Jump to content
The Education Forum

Winston Churchill and the death of Prince George, Duke of Kent


Recommended Posts

“For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history myself.” Winston Churchill

On 25th August 1942, Prince George, Duke of Kent, the fourth son of King George V, was killed when his aircraft crashed into Eagles Rock near Dunbeath, Caithness, Scotland. He was the first member of the British Royal Family to be killed on active military service for 500 years. His death is shrouded in mystery. The official report into his death has never been published. In fact, the government claim that it has disappeared from the archives.

I believe that Prince George was assassinated by the British intelligence services on the orders of Winston Churchill. Prince George was one of many people murdered as part of a cover-up operation. It is a story that also involves Allen Dulles and the US intelligence services. It is also a story that involved a trial run for the MKULTRA project and therefore provides insights into the JFK Assassination.

This cover-up has been so successful that historians have been unable to write an accurate account of the Second World War. In fact, when the full story is told, Winston Churchill reputation will be in tatters.

One of the reasons that the creation of the Churchill myth has been so successful is that it appeals to the vanity of the British people. Churchill’s message was not only of his own courage but that of those willing to fight by his side against tyranny and injustice. As a result, British historians have been reluctant to question the reality of Churchill's actions between 1930 and 1945. No doubt my postings will upset some British members. If so, I hope they will engage in a debate on Churchill.

Churchill once said: “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” He did. He was also in the position to destroy the evidence that contradicted the Churchill myth. That included ordering the assassination of people like Prince George of Kent.

I will be telling this story over the next few weeks. Hopefully other members will join in the investigation.

post-7-1179646147_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

“For my part, I consider that it will be found much better by all parties to leave the past to history, especially as I propose to write that history myself.” Winston Churchill

On 25th August 1942, Prince George, Duke of Kent, the fourth son of King George V, was killed when his aircraft crashed into Eagles Rock near Dunbeath, Caithness, Scotland. He was the first member of the British Royal Family to be killed on active military service for 500 years. His death is shrouded in mystery. The official report into his death has never been published. In fact, the government claim that it has disappeared from the archives.

I believe that Prince George was assassinated by the British intelligence services on the orders of Winston Churchill. Prince George was one of many people murdered as part of a cover-up operation. It is a story that also involves Allen Dulles and the US intelligence services. It is also a story that involved a trial run for the MKULTRA project and therefore provides insights into the JFK Assassination.

This cover-up has been so successful that historians have been unable to write an accurate account of the Second World War. In fact, when the full story is told, Winston Churchill reputation will be in tatters.

One of the reasons that the creation of the Churchill myth has been so successful is that it appeals to the vanity of the British people. Churchill’s message was not only of his own courage but that of those willing to fight by his side against tyranny and injustice. As a result, British historians have been reluctant to question the reality of Churchill's actions between 1930 and 1945. No doubt my postings will upset some British members. If so, I hope they will engage in a debate on Churchill.

Churchill once said: “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.” He did. He was also in the position to destroy the evidence that contradicted the Churchill myth. That included ordering the assassination of people like Prince George of Kent.

I will be telling this story over the next few weeks. Hopefully other members will join in the investigation.

Can't wait for this investigation to unfold!

Incidentally, Preparata has Churchill hand-in-glove with the mass murderers of Brit intel from circa 1909!

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” Winston Churchill

On 25th August 1942, Prince George, Duke of Kent, took off from Invergordon in an S-25 Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat. The official story is the Duke was on a morale-boosting visit to RAF personnel stationed in Iceland. The crew had been carefully selected for the task. The captain, Flight Lieutenant Frank Goyen, was considered to be Sunderland flyer in the RAF and had flown some of Britain’s politicians during the war. The rest of the crew was also highly regarded. The co-pilot was Wing Commander Thomas Lawton Mosley, the commanding officer of 228 Squadron. Mosley was one of the RAF’s most experienced pilots having completed 1,449 flying hours. He was also a navigation specialist and was a former instructor at the School of Navigation. In fact, the crew included four men who were qualified pilots and navigators. As one can see, this was no ordinary flight. Nor were they heading for Iceland. This was a cover-story. This will become clear when we examine the available evidence.

