Death of Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh at 99 years of age.

MJF

Jedi Council Member
You’re descriptions had me visiting those places in my imagination.

The funniest part was that at the age of 11, I said I’d go to England if we also visited Ireland. What? Why? They humored me. The first week we stayed in Dublin and took day trips to Connemara in a jaunting cart, kissed the Blarney Stone, and visited Newgrange. Oh those spiral stones intrigued me. I have always loved Irish, Scottish and English folk ballads. My grandmother would talk about running away to be gypsies. I think she and I may have been that in another life. I am in wonder to this day to have felt, at that age, so drawn to somewhere so far from my daily world.
My family come from Ireland, so it is like a second home to me. Like you, I visited Blarney Castle but didn't kiss the Blarney Stone. I guess it was because my little Irish granny from Cork always said I didn't need to kiss the stone as I was full of blarney already. I have never visited Newgrange though. In some ways it is like the Irish Stonehenge and we haven't yet unlocked all its mysteries.
Here is a webpage for Leeds Castle, which is really one of the most attractive castles in England. Well worth a visit and not far from London.
 

sebbe

Jedi
FOTCM Member
Hurtful speech like this should not be tolerated by anyone no matter who it comes from. Laura should apologise. I do not think she will and this will reduce her stature in many people's eyes. Blaming the victim for the sins of the aggressor is also not very helpful no matter how high in your esteem that aggressor may be. Do not lie to yourself.
It might be a good idea to remember that the notion of The Work underlies all the topics discussed in this forum, even those dealing with rain and shine (not that the present topic is a trivial one). With this in mind, why not change strategy and take the opportunity to really consider that Laura is right? That is, when you yourself decide to take things as a criticism or a reproach and you feel hurt (to be understood in a Stoic sense), say to yourself "stop, could she be right? " One can admit that on this forum, there are many people who have enough hindsight and knowledge to understand that a remark made to someone will be motivated by something other than simple meanness, right?

From then on, it is an unhoped-for, even if painful, opportunity to learn about oneself and one's way of functioning.
If I remember correctly (I can't find it in my files or on the forum), there was a Gurdjieff list. Among some of the "commandments", there was something like : if someone criticizes you or blames you, consider very seriously that he may be right.

Then, if the person's mind can accept that what they see as a scratch is an opportunity, this forum may be for him. What is a problem then begins to be solved.

About "stature" , this is probably the least of her worries and more than that, is not part of reality.
 

Wandering Star

The Living Force
I watch the "news" and ... Lies!

I go to work and ... Lies!

I'm going to do the shopping and ... Lies!

I listen to any conversation, "anyone", and ... Lies!

They are like physical "bumps" and I am / are receiving them all the time we are awake.

I am ignorant compared to many in this forum and I feel each lie as an aggression towards me, like a punch.

At least in your "house" you can "knock" on the table and say ... Sir, what you say is a lie!
 

cinnamon

Jedi
FOTCM Member
The answers you seek are in the quote in the last post. If you do not think there is anything there that needs to be apologised for then that is a reflection on you.

It might be a good idea to remember that the notion of The Work underlies all the topics discussed in this forum, even those dealing with rain and shine (not that the present topic is a trivial one). With this in mind, why not change strategy and take the opportunity to really consider that Laura is right? That is, when you yourself decide to take things as a criticism or a reproach and you feel hurt (to be understood in a Stoic sense), say to yourself "stop, could she be right? " One can admit that on this forum, there are many people who have enough hindsight and knowledge to understand that a remark made to someone will be motivated by something other than simple meanness, right?

From then on, it is an unhoped-for, even if painful, opportunity to learn about oneself and one's way of functioning.
If I remember correctly (I can't find it in my files or on the forum), there was a Gurdjieff list. Among some of the "commandments", there was something like : if someone criticizes you or blames you, consider very seriously that he may be right.

Then, if the person's mind can accept that what they see as a scratch is an opportunity, this forum may be for him. What is a problem then begins to be solved.

