Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

EDIT add::"I've taken a slightly different approach.

I've read various diaries and official accoounts of what was happenind at the supposed destination at around this time. In no particular order:

1. there was an issue re blackmarket dollars and the use of the Icelandic Kronu by service men, and employmnent, or not, of local labor.

2. there was a large shipment of Gold Bullion passing through.

3. There was a rapid escalation of German interest in the area around August including surreptitious setting up of German weather stations on a nearby island (part of Greenland)

4. there was shortly to come a rapid de-escalation of German interest as the Russia war was biting deep into German resources.

5. at the time of the crash, the British HQ on Iceland had only just completed handing over to the US.

6. There was a significant Icelandic pro German sentiment.

7. Iceland was a valuable position for predicting weather for the European theatre. There are accounts that these days of August 42 had a window of clear weather.

8 A flight from Iceland the day before had dropped off 'a courier' in Scotland"

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

"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."

Icelands currency is 1 Krona, 100 Kronur.

In Norway, Denmark and Greenland it's the Kroner. in Sweden the Kronor.

If indeed it's correct that it was hundred-kroner notes then if they were going to Iceland the money would meant be for Greenland?

Flying with a hundcuffed wrist could be dodgy?

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is the AC2 diary extract:

From Don Macfie’s Diary

August 25, 1942 – This evening an aircraft (Sunderland) from 228 Squadron RAF crashed into a Scottish hillside with the Duke of Kent on board. All were killed with the exception of rear gunner Flt/Sgt Andy Jack. P/O Saunders the Navigator was with us in Debert NS. That is eight Debert boys lost since we came over in June.

August 27 – We flew over to Invergordon today, taking the CO of 288 over to see about the return of the bodies from the crash. We went up Caledonia Canal and by Inverness. We flew up the valley between the mountains. It was really the nicest scenery I had ever seen.

Note: some weeks later at Oban I was standing at a bar and noticed Andy Jack beside me. He was jut out of hospital minus most of his nose. I asked him what had happened. He leaned over and whispered, “I think the Duke was flying.”

BTW, I'm not a historian in any sense of the word, so I hope I'm not irritating the *real* historians by dredging up stuff like this!

It seems that Andy Jack told several people that he thought the Duke of Kent was flying. For example, he told the story to Corporal Tim Watson who served with Andy Jack in Oban. In 1943 Jack told Watson that just before the flying boat took off Mosley was in number 1 seat and Goyen was in the number 2 position. The Duke of Kent stood behind and in between the two men. Jack then went to his seat in the rear of the aircraft. The significance of this is that it might have been Mosley rather than Goyen who piloted the aircraft.

However, Andy Jack was not in a position to know who was flying the aircraft. He was the tail gunner. The only radio contact he had with the cockpit was 10 minutes into the flight.

The Duke of Kent was identified at the scene of the crash. However, that was not the case of the pilot and co-pilot who were badly burnt. This suggests that the Duke was not in the cockpit.

The other problem with this story is that when Will Bethune found the Duke's body, he had an an attaché case handcuffed to his wrist. This would have made it difficult to fly the plane.

The reliability of Andy Jack as a witness is a problem. After checking that everyone on board was dead he broke RAF regulations by leaving the scene of the accident. Andy Jack did not arrive at Mrs Sutherland’s cottage until 1.30 the next afternoon. That means that he was missing for nearly 24 hours. That is why his sister was informed by the RAF that Jack had been killed in the accident.

I think Andy Jack spread this story about the Duke of Kent being at the controls to explain why there was a cover-up. The Royal Family have also gone along with this cover-up. (It is almost certain that the documents related to this accident are being kept in the Royal Archives. The Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the Royal Archives and they therefore will never be released. But would the government and the royal family cover up this accident just to protect the reputation of the Duke as a pilot? I don't think so. However, they would be willing to do so if the Duke was involved in an act of treason. That is something that could have brought an end to the monarchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I on numerous ocassions during the 1960's, have been "so handcuffed" to a satchel. Flying an aircraft, other than for watching it on "auto pilot" would be impossible...particularly on a military mission.

Tho not large, such a satchel is cumbersome enough that one cannot even take off a jacket. Putting on a parachute (if not done so before satchel attachment) would be "impossible" in the event of an air "emergency". I from experience, strongly feel that the thought of his piloting the aircraft should be set aside.

There IS something seriously wrong with the various Andy Jack reported actions and reactions which I personally don't feel, at this late date, could ever be resolved. A twenty four hour absence? Yet he wasn't injured enough to investigate the crash site?

