The 60th anniversary of the Battle of Britain
has been marked with a spectacular fly-past
and a packed service of thanksgiving attended
by the Prince of Wales and Duke of Edinburgh.
Spectators and veterans at Biggin Hill in Kent,
where the RAF base played a vital role in the
summer campaign of 1940, witnessed 16
Spitfires and four Hurricane aircraft take to the
skies.
The special tribute to
the air and ground
crews who won the
battle was rounded off
at sunset with the
lowering of the RAF
Ensign and a rendition
of the Last Post.
Lord Tebbit, who flew
as a pilot in the
post-war Royal Air
Force, read a special
dedication to the pilots
dubbed The Few by a grateful Prime Minister,
Winston Churchill.
Leading a series of other events across the
country, Prince Charles and Prince Philip wore
full RAF dress uniforms as they joined the
congregation at Westminster Abbey.
Battle of Britain veterans, with the medals from
their exploits proudly pinned to their chests,
were awarded pride of place at the service.
An RAF guard of
honour, holding the
service's banner aloft,
stood to attention as
the men, some now in
wheelchairs and others
walking with the aid of
sticks, filed into the
church.
Northern Ireland's First
Minister David Trimble
was among the other dignitaries attending.
Serving RAF members marched the ensign of
Fighter Command and the Queen's Colour up
the aisle to be laid on the high altar.
After a rousing national anthem the Dean of
Westminster, Reverend Dr Wesley Carr, said in
the opening bidding prayer: "We remember with
gratitude the dedication and heroism of
members of the Royal Air Force and the Allied
Air Forces."
During the service the Battle of Britain roll of
honour was taken from the Chapel of St
George to the Sacrarium in the Abbey,
escorted by veterans.
Afterwards a single Spitfire flew over the
Abbey.
Paying his tribute, the
Chief of the Air Staff
Air Chief Marshal, Sir
Peter Squire, said: "In
this 60th anniversary
year, the Battle of
Britain remains one of
the greatest
achievements of the
Royal Air Force."
"The courage,
dedication and self
sacrifice displayed by
The Few in their
victory over the Luftwaffe, together with the
unfailing support provided by their ground
personnel, continues to inspire the Royal Air
Force today, providing an outstanding example
for the servicemen and women who follow in
their footsteps."
RAF personnel in Belfast were commemorating
the battle by exercising their Freedom of the
City for the first time in five years with a
march through the city.
Battle veteran
Battle of Britain veteran Group Captain 'Ginger'
Murray told BBC News 24 how "young and
cocky" pilots like him were more apprehensive
than scared as they waited for action in 1940.
"When you're at readiness, waiting for the call
to scramble, you don't know whether the call's
coming but you expect it will and you don't
know when it will come.
"So your stomach's churning and you're tensed
up - it's very unpleasant."
Speaking at the Biggin Hill event, he insisted it
was "very important indeed" to remember the
Battle of Britain.
"If we'd lost, and if the Luftwaffe had gained
the air supremacy that the Nazis needed then
we would have been invaded, we would have
been overcome and subjugated and the whole
course of world history would have been quite
different."
~*~
Queen's aide condoned 'helpful'
Diana book (Sunday UK Times)
Christopher Morgan
LAWYERS for the royal family decided not to block a book
about the Princess of Wales by her former private secretary
after learning that the Queen and her senior aide had condoned
its publication.
Lord Fellowes, who was the Queen's private secretary until
1999, described the proposed book as "helpful" only three
months after Diana's death, publishing sources confirmed
yesterday.
Fellowes told Patrick Jephson, who was Diana's equerry and
private secretary for eight years, that if he went ahead he
should write a well-balanced book. Fellowes also suggested
that the palace would check it for accuracy.
The Queen herself is believed to have condoned publication,
saying that the palace "should check that it was all right". At
no stage did they tell Jephson that he should not go ahead with
the book, which is to be serialised in The Sunday Times, until
the Prince of Wales intervened.
Palace officials acknowledged that these views fatally
undermined attempts this summer by Charles's lawyers to
prevent publication. They knew that Buckingham Palace's at
best ambivalent attitude would be revealed if he sought an
injunction.
