Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

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....

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

I believe that the flying boat was actually on its right course. That is why the logged flight route has gone missing. I believe Flight Lieutenant Frank Goyen took this route to pick up the extra passenger.

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”?

One of the reasons why many people believe JFK was killed by a lone gunman was because the Kennedy family did not call for a new investgation into the case. The reason why Robert Kennedy kept quiet was because of what he feared would be revealed about the family if an investigation took place. The same is true of the Duke of Kent's death. The Royal Family have gone along with the cover-up because of their own secret activities during this period. Churchill and LBJ used the same tactics to ensure a cover-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Regardless of what the Sunderland was "designed " to do, this was wartime, and this aircraft made many landings in open ocean. It was used for much more than coastal duties. The weather on the "day chosen", certainly would have made this operation's success highly likely. When you consider "pilot error" or navigational error over land, in friendly territory in excellent weather and only shortly into the flight....please reconsider why a crew of this caliber was chosen ! The crew was not tired or confused, hampered by weather and was over land. Consider the number of non essential members aboard this flying boat, and most importantly "who" they were. Consider the wrist shackled briefcase and to "whom" it was shackled.

How can anyone suggest that this was ANYTHING other than a "very special mission".

Do you believe that "Royalty" was over Scotland on a pleasure flight?

I am hearing much "nay say" and not a great deal of common sense. Why so often is "the obvious" given the least consideration when it is in fact, the most, after the fact, OBVIOUS.

I personally don't have any vested interest in this subject, but why are you so quick to discount what is the MOST OBVIOUS. I would think that the most obvious theory should at least be considered and dismissed, before proceding with the "highly improbable".

Begin by trashing the theory that the Sunderland could not land at sea in the N. Atlantic, in August under ideal weather conditions. That is absurd!

Considered a hand cuffed satchel and to whom it was attached ! Now consider the general direction in which the flight was headed.....not many possibilities.

I feel also that it is absurd to suggest that in midlflight, during wartime, and in perfect weather, that the crew decided to alter the flight plan of their own volition. "It just ain't done"!

Why such a distinguished crew.....was the Prince afraid of flying? Do you feel that they intended to land in enemy held territory as had Rudolf Hess?

I feel that instead of considering what the mission likely "was not", a little better progress might be made, if you consider the "VERY FEW" options of what this mission "most likely" was !

Are any of you under the misimpression that such missions did not occur, and in fact, still are occurring ?

Don't forget THE surviving crew member !

Charles Black

P.S.

The use of a "patrol boat" would have been totally unacceptable for a daylight clandestine mission. Coastal waters were highly patrolled by both coastal sea craft and aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

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

I believe that the flying boat was actually on its right course. That is why the logged flight route has gone missing. I believe Flight Lieutenant Frank Goyen took this route to pick up the extra passenger.

I still don’t see a coherent theory. Any idea who this mysterious “15th man” was? Did they pick him up just so that he could be killed along with the Duke? Why did Churchill want these men dead?

I imagine that the flying boats couldn’t land on land but only on water so the plane would had to have landed on a lake (loch) that was big enough for behemoth to land and secluded enough that no one who couldn’t be controlled would notice. Are there any such lakes located near where the plane crashed? The only loch of any size I could see on your map was beyond the plane's path.

scotland.gif

I still don’t understand how you think the plane was made to crash. I guess theoretically they could have sabotaged the plane in such away that it wouldn’t have been able climb fast enough from it’s secret landing place but “they” would had to have done so in a away that the flight crew would not have noticed during the preflight checks, the original take off or the rest of the flight. Even then unless clearance around the secret loch was too high in all directions they could not have been sure the pilot would have flown into the mountain.

Perhaps they did pick up some mystery passenger and Goyen unaccustomed to flying over land miscalculated the plane’s ability to climb.

Why were so many people on the plane? Was that to get it heavy enough or were they people Churchill wanted to get rid of too?

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”?

One of the reasons why many people believe JFK was killed by a lone gunman was because the Kennedy family did not call for a new investgation into the case. The reason why Robert Kennedy kept quiet was because of what he feared would be revealed about the family if an investigation took place. The same is true of the Duke of Kent's death. The Royal Family have gone along with the cover-up because of their own secret activities during this period. Churchill and LBJ used the same tactics to ensure a cover-up.

Any idea what those secrets were? Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope insight into the recent crashes in America of Mel Carnahan (in 2000) and Paul Wellstone (in 2002) will be of relevance.
Due to the inexperience of the pilot in the former crash and the known incopotence of both pilots in the latter, pilot error seems the most likely explaination in both cases.

