|
|
(These are my notes of Dr Cannadine's lecture)
The
lecture opened by a University of Nottingham lecturer, proudly relaying his
anecdote that his father had punched Winston Churchill at the 1924 Westminster
by-election!
At Churchill's retirement
dinner in 1965, the Queen visited 10 Downing Street. Churchill made a heartfelt
and emotional toast to the Monarch who he saw as the "champion of the
nations wise and kindly way of life". Churchill was on a par with the Duke
of Wellington and was the Queen's number one subject: "Monarchical Number
One" as his wife Clementine called him. Churchill saw the Britain of his
youth as a complex social triangle, and he accepted the class distinction
without thought. There was a time, however, when Winston Churchill was on the
opposite side to the monarchy, for although he was devoted to the institution,
he disliked the individuals. He had a powerful sense of how the monarchy
evolved, and about what it ought to be and do. He saw Edward VII as obstructing
his social reforms in the early part of his career, but by the 1930s had come to
see it as a stabilising influence. The mutually admiring position only came
about after the war. Jock Colville reported Churchill as being for "King
and Country – in that order". Churchill's view of the monarchy was one
grounded in his reading of Macaulay, and we can see his views set out in his
"History of the English-speaking Peoples", a brightly lit collection
of leaders, and above all, of Kings and Queens. Robert Rhodes James saw it as
being a story on the level of Good and Bad, and it is a simplified story much
along those lines. Churchill's view was essentially two-pointed:
1) the English Crown a sacred institution cementing the past and the future.
2)
It was a constitutional and a limited monarchy, not like the despots on
the continent. It represented milestones in English liberties and worked along
the lines of a "permanent Parliament and a docile Monarchy".
This was how the institution had evolved up to Victorian times. The Crown embodied the nation's history and was a convenient constitutional device. During Victoria's reign, two extra values were added: firstly, the view of a "happy family", and secondly, the image of a dominating figure over the British Empire. It's a mix of Tory/Whig, National/Imperial and Constitutional/Symbolic. This system was in full fling when Churchill was young, and it lasted throughout his life. In Churchill's theory, it represented the best of all worlds. The monarchy gave "inestimable service to our country", was "above party strife", was "ancient, calm and serene", and was a "mysterious, magical link" that bound the country together.
In practice, the relationship
between Churchill and the Monarchy was more complicated. When he was young, he
was in friendship with and at a distance from the monarchy. He lobbied and
pulled strings. Whilst in India at the time of the Jubilee, he said that
"no title not high-sounding is worth having". The monarchy was for
Churchill, at this stage, a social device to be used to forward himself: as
shown by his sending a copy of the "Story of the Malakand Field Force"
to the Prince of Wales. After the Oldham election, he went to Balmoral. Prince
Edward saw him as a "serious politician and a reliable minister"
(???). But Churchill's ego grated with Edward. Churchill and Lloyd-George were
reducing Army expenditure, and Edward saw Churchill's initials, "WC",
as being well suited! Edward's view was that Churchill was related to a Duke,
and here he was attacking the aristocracy. Knolly's comment on Churchill's
principles was that they were hardly convincing and would "make anyone
laugh". George V also saw Churchill as irresponsible and unreliable,
something that was not helped by Churchill's repetition to Asquith of the King's
comment that Asquith was not a gentleman. There were, said Churchill,
"idlers at both ends of the social scale". This was not popular with
the King, who saw it as "socialistic" talk.
Things did not go any better at
the Admiralty, especially when Churchill wanted to name a ship HMS Oliver
Cromwell! The palace, not surprisingly, objected to naming one of the King's
ships after a regicide! Churchill gave way, saying he had "always been
pleased" to listen to the King's views on the matter. The opinions were
mutual. Churchill saw George V as a dim reactionary who spoke "cheap and
silly drivel", while the King, not surprisingly, saw Churchill as rude.
Essentially, they monarchy did not like Churchill because he didn't respect
them. He, in turn, saw them as interfering. It all got worse at the outbreak of
war because of Lord Fisher. When the Dardanelles caused Churchill to fall from
power, there was joy at Buckingham Palace, where the King saw him as a real
danger. Thus the first phase of Churchill's relationship with the monarchy
ended. Not a precursor of his final views and relationship!
Later, relations became warmer.
World War One left Churchill, like most Edwardian liberals, very uncertain.
Terrible "injuries were wrought", the symbols of order fell, and the
continent fell into dictatorship. This helps explain the change in Churchill's
attitude to George V. He now saw him as embodying decency and tradition when
faced with a continent of dictators. The solution to the Irish problem helped
matters: the King's visit to Ireland impressed Churchill, and the King in turn
warmed to him. Churchill's essay in "Great Contemporaries" contrasts
the King with the Shah of Persia, especially his spending, and concludes that
the country was "well out of it", with their monarch. The monarchy,
the one institution at the heart "breasted the current of events". The
"royal and important man" stood firm. George V had never feared
democracy and reconciled factions; he presided over the "resplendent birth
of this great office". This was the view from "Great
Contemporaries".