Given the number of people involved, my military experience would indicate to me that this Was Not a "treasonous" mission.

Perhaps things are different in the U.K., but in the U.S., I feel that the "National Security" excuse would be used nearly "eternally".....or until every possible flaw has been without question eliminated.

In the U.S., the crash of a "private flight" which concerned the death of a pro JFK conspiracist, Congressman Hale Boggs, over Alaska, is hampered by National Security considerations which MUST be considered as a fabrication. Theoretically, the aircraft was never found.

I find this subject very interesting, tho I feel that we might be attacking windmills.

Charles Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“August 25, 1942 – This evening an aircraft (Sunderland) from 228 Squadron RAF crashed into a Scottish hillside with the Duke of Kent on board. All were killed with the exception of rear gunner Flt/Sgt Andy Jack. P/O Saunders the Navigator was with us in Debert NS. That is eight Debert boys lost since we came over in June.”

I found this diary entry a bit suspect since as John pointed out Jack was not found till the next day (the 26th) and had previously been presumed dead. Also crash happened some time between 1:30 and 2:30 presumably someone at Oban would have known that

I don’t think Jack leaving the crash site suspicious. Soldiers have been disobeying orders especially standing orders since long before WW2 and the instinct towards self-preservation probably took precedence. Assuming he had the presence of mind to remember the order he probably preferred being a live soldier punished for violating an order than a dead one honored for obeying it.

John is there any collaboration for Bethune’s claim made 42 years after the fact about the “attaché case handcuffed to his wrist” and the money? Odd that if true no one else would have mentioned it. Can we even be sure he was there?

Another reason to doubt that Hess was the “15th man” is that decades later he was repeatedly visited by his wife in son in Spandau. If the man there were an imposter he fooled them or for reasons unexplained they went along with the subterfuge.

John Dolva – I’m interested in the “courier” “dropped off in Scotland" by “a flight from Iceland the day before” the crash can you elaborate and/or provide a citation?

As for the Boggs crash I haven’t seen a reliable citation that he believed the JFK assassination was a conspiracy. His daughter, Cookie Roberts, said he didn’t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting webpage on the event.

Looks like the MCADAMS version of the Duke of Kent death !!!

I came across this site when I Googled the serial number of the plane:

http://www.ww2inthehighlands.co.uk/folders...erlandw4026.htm

Interesting take on Andy Jack + some photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Simkin,

I await your promised posts on the Duke of Kent's 'accident' and Churchill's 'real intentions' with interest. At the moment it looks like you can't see the wood for the trees. Perhaps this little chestnut might aid your vision:

In the late '20's a new Tory MP took exception to Churchill's continual grizzling duing his maiden speech. Churchill finally snapped when the young Turk referred to Labour members as 'the enemy.'

'You fool' said Churchill, 'that's the opposition, the enemy is behind you!'

Now Mr Simkin, ask yourself these questions:

1) What was the real reason behind the formation of the SOE?

2) Ditto the CIA?

Remember, the universe consists largely of DARK matter...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len I'm pretty sure it's this one - 2 days before. My mistake "8-15" + "nine-day" = 24

http://www.firebirds.org/menu1/moranp_5.htm

...Reykjavik Air Base, Iceland. Another lengthy delay due to storms in the North Atlantic. We had some excitement on 8-15, when a German four-engine Focke-Wulf "Kondor", which strongly resembled a B-17, made a bomb run on the base. The Kondor was Germany's only long-range bomber, and was the eyes and ears of the U-Boats which were harassing our convoys. Two pilots of the air defense force, flying a Bell P-39 "Airacobra" and a Curtiss P-40 "Warhawk", immediately took off to intercept the intruder, which was shot down in flames moments later, marking the first American aerial victory in the Atlantic/European Theatres of Operations. After a nine-day delay at Reykjavik, weather clears enough for us to take off on our final overwater leg.

23 Aug 42 - RAF Prestwick, Scotland. After an uneventful flight, we land at RAF Stomoway, in the Outer Hebrides Islands, to drop off a courier and to refuel. The short flight to Prestwick was most interesting as we hedge-hopped over small islands and beautiful, green Scottish hills and fields. [880 mile leg] We RON and are feted by a dance in the town hall, to the tune of drums and bagpipes.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The currecy is significant. reported as "100-Kroner" bills

Either

-it is an incorrect record

-it is manufactured by someone who did not know the difference

-it is correct.