About "stature" , this is probably the least of her worries and more than that, is not part of reality.
This.

Or, you don't even have to consider that she's right really, not immediately. Let yourself be mad at Laura for a few weeks, think all kinds of nasty things, whatever. Then think about all that wasted emotional labor you burned on someone you were mad at. Then reconsider why you had that response all because somebody happens to think that buying into the whole 'the royals are terrible baby eating lizard people' thing is ignorant. Seems a bit silly, getting that attached to celebrity gossip and half-baked conspiracy theories, or if somebody on the internet said something you thought was mean, no?

Give it a few more months. Look back on the experience. It'll start seeming really absurd then. OMG, I got worked up over that? That was a really silly sacred cow to have slaughtered!

The opportunity to learn from this sort of thing and communicate with others who have been busy with The Work is part of what makes this place so special - you can go anywhere else in the alternative news world and find lots of information, sometimes it's even good well-researched well-reasoned information, but only here do you have a critical mass of people who are fixing that aspect of themselves that overly attaches to whatever idea or information, and only then do you start to get somewhere near objectivity.
 

bjorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
At school, if you get it all wrong. Then the teacher will tell you that you got it all wrong. This forum is no different. I don't understand the fuss. Do people want to learn something or stay stuck in their own illusions? You can also be grateful. If you are sincere and pay attention you can learn a lot and you don't even have to pay money to be in this school.

So much drama over absolutely nothing.
 
Last edited:

Nienna

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The post and hurtful speech I am referring to is given below: (Hope this makes things clearer.)
No. It does not.
The answers you seek are in the quote in the last post. If you do not think there is anything there that needs to be apologised for then that is a reflection on you.
OR, could it be that you are part of those who think that the truth can never be told if it may make someone the least bit uncomfortable? If so, that's a bit of a snowflaky way of thinking.

And, NO, I don't see anything that has been said by Laura that needs to be apologized for. Nothing.

I guess that some people just can't take having direct answers given. It has to not be said, or it has to be said in such a way that the point never gets stated.

And, like others here, I am very much appreciative of the great history lessons being given here! Thank you.
 

neema

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
...
My God! What is wrong with you people?

Most of us are broken Laura. :halo:


Hello all. Been following along this thread and decided to add my “opinion”.

@Aquarian1962 & @James Burns:

I just want to let you both know that Laura’s response was the very essence of what is defined on this forum as, external consideration IMHO. Through understanding and knowledge.

Here’s the thing, I may know why you guys and anyone else for that matter, that might be a little butt hurt by the comment. Heck 15 years ago maybe I would have felt the same way. It took me a long time to disassociate emotional trigger feelings connected to certain words. When we are young certain people will say things to us weaponizing language and that can traumatize us. So when we hear those words again, bam, we are triggered.

I have been familiar with Laura’s work for more than 20 years. I have also had the pleasure to meet her.

Laura is a very well read and observant individual. She uses her words very carefully. So please give her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to trust. She and most of the admin staff, are consistently and constantly working and developing themselves through personal work. Because we are all broken in one way or another it takes a certain leap of faith in overcoming that emotional barrier. Kind of like the classical falling backwards and trusting in someone holding you, exercise.

So let’s breakdown the so called insulting comment:

Yes, I think that the Queen is a good person within the parameters of her knowledge and experience.

Pretty strait forward so far.

You are entitled to your opinion, however, in my opinion, your opinion exhibits an abyss of ignorance.

Okay really where is the insult? To have an abyss of ignorance on a subject is not really defamatory. It is a condition that can be changed by knowledge input. I am sure there are a variety of subjects that I am ignorant about. To have someone that is less ignorant about it point that out is not an insult. I know it’s hard because you must have had people in your past that might use such language as a way to put you down, the key is to come to terms with that if you want to grow and evolve.

Simply put, you are not your, “ignorance”.

There's a lot of lies and BS out there in the world; it takes time and patience to sort it out.

Again Pretty strait forward.