Officially the Duke of Kent was one of fifteen people on board the aircraft. Also on board were Prince George’s private secretary (John Lowther), his equerry Michael Strutt) and his valet (John Hales). It is also significant who was not with the Duke. Sir Louis Greig, Sir Sidney Herbert and Detective Sergeant Evans, his personal detective, all regular members of his entourage, were not on board. The absence of Greig, a close associate of Winston Churchill, is especially interesting.

The flying boat took off from Invergordon on the east coast of Scotland at 1.10 p.m. Being a flying boat, its standing orders were to fly over water, only crossing land when absolutely unavoidable. The route was to follow the coastline to Duncansby Head – the northernmost tip of Scotland – and then turn northwest over the Pentland Firth towards Iceland (see map below).

The S-25 Sunderland Mk III crashed into Eagle’s Rock later that afternoon (there is much dispute about the exact time this happened) at a height of around 650 feet. As you can see from the map below, the flying boat was well off course when the accident happened. Its 2,500 gallons of fuel, carried in the wings, exploded.

This raises some important questions. Why did the pilot take the flying boat off course? It was a clear day and he would be fully aware that he was now flying over land rather than the sea. Why, when the aircraft included four experienced navigators, did the aircraft drift a huge 15 degrees off course from its point of departure? Why did he descend to 650 feet when he was flying over high land? This is especially puzzling when one considers that the S-25 Sunderland Mk III had one major defect – it was sluggish when climbing – especially when heavily laden, as it was on the Duke of Kent’s flight.

The crash was heard by local people and reached the scene of the accident about 90 minutes after they heard the explosion. This included a doctor (John Kennedy) and two policemen (Will Bethune and James Sutherland). They found 15 bodies. This included the body of the Duke of Kent. Bethune gave a radio interview in 1985 where he described finding Prince George’s body. He said that handcuffed to the Duke’s wrist was an attaché case that had burst open, scattering a large number of hundred-kroner notes over the hillside.

Marina, Duchess of Kent, collapsed in shock when she heard the news. The following morning the newspapers reported that everyone on board the Sunderland had been killed. Telegrams were sent to the next of kin of all members of the crew. However, later that day it emerged that Andy Jack, the tail-gunner, had been found in a crofter’s cottage at Ramscraigs. Apparently, when the flying boat exploded, the tail section was thrown over the brow of the hill, coming to rest in the peat bog on the other side. Andy Jack only had superficial injuries. What he did next was very surprising. Instead of going to the wreckage to see what had happened to his colleagues, and waiting for rescuers to arrive, he ran away in the opposite direction. This of course was in direct contravention of standard procedure – which was always to remain with the wreck. Andy Jack eventually found an isolated crofter’s cottage. The owner, Elsie Sutherland alerted Dr. John Kennedy by telephone. However, it was sometime before this information reached the authorities. Andy Jack’s sister Jean had already received a telegram telling her that her brother had been killed in the accident.

Winston Churchill made a statement in the House of Commons where he described the Duke of Kent “a gallant and handsome prince”. Of the many tributes and messages of condolence received from other countries, the most significant was from General Sikorski, the head of the Polish government in exile. The two men were very close and Sikorski sent a special dispatch to all Polish troops in Britain where he described the Duke as “a proven friend of Poland and the Polish armed forces”.

The Duchess of Kent visited Andy Jack several times after the death of her husband. It is believed that the information he provided influenced what was inscribed on the Duke of George’s memorial. This included the following: “In memory of…. the Duke of Kent… and his companions who lost their lives on active service during a flight to Iceland on a special mission on 25th August 1942”. The use of the words “special mission” is an interesting one. It was also the words used by Pilot Officer George Saunders, who also died in the crash. In 2001 Peter Brown, the nephew of Saunders, told a researcher that he was told that in August 1942, Saunders went home to see his family in Sheffield. Saunders informed his mother: “I’m just on leave for a couple of days. I’m going on a most important mission, very secret. I can’t say any more.”

