Talk:Prince George, Duke of Kent

First comments

"On 29 November 1934, the Duke of Kent married Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark, the daughter of Prince Nicholas of Greece and Denmark and a great niece of Queen Alexandra, at Westminster Abbey. It was the last marriage between a son of a British Sovereign and a member of a foreign royal house to date." - But Lieutenant Mountbatten was born Prince of Greece and Denmark, and a member of a foreign royal house too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.233.109 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 March 2005

You answered your own question: "It was the last marriage between a son of a British Sovereign and a member of a foreign royal house to date." The Duke of Edinburgh wasn't the son of a British sovereign, and neither, for that matter, is the present Queen; she's the DAUGHTER of a British sovereign. Morhange 02:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

For a little more information, Prince Philip became a British citizen before his marriage to Princess Elizabeth. So he was born a son of a foreign royal house, he lost that designation when he became a British citizen. Hope that helps.Prsgoddess187 15:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Rudolf Hess

For discussion of claims surrounding Hess's flight to Scotland, see Talk:Rudolf Hess.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.47.84 (talk • contribs) 14 March 2005

I have removed the following unsubstantiated gossip from the main page:

An unproven claim has been made that British Intelligence assassinated Prince George. One possible reason is given by author Charles Higham, in the second, revised edition of his book The Duchess of Windsor: The Secret Life, as serious concern over the Duke of Kent's lack of discretion and his political dealings with Nazi leadership, with negotiations towards a separate peace, to allow Germany to concentrate on its war with the Soviet Union in eastern Europe. Higham writes that the Special Operations Executive (SOE), worried that the Duke would talk about these matters once he left the British Isles, tampered with the plane before its takeoff, ensuring its crash soon afterward, with the deaths of all but one of the passengers. It should be noted that in another of his books, Errol Flynn: The Untold Story, Higham made similar claims about Hollywood screen actor Errol Flynn, saying that he was a bisexual Nazi spy. These claims were readily debunked by Tony Thomas in his book Errol Flynn: The Spy Who Never Was.

Authors Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior in their books Double Standards: The Rudolf Hess Cover-up and War of the Windsors claim that the Duke of Kent's plane stopped to pick up Rudolf Hess, and that it was part of a peace plan that would have ousted Churchill from power—thus leaving the unstated implication that if the Duke was assassinated by British Intelligence, it must have been 'agreed' at the level of Winston Churchill. "The German Ambassador to Portugal, Baron von Hoyningen-Huene, reported to von Ribbentrop that according to the British community in Lisbon, the flying boat was sabotaged in order to kill Kent because he was in favour of peace with Germany". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.250.184.63 (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Although the above mentioned book (Double Standards 'the Rudolf Hess Coverup') does state some of the things stated, the above is mostly out of context in an apparent attempt to discredit it. Alhough the authors' do mention various conspiracy theories (and follow through with most all the various permutations possible assuming each conspiracy theory could be true) involving the Duke's death in the aircraft crash, their general thesis on the topic is that after picking up Hess from a loch on one of Sir Archibald Sinclair's properties in Scotland, the float plane took off sucsessfully and was headed back to sea to resume its original course when the (very experienced) pilot mistook one hill range for a very similar looking one several hundred feet higher, and hit it just 30 feet from clearing it. The conspiracy noted in the book on the plane crash-- is in the official report; which stated that the plane was heading in the opposite direction, apparently to make it appear the pilot was taking an ill advised shortcut, or something, and to cover up where it had actually just been. This is covered in Ch. 12 "Death on Eagle Rock" begining page 377 of the Time Warner Paperback. In regard to Hess, the books general thesis on that is that when Hess was sent to Maindiff Court in Wales p 352, his last stop in Britain, a decoy or double was sent in his stead by the peace movement. The real Hess was picked up at the loch by the Duke's float plane, and he died along with the Duke and the others. The book claims Churchill used Hess to convince the Russsians there was no viable "peace" groups in Britain trying to negotiate with Hitler; something Stalin wanted to hear. Churchill wanted the Soviets to think Britain was working all out to defeat the Nazi's, along with their Soviet comrades. The authors' in general claim that Churchill and Roosevelt wanted war over peace for a variety of reasons, one being the beneficial effects upon their respective Country's economy (page 320). This book also is an unusually good source for those interested in the Duke, and the peace movement of Britain, who wanted to squash Soviet bolshevism before it had a chance to spread to the labor unions in Britain and the U.S. Hess backs up this opinion held by the anti-bolshevicks in Britain, in an apparantly new source on the topic found by the authors', written by Hess, in the Beaverbrook Papers in the House of Lords Records Office. see p. 332-334. This book is well referenced and cited. Hess was quite accurate in his predictions, only failing to note a possible American presence in Europe after the war, and the subsequent Cold War. see p. 334. Although this book carries a rather dubious title, and ostensibly is another Rudolph Hess double conspiracy theory book, rather, it digs quite deep into the anti-bolshivic 'peace movement' in Britain, versus the 'pro-war' Churchill establishment. The book also makes a good case that the British Royals were among those in the peace movement, and were unsucsessful at thwarting the power and position obtained by Churchill. The book, in my opinion, does not enter into the question of weather or not the "peace" or "war" faction were in the right or wrong. I think it raises the question that Churchill was right in not trusting Hitler, and was naive in trusting Stalin. On the other hand, the "peace group" including the Royals, was naive in possibly trusting Hitler, but likely right in not trusting Stalin. A most distastful dilemma explored and researched exhaustively by the authors. It makes the War a bit more complicated than those cut and dry, right versus wrong History writers would have us think. Very good source of fresh research for those interested in Prince George, Duke of Kent.Raisinpie (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Image