With your attitude and knowledge level, perhaps this is not the forum for you?

This is also not an insulting comment. It is a very kind way reminding you of your goals and aims in life as it comes to the forum. Notice it is in the form of a question. That is because only you can answer it honestly.

Again it is not an offense if a person in your life is pointing out your lack of efficiency towards growth. Or so I think.

I think both your reactions in this thread shows that you need to do much more work on developing your emotional balance.

Please someone correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that is the point of the whole romance reading project. To learn about the complex tapestry of emotion and love and to develop a more refined understanding of the human heart. NO?


Although I hate reading anything fiction, and have a huge blockage in my head flashing “cringe” when it comes to “romance novels”, even I have given into trying out the books.
I ordered Someone to Love by Mary Balogh. Since I would never read such a book on my own I asked my wife to read it to me and she agreed. :-D. Should be interesting.


My opinion of the queen comes from years ago. I found out that when she was young during WW2 she joined the Women's Army Corps and learned about engineering and engine repair! I even read that she would eat with the rest of the soldiers in the mess hall!

I will say what I said back then, “What a woman!”

My condolences to her and her family.

For those of you who still can’t grieve for someone whom you may perceive as “bad”, I have a question:

Does the sun stop shining for a murderer? 🤔
 
Last edited:

Z...

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
This explanation makes me wonder about the people who have reacted so strongly in this thread. Maybe there is something as a "secondary useful idiot"? Like those who take as the gospel what David Icke says, for example. They aren't actively spreading any disinfo like he does, but believing it does something to the way they align to lies&truth. The same applies to all of us if we aren't diligent, networking, learning as much as we can, etc.

And, this may have an effect of condemning/messing up even more with the target of these beliefs based on lies. I imagine that right now, the queen is getting a lot of sympathy, but also a lot of "bad vibes" from people who hate her and her family just because of ignorance or due to having bought a lie. It's quite sad, because those who pretend to have the higher moral ground may in fact be harming someone unfairly, if only very indirectly. We don't quite understand the power of thought and such, but it sure can be very draining and hurtful to be treated like a baby-eating lizard and all that nonsense. OSIT. Hopefully there is a balance in such things, but I often think of Putin, for example, and all the nonsense spoken about him by people who probably don't have a quarter of his integrity.
This thread is indeed very instructive. Unexpectedly.
I always detested Windsor family or any royals for that matter. Primarily because the whole idea of monarchs is so absurd in 21st century. Add to this all the things that pilled up over the years like Jimmy Saville or prince Andrew - or pretty (as far as I can tell) authentic video of a naked child escaping Buckingham pallace - so yes my intial reaction to PP’s death was mostly “who cares” and also God riddance.
However you all gave me so much food for thoughts.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Hurtful speech like this should not be tolerated by anyone no matter who it comes from. Laura should apologise. I do not think she will and this will reduce her stature in many people's eyes. Blaming the victim for the sins of the aggressor is also not very helpful no matter how high in your esteem that aggressor may be. Do not lie to yourself.

You obviously have no clue about what this forum is for and does. Please read the Forum Guidelines. You were asked to read them when you signed up; apparently, you skipped that step and now embarrass yourself by your ignorance. Now, go read them. If you do not agree, go away. You come across as a snowflake liberal anyway. Otherwise, read Neema's post and carry on.
 

MJF

Jedi Council Member
The Royal Family in World War 2

I appreciate that Laura has argued that the Royal Family are useful idiots but even useful idiots sometimes have their moments. Laura mentioned earlier in this thread that the Queen warned Paul Burrell after Diane’s death to tread carefully as there were powerful hidden forces that could take action against him.

“Consider this: Paul Burrell, Princess Diana's butler, said that the Queen warned him, during a meeting soon after the death of Diana in 1997, that “There are powers at work in this country about which we have no knowledge.”

