104-year-old VE Day hero invited to Buckingham Palace tea
He kept the horrors of the Second World War to himself for eight decades.
Now, 104-year-old veteran Henry Ducker has shared his tale for the first time ahead of having tea with the King and Queen at Buckingham Palace for VE Day.
The former RAF flight mechanic, who served as a Leading Aircraftman for six years until 1946, said he was 'honoured' to accept the invitation.
Mr Ducker, who was called up to the RAF aged just 19, has never previously met a member of the Royal family and will be the oldest of 30 veterans attending the 80th anniversary celebrations.
The day's events, organised by the Royal British Legion, of which the King is patron, will begin with a military procession and fly-past with the Royal family and the Prime Minister.
As Sir Keir Starmer paid tribute to the Armed Forces, calling their sacrifice 'a debt that can never fully be repaid', Mr Ducker shared his memories with The Telegraph.
During the war, he trained at Cranwell in Lincolnshire and the No 1 Radio School in Egypt, and was posted to Reykjavík, Heliopolis, Malta, and Italy, where he worked on the Hawker Hurricane aircraft that saw action in Monte Cassino.
He ran control centres wherever he went – including one rigged up in a stripped-out caravan at the end of a runway in Oakington, Cambridgeshire.
'I saw some terrible things in Oakington,' he said. 'With boys going out in the bombers and coming back all shot up. It was horrible. I shall never forget that.'
'They were all very talented people and their lives got cut short, it's such a shame,' he added.
In 1943, he sailed for the Middle East aboard the Orbita and vividly recalls how his convoy came under repeated enemy air attack in the Mediterranean.
He said: 'We'd been about 20 hours or so sailing and the sirens went, and I looked out and I could see all these aircraft coming towards us. The orders were to get down to the hold, but I was a bit curious to see what was going on. I hung back a bit, and I saw the first lot come and drop, but then I went down.
'In this hold, they'd fastened all the bulkheads and the officers were there with their guns drawn.
'Nobody panics at all, but you should've seen these men's faces. It was like we were in a tin can, the bombs were dropping, you could hear them.'
In Yugoslavia, impoverished villagers once invited him to a girl's birthday meal in their family home. 'They had no beds, they just slept on the floor…They brought flagons of great wine out. They kept filling our glasses up!'
He was on guard at night in Campo Marina, Italy, when news of the German surrender came through. He remembers having been given a gun for his guard duties and firing it up into the sky, celebrating.
'I'd never fired a gun before that! I was over the moon. I knew I was going home, I'd survived,' he said.
He later helped escort German POWs by train across Europe. Taking a train through France on his way home, then crossing the Channel to Newhaven.
'I shall never forget the ferry, the Royal Daffodil that went into Newhaven. And there I sent a telegram to my mum and dad saying 'I'm now back in the UK, I'll see you soon'.
'I hadn't seen them for years. I went in as a boy at 19, and I came back at 26 almost to the day. I came home in January 1946 and got married in March. I wrote to her the whole time I was away, we'd met when we were 5.'
Veterans from the Royal Navy, British Army, RAF, Wrens, Special Operations Executives, D-Day and Desert Rats, as well as 20 Second World War-era civilians, including evacuees, have all been invited as guests of honour to the tea party at the palace.
Ten female veterans will be in attendance, including former codebreakers, drivers and mechanics.