Churchill had known and admired
Edward VIII for years. In the 1920s, he helped Edward with his speeches, played
Polo with him and sent him copies of the "World Crisis". Edward was
the "Bravest and best beloved". It was a sincere and heartfelt
compliment, but Churchill turned a blind eye to Edwards's faults. The Abdication
Crisis was of course the most famous aspect of this relationship. Was Churchill
just trying to embarrass the government? No, he was a loyal friend and was
sympathetic to Edward's desire for a home life. He had been through a revolution
(???) but Edward would wane on
Simpson (???). Churchill rallied to the King with Baldwin's knowledge, and it
did his reputation untold damage. His plea for time was unrealistic, he
misjudged both the sovereign and the country. Edward decided to abdicate anyway.
The stormy scene in the Chamber of the House of Commons is famous.
Churchill helped write the abdication broadcast. He felt it was all
unnecessary, but recognised that the majority was on the other side.
He remained personally loyal, but recognised that the Crown must carry
on. He later admitted that Edward VIII "would not have done". This
realistic recognition did not mean that he abandoned the Duke of Windsor. He
stayed with him personally. The Duke write to him more as a father.
The new court was not keen on
Churchill because of all this. They loathed Wallis Simpson, and saw Churchill as
representing the worst of American values corrupting Britain. Worse still,
Churchill was against Chamberlain and the King and Queen were very much his
supporters and were very sorrowful at his fall. They did not want Churchill to
follow, but preferred Halifax. Colville was initially not impressed with
Churchill either. It didn't help when Churchill appointed Beaverbrook and all
the other "gangsters and crooks". Churchill didn't keep the King up to
date and was always late and off-hand. He also upstaged the King – Churchill
had everything the King didn't. This all changed as the war went on, and the
King recognised the brilliance and vigour of Churchill's leadership. Churchill
regularly ate with the King and sent him presents. In 1941, the PM was made Lord
Warden of the Cinque Ports, which was popular with Churchill, who loved titles!
As a convinced upholder of the monarchy, Churchill saw this intimacy as a great
honour, as with Marlborough. Pimlott spoke of the "exaggerated
courtesy" with which Churchill wrote to the King. However, Churchill had no
intention of sharing any power with the King – the papers were for information
only. He paid attention to Parliament, and deferred to the General Staff. He
never changed his attitude because of the King, however, except over his plans
to attend D-Day.
As far as relations with the
Duke of Windsor went now, he was personally sympathetic, but (as it was a
delicate family matter) he took note of the wishes of the King and Queen. They
wanted the Duke out of England at all costs, so Churchill gave him the Bahamian
governorship. This deft solution mended many fences with the King and Queen.
With Mountbatten, Churchill
propelled this glittering Royal towards the centre. He was the son of Prince
Louis of Battenburg, who had had to resign in 1914 because of anti-German
feeling against him. Churchill wished Mountbatten well, and made him the supreme
commander of the South East Asian area, despite his being young and impetuous.
Because of all this,
Churchill's relations with the monarchy were completely transformed. The King
was as sorry to lose Churchill in 1945 as he was to gain him in 1940. Churchill
was dismissed by the electorate, but not by the royals, who saw him more as a
friend now. He helped them with speeches, and they sent books to him. He was
still friends with the Duke of Windsor.
In 1951 the King was pleased to
see Churchill back. Churchill's sense of history and of reverence were given to
no-one else. The eulogies "The King walked with death", a "model
and a guide" were heartfelt. But it was never suggested that the King had
made an impact on policy.
Elizabeth II Churchill first
met in 1928. He saw himself as a Melbourne to her Victoria. They overflowed with
warmth for each other in mutual admiration. He stayed on for the Coronation, and
took these opportunities to express hope. Fulsome admiration of the Queen. On
his 80th birthday the whole royal family brought him a present. The
Queen Mother's attitude was very different from 1940! At this point, the Duke of
Windsor was still a problem and Mountbatten became one. Churchill took great
exception to the Mountbattens being the ruling house, and stayed as the Windsors
(??). He was against Mountbatten now, because he gave away India, amongst other
things. The monarchy became televised and public opinion shared it (???).
With the problem of Margaret
and Townsend, Churchill initially was in favour of marriage, but swung into line
with the Cabinet. In 1955 Churchill suggested that Phillip could be a prince of
the UK, and Macmillian later did it. Churchill declined the Queen's offer of a
dukedom, and she attended his dinner and wrote to him. He is still the Queen's
favourite Prime Minister. The Queen turned up for Churchill's funeral, which was
unprecedented.
In conclusion, as with so many
other areas, there were many aspects to Churchill's relationship with the
monarchy throughout his career. It operated on different levels:
1) the high rhetorical plain seeing the sovereign as a national symbol.
2) He saw them as individuals, and saw the loneliