If Mountbatten, the man who introduced Elizabeth II to her husband, Phillip, was passing information onto the KGB, there’s no question, it would
have to be kept a secret. The release of that news would have being an embarrassment to The Queen. Realistically the breaking of such news would mean
that The Palace (who normally never respond to anything or used to until recently) would have to publically respond. It wasn’t only the queen
though; it would also be an embarrassment to Prince Charles, the future King. Charles was devastated by the death of Lord Mountbatten. Remember he was
his mentor and pretty much his surrogate father.
There’s no way that Margaret Thatcher could have exposed Mountbatten along with Blunt in 1979 or even just 7 years later in 1986 when the Crabb
Affair papers came under review. It was too close to his death and would have being insensitive, even if he had being a spy. Anyway the death of
Mountbatten was good PR for the British Government. His assassination was seen as appalling and in the public arena, worked in their favour, against
Perhaps the Crabb Affair Cabinet Papers revealed Blunts involvement directly, and in the intervening years up to 1986 it retrospectively pointed to
Mountbatten. I don’t know. My point is that surely the only explanation for 100-year secrecy can’t just be over the death of a diver. Or as is
often proposed, to protect government incompetence or sovereign embarrassment on behalf of the USSR (that no longer exists). It has to be something
very big. Something like or close to this? The Palace could not possibly be allowed the embarrassment of having to address the fact that a very close
royal family member (even forgetting he fact he was head of the armed forces) was a KGB agent. Blunt was one thing but Mountbatten would be something
else. It would have been the same as revealing that Prince Charles was a KGB spy.
Speaking of which, Prince Charles was born in 1948. If you do the math’s 2057 just makes sure even if he lives a long healthy life, he’s avoided
the embarrassment of commenting on the duplicity of his mentor either in 1986, now, or in the future as King.
I realise this is probably a little unsatisfying if you were hoping to find a few more specifics directly relating to Crabb himself or how he met his
end, so I apologies for that. Perhaps one day we’ll know though, or at least our grandchildren might. At the very least, I do think if you managed
to read and digest everything up to this point (and I suppose I should add, if you believe it) it adds another level of understanding to the mystery.
I think it provides a little more detail and dimension to the type people that were involved with and influencing the politics of the day and by
default influenced and shaped the world in which you and I are living in today.
Food for Thought
As far as we are aware there are only really two unresolved mysteries from the 1940s and 50s and both of them involve Crabb. The first, directly,
which is the Crabb Affair itself. The second event involves Crabb but it also involves Lord Mountbatten and at least Philby from 'The Cambridge Five',
it’s just not possible to untangle them all from each other. That event was the Death, or as most people believe, assassination, of the Polish
Allied General Sikorski in Gibraltar 1943.
I wanted to add that I did hesitate to quote Di Stefano the ‘Devil’s advocate’ with regard to Paddy Holland and his version of the McMahons
revelation regarding the Mountbatten Assassination Cover-up. He is known to be a liar but then perhaps in this instance he’s telling the truth.
Perhaps his character is under assassination itself through disinformation because he’s telling the truth. So I decided to include it anyway, at
least that way you have the choice to make your own minds up.
The Venona Project
The Cambridge Five
edit on 19-3-2013 by region331 because: spelling