The picture of George is supposedly in the public domain because its author died at least 100 years ago. However, even if the author died immediately after taking the picture, this would make George at the time of the picture aged 4 years. This cannot be correct. Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We are getting close to two years since this issue came up, yet the same picture with the same explanation remains. Should it be taken down? -Rrius (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

article needs to be reviewed

I think much of this article makes POV assertions as though they were fact: for example 'the family, who are famously philistine'. Using the verb 'to be' (are) in this sentence instead of a conditional or some kind of hedge such as 'are often regarded as' is inappropriate for an encycopaedia. Other phrases such as 'Given George V's famously dull brain' are not only too colloquial for an encyclopaedia but would be difficult to justify from an empirical point of view. I'm going to ask that this article's listing be reviewed. Daviddariusbijan 21:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

Reasons given :

• LEAD not long enough and not reflecting the articles depth.
• POV sense to many sections.
• Not enough references plus not enough variety in ref.

Lincher 17:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is excessive reliance by a previous author or authors on "War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy", which is a cpntroversial source to put it mildly. It is npot sufficient authority for the more contentious statements made in this entry.60.234.48.118 03:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible plagiarism?

Much of the content on this Wiki page is very similar or identical to content at http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/royal_nazis.html#George. I don't know which is the original, or if both are taken from someone else.

That page is a copy of this. Proteus (Talk) 11:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The article states that Kiki jumped out of the window, but the Channel 4 documentary clearly states that she took an overdose. I wonder which is true?Luckyles 07:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/reliability

Much of the body of this article relies on Picknett, Prince, Prior & Brydon, which is not a guarantee of dependability. There should be alternative sources provided for the more unlikely/controversial claims, or they should be described as claims made in that book.Ncox 03:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the other book by these author's "Double Standards" The Rudolf Hess cover-up// see above section on Hess, clarify some points of neutrality, and is well cited. But, yes, way too much talk about Dukes sexual orientations, etc. This could be covered in one sentence, and left at that.Raisinpie (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Kiki Preston

"... although much evidence has been shown to suggest that he had her pushed, possibly though his position in the masonic lodge..."

Since Preston died four years after the Duke's fatal crash, this doesn't sound very convincing to me. Drella Melmoth 02:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that wasn't referring to the Duke, but to her husband at the time, as being a possible pusher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.121.153.20 (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading the article with no prior knowledge of any of the people involved, and it definitely reads (unless one specifically cross-checks dates) as though Kent was implicated in her death. It should be rephrased - it was odd enough for me to come to the talk page to check it out. 86.40.108.159 (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Death?

No cause of death given? 71.194.163.223 (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the article. Plane crash. DBD 02:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, headed to Iceland with a briefcase full of money (kroner) worth about 100 pesos in Iceland handcuffed to his wrist. On the other hand, worth a small fortune in Sweden.

queens lost uncle

> Much of this history was outlined in the documentary film The Queen's Lost Uncle mentioned above. The Duke's bisexuality and drug addictions were explored in "African Nights", a 2004 play written by American playwright Jeffrey Corrick.

