LAST Saturday you were kind enough to print my letter on the subject of Rudolf Hess following the appearance of your own article. So far I have not seen any reference to the question I raised regarding the origin or provenance of the blood smear which has allegedly been tested for DNA.

Later that same day there appeared on Channel Four a programme, Spying on the Royals, which set out to uncover a secret plot dating from the 1930s. This was set up by the then Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin who, being apparently fearful of where the activities of the then Prince of Wales were heading, decided to take action.

READ MORE: Why are files relating to the Hess affair still kept under wraps?

It was then shown that a secret surveillance was set up covering the activities of the future King Edward VIII and his friends, including a systematic tapping of their phone calls. Included in that time were obviously his views on the Nazi party government in Germany.

It has always, up to the present day, been the official position that nothing was ever done to spy on the royal family.

Now, over the last few days, we have the debate which has just blown up, following some remarks from Ross Greer, over the reputation and legacy of Churchill. I can well appreciate that this will not be popular with the mass of Union-flag-waving supporters of the great British empire, but the fact remains that Churchill was, at various times in his career, at the decision-making core of some events in the history of the 19th and 20th centuries when various events took place, both around the empire and here in Britain itself, which were utterly deplorable.

READ MORE: DNA test disproves Rudolf Hess ‘double’ story 30 years after death

This leads us back to the apparently missing or withheld files covering everything concerning the Hess and Duke of Kent affairs. Soon after the abdication of Edward VIII, Prime Minister Baldwin retired, and some two-and-a-half years later was succeeded by Churchill. It does not require a great leap of imagination to realise that the secret surveillance system could have been maintained and used for further information-gathering by Churchill. This would have been right up his street.

Prince George, Duke of Kent, had been the brightest and most charismatic member of the royals, and had been a close confidant of the departed king. His dealings with his brother must have been a part of the surveillance. Is this a lead-in as to why certain files and information are still “lost” or withheld?

It would indeed be interesting to learn where the files uncovered by the Channel Four programme-makers were located, and whether there are more there to be found.

Maybe we are getting closer to solving some of the hitherto mysterious happenings of the Second World War, and answering some of the questions which have puzzled us for years. If that results in some of the world’s presumed heroes being shown to have feet of clay, would that be such a bad thing? It would be just like some of today’s examples!

George M Mitchell

IN response to Jim Taylor’s letter (Churchill’s ‘crimes’ should be considered in context, January 31), sorry, I have to disagree profoundly with his logic. Following it you could excuse any vile behaviour in the past – because it was in context. The Nazi rise to power and subsequent death of millions? It was in the context of German’s humiliation after World War One after all!

And do not present politicians like Rees-Mogg and Johnson define their image and ideology on Churchillian ideals, dragging us into the abyss with it? And is it not the duty of other politicians like Ross Greer to deflate that image and show it for what it is?

No, Churchill is not in the history books but is still stalking the corridors of Westminster – are we are paying for it!

Crìsdean Mac Fhearghais
Dùn Èideann

READ MORE: Churchill’s ‘crimes’ should be considered in context​

IT’S interesting that Boris Johnson likes to compare himself to Churchill, and wrote a book about him in 2014. Will the Brexiteers soon be fighting the EU on the beaches?

Alan Y Lawson

I WOULDN’T normally bother passing comment on any Tory newspaper, however an article in Friday’s Telegraph by one columnist plumbed new depths. Titled “A toxic Anglophobia is resurgent in Ireland”, it was a bare-knuckled, bared-teeth, snarling, hate-filled tirade.

With the deafening sound of the irony klaxon, the claim was that even middle-class people in Ireland don’t like what the ruling English are doing in London. Then it went on to use the term British, Britain and the UK several times.

If ever there was an article that exemplified the ruling class’s attitude to non-English people, this awful excuse for journalism did. There were no facts, no quotes from anyone and its sole intention was fuelling hate against Ireland.

Perhaps the writer isn’t old enough to remember when there was discrimination against Irish people in England.

Mike Herd