Jephson met Fellowes for lunch in November 1997 to discuss
writing his memoirs. It became clear during the meeting that
Buckingham Palace saw an advantage in an "accurate" book
being written about Diana.
Fellowes said that if anybody was going to write a book, it
would be better that Jephson did as his was more likely to be
well-informed and balanced.
"He went to the right people, right at the top, told them what he
was going to do and got the message he had hoped for," said a
source familiar with the negotiations.
Charles, who never condoned criticism of his wife and feared
the effect of the book on his children, was appalled when he
discovered what had been said to Jephson. At his insistence,
Buckingham Palace changed tack to present a united front with
him. It co-operated in trying to stop the book and backtracked
on its earlier endorsements. At the beginning of 1998 details of
Jephson's plan were leaked to the press, which savagely
attacked him.
Jephson was also summoned to a meeting in February 1998,
when senior courtiers, including Fellowes, sought an
undertaking that he would abandon the book. He did not give
one. Even at that stage one senior palace official was
describing the book as a valuable historical document.
Jephson was warned that the book would be a breach of the
confidentiality clause in his employment contract, which was
with Charles and not the princess. Royal lawyers were not sure
of their grounds, however. They feared that the palace had
undermined the contract by giving the impression that the
confidentiality clause was being waived, even though it had no
right to do so.
Furthermore, Jephson had worked for seven of his eight years
for the princess without a contract. It was not signed until 1995,
a year before he resigned.
When Charles was told in July this year that Jephson had gone
ahead with his book and that publication was imminent, he was
advised that legal action would lead to great embarrassment
when Buckingham Palace records were disclosed to the court.
Having decided not to use the law, he asked his officials to
negotiate a joint statement with the Queen's household,
condemning Jephson.
This was issued on Friday and said that the prince and his
mother "deeply deplored" Jephson's behaviour.
A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: "Any suggestion that
the Queen wanted such a book is wrong. The view was
conveyed firmly to Patrick Jephson in February 1998 - and
everyone else connected with the book - that the Queen and
the Prince of Wales never wanted a book of this kind." He
declined to comment on the meeting between Jephson and
Fellowes.
Jephson worked for the Princess, first as an equerry in the
Wales's joint office, before becoming her private secretary.
~*~
The truth about Diana (Sunday UK Times)
At first, superficial glance it might seem understandable that
Buckingham Palace should have reacted with such anger to
the planned publication of a book by the Princess of Wales's
former private secretary. The palace relies on discretion among
its staff to uphold and enhance the mystique of the royal family.
Anyone spilling the secrets of life at the palace threatens that
equilibrium. If one senior aide can write such a book, what is to
stop all of them writing their memoirs? Already Whitehall is in a
tangle over the memoirs of no less a figure than Stella
Rimington, the former head of MI5, the ineptly named secret
service. The palace's anger, however, is inflamed by its own
embarrassment. Senior officials at the palace were at one time
quite content for Patrick Jephson to write his memoirs, and it is
this complicity that has undermined a legal challenge to block
his book. Case dismissed.
Buckingham Palace made another wrong move by issuing a
public statement last week condemning Mr Jephson's
behaviour. Its courtiers in Fleet Street were quick to echo the
criticism. Nobody in the palace has seen his book, to be
serialised in The Sunday Times. Mr Jephson has breached no
legal undertaking that would have enabled the palace to prevent
him publishing. It is the authority his book will have that
rankles, rather than their fear that his account of eight
tempestuous years at Diana's side may be inaccurate.
The palace assertion that "the book is likely to arouse fresh
speculation about the life of the princess which can only be
upsetting to the feelings of Prince William and Prince Harry,
and to the princess's family" is speculative. The world has had
a surfeit of the most lurid versions of the life and death of Diana.
This is not Mr Jephson's intention. He plans to describe and
analyse Diana's fears, actions, character and secrets in an
honest and balanced way. Mr Jephson's critics have
condemned him without having read a word of his manuscript.
Public opinion is not so easily swayed. Diana's story is part of
our history. We have a right to the truth and Mr Jephson's
account will be an important contribution to it. Diana played a
unique role in the life of the nation. The more light that is shed
on it, the better. That is Mr Jephson's intention and our firm
conviction.