like these two Victorian villains. Both the real murderers were doctors, just like Roylott. The way they kill is fairly similar as well, although Roylott was more clever and may have escaped detection if it had not been for that super sleuth , Sherlock Holmes.