If you are interested in the Wellstone crash there is lengthy thread on the topic in the History Books section where Jim Fetzer, the primary proponent of the theory the crash wasn't accidental, was unable to substantiate his claims.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion itself that Churchill was the sort of person who could do this is not so farfetched.

There was an attempt to assassinate Churchill in june 1943.

The breaking of the German code had revealed that there were observers in Lisbon looking out for Churchill and an attempt would be made to shoot down his plane when returning to England.

It appears that Churchill ordered his bodyguard to disable an engine on his plane that was to take him from Lisbon to England. He apparently did so by removing a part from one of the engines. The result was that Churchill's return was delayed by a day.

Instead a civilian aircraft was shot down.

The circumstances outlined in the following article here suggests that Churchill knowingly sacrificed a number of Intelligence officers, including a leading anti-Nazi ampaigner, the actor Leslie Howard.

http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/...er_1ashley.html

"........The 50-year old actor perished in a strange incident in WW2--an apparent attempt to assassinate Winston Churchill in the air. On June 1, 1943 the BOAC DC-3 commercial airliner Howard was aboard was shot down by the German Luftwaffe over the Bay of Biscay, the portion of the Atlantic Ocean immediately north of Spain and immediately west of France. There were 17 persons on board, 13 passengers and 4 crewmen. None survived.

The doomed airliner, named Ibis (after the water bird venerated by the ancient Egyptians), had departed from Lisbon that Tuesday at 9:40 a.m., local time, heading for England on a regularly scheduled daytime flight. Three hours later, at 12:54 p.m., with the Ibis flying over water and the Spanish peninsula 200 miles behind, the airplane's wireless operator suddenly broke radio silence and tapped out a chilling message in code: "From G-AGBB [ibis's call sign] ... I am followed by unidentified aircraft ... I am attacked by enemy aircraft ..." No more signals were received from the airliner, and no trace of its occupants or wreckage was ever found.

.............

Amazingly, three persons who had boarded and been seated on the Ibis in Lisbon that fateful Tuesday were taken off the plane before it took off, and thereby narrowly escaped certain death.

One was a Catholic priest* who benefitted from a mysterious anonymous telephone call summoning him back to Lisbon.

The other two were the young son of a British diplomatic official and the boy's nanny; the two were bumped to make room for Leslie Howard and Alfred Chenhalls."

Leslie and Alfred passed at light scrutiny as doubles to Churchill and his bodyguard.

Churchill himself called the affair 'a twist of fate.'

*who?

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting information relating to this affair can be found on the website of Martin Frost

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/royal_nazis.html

The links to the relevant sections are at the top left and take you to a small second part should you wish to read more. There may be more information elsewhere on the site perhaps although it is a little disorganised and finding things can be tricky. In fact I was unable to find links to these sections at all from the main pages so there they appear to be pretty well hidden....There are further pages on spying in the Second Section of the website as it is called

http://www.martinfrost.ws/index.html#Second_part_starts_here

Although I wasn't able to see anything at a quick glance I will add the link in case of anything John might spot as he's a bit more involved with the subject matter and names than myself....

Edit as I have just come across more reference to Prince George at the bottom of this page on Princess Diana - including the claim that his (Martin Frost's) father might have been involved

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/diana1.html

Edited by David Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

(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?

This is fascinating and I can't wait to see what the further research you've been performing reveals.

Having considered the questions you pose, I ask, Can you be sure there were 15 bodies? I know nothing about Swanson and the context of his admission. It seems to me to say all 15 died at the site, would be the most convenient and simplest way of hiding the fact there was a survivor, which would have been interviewers/reporters/investigators gold, especially in the death of a Royal. Also get the survivor to sign an OSA, and just like that, no survivors, no witness to the event, no-one to reveal the true mission or why the plane took the course it did. Cover up, essentially, complete in a simple stroke. No-one would have talked, no-one to talk.

Need there be a 'mystery man' who died in the crash for this episode to be any more intriguing?

I'm looking forward to the rest of this piece of original research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another interesting point is that according to one source (not to hand, but on the internet so I can find it again), FSGT Jack said that he did go back to the wreckage and that Prince George was at the controls.

I have no idea how reliable the source is, but it does help explain a few things.

What it does not explain is why they were 'cutting the corner'. I'd still like to find out more about the weather conditions at the time. Descending through cloud is very dangerous unless you are sure of your position. Even then, that faith may be misplaced (thinking of the Air New Zealand flight into Mt Erebus).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another interesting point is that according to one source (not to hand, but on the internet so I can find it again), FSGT Jack said that he did go back to the wreckage and that Prince George was at the controls.

I have no idea how reliable the source is, but it does help explain a few things.