Iceland 100-Kronur

Greenland 100-Kroner

Denmark 100-Kroner

Norway 100-Kroner

Sweden 100-Kronor

What use was 100-Kroner bills in Iceland?

If it is correct that the Duke was carrying a case of 100-Kroner bills to Iceland then that means something. One would need to consider their (the bills) destination to a Greenland element.

If it is correct that the plane was heading elsewhere, then Denmark or Norway becomes an issue, both Nazi occupied countries.

Or...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I await your promised posts on the Duke of Kent's 'accident' and Churchill's 'real intentions' with interest. At the moment it looks like you can't see the wood for the trees. Perhaps this little chestnut might aid your vision:

In the late '20's a new Tory MP took exception to Churchill's continual grizzling duing his maiden speech. Churchill finally snapped when the young Turk referred to Labour members as 'the enemy.'

'You fool' said Churchill, 'that's the opposition, the enemy is behind you!'

Now Mr Simkin, ask yourself these questions:

1) What was the real reason behind the formation of the SOE?

2) Ditto the CIA?

Remember, the universe consists largely of DARK matter...

At this stage it might be worth considering the theory put forward by the authors of “Double Standards: The Rudolf Hess Cover-Up”. Three journalists/historians had been working independently on different events during the Second World War. Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior joined forces to write the book initially published in 2001. I have a copy of the revised edition that takes into account of the witnesses that came forward in reaction to the first edition. I do not fully accept this theory of events but it does provide a structure that will enable an informed debate on the subject.

Picknett, Prince and Prior rely heavily on Robert Brydon’s research into the death of the Duke of Kent. They are also indebted to Hugh Thomas (The Murder of Rudolf Hess – 1979) who provided the evidence that suggested that the man in Spandau Prison was not Rudolf Hess.

The authors of Double Standards argue that the Flying Boat flew to Sir Archibald Sinclair’s Baremore Lodge in order to pick up Rudolf Hess. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, one of the surprising things about this story was that Sir Louis Greig was not on board. Greig had been the Duke of Kent’s constant companion over the previous few months. Was Greig spying on the Duke? Is it relevant that he had been the former secretary of Sir Archibald Sinclair and a close confidant of Winston Churchill? Was Greig warned that the aircraft would crash?

The authors argue that the destination was Sweden rather than Iceland. Sweden was a neutral country that had been used before to negotiate between the UK and Germany during the war.

The authors argue that only the British government could have organized the accident and ensured the cover-up. They also point out the similarities with other flying incidents that involved people who were inconvenient to the government.

In November 1942, General Wladyslaw Sikorski, the leader of the Polish government in exile, boarded a Lockhead Hudson at Montreal. On take-off, when the plane was only 30 feet in the air, both engines cut out. The pilot was able to make a successful emergency landing.

In March, 1943, General de Gaulle, needed to visit Glasgow. The General hated flying and intended to take the train from London. Sir Archibald Sinclair persuaded him to change his mind and take a Wellington bomber from RAF Hendon to Abbotsinch near Glasgow. However, the plane’s elevators failed to respond. The pilot was able to make a successful emergency landing. A secret RAF investigation discovered that the control rods had been eaten through with acid and that this was a clear case of sabotage. The investigation blamed German infiltrators but the culprits were never caught. This report was not released until 1967. Other recently released documents show that during this period Churchill was talking about General Charles de Gaulle as being a nuisance that needed to be “eliminated”.

On 4th July 1943, Sikorski was on a Liberator that refuelled in Gibraltar. Within minutes of taking off the plane crashed into the sea. There was only one survivor, the pilot, Flight Lieutenant Edward Prchal. He survived because he was wearing a life-jacket that he had put on before the aircraft had taken off. According to the official inquiry the elevator controls had jammed. Summer Welles, the US Under-Secretary of State, went on record as saying he believed Sikorski had been assassinated. Sikorski’s widow claimed that her husband had been assassinated on the orders of Winston Churchill.

Had the Duke of Kent’s flying boat’s control rods been tampered with? We already know that the S-25 Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat had a major design fault – it was sluggish when climbing – especially when heavily laden, as it was on the Duke of Kent’s flight. This is why its pilots always tried to fly over sea. This would have been the case unless the pilot was asked to pick up a passenger at Baremore Lodge. The authors argue that if the flying boat had picked up a passenger at Braemore it would have needed to pass over Eagle Rock to get back to its original flight plan. It was also at this point when the flying boat would have needed to climb. Something it failed to do.