Where above? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoax ?

"It was once proposed that the Duke be made King of Poland, in a move to restore the Polish monarchy much as the Greek monarchy had been restored using imported Royals. In August 1937, the Duke and his wife visited Poland and were well-received. However, due to the invasion of Poland in World War II, the plan was called off.

Supposedly from Picknett, Prince, Prior & Brydon, pp. 142–143.

Seems a hoax or gossip, the monarchists in Poland were a marginal group and had very different candidates for throne. I will post this on Polish noticeboard for comment.--Molobo (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in 1939 but during Second World War, not king od Poland but monarchic Central European Federation. Proposed by Sikorski and Herman Lieberman, not monarchists, rejected by Benes. The sources I found though aren't very reliable and I will continue to look for more serious ones.--Molobo (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Styles & Titles

In the article it is written: "12 October 1934 – 25 August 1942: His Royal Highness The Duke of Kent".

Shouldn't this be: "12 October 1934 – 25 August 1942: His Royal Highness Prince George, The Duke of Kent"? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the Dukedom of Kent is a royal dukedom. George was "HRH The Duke of Kent". His son is now "HRH The Duke of Kent" and the Duke of York is "HRH The Duke of York". Of course, George never ceased to be "HRH The Prince George", but "The Prince George" was only used as part of his full title. Surtsicna (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

So because it is a royal dukedom it outranks the prince title? So the title of prince is omitted as is the the case with other lesser titles? 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

King of the United Kingdom?

Apparently in 1936, during the abdication crisis, the Duke of Kent was supposed to be made King, and Prince Albert had relinquished his claim. However, Albert changed his mind, and took the throne, however he still kept the name "George VI"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.213 (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your source for this was some speculation in the Daily Mail (posted here). So it's bound to be true, then, isn't it?Swanny18 (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Cause of fatal plane crash

One theory is that he was drunk at the controls of that plane, having pulled rank over the pilot.

As his rank was only honorary, the pilot refused at first to hand over the controls, and a radio operator on the ground was able to overhear parts of this argument. The operator was sworn to silence, but revealed the details many years later.

Any verdict on the truth of this one? 86.176.5.37 (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Prince George was a Group Captain in the RAF, and it was no honorary title. He had been given the rank of Vice Air Marshal of the RAF, which was roughly equivalent to his Rear Admiral rank in the Royal Navy years earlier. He declined the Vice Air Marshal rank because he did not wish to outrank more experienced RAF officers with a War brewing. The Duke was a dedicated pilot who earned his wings in 1929. He took flying seriously, and there was a low cloud cover that day. Him wanting to fly drunk with 15 or 16 sould onboard is absurd. The plane he died in was piloted by a special crew handpicked for their experience. The briefcase handcuffed to the Duke full of Kroner would only have been of any value at that time in Sweden. That plane easily had the range to fly to Sweden, and it was reported to have been painted white, with a black stripe on the tail. The Duke's pro-peace friends were in Sweden. Planes painted white with a black stripe on the tail frequently flew between Britain and Sweden on humanitarian missions, and the Luftwaffe left them alone. Pictures of the crash, after the 15 bodies had been removed, still had tarps over the tail section. The survivor of the crash (occupant 16) was sworn to the secrets act within hours of arriving at hospital.Raisinpie (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Duke's body wss found to be chained to an attache case full of 100 Kroner notes so it's unlikely he'd have been able to convince anyone that he could operate the controls. The idea put forward that the Duke wss at the controls has the familiar smell of government disinformation. What was it that Churchill said about history being kind to him because he was going to write it?

I'm surprised that the crash isn't given more attention: 15 passengers set off on the flight; 15 dead bodies were discovered yet 24 hours' later, the tail gunner turned up alive and well. If, as the main article claims, the flight's destination was Newfoundland, why was the Duke taking currency in Kroner there? At the time, a 100 Kroner note would have been the equivalent of a weeks' wage. In the countries where it was legal tender, of course. At the time, Iceland was occupied by the Allies and Denmark/Norway occupied by Germany and none of them were using their own currency.

The survivor was sworn to secrecy. The enquiry blamed the pilot but didn't reveal who the extra passenger was or how he boarded the aeroplane or the missing 25 minutes' when a passenger could, in theory, have been picked up. The real object of the "secret mission" wasn't revealed.