People may wonder what the Queen meant by this. However, I think she had good reason to say this since she is probably well aware of what happened during the war to her uncle, the Duke of Kent. People have noted that this thread has brought up interesting aspects concerning the Royal Family and great revelations for others. However, what I am about to relate brings up very far reaching implications for the world we live in today and perhaps makes more sense of World War 2 than our history books disclose to us.

First you have to appreciate what the C’s have said about Hitler and the Nazis being a dress rehearsal for the New World Order. In my view Hitler was an Illuminatus who went rogue and had to be stopped. The original intention was to make Hitler and the German people a counter to the Soviet threat which under Stalin had gone against the original Illuminati plan (consider the Red Symphony Full text of "Red Symphony"). Hitler’s original handlers were probably Rudolf Hess and Hermann Goering. Later in the war that role would fall to Martin Bormann.

You must also consider the role of the British foreign secret service otherwise known as MI6. The original English secret service was set up under Sir Francis Walsingham in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Subsequently it was reformed under Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor of England, under James I. Bacon was both a Freemason and a Rosicrucian. Many of his spy operatives were Freemasons too. That persists to this day. To give just two examples, the famous British spies and traitors Philby, Burgess and Maclean were all Freemasons belonging to the Singapore Lodge and, this will surprise many people, the famous Aleister Crowley was also a Freemason and member of MI6. Indeed, he was charged by Winston Churchill to head the propaganda operation in the USA to win the Americans over to the British side prior to America’s entry into the War in December 1941. The C’s have at times made references to the nefarious activities of MI6 and they clearly are an instrument of the PTB, as are the CIA and Mossad.

You must also remember that the Queen’s father, George VI, came to the throne just before the outbreak of the Second World War. His brother David, as Edward VIII, had been forced to abdicate in 1938 due to his wish to marry Wallace Simpson an American divorcee. He then became the Duke of Windsor and left England to live in Paris where he was residing at the outbreak of war in September 1939. The Duke of Windsor was noted to have had a degree of sympathy for Nazi aims and had met Hitler when he was the Prince of Wales. Some extant footage came to light recently showing him with a young princess Elizabeth practising Nazi salutes (I do not take this as evidence of his commitment to the Nazis though, as most British people were probably amused by all the stiff arm fascist salutes and quite happily aped them for fun. I know that I did as a child). Some think his pro-German sympathies may have had more to do with his abdication than his love for Wallace Simpson. It is a telling point that after his abdication and marriage, the Duke of Windsor and his wife would dine with Rudolf Hess and his family at their home in Munich.

When the war took a bad turn for the British with the fall of France and the retreat from Dunkirk, the Germans hatched a plan, endorsed by Hitler, to seize the Duke of Windsor and, if they had been successful in invading and conquering Britain, to put him back on the throne in place of George VI. After the Duke had fled France, the plan involved luring him to a villa in Spain just over the Portugese border and then abducting him back to Germany. Cutting a long story short, Churchill and the British Secret Service became worried that the Duke had been dawdling for too long and had exposed himself to unnecessary danger. Eventually they persuaded him to go to Lisbon in Portugal and from there flew him to the island of Bermuda and safety, whereupon after landing he became the Governor General of the colony for the remainder of the war.​

I would point people to an excellent book by Dr. Joseph P Farrell on ‘Hess and the Penguins’ published in 2017. Hess and the Penguins: The Holocaust, Antarctica and the Strange Case of Rudolf Hess: Amazon.co.uk: Joseph P Farrell: 9781939149855: Books

