Remembrance Sunday (cont'd)

[10ClarionSt]

There are many aspects of this incident that remain uinanswered.

1. Why did the Admiralty not hold a Board of Inquiry into the loss of the 3 ships? This is highly unusual, as there is always something to be learned, even from a distance.

2. Why did the Captain of Glorious not have spotter planes in the air? If he had have done, the Glorious and destroyers could have out-run the Germans.

Why did the Captain of Devonshire contradict the telegraphists account of the messages received?

Why was there a 100 year exclusion on the cabinet papers?

This has now been removed and lots of things have been revealed, but we think the real reason for all the secrecy was never included.

On the day that the ships were sunk, Devonshire was evacuating the Norwegian Royal Family, ahead of the German invasion of Norway.

In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, the ships and men were sacrificed for the benefit of the Norwegian Royal Family.

Churchill was a great leader, but he was also ruthless and I think this was one his most callous and ruthless decisions of WW2.

[Chessman]

True, Churchill was ruthless, 'Coventry' speaks for itself, but it a case of 'Cometh the hour, cometh the man', if it wasn't Chuchill, it woold probably have been Lord Halifax, and we'd all now be speaking German. In time of war, you need to be ruthless.

[Chessman]

Your thinking on this '10', is right, in todays world it probably wouldn't happen, but the possible thinking behind it, would be, that while the royal family were free, they would provide a focus for the freedom fighters, in much the same way of De Gaul for the French, (Goverments in exile).

[dotjhawkes]

i have read and understood your posts, despite my CB persona, I do have a History degree and several of the said work towards it concerned the European Monarchy.

Whilst it may not be a satisfactory conclusion, it is true that the Royal Houses of many of the European countries are indelibly linked by either bood, marriage or both, apart from the great service King Haakon gave his country and it's people, he was also related on many levels to an awful lot of the royal households of the century, and this included our own. It is likely, though I have no idea where I could research and discover any evidence, that Churchill and the Royal Navay Commanders, were possibly acting on direction from the highest authority, namely the Monarchy. As always, i may be wrong and I havn't done any research, other than genealogically, but it may make sense.

(But don't shout at me because when ever I try to offer help like this I get shouted at and I am quite brainy on the quiet) (Dot wonders whether to press submit and then thinks, why not, I'm only trying to offer what little knowledge I have)

[dotjhawkes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haakon_VII_of_Norway

[dotjhawkes]

Oh thanks clarionst, that has given me an incentive to keep trying! remember Churchill was also from an aristocratic family, he would therefore have been expected to show loyalty to his sovreign first. (just a thought you know)