A court of inquiry was held and details of their findings were presented in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Air, Sir Archibald Sinclair, on 7th October 1942. The conclusion of the report was: “Accident due to aircraft being on wrong track at too low altitude to clear rising ground on track. Captain of aircraft changed flight-plan for reasons unknown and descended through cloud without making sure he was over water and crashed.”

Sinclair confirmed that weather conditions were fine and there was no evidence of mechanical failure. He added “the responsibility for this serious mistake in airmanship lies with the captain of the aircraft”. It was therefore suggested that the reason for the crash was the team of four pilot/navigators drifted off course and then failed to reach the necessary height to clear Eagle Rock.

The problem is that the documents that would enable researchers to re-examine the evidence have vanished. This includes the flight plan filed by Goyen before take-off.

The secret court of inquiry should have been made available after 15 years. When researchers asked the Public Record Office in 1990 for a copy of the report it was discovered that it had gone missing. The PRO suggested it might have been transferred to the royal archives at Windsor Castle. However, the registrar of the royal archives denies they have ever had the report.

Andy Jack, the only survivor of the crash, was forced to sign the Official Secrets Act while still in hospital. He later told his sister that he could not talk about the crash because he had been “sworn to secrecy”. Jean Jack did provide researchers with one piece of interesting information about the case. Frank Goyen gave Andy Jack a signed photograph of himself just before take-off on which he had written: “With memories of happier days.” Was this a reference to the mission they were about to undertake? Does it suggest that Goyen disapproved of the mission?

Andy Jack was promoted and after the war served in Gibraltar. While he was there he was visited several times by the Duke of Kent’s widow, Marina. Clearly, she was still interested in finding out why her husband was killed.

On 17th May 1961 Marina brought the case to national attention when she visited the scene of her husband’s death. This created a discussion about the crash in the media. Andy Jack now came forward to give an interview to the Scottish Daily Express. He was still serving with the RAF and not surprisingly he went along with the conclusions of the official inquiry. He retired from the RAF on a good pension in 1964. However, he drunk away his money and died of cirrhosis of the liver at the age of fifty-seven.

An important witness to the crash was Captain E. E. Fresson. He piloted an aircraft over the same area and at around the same time as the crashed Flying Boat. The following day he took the only aerial photographs of the wreckage. In 1963 Fresson published his autobiography, “Air Road to the Isles”. Amazingly, the book does not refer to the death of the Duke of Kent. According to his son, Richard Fresson, the book originally included a full chapter that covered his investigation into the crash. However, this material was removed by the publishers at the last moment.

There is also another interesting aspect to this story. Just ten days after the death of the Duke of Kent, another flying boat, also from 228 Squadron, crashed in the Scottish Highlands. The official explanation was that the plane had run out of fuel. Everyone on board was killed, including a very interesting passenger, Fred Nancarrow, a journalist from Glasgow. Nancarrow was investigating the Eagle Rock crash. He was also working on another case that I believe explains why the Duke of Kent was killed.

Here are some questions members might like to consider:

(1) In 2001, James Swanson, a former sergeant with the Military Police at RAF Wick, admitted that he attended the crash scene. He confirmed that he counted 15 bodies at the scene of the accident. He was also told that all the bodies of the crew were accounted for. Yet we know that one crew member, Andy Jack, had survived. Who was the extra person that was killed next day? Why was he never reported as missing?

(2) How do you account for Andy Jack fleeing from the scene of the crash?

(3) Where was the Duke of Kent really going that day?

(4) Why did the Duchess of Kent refer to her husband’s “special mission”? Why did Pilot Officer George Saunders tell his mother: “I’m just on leave for a couple of days. I’m going on a most important mission, very secret. I can’t say any more.”? What was this secret mission that appeared to concern Frank Goyen?