In the book he makes the case that there was far more to Rudolf Hess’ mysterious flight to Scotland in May 1941 than the official record admits. To summarise his book, Farrell advances the argument that Hess (Deputy Fuhrer and a member of the Thule Society) was coming to Britain to meet with the Duke of Hamilton, one of Scotland’s most important nobleman in order to discuss a peace proposal to put to the King. In this Hess had the backing of Hermann Goering (a Freemason). The plan was to offer an armistice to Britain, which would involve the Germans pulling back to their original starting positions in September 1939. In return, the British would agree to take no action against a German assault on the Soviet Union, which in some British circles was deemed to be in Britain’s best interests. Indeed, it is not well known but it was the British who clandestinely flew General Franco from Tenerife to Morocco so he could join Spanish forces there in order to lead them in the Spanish Civil War against the Republicans, as Britain feared a Bolshevik Spain might join forces with the Soviet Union to destabilise southern Europe. In order to pacify the Polish, it was agreed that the Duke of Kent would be placed on the vacant Polish throne and the Poles would stand aside against a German invasion of Russia. An emissary of the Polish Government in exile supposedly met with Hess to discuss the plan and agree it. There were two main obstacles to the plan though and that was Churchill and Hitler. Hence, the plan involved toppling both from power and this meant using the King to achieve this end by using his royal prerogative powers to dismiss Churchill.​

Now before going any further I need to bring in what the C’s have had to say about Hess’ flight:

Q: Alright. Along the same lines of the Sabrina Aisenberg issue, I was reading a book about Churchill and Hitler and
Rudolf Hess. It seems that this writer was saying that the man in Spandau Prison was NOT Rudolf Hess. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened to Rudolf Hess?
A: Died in plane crash in Scotland.
Q: He died? Was this the reported crash landing?
A: Yes.
Q: He DIED in that crash?
A: Yes.
Q: Who was the guy who parachuted out?
A: Did not.
Q: They made up the whole story?
A: No, just Hess survival, for propaganda value.
Q: Well that is a bizarre thing to say about it. But, it is also another option that the writer of that book did NOT consider.
But what about the farmer who saw a guy parachute out of the plane?
A: So they say.
Q: Well, I guess they could have set the whole thing up. That would be even MORE devious!
A: Real Hess would never have relented to abuse.
Q: Hmmm. Did Hess actually fly to Scotland?
A: Yes.
Q: Did Hitler know and was he in on it?
A: Yes.
Q: So, they had to make Hitler think Hess survived in order to fool him into thinking that whatever the plan was it was working?
A: Hitler believed Hess had gone mad, or had indeed died.
Q: Well, this is a bizarre question, but I have to ask it. Was Hitler a homosexual?
A: No.
Q: Well, this book suggests that he had an unusual relationship with Rudolf Hess. But, others said that he was completely ascetic in ALL ways.
A: Book is wrong in other ways too.

The question is though which crash in Scotland are the C’s referring to? Was it his landing in May 1941 or the crash in August 1942 near Scotland’s Eagle Rock, which claimed the life of the Queen’s uncle, the Duke of Kent, who was on a special mission purportedly to Iceland where British troops were then based? If it was the latter, then the real Hess spent over a year in Scotland or elsewhere in hiding as a guest of his Majesty the King, whilst a Hess double was being held in prison by the British Government. Farrell in his book tends to side with those arguing that the Hess held in Spandau prison was a mind controlled (think MK Ultra) body double as the C’s seem to have confirmed. The only thing I can add to what Farrell and others have said on this matter is that my uncle Nicholas guarded Hess in Spandau Prison whilst he was serving in the British Army in Germany after the war. He told me that Hess was quite mad and used to go around giving Nazi salutes to lamp posts.​

But why did Hess choose to meet up with the Duke of Hamilton? Well there were a number of influential groups in Britain who could see what a prolonged war with Germany and Italy might entail for the ongoing preservation of the British Empire. Indeed, there is evidence that clandestine contacts had already been going on between the Germans and British peace parties in Sweden, Switzerland and Spain. Goering had links with Sweden as he had fled there to recuperate after he was wounded in the failed Munich coup. Hess was a close friend of the noted German geopolitical expert General Karl Haushofer and his son Albrecht (who would subsequently die at the hands of the Nazis). Hence, it was the Haushofer-Hess peace faction in Germany that carried on the secretive discussions with the British peace faction via the Haushofers’ extensive network of connections to it (I wonder if these could have been Masonic or Rosicrucian give the close links between the English rosicrucians and the German rosicrucians going back over centuries). General Haushofer revealed in correspondence with his son in early September 1940 (just prior to the start of the Blitz on Britain) that he had heard from an old British friend, Mrs. Violet Roberts who was based in neutral Portugal, and they should attempt to use her to communicate with the Duke of Hamilton.