What it does not explain is why they were 'cutting the corner'. I'd still like to find out more about the weather conditions at the time. Descending through cloud is very dangerous unless you are sure of your position. Even then, that faith may be misplaced (thinking of the Air New Zealand flight into Mt Erebus).

I am pretty sure that Andy Jack never said this. Strangely, he was never called to give evidence at the official inquiry. The only time Jack talked about the case was in an interview with the Scottish Daily Express on 18th May, 1961. He was still serving with the RAF and not surprisingly he went along with the conclusions of the official inquiry. Jack said that as he was in the tail of the plane he did not know what was going on in the cockpit. The only time he spoke to the people in the cockpit was at around ten minutes into the flight.

It is true that rumours have been spread via the internet that the reasons for the cover-up was that the Duke of Kent was flying the plane when it crashed. I think this is highly unlikely, especially when they were flying above ground as they knew this was a dangerous thing to do in a S-25 Sunderland Mk III. Also, they people in the cockpit were badly burnt. According to eye-witnesses, this was not the case with the Duke of Kent. Finally, Will Bethune, a local policeman who was first on the scene, 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. Experts have said that the Duke of Kent would have found it very difficult to pilot the plane with an attaché case handcuffed to his wrist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's that quote - unsourced, though:

Alternatively there is a story that is said to come from the only survivor Flight Sergeant Andy Jack, whose niece claimed that her uncle had told her that he had found George dead at the controls of the plane, with the clear implication that the Duke had been flying the plane when it crashed despite not having been trained to fly Sunderlands.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1546715

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much too spoiled for me to swallow !

Fifteen dead immediately with some burned....the other, a survivor, unscathed but disappeared !

Terrible crash of which the survivor had no warning

of an impending problem.

Under the reported conditions, it would take some effort on the part of the pilot to fly into the ground or a mountain, even were he a "student pilot", much less one of the more trusted in the RAF.

The Rosetta Stone is WHY a "disappeared survivor" who had no inkling of a "problem", or an impending crash, in fact disappeared without seeking help for his crew mates.

My reasoning tells me that the "survivor was faked"......but for reasons which I can't imagine.

This story wreaks !

From my deepest paranoid and conspiratorial recesses, I can come up with but one possibility that makes any sort of semi-sense.

The "survivor" sabotaged the plane and bailed out.

He would have come to earth a considerable distance behind the aircraft... a problem which may have not been given proper consideration. His absence from the crash site was not a part of the planning.

His duty station, in the tail gunner position, would have given him unlimited "privacy"....he would have been literally invisible to the other crew members !

Charles Black

Edited by Charles Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's that quote - unsourced, though:
Alternatively there is a story that is said to come from the only survivor Flight Sergeant Andy Jack, whose niece claimed that her uncle had told her that he had found George dead at the controls of the plane, with the clear implication that the Duke had been flying the plane when it crashed despite not having been trained to fly Sunderlands.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1546715

It is true that Andy Jack did say that he returned to the wreckage before leaving the scene. However, he said he went back to see if there were any survivors. Why would he drag the Duke of Kent's body out of the cockpit? Why would he then lie about it? What he never explained why he left the scene of the crash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One small point that's been bugging me is "hundred kroner" notes. 'Kroner' denotes the currencies of Iceland, Denmark and Norway, but not Sweden (where it'd be 'kronor'). This might be a British mistake, though.

Denmark and Norway had to use German notes during the occupation, so hundred kroner notes wouldn't be valid there … A hundred kroner was a lot of money too - something like a month's wages at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One small point that's been bugging me is "hundred kroner" notes. 'Kroner' denotes the currencies of Iceland, Denmark and Norway, but not Sweden (where it'd be 'kronor'). This might be a British mistake, though.

Denmark and Norway had to use German notes during the occupation, so hundred kroner notes wouldn't be valid there … A hundred kroner was a lot of money too - something like a month's wages at the time.

They were in fact kroner notes which reflects the fact they were going to Iceland. However, as Iceland was occupied by Britain and the USA at the time, its own currency was virtually valueless. This fact has raised questions by researchers. Why did the Duke of Kent not take dollars with him to Iceland?

It seems strange that he had handcuffed to his wrist an attaché case that was carrying valueless currency. Could it be that Andy Jack removed more important documents from the case? Could these documents explained the real reason for going to Iceland/Sweden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand post incident trauma for his actions to some degree, but the fact that he didn't try to contact the RAF immediately is very confusing.

Adding to the confusion is the accuracy of various reports. If the Prince did have an attache case chained to his wrist, I seriously doubt that any competent aircrew (and the flight crew were definitely competent) would allow him at the controls in anything but the most benign situation (clear weather, high altitude, safe flight envelope, no threats).

I think this subject is going to take a lot more research to discover if what we have been told is correct or not.

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...