(5) Who was the unnamed passenger that died with the Duke of Kent?

(6) What motive could Winston Churchill have for ordering the death of Duke of Kent?

(7) How did the conspirators arrange the crash of the S-25 Sunderland Mk III?

post-7-1180002842_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt

John,

What do you make of Picknett and Prince's book "Double Standards - The Rudolf Hess Cover-up", which argues that the unnamed passenger was the real Rudolf Hess and that the plane was actually bound, not for Iceland, but for Sweden where George was going to sign a treaty with Hitler to join forces and attack Stalin?

I found this theory quite interesting, particularly as the last person to see Prince George alive was Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who dined with him the evening before. Bernhard was a devoted nazi and widely believed to be a nazi spy.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is so much that we don't know as a result of the disappearance of records. Body count "may have been an error ( partially dependant on the actual condition of bodies ).

I feel that if Andy Jack "had an inkling of what occurred", he would have been an immediate "goner"!

He could have suffered post traumatic stress .....survivors guilt?...confusion. I would say that he knows "nothing", or was a very good intelligence agent.

With the distingushed crew, it is highly unlikely that they would have been off course over Scotland.

Good weather....summers day...excellent visibility. May have been NO radio transmissions as a result of mission secrecy.

The type of aircraft chosen would have been quite unusual, if this had not been a planned flight over a great expanse of water. A big, slow, longranged aircraft. The "number of persons in the flight crew seemed unreasonably high (4 pilots); as was the total number of personnel (15) to have been involved in a mission of highest security classification.

I find strange also, as I have served as a "top secret military courrier", that the head of the "delegation", the Duke, would have been THE person with satchel handcuffed to his wrist. The aircraft was "most secure", and the handcuffed satchel becomes very uncomfortable over a long journey as it impedes normal processes such as toilet use and eating. This could have been attached to a lower ranking member of the crew / delegation. It is unikely this satchel would have POPPED open upon impact...unless it was "torn open".

It is stated that the crash remains were examined and that the aircraft seemed to have undergone NO mechanical failure. I wonder if there was any way to test the amount of petrol or whether there could have been contamination of such.

But, I suppose that all we know of the examination of the aircraft, due to non existant records, is merely what we are meant to know.

IMHO, still the most intruiging aspect of this is survivor "Andy Jack". Why did he survive and why was he unable to "have a good idea" of what caused the crash.

One might speculate, if having as paranoic a nature as mine.....that "this" Andy Jack was never aboard that aircraft and was a military intelligent agent so "planted".

Why or how else could he have both survived, and also to have known nothing, regarding cause of this incident? And why would an intelligent agent have been so planted?....if in fact he was !

This looks very unprofessional and "Sloppy"!

This isn't how the war was won !

Charles Black

P.S.

The plane could not reasonably have been off course with this crew, while flying over land, and in perfect weather. It may have dropped from an already secretively low altitude, from, as I suggested, a fuel failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Jonathan

I am terribly sorry, but it has been so long since I have truly addressed the subject of U.S. business ties to Nazi Germany, that I cannot offer anything of true value.

However, there was something which I meant to mention in my previous post on this subject, but apparently failed to.

In that I am pressed for time at the moment, I will just touch on the relevance that the "Sunderland" was a "flying BOAT", that was apparently headed into an area of the ocean which was heavily patrolled by U Boats.

This "could be" somewhat of a stretch, but perhaps not that far. A possible rendezvous with a U Boat in mid ocean.

I wish that I had more time, but with a little imagination, one might suggest that the extra dead body recovered was "the real Rudolph Hess" !

The seemingly half witted gentleman who was portrayed as Hess well past the end of the war, may not have been "The Hess" !

The Hess whom I studied was not a "dim wit" but quite bright as well as being a good pilot (which was not his field). Piloting multi engined military aircraft, was not for "dim wits" any more in 1940, than at present. I have always been unable to accept the given reason(s) for his venture.