Now against this background one needs to take into account Winston Churchill’s position and his political philosophy. Churchill (who was half American) was an avowed Atlanticist working along the lines of the fusion of Britain, its Empire and the United States into one giant federation*. This was the old dream of Cecil Rhodes and his Round Table, an Illuminati front organisation. Indeed, there is some slight evidence that Churchill had already proposed this to President Roosevelt. Indeed, he had already offered a similar deal to the French in June 1940 but the fall of France had scuppered this. The Haushofers would have preferred a fusion between Germany and the British instead. Hence, as geostrategists it made sense to them to have Hess negotiate a peace deal with the British to avoid the realisation of an Anglo-American alliance.

*In some ways this is already a reality given the Five Eyes Agreement and the close economic and military ties between the US, Britain and the main countries of the British Commonwealth. You only have to think of the number of times the British have supported American military ventures since the Second World War (with Vietnam being the main exception).

Churchill (a Freemason) was also very much an instrument of the PTB. One of his many vices was gambling and he got into considerable debt during the 1930’s. This could have resulted in his bankruptcy, which would have meant he would have to resign his seat in the House of Commons and this would have spelt the end of his political career. He was rescued by American financial friends, reputedly by Bernard Baruch, amongst others, who was the George Soros of his day. This would have meant that he was beholden to them and they could called in favours whenever they wanted to. It seems that contrary to public appearances, Churchill was not an admirer of the King and his three brothers. Indeed, referred to them in private as the ‘Marx Brothers’ (a famous Hollywood comedy team of the period). It is almost certain that Churchill would have been opposed to any peace deal brokered by the Duke of Hamilton and his peace party through the patronage of the King. It is also worth pointing out that during the war, Lord Victor Rothschild was appointed to MI5 in roles including bomb disposal, disinformation and espionage. He was the head of B1C, the "explosives and sabotage section", and worked on identifying where Britain's war effort was vulnerable to sabotage and counter German sabotage attempts. With his assistant Theresa Clay he ran the “Fifth Column Operation”, which saw MI5 officer Eric Roberts masquerade as the Gestapo’s man in London in order to identify hundreds of Nazi sympathisers. In this way, he might have been able to monitor the pro-peace factions and report back to Churchill. You should also note that in his student days at Cambridge, Rothschild became friends with Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt and Kim Philby, all members of the so called ‘Cambridge Spy Ring’.​

But how powerful were the pro-peace groups or lobbies in Britain in 1940. Amongst their number mention should be made of certain key figures. These were: Sir Samuel Hoare (of the established banking family) the British Ambassador to Madrid, Spain; Lord Beaverbrook the Canadian industrialist and newspaper magnate; Sir Stuart Menzies, the head of British foreign intelligence or MI6 who cynically wanted to pursue German friendship so that Germany would be strong enough to stand up to the challenge of the Soviet Union on her own and thus with both countries weakened by war, it would make it easier for the British Empire to deal with the challenge of the victor; and finally Sir Lloyd George the British Prime Minister who had led Britain to victory in the First World War. Hitler admired Lloyd George and invited him to Germany before the war. The admiration was not mutual as Lloyd George after their meeting made it clear that he looked on Hitler with contempt.