Contrary to the claim in the article about "bad weather", it was a clear day. Whoever wrote the entry about his death has not carried out any in-depth research.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.160.232 (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I know this is two years old but just to comment they were always 15 on-board and was reported as such at the time, as far as the rear gunner Flight Sergeant Jack being "alive and well" when he turned up I think you find he was badly burned and thrown clear, disorientated and stunned he staggered away from the wreck, he was found fairly soon about three miles away from the crash site. Just for info:

Passengers

1. Air Commodore HRH the Duke of Kent
2. Lieutenant John Arthur Lowther, RNVR (Dukes Private Secretary)
3. Pilot Officer the Hon Michael Strutt (ADC)
4. Leading Aircraftman John Walter Hales (Dukes Valet)

228 Squadron Crew

1. Wing Commander Thomas Lawton Moseley (1st Pilot from Australia)
2. Flight Lieutenant Frank McKenzie Goyen (Captain)
3. Pilot Officer Sydney Wood Smith (2nd Pilot RAAF}
4. Pilot Officer George Richard Saunders (Navigator)
5. Flight Sergeant William Royston Jones (FLight Engineer/Air Gunner)
6. Flight Sergeant Charles Norman Lewis
7. Flight Sergeant Edward James Hewerdine (Air Gunner)
8. Sergeant Edward Francis Blacklock (RNZAF) (Wireless Operator/Air Gunner)
9. Sergeant Arthur Rowland Catt (Wireless Operator/Air Gunner)
10. Sergeant Leonard Edward Sweet (Flight Engineer)
11. Flight Sergeant Andrew Simpson Wilson Jack (Rear Gunner - seriously injured)

• MilborneOne (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

They flew into rising ground in poor visibility, perhaps due to low cloud or localised fog or mist, a not uncommon occurrence at the time.

Some sort of conspiracy theory is raised over the case of cash. It wasn't unusual for crews to carry some currency of neutral nations. Quite useful if you were rescued by a Swedish ship. You could bribe the captain to return you home. The claim it was handcuffed to him seems to be a bit far-fetched.203.194.36.12 (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The case of cash is not an established fact and, even if it were, neutral currency had obvious uses in wartime. The inquiry found that the crash occurred for commonplace reasons, namely unpredicted wind. Scores of RAF and USAAF aircraft crashed in the highlands of Scotland and Wales due to navigational error caused by unpredicted wind, usually but not always on training flights. In this case the Sunderland crew appear to have assumed that the Sunderland's cruise speed of 165mph was close to its ground speed when in fact, due to adverse wind, it was only making about 100mph groundspeed. After 37 minutes airborne in bad visibility the crew thought they had travelled the 99 miles from Invergordon to Duncansby Head, and therefore turned left for the Pentland Firth to head off to Iceland, when in fact they were at Dunbeath, only some 66 miles from Invergordon, and, worse, the captain had made no effort to gain safety altitude above known local terrain heights, so when the Sunderland turned left, blind, on instruments, at about 700 feet, it went smack into Eagle's Rock and exploded. Such errors used to happen all the time in those days. Nothing odd about it. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

B is for Bisexual

I am responding here to the edit that removed the categories LGBT People from England and LGBT Royalty. It seems clear and well-documented that the George, Duke of Kent was bisexual. Since the B in LGBT stands for bisexual, these categories seem apropos. There is, as far as I know, no requirement of a degree of bisexuality. Since there are so many documented instances, I think it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge the Prince's proclivities.Argos'Dad 19:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Not "well-documented" at all. I'd suggest working on the documentation. There's some fuzzy wording with a citation to the Letters of Noel Coward that cites no page (which I've now fixed to say what the editor of Coward's letters actually says). Same for the "some suggestion" citation of Lucy Moore's work. "reportedly blackmailed" with no citation at all. The most specific bits cite Picknett, Prince, Prior & Brydon's War of the Windsors, which IMHO is not an acceptable source. The lead author is Lynn Picknett, "a writer, researcher, and lecturer on the paranormal, the occult, and historical and religious mysteries." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding sexual orientation category to this biography may be a WP:CAT/R#Sexuality violation

We need reliable sources for category claims. It may well be that such sources are indeed available and you can list them in the article - but if not, then who is saying that these people fit the bill? Just deciding that you think they fit the description is Original Research - and that's not allowed here. I need to see a few reliable little blue number in each categorization that links to a reference document that can be examined to confirm Basic Academic rigour

Most people that are listed in the misleading LGBT categorization can also be connected with the following:

-Heteroflexibility -is a form of a sexual orientation or situational sexual behavior characterized by minimal homosexual activity despite a primarily heterosexual sexual :orientation that is considered to distinguish it from bisexuality.