Among them are Joyce Wilding, 100, of 'Churchill's Secret Army', and Ruth Bourne, 98, a Wren at Bletchley Park. Both were in the crowds outside Buckingham Palace in 1945, celebrating VE Day.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
When the US Navy tried to send mail using a missile
What if Americans' daily mail could be delivered not by postal truck but by a cruise missile? On June 8, 1959, the U.S. Navy had a submarine try just that. It kind of worked. 66 years ago today the U.S. Navy tested out a concept previously known as 'rocket mail,' only in this case they used a relatively new Regulus 1 cruise missile. The idea of 'rocket mail' was first theorized in 1810 by German author Heinrich von Kleist. The initial concept was more artillery bombardment mail than rocket mail, with the idea being to fire the mail from cannons, using ballistic power and trajectories to route letters. Early, independent attempts were done in the 19th Century, but nothing widespread came out of it. However the idea picked up momentum in the first half of the 20th Century. Hobbyists and scientists in Europe and the United States gave it a shot, launching experimental rockets back and forth as a way of ferrying the mail. Some were even unofficial Post Office Department (now the United States Post Office) launches. Things changed in 1959. Then-Postmaster General Arthur A. Summerfield endorsed the idea of rocket mail, but he, with partners in the United States Navy, took things a step further, using modern missiles. In this case, the Navy and Post Office Department would use a SSM-N-8A Regulus, or Regulus I, nuclear-capable cruise missile that had entered service only a few years prior. It was modified, of course, to remove the nuclear warhead and replace it with the capacity to carry 3,000 letters. The Navy would fire it from the USS Barbero, a Balao-class submarine, to a naval station in Florida. If it worked, it would show the speed of 'missile mail' and the accuracy of the Navy's cruise missile. 'This peacetime employment of a guided missile for the important and practical purpose of carrying mail is the first known official use of missiles by any post office department of any nation,' Summerfield said at the time, per the USPS, 'Before man reaches the moon, mail will be delivered within hours from New York to California, to England, to India or to Australia by guided missiles.' Let's look at the selling points here. Rocket mail is fast — it uses missiles after all — and with the U.S. military, deep in the 1950s Cold War military industrial boom, as a partner, there is a reliable backer to this plan. So on June 8, 1959, the USS Barbero was in the Atlantic Ocean. The submarine was surfaced, with the Regulus 1 cruise missile perched well above the water. The letters were loaded in and the missile was prepped. And since this was an office Post Office Department shipment, the letters still had addresses marked on them, all to high ranking government officials including U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower. The missile fired, traveling through the air for just over 20 minutes, on a path towards the Navy's base at Mayport, Florida which was roughly 100 miles from the launch point. 22 minutes after take off, it landed on the runway in Florida. The mail was sorted and sent off to its recipients. As the number of mail trucks still driving around the United States today shows, missile mail did not become a standard part of the postal service. The USS Barbero's test was the only one the Navy would do and despite its success, the cost of the missiles and the limited carrying capacity essentially killed any further development. Navy SEAL Team 6 operator will be the military's new top enlisted leader Veterans receiving disability payments might have been underpaid, IG finds Guam barracks conditions are 'baffling,' Navy admiral says in email Navy fires admiral in charge of unmanned systems office after investigation The Pentagon wants troops to change duty stations less often
Vox
13 hours ago
- Vox
First comes marriage. Then comes a flirtatious colleague.
is a senior reporter for Vox's Future Perfect and co-host of the Future Perfect podcast. She writes primarily about the future of consciousness, tracking advances in artificial intelligence and neuroscience and their staggering ethical implications. Before joining Vox, Sigal was the religion editor at the Atlantic. Your Mileage May Vary is an advice column offering you a unique framework for thinking through your moral dilemmas. To submit a question, fill out this anonymous form or email Here's this week's question from a reader, condensed and edited for clarity: My husband and I have a good relationship. We're both committed to personal growth and continual learning and have developed very strong communication skills. A couple of years ago we were exposed to some friends with an open marriage and had our own conversations about ethical non-monogamy. At first, neither of us were interested. Now, my husband is interested and currently is attracted to a colleague who is also into him. She's married and has no idea that he and I talk about all of their interactions. He doesn't know what her relationship agreements are with her husband. I'm not currently interested in ethical non-monogamy. I see things in our relationship that I'd like to work on together with my husband. I want more of his attention and energy, to be frank. I don't want his attention and energy being funneled into another relationship. I don't have moral issues with ethical non-monogamy, I just don't actually see any value-add for me right now. The cost-benefit analysis leaves me saying 'not now.' My husband admitted that he's hoping I will have a change of mind. I don't want to force his hand, although I am continuing to say very clearly what I want in my relationship. How do we reach a compromise? If he cuts ties with this woman, he has resentment towards me. If he continues to pursue something with her, I feel disrespected, and while I don't want to leave him I would feel the need to do something. Dear Monogamously Married, I want to start by commending you for two things. First, for your openness to discussing and exploring all this with your husband. Second, for your insistence on clearly stating what you actually want — and don't want. I think Erich Fromm, the 20th-century German philosopher and psychologist, would back me up in saying that you'd do well to hold tight to both those qualities. For starters, radical openness is important because, according to Fromm, the basic premise of love is freedom. He writes: Love is a passionate affirmation of its 'object.' That means that love is not an 'affect' but an active striving, the aim of which is the happiness, development, and freedom of its 'object.' In other words, love is not a feeling. It's work, and the work of love is to fully support the flourishing of the person you love. That can be scary — what if the person discovers that they're actually happier with somebody else? — which is why Fromm specifies that only someone with a strong self 'which can stand alone and bear solitude' will be up for the job. He continues: This passionate affirmation is not possible if one's own self is crippled, since genuine affirmation is always rooted in strength. The person whose self is thwarted can only love in an ambivalent way; that is, with the strong part of his self he can love, with the crippled part he must hate. So far, it might sound like Fromm is saying that to be a good lover is to be a doormat: you just have to do whatever's best for the other person, even if it screws you over. But his view is very much the opposite. In fact, Fromm cautions us against both 'masochistic love' and 'sadistic love.' In the first, you give up your self and sacrifice your needs in order to become submerged in another person. In the second, you try to exert power over the other person. Both of these are rooted in 'a deep anxiety and an inability to stand alone,' writes Fromm; whether by dissolving yourself into them or by controlling them, you're trying to make it impossible for the other person to abandon you. Both approaches are 'pseudo-love.' Have a question you want me to answer in the next Your Mileage May Vary column? Feel free to email me at or fill out this anonymous form! Newsletter subscribers will get my column before anyone else does and their questions will be prioritized for future editions. Sign up here! So although Fromm doesn't want you to try to control your partner, and although he suggests that the philosophical ideal is for you to passionately affirm your partner's freedom, he's not advising you to do that if, for you, that will mean masochism. If you're not up for ethical non-monogamy — if you feel, like many people, that the idea of giving your partner free rein is too big a threat to your relationship or your own well-being — then pretending otherwise is not real love. It's just masochistic self-annihilation. I'm personally partial to Fromm's non-possessive approach to love. But I equally appreciate his point that the philosophical ideal could become a practical bloodbath if it doesn't work for the actual humans involved. I think the question, then, is this: Do you think it's possible for you to get to a place where you genuinely feel ready for and interested in ethical non-monogamy? It sounds like you're intellectually open to the idea, and given that you said you're committed to personal growth and continual learning, non-monogamy could offer you some benefits; lots of people who practice it say that part of its appeal lies in the growth it catalyzes. And if practicing non-monogamy makes you and/or your husband more fulfilled, it could enrich your relationship and deepen your appreciation for each other. But right now, you've got a problem: Your husband is pushing on your boundaries by flirting with a woman even after you've expressed that you don't want him pursuing something with her. And you already feel like he isn't giving you enough attention and energy, so the prospect of having to divvy up those resources with another woman feels threatening. Fair! Notice, though, that that isn't a worry about non-monogamy per se — it's a worry about the state of your current monogamous relationship. In a marriage, what partners typically want is to feel emotionally secure. But that comes from how consistently and lovingly we show up for and attune to one another, not from the relationship structure. A monogamous marriage may give us some feeling of security, but it's obviously no guarantee; some people cheat, some get divorced, and some stay loyally married while neglecting their partner emotionally. 'Monogamy can serve as a stand-in for actual secure attachment,' writes therapist Jessica Fern in Polysecure, a book on how to build healthy non-monogamous relationships. She urges readers to take an honest look at any relationship insecurities or dissatisfactions that are being disguised by monogamy, and work with partners to strengthen the emotional experience of the relationship. Since you feel that your husband isn't giving you enough attention and energy, be sure to talk to him about it. Explain that it doesn't feel safe for you to open up the relationship without him doing more to be fully present with you and to make you feel understood and precious. See if he starts implementing these skills more reliably. In the meantime, while you two are trying to reset your relationship, it's absolutely reasonable to ask him to cool it with the colleague he's attracted to; he doesn't have to cut ties with her entirely (and may not be able to if they work together), but he can certainly avoid feeding the flames with flirtation. Right now, the fantasy of her is a distraction from the work he needs to be doing to improve the reality of your marriage. He should understand why a healthy practice of ethical non-monogamy can't emerge from a situation where he's pushing things too far with someone else before you've agreed to change the terms of your relationship (and if he doesn't, have him read Polysecure!). It's probably a good idea for you to each do your own inner work, too. Fern, like Fromm, insists that if we want to be capable of a secure attachment with someone else, we need to cultivate that within ourselves. That means being aware of our feelings, desires, and needs, and knowing how to tend to them. Understanding your attachment style can help with this; for example, if you're anxiously attached and you very often reach out to your partner for reassurance, you can practice spending time alone. After taking some time to work on these interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, come back together to discuss how you're feeling. Do you feel more receptive to opening up the relationship? Do you think it would add more than it would subtract? If the answer is 'yes' or 'maybe,' you can create a temporary relationship structure — or 'vessel,' as Fern calls it — to help you ease into non-monogamy. One option is to adopt a staggered approach to dating, where one partner (typically the more hesitant one) starts dating new people first, and the other partner starts after a predetermined amount of time. Another option is to try a months-long experiment where both partners initially engage in certain romantic or sexual experiences that are less triggering to each other, then assess what worked and what didn't, and go from there. If the answer is 'no' — if you're not receptive to opening up your relationship — then by all means say that! Given you'll have sincerely done the work to explore whether non-monogamy works for you, your husband doesn't get to resent you. He can be sad, he can be disappointed, and he can choose to leave if the outcome is intolerable to him. But he'll have to respect you, and what's more important, you'll have to respect yourself. Bonus: What I'm reading This week's question prompted me to go back to the famous psychologist Abraham Maslow, who was influenced by Fromm. Maslow spoke of two kinds of love : Deficit-Love and Being-Love. The former is about trying to satiate your own needs, while the latter is about giving without expecting something in return. Maslow characterizes Being-Love as an almost spiritual experience, likening it to 'the perfect love of their God that some mystics have described.' In addition to Polysecure, which has become something of a poly bible in the past few years, I recommend reading What Love Is — and What It Could Be , written by the philosopher Carrie Jenkins. I appreciated Jenkins's functionalist take on romantic love: She explains that we've constructed the idea of romantic love a certain way in order to serve a certain function (structuring society into nuclear family units), but we can absolutely revise it if we want.