Another key player amongst the aristocracy besides the Duke of Hamilton was the Duke of Westminster. He played a key role in the coordination of these various “pro-peace factions”, for he organised the anti-war peers into a powerful lobbying group in the British House of Lords. Mention should also be made of the Duke of Buccleuch another member of the pro-German peace faction, whose sister was married to the Duke of Gloucester, the King’s younger brother. He was appointed the Keeper of the King’s Household in 1937, a position that made him a Privy Councillor. He effectively became the point man for the King in the House of Lords. When Churchill came to power, the King reluctantly acknowledged the sensitivity of Buccleuch’s position and removed him from that liaison role. Hence, as you can see, there were a lot of powerful aristocrats in Britain who were in favour of a negotiated peace settlement with Germany. Even Churchill recognised this when in June 1940 in answer to calls for an inquiry into the ‘appeasement party’ with a view to prosecuting its members, Churchill replied that “this would be foolish as there were too many in it”. How different history would look today if they had succeeded.

According to Farrell, there does appear to be one further intriguing fact that could indicate the Royal Family’s interest in a negotiated peace settlement with Germany beyond the personal friendliness of the Duke of Windsor to the Nazis. This is the fact that Elizabeth the Queen Mother’s brother, David Bowes Lyon, was a member of the Anglo-German Fellowship, an organisation containing many peers and other members of British High Society.

I have already noted the significance of the Duke of Kent in the alleged peace plan and his tragic death in the 25th August 1942 air crash. By all accounts the Duke was urbane, sophisticated and multi-lingual. Most importantly he functioned as a kind of personal intelligence officer to his brother the King. In this connection, he had already met and dined with Hess, Rosenberg and Ribbentrop (the Nazi foreign minister) before the war. He was also allegedly a member of the reception committee waiting for Hess’ arrival in Scotland. Farrell also suggests that before Hess joined the Duke of Kent on their ill fated flight, Hess was being sheltered at a house in Wales owned by the Duke of Pembroke. Why is this significant? Because the Duke of Pembroke just happened to be the equerry to the Duke of Kent.

As regards the plane crash, Farrell suggests that the aircraft’s real destination was Sweden not Iceland. He also alludes to another anomaly and that is after careful consultation and comparison with other records, there appeared to be an unaccounted-for body on the Duke of Kent’s plane, a body, moreover, that it appears that King George himself personally made inquiries about when he visited the scene of the crash site. Additionally, the flight plan itself has disappeared and the weather personnel on the east coast of Scotland were sworn to secrecy and required to sign the Official Secrets Act. I would also add that there was one survivor of the crash. In a documentary I saw on the mysterious crash (before reading Farrell’s book), one member of the aircrew survived but he was told never ever to mention anything about the mission on grounds of strictest military secrecy. He and his family were threatened with serious reprisals if they should ever attempt to divulge what occurred that night. The aircrewman subsequently never spoke about the incident. In summation, Farrell thinks that the air crash was no accident and that a very serious message was being sent to the King and the Royal Family, one indicating that no further interference would be tolerated.

I believe this account sheds a very different light on the Second World War and the British Royal Family’s involvement in it. Given that the Queen was 16 years old when her uncle was killed, it is difficult to believe that she was not made aware, at some stage, of the forces at work during this period. Hence, in my view this might explain what she was warning Burrell of and how loose talk could cost you your life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SlipNet

Dagobah Resident
Public sentiment within the UK?

I don't watch TV, but a lot of the complaints in the UK have been related to all BBC channels sweeping aside their normal schedule to put on special programmes about the Duke. Some complaints have remarked on the ghoulish nature of the programmes they put out, though I didn't see them to confirm this. What annoyed some was that they had all these rent-a-quote talking heads paying tribute, which the BBC clearly had ready-made for transmission, ie:- the poor bugger was still alive while they recorded these. Granted, most of the complaints were about the loss of soap operas, but I kinda see the point on the ghoulishness of recording tributes while the man was still alive. I think the funeral is this weekend, will be interesting what the public response is.
 

James Burns

The Force is Strong With This One
You obviously have no clue about what this forum is for and does. Please read the Forum Guidelines. You were asked to read them when you signed up; apparently, you skipped that step and now embarrass yourself by your ignorance. Now, go read them. If you do not agree, go away. You come across as a snowflake liberal anyway. Otherwise, read Neema's post and carry on.
Your sliding Laura. Sad to see.
 
Top Bottom