-Pansexual- A person who is fluid in sexual orientation and/or gender or sex identity.

-Polyamory- is the practice of having multiple open, honest love relationships.

-Affectional orientation - To holders of this view, one's orientation is defined by whom one is predisposed to fall in love with, whether or not one desires that person sexually

-MSM- are male persons who engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, regardless of how they identify themselves; many men choose not to (or cannot for other reasons) accept sexual identities of homosexual or bisexual.

-Situational sexual behaviour is sexual behavior of a kind that is different from that which the person normally exhibits, due to a social environment that in :some way permits, encourages, or compels those acts.

Many people change their sexual behavior depending on the situation or at different points in their life. For example, men and women in a university may engage in bisexual activities, but only in that environment. Experimentation of this sort is more common among adolescents (or just after), both male and female. Some colloquialisms for this trend include "heteroflexible", "BUG" (Bisexual Until Graduation), or "LUG" (Lesbian Until Graduation).

Sexual orientation

A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time". "There . . . [was, as of 1995,] essentially no research on the longitudinal stability of sexual orientation over the adult life span. . . . [I]t [was] . . . still an unanswered question whether . . . [the] measure [of "the complex components of sexual orientation as differentiated from other aspects of sexual identity at one point in time"] will predict future behavior or orientation. Certainly, it [was] . . . not a good predictor of past behavior and self-identity, given the developmental process common to most gay men and lesbians (i.e., denial of homosexual interests and heterosexual experimentation prior to the coming-out process)."

Kinsey scale

Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale, attempts to describe a person's sexual history or episodes of his or her sexual activity at a given time. Ituses a scale from 0, meaning exclusively heterosexual, to 6, meaning exclusively homosexual.

The Sources?

Picknett, Lynn, Prince, Clive, Prior, Stephen & Brydon, Robert (2002). War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy

Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince? You have to be kidding me? They have no scholarly qualifications or authority whatsoever to be used as sources. (Picknett, Lynn, Prince, Clive, Prior, Stephen & Brydon, Robert (2002). War of the Windsors: A Century of Unconstitutional Monarchy)

What does the WP article say:

-Both before and after his marriage, Prince George had a string of affairs with both men and women, from socialites to Hollywood celebrities.

-the latter part of the 1920s – and reportedly was blackmailed by a male prostitute to whom he wrote intimate letters.

-'that he had an affair with Noël Coward, which Coward's long-term boyfriend, Graham Payn, denied.

-There is some suggestion that the duke had an affair with Indira Raje, the Maharani of Cooch Behar (1892–1968), in the late 1920s, according to British historian Lucy Moore.

References

User: Pgarret (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

Response

Though I agree with your ultimate point that the LGBT royalty category is nor warranted, you do yourself little credit by ranting. (1) The category is what it is. The fact that someone can be labelled or identified in other ways is beside the point. (2) BLP = biographies of living persons. The man is dead. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Its going back in. Look at the bottom of this page -- LGBT studies. --76.105.145.143 (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Further

WP:CAT/R#Sexuality For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such. Similarly, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, can not be categorized as gay. Categories that make allegations about sexuality – such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected to be gay" – are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Note that as similar categories of this type have actually been attempted in the past, they may be speedily deleted (as a G4) and do not require another debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. User: Pgarret (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC).

What kind of "kroner"?

Regarding the currency carried by the Prince at his death, the notes are described only as "kroner" without further specification, while the text implies the money might have been interchangeably used in several countries. While it's true that Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden all used (and still use) similarly named currency, a result of the Scandinavian Monetary Union, they were always nationally independent, and as of 1914 neither of equal value nor interchangeable. There should therefore be no room for speculation regarding which country the money carried was meant to be used in, unless for some reason the specific nationality of the notes was never released to the public.

I tried to go to the sources cited to find clarification, but one is a subscription-only article and the other is a mere title without specification. I have not researched it further, but on the surface of things, it would appear strange if this was a real mystery.