The authors argue that Winston Churchill ordered the assassination of the Duke of Kent because he was involved in an act of treason. He was negotiating with the Germans about the possible surrender of the UK. It is for this reason that the Royal Family have gone along with the cover-up.

Although I believe that it is possible that Winston Churchill did order the assassination of the Duke of Kent, I do not accept the motive for the action. The authors accept the traditional historical view of Churchill and find it acceptable for him to act in such a way in order to protect the best interests of the country. In other words, the motive justifies the decision to “eliminate” the Duke of Kent.

However, I intend to argue that Churchill ordered the assassinations of the Duke of Kent and Rudolf Hess to protect his own historical reputation. If he had not done so, our view of Winston Churchill today would be very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John

How do you explain the double being left alive for 45 years and apparently not telling anyone not even the jailers he became close to? What about Hess’s son and wife why would they repeatedly visit the imposter? Do think they a) couldn’t tell the difference or B) went along with the ruse?

Where officially was he being held during this period? Is there any evidence more substantial than a third hand accounts he was being held at the estate where Loch More was located?

Why would the British want DeGaulle and Sikorski killed?

Can you provide citations for your various claims about these crashes?

I don’t understand your theory, why would Churchill set up the trip only to sabotage it? How do you propose the plane was sabotaged and by whom? How did it escape detection? Unless it was sabotaged at Loch More how could they be sure the plan would crash with Hess on board? How could they be sure Hess and the Duke would be killed and the former not recognized by the rescuers? How could they be sure most or all the crew would be killed and any survivors wouldn’t talk?

Can you elaborate on and/or provide documentation for your claim the British and Germany conducted secret negotiations during this period and have taken place in Sweden?

One problem with the theory the plane was flying from Loch More (i.e. from the west) was that the wreckage seems to have been found on the east side of the hill.

crashsite.jpg

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=31...p=newsearch.srf

Question for Evan or anyone knowledgeable about the subject, did the British have radar coverage in that part of Scotland?

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found two interesting references to the Duke and the crash:

[On June 24, 1931] The Duke of Kent was delayed on his visit to St Austell, having landed his sea plane in the bay prior to going ashore. The crowd in Looe were kept waiting for his arrival and at last his sea plane was spotted circling Looe prior to landing in the bay. The crowds were kept waiting even longer whilst the Prince had a substantial refreshment aboard the plane.

<snip>

It has been recently revealed under the 60 year rule on the release of information that the Duke of Kent was appointed as Churchill’s Liaison Officer at the impending talks in Washington on the invasion of mainland Europe, during 1942. On the morning of 25th August 1942 15 people were aboard the Sunderland flying boat No W4026, bound for America. One of the passengers was the Duke of Kent en route for the Washington conference. The plane took off from Invergordon, Scotland, and shortly afterwards tragedy struck. The plane should have been over open water; instead it flew into a Scottish hillside, killing all but one of the crew, Flt Sgt Andrew Jack the rear gunner. (Andrew Jack died in 1976)

<snip>

Flt Sgt Jack was thrown clear of the plane on impact, he bravely re-entered the wrecked plane in search of survivors. Although Flt Sgt Jack was extensively burned he managed to pull clear a number of bodies including the Duke of Kent and Flt Sgt Sweet. Before his death in 1976 Andrew Jack confided in his niece Margaret Harris from Prestatyn, a secret he had been burdened with since the accident.

Whilst in hospital recovering from burns received on entering the aircraft, Flt Sgt Jack was made to sign the Official Secrets Act. He revealed to his niece the following story of what really happened on that fateful morning. The Duke and his two friends had been seen drinking in the RAF mess whilst waiting during a long delay owing to bad weather. In fact males in make up were seen but not identified as to whom they were or how many of the three it involved. One of the three was not reported as whether a male or a female, but was supposed to be the Duke’s boyfriend although not even listed amongst the passengers or crew. After the plane had crashed and Flt Sgt Jack re-entered the aircraft he found the Duke of Kent slumped at the controls in the pilot’s seat. The Duke was supposedly a passenger on the aircraft and not trained in operating Sunderlands. Flt Sgt Jack managed to recover all 15 bodies although being badly burned in the process. Following his signing of the Official Secrets Act, a Court of Enquiry was set up. The Official Enquiry found that the pilot Flt Lt Frank Guyen was to blame for the accident. At no stage was it reported who the mystery 15th person was, nor did they receive any mention during the proceedings or final report. Flt Sgt Jack was upset and disgusted until the day he died that some one else took the blame.