This connection, as was suggested in another post,

may not at all be in the least bit ridiculous.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help with your question.

Charles Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John would it be possible for you to provide citations for the claims made in your previous post? As for the plane being off course it looks like cutting accross northern Scotland would shorten the trip. Unless they were on a suicide mission how do you explain the plane being too low and off course as being part of something sinester? To me it sounds like flight crew error. In the Wellstone thread I documented cases were experiencecflight crews

-circled JFK till they ran out of fuel

-got so distracted by a problem with a landing gear light that they failed to notice the auto-pilot had disengaged and they were quickly losing altitude

-flew below the manufacture's mimimum recomended speed

-flew into a mountain they should have known was in front of them.

From what you tell us the records should have neen made available in 1957 (after 15 years) but you only mention that someone tried to get ahold of them in 1990. Do you know if anyone tried to get them between 57 and 90? Does it really strike you as that odd that documents would get lost after nearly 50 years?

Why do you think he was "murdered"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that anyone investigating Churchill will consider carefully this anecdote by Fletcher Prouty:

http://www.prouty.org/coment11.html

Keep in mind, Prouty is simply relating what Stalin (who was probably not reliable) told Roosevelt's son.

Prouty has been unfairly maligned. He is a careful scholar and an important eyewitness to many of these events.

Good luck with investigating airplane crashes. I hope insight into the recent crashes in America of Mel Carnahan (in 2000) and Paul Wellstone (in 2002) will be of relevance.

Best,

Dr. Gregg Wager

http://www.angelfire.com/music2/greggwager

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

Could you clear something up? You mentioned the official report which said "...descending through cloud..." but elsewhere I get the impression it was good weather.

Is there a weather report for the area on the day in question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that anyone investigating Churchill will consider carefully this anecdote by Fletcher Prouty:

http://www.prouty.org/coment11.html

Keep in mind, Prouty is simply relating what Stalin (who was probably not reliable) told Roosevelt's son.

Prouty has been unfairly maligned. He is a careful scholar and an important eyewitness to many of these events.

Good luck with investigating airplane crashes. I hope insight into the recent crashes in America of Mel Carnahan (in 2000) and Paul Wellstone (in 2002) will be of relevance.

Best,

Dr. Gregg Wager

http://www.angelfire.com/music2/greggwager

I had not heard this story. Stalin was aware that Churchill was willing to order the assassinations of other political figures. In fact, one one occasion Churchill ordered the killing of one leading politician on behalf of Stalin (it was in both their interests that he died). This killing is linked to that of the Duke of Kent and I will be writing about it later.

It was in Churchill's interest for Roosevelt to die in 1945 (he considered him far too soft on communism). However, I very much doubt if he had the power to get rid of Roosevelt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the plane being off course it looks like cutting accross northern Scotland would shorten the trip. Unless they were on a suicide mission how do you explain the plane being too low and off course as being part of something sinester? To me it sounds like flight crew error.

If they were going across land they would not have chosen to use an S-25 Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat. As I pointed out that the Sunderland had a major defect – it was sluggish when climbing – especially when heavily laden, as it was on the Duke of Kent’s flight. This is why it was assumed that its route was over water.

Weather was fine (as the government pointed out in the House of Commons). The weather reports for that day confirmed this. Captain E. E. Fresson, who piloted an aircraft over the same area and at around the same time as the crashed Flying Boat, confirmed that conditions were fine in his autobiography, “Air Road to the Isles”. However, this was removed by the publishers. After his death, his son, Richard Fresson, published the censored chapter in the "Scotsman" newspaper in 1985.

Does it really strike you as that odd that documents would get lost after nearly 50 years?

Yes it does. These documents should not have been removed from the national archives. I suspect that they have indeed been moved to Windsor Castle as the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to documents in the royal archives. There are other files relating to this case that are being held back by the government on grounds of national security. One junior minister who talked to a researcher about these files ended up being blown up in his car. Another MP who called for these documents to be released also died the same way. Both deaths were blamed on the IRA. More about this later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "could be" somewhat of a stretch, but perhaps not that far. A possible rendezvous with a U Boat in mid ocean.