I might add that if the notes did indeed literally say "kroner", they would be from either Norway or Denmark. Swedish notes would say "kronor", and Icelandic ones "krónur". This may of course be a fairly understandable error. Laanders (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, this ambiguity appears to have been resolved some time ago by the clarification that the notes were Swedish kronor (sing. krona) - thanks! Laanders (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Considering that at the time the only "Kroner" of any value was the Swedish kroner, it seems far fetched that a briefcase full of some other nearly worthless currency would be handcuffed to anyone on board the aircraft. If the nearly worthless kroner were in the case, it would have been enough to buy a few bottles of whiskey, and hardly worthy of handcuff security. What is really far fetched about this wiki article and talk page is that there is no mention of Fred Nancarrow. The noted aviation expert and newspaper reporter stated he saw the wreckage of the aircraft, in person, within 6 hours of the crash, and he claimed the aircraft was traveling in a direction that the official report later would disagree with. Fred Nancarrow died in a plane crash 10 days after this plane crash. If he had lived long enough for the official report, his observations would be in direct conflict with those findings. Also, Nancarrow noted tail markings painted on (before there was time to tarp over the tail markings) to indicate it was headed to Sweden on "humanitarian" business. The official report made no note of Swedish humanitarian tail markings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.244.112 (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

In the early part of 1942 it was decided by US command of the occupying forces in Iceland that military personnel would no longer receive cash advances paid in US dollars. Instead, they would only be entitled to the equivalent cash in local Icelandic currency. The US Dollar was a strong currency, much desired by Icelandic civilians. By 1942 there were justifiable concerns among senior officers about the levels of smuggling and illicit trading that were developing. Subsequently, British forces in Iceland conformed to the same policy. As the Icelandic government had a contract with a UK company (de la Rue - I think?) - to print their currency, it might not be so surprising that a VIP flight bound for Iceland would have a consignment of cash for delivery to the appropriate authorities. regards Norloch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.58.138 (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Active service?

He remained on active service in the Royal Navy until March 1929, serving on HMS Iron Duke and later HMS Nelson.

Are you sure he was actually out on operations? You may just mean that he was 'on the active list', that is, available to be sent into action. Valetude (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Factory Inspector

I have read in a biography of the Duchess of Kent by the late Helen Cathcart that Prince George did a stint as a factory inspector in the interwar years before his marriage. Would that have been while he was employed by the Home Office?Cloptonson (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

GOSSIP RAG

I thought Wikipedia was meant to be more of an encyclopedia vs. a gossip rag. All this “alleged” and “rumoured” nonsense in this profile. How about sticking to verifiable facts? 2601:40B:C201:7890:0:0:0:BCEB (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Grand Cross St. John

In the photo at the top of this article and in another photo at

https://therake.com/stories/icons/the-forgotten-prince/

, protruding from the tiny "V" in the barber-collar at his neck is the means from which is hanging his Grand Cross of "the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem". On the Wikipedia page for St. John at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Crosses_of_the_Order_of_St_John

he IS listed as "Bailiff Grand Cross". And yet those facts are omitted from this article's section that lists such things as his Order Of The Garter and Order Of The Thistle. These facts are missing ENTIRELY, as a search for "john" finds only three and each of the three has nothing to do with this Order. There COULD be a reason for this, maybe, but what is it? The Wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders,_decorations,_and_medals_of_the_United_Kingdom

doesn't list St. John of Jerusalem with all of the other Orders, but moves it down below Baronetcy and Knighthood. That is something that of itself should be explained. But what is the reason that this "Order" is one that "doesn't count" for purposes of enumerating the major pieces of metal hanging off of this article's subject's uniform? 2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Why is his 1934 image like ai-generated?

Give me reasons 182.182.168.134 (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Which image? There are 3 from 1934 in the article, none of which are marked as AI-generated. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There arent ai-generated images, However, i saw the 1st image and i marked it as non-Ai generated RobertWikia9627 (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The infobox photo was clearly retouched with an airbrush (on the face) and an actual brush (on the hair, fourrageres -- the braided loops at the shoulder -- and other parts) to make it look more 'perfect' and idealised for publication, as was fairly normal with studio portrait photographs at the time. Film stars' publicity photos got similar treatment. Nowadays they do the same kind of thing digitally. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok. 182.182.168.134 if you have heard it. accept it RobertWikia9627 (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)