http://www.looecornwall.com/index.cfm?articleid=1353

The claim that the 15th man was the duke’s boyfriend is more believable than the one about the duke being Churchill’s liaison. I doubt the libertine bisexual possible cocaine user would have been entrusted with such a task presumably Churchill would have chosen some he was close to with more than rudimentary military experience, in any case they presumably discussed such matters face to face and the invasion was almost two years off. The claim that he had flown seaplanes at least since 1931 was interesting since it was been claimed he might have been at the controls of the “flying boat”. IF Jack had entered the wreckage that would explain how he would have known if the Duke had been in the cockpit. The article lists neither author nor sources

The following is from an excerpt of ‘A Royal Tragedy… or Cover-up?’ chapter 8 of the book Scottish Mysteries by Donald Fraser:

“On Sunday 23rd August 1942, six months into their tour of duty at Oban and after flying hundreds of missions, the crew of W-4026 were given a break from fighting the war and instructed to fly their plane to the RAF base at Invergordon on the Dornoch Firth, where they were to uplift a special passenger.

The Sunderland took off from Oban and followed the length of the Caledonian Canal until reaching its destination. Although this was probably the shortest route in any case, Goyen was following instructions that a flying boat should always attempt to route any journey over water. Perhaps one reason behind this was that these types of aircraft were notorious for their slow rate of climb, the maximum being about 200 feet a minute, and therefore they were not particularly agile. They were, after all, flying boats, and not really suitable for use in the mountainous areas of the Highlands.

On arrival at Invergordon, the crew discovered that their VIP passenger was to be His Royal Highness, the Duke of Kent, brother of the King. In his capacity as Air Commodore in the Department of the Inspector General, the Duke had been given the task of visiting RAF bases and interviewing the flight crews and ground staff, listening and noting their grievances or otherwise and thereafter reporting his findings to the Air Ministry.”

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scottish-Mysteries...r/dp/1873644752

If true the crew didn’t know who their passenger would be beforehand, which could explain why they told relatives they were going on ‘secret mission’. Presumably the government would not have announced ahead of time that a “high value target” like the king’s brother was going on such a trip which could explain his widow claiming he’d been on ‘special mission’.

John Dolva – As to the courier, RAF Stornoway would have been an odd choice of a base to leave someone who was going to catch the duke’s flight. It would have made more sense to have left him at RAF Prestwick because it is roughly 100 miles from RAF Oban, or at Oban itself which is roughly halfway between the two other RAF bases.

Scotland map - http://www.itraveluk.co.uk/images/maps/scotland-map.gif

One wonders why they didn’t fly from Oban itself which it closer to England and Reykjavík.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I await your promised posts on the Duke of Kent's 'accident' and Churchill's 'real intentions' with interest. At the moment it looks like you can't see the wood for the trees. Perhaps this little chestnut might aid your vision:

In the late '20's a new Tory MP took exception to Churchill's continual grizzling duing his maiden speech. Churchill finally snapped when the young Turk referred to Labour members as 'the enemy.'

'You fool' said Churchill, 'that's the opposition, the enemy is behind you!'

Now Mr Simkin, ask yourself these questions:

1) What was the real reason behind the formation of the SOE?

2) Ditto the CIA?

Remember, the universe consists largely of DARK matter...

At this stage it might be worth considering the theory put forward by the authors of “Double Standards: The Rudolf Hess Cover-Up”. Three journalists/historians had been working independently on different events during the Second World War. Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior joined forces to write the book initially published in 2001. I have a copy of the revised edition that takes into account of the witnesses that came forward in reaction to the first edition. I do not fully accept this theory of events but it does provide a structure that will enable an informed debate on the subject.

Picknett, Prince and Prior rely heavily on Robert Brydon’s research into the death of the Duke of Kent. They are also indebted to Hugh Thomas (The Murder of Rudolf Hess – 1979) who provided the evidence that suggested that the man in Spandau Prison was not Rudolf Hess.

The authors of Double Standards argue that the Flying Boat flew to Sir Archibald Sinclair’s Baremore Lodge in order to pick up Rudolf Hess. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, one of the surprising things about this story was that Sir Louis Greig was not on board. Greig had been the Duke of Kent’s constant companion over the previous few months. Was Greig spying on the Duke? Is it relevant that he had been the former secretary of Sir Archibald Sinclair and a close confidant of Winston Churchill? Was Greig warned that the aircraft would crash?

The authors argue that the destination was Sweden rather than Iceland. Sweden was a neutral country that had been used before to negotiate between the UK and Germany during the war.

The authors argue that only the British government could have organized the accident and ensured the cover-up. They also point out the similarities with other flying incidents that involved people who were inconvenient to the government.

In November 1942, General Wladyslaw Sikorski, the leader of the Polish government in exile, boarded a Lockhead Hudson at Montreal. On take-off, when the plane was only 30 feet in the air, both engines cut out. The pilot was able to make a successful emergency landing.

In March, 1943, General de Gaulle, needed to visit Glasgow. The General hated flying and intended to take the train from London. Sir Archibald Sinclair persuaded him to change his mind and take a Wellington bomber from RAF Hendon to Abbotsinch near Glasgow. However, the plane’s elevators failed to respond. The pilot was able to make a successful emergency landing. A secret RAF investigation discovered that the control rods had been eaten through with acid and that this was a clear case of sabotage. The investigation blamed German infiltrators but the culprits were never caught. This report was not released until 1967. Other recently released documents show that during this period Churchill was talking about General Charles de Gaulle as being a nuisance that needed to be “eliminated”.

On 4th July 1943, Sikorski was on a Liberator that refuelled in Gibraltar. Within minutes of taking off the plane crashed into the sea. There was only one survivor, the pilot, Flight Lieutenant Edward Prchal. He survived because he was wearing a life-jacket that he had put on before the aircraft had taken off. According to the official inquiry the elevator controls had jammed. Summer Welles, the US Under-Secretary of State, went on record as saying he believed Sikorski had been assassinated. Sikorski’s widow claimed that her husband had been assassinated on the orders of Winston Churchill.

Had the Duke of Kent’s flying boat’s control rods been tampered with? We already know that the S-25 Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat had a major design fault – it was sluggish when climbing – especially when heavily laden, as it was on the Duke of Kent’s flight. This is why its pilots always tried to fly over sea. This would have been the case unless the pilot was asked to pick up a passenger at Baremore Lodge. The authors argue that if the flying boat had picked up a passenger at Braemore it would have needed to pass over Eagle Rock to get back to its original flight plan. It was also at this point when the flying boat would have needed to climb. Something it failed to do.

The authors argue that Winston Churchill ordered the assassination of the Duke of Kent because he was involved in an act of treason. He was negotiating with the Germans about the possible surrender of the UK. It is for this reason that the Royal Family have gone along with the cover-up.

Although I believe that it is possible that Winston Churchill did order the assassination of the Duke of Kent, I do not accept the motive for the action. The authors accept the traditional historical view of Churchill and find it acceptable for him to act in such a way in order to protect the best interests of the country. In other words, the motive justifies the decision to “eliminate” the Duke of Kent.

However, I intend to argue that Churchill ordered the assassinations of the Duke of Kent and Rudolf Hess to protect his own historical reputation. If he had not done so, our view of Winston Churchill today would be very different.

You might have to think long and hard before answering this John (because I have a horrible feeling you might not have considered this before)...

but WHICH British government arranged the accident and cover-up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might have to think long and hard before answering this John (because I have a horrible feeling you might not have considered this before)...

but WHICH British government arranged the accident and cover-up?

I know what you mean, but I would not go as far as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gary Loughran
You might have to think long and hard before answering this John (because I have a horrible feeling you might not have considered this before)...

but WHICH British government arranged the accident and cover-up?

I know what you mean, but I would not go as far as this.

Hi Michael/John,

Unfortunately I don't know what is meant by "WHICH British government...?"

I can hazard a guess, but this would wholly uniformed, and as I say, pure guesswork.

Could anyone enlighten me and allow me understand more about the implications of that statement. I've been following and participating in this thread intently and don't want to mistake anything that will help me in understanding this.

I'm also impressed with all the additional evidence and background people have dug up.

Many Thanks

Gary

PS.. Is there no way it was just an accident, and as stated previously, the reasons for covering up such a thing seem quite obvious. Whilst playing devil's advocate in saying this, I also see good reason for it. The alternative view is, correct me if I'm wrong, predicated on the importance placed on Churchill's 'self image' and legacy.

PPS...I don't particularly subscribe to the accident theory but it's necessary (for me anyway) to be aware of the 'other side of the coin' in order to get and make a balanced judgement. My wife taught me this, she spends more time analysing the other side of Michael Moore/Dylan Avery type arguments in order to ensure that both sides are covered.

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...