Sunderlands were only really allowed to land in sheltered waters. There's an interesting quote from the site below, which says "Like other flying boats, it could land and take-off only from sheltered coastal waters. From 1942 onwards, landings in open sea were expressly forbidden, except in special circumstances and with permission.":

http://uboat.net/allies/aircraft/sunderland.htm

Sunderlands did do search-and-rescue missions, and one once rescued over 30 seamen from a torpedoed merchantman, but it was risky for them to land on the open sea, since they'd have problems taking off again. You'll find a photograph of the interior of a Sunderland on the page above.

If the British wanted to rendezvous with a U-boat at sea, an MTB or motor launch was probably a better bet. Take a look at these memoirs of a telegraphist on British MTBs operating in the North Sea between the coast of Britain and the coasts of occupied Europe from Norway down to France:

http://www.smesh.co.uk/ml108/interest.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weather was fine (as the government pointed out in the House of Commons). The weather reports for that day confirmed this. Captain E. E. Fresson, who piloted an aircraft over the same area and at around the same time as the crashed Flying Boat, confirmed that conditions were fine in his autobiography, “Air Road to the Isles”. However, this was removed by the publishers. After his death, his son, Richard Fresson, published the censored chapter in the "Scotsman" newspaper in 1985.

Well, that makes it quite interesting. Looking at the initial track, I got the impression that they thought they had passed Wick, turned north, then turned north-west after passing John o'Groats. Those days you were using manual air plot, a reliable navigation method - if your navigation fixes were accurate (that was one of the first styles of navigation we learnt as navigators).

If the weather was poor, I'd be favouring a nav error and descent into ground.

If the weather was fine, however, that theory is completely ruled out. They deliberately turned over land. The track over land now becomes interesting; it wasn't a straight line so they apparently weren't just trying to 'cut the corner'. Why the course alterations?

Looking forward to hearing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the plane being off course it looks like cutting accross northern Scotland would shorten the trip. Unless they were on a suicide mission how do you explain the plane being too low and off course as being part of something sinester? To me it sounds like flight crew error.

If they were going across land they would not have chosen to use an S-25 Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat. As I pointed out that the Sunderland had a major defect – it was sluggish when climbing – especially when heavily laden, as it was on the Duke of Kent’s flight. This is why it was assumed that its route was over water.

I guess I didn’t make myself clear, I suggesting that perhaps the flight crew decided to take a short cut. I can only see only 3 reasons for the plane being off course:

1) a voluntary decision by the flight crew, 2) the flight crew being threatened by someone onboard 3) the pane being remotely controlled. 2) seems unlikely because it would suppose someone engineering a crash they were unlikely to survive, also I image a pilot seeing he was about to crash would stop obeying the person threatening him 3) seems hardly possible because there is no evidence such technology existed back then. There are two variants for 1) A) it was a decision made the crew violating orders or B) they were following orders. B) seems unlikely because as you point out standing orders were for the plane to fly over water when ever possible. I don’t see the fact that the plane was taking a more direct route to its ‘official’ destination as evidence that it was really going anywhere else, especially not to Sweden since that country was to their east and the plane had deviated west.

What I see missing so far is a coherent alternate explanation that explains the known facts.

Does it really strike you as that odd that documents would get lost after nearly 50 years?

Yes it does. These documents should not have been removed from the national archives. I suspect that they have indeed been moved to Windsor Castle as the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to documents in the royal archives. There are other files relating to this case that are being held back by the government on grounds of national security. One junior minister who talked to a researcher about these files ended up being blown up in his car. Another MP who called for these documents to be released also died the same way. Both deaths were blamed on the IRA. More about this later.

I don’t know 48 years is a long time, did anybody try to get a hold of these documents earlier? Who would have the power to secretly move the report to Windsor Castle and get them to lie about it? Could the PM do this without cooperation from “a royal”?

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...