Business Insider
16 hours ago
- Business Insider
I'm 92 and still live independently. I make sure to stay active, and I don't eat a lot of red meat.
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Mira Armstrong, a 92-year-old from Porepunkah, Australia. It has been edited for length and clarity. I built my home with my husband, Bruce, in 1956. Now that I'm 92 years old, I still live independently. I hope I croak it here. I was born in Poland in 1933 during the Depression. My father was a shoemaker and in the army reserve. When World War II broke out, he was taken prisoner and sent to Germany. My mother, siblings, and I followed. I got a rough start to life Life was pretty tough. We lived in a derelict, abandoned farmhouse and weren't allowed to go to school because we weren't German citizens. While German children were at school, we'd scavenge at the dump — once, we even found an old gramophone. Toward the end of the war, I remember hearing American planes overhead. An old German man cycled through our village, sounding a siren as they approached. They never bombed our village, only cities and factories. I remember watching thousands of British airmen being marched past on foot. They stopped and ate grass because they were so hungry. I wish I knew how to speak English back then, but I didn't. We moved to Australia after the war, and things changed After the war, we were moved from one displaced persons camp to another. Europe was in chaos. We spent some time in Italy, then came to Australia aboard the SS Skaugum. My father got a job in the ship's kitchen and was finally able to buy toothpaste. We'd cleaned our teeth with ash during the war. When we arrived in Melbourne on March 28, 1950, I was 17. It felt like heaven. Everything was so strange and unusual. We were finally free. My family eventually settled in Porepunkah, Victoria, and I met my husband, Bruce, at the local swimming hole. One day, he waited in his truck to pick my sister and me up from work, and that was it. We were married in 1954 — I was 21, Bruce was 24. Longevity could be hereditary — my mum lived to 97. She was hardworking and survived many hardships, too. But I have also made a few lifestyle choices that may have helped. Being active has always been a priority When I was younger, I used to cycle 24 kilometers to and from work, even to church in high heels. I did everything fast, whether it was housework or heaving hay bales around our farm. When Bruce and I built our house, we dug the foundation holes and the well by hand. We had five kids, and I was constantly busy. I worked in hospitality and retail, never behind a desk. These days, I still walk a lot, mainly around the house and outside, and I like to garden. I eat a balanced diet, and I don't drink or smoke I eat everything — probably because I remember the starvation during the war. Once, we went for four days without food. For breakfast, I have porridge or Weetabix. I eat soup full of veggies, wholemeal toasties, chicken, fish, and walnuts. There's not a lot of red meat in my diet. My vice is fruit, though I have to be careful because I'm borderline diabetic. I never smoked or drank, and I only recently started drinking coffee. Staying social and volunteering is key Our home was always social — full of friends and family. I enjoy spending time with my eight grandkids and eight great-grandkids. I've also done a lot of volunteer work: 29 years with Meals on Wheels, 14 years with the op shop, and years of church work. I get bored easily, and I enjoy giving back. My faith has given me comfort in tough times Bruce died in 1977 shortly after a trucking accident. He was 47 years old, I was 44. I still had three boys at home and about 70 cows to manage on our farm. It was a horrendous time, and I went through hell. I did three part-time jobs and took care of everything on autopilot. After Bruce died, I started cursing God and stopped going to church. Then, in 1992, my youngest son, Graham, was killed in a road accident. It was very difficult, and that's when I returned to church. My faith has brought me comfort ever since. I make sure to keep my mind active I keep my mind active with puzzles and reading. I enjoy thrillers, and hot romances, too. After Bruce died, I'd read romance novels through the night. In the morning, I didn't even remember what they were about. These days, I enjoy feeding the birds and gardening. For what it's worth, these habits may have led to my longevity, and they've surely contributed to my enjoyment of life. But my No. 1 tip for a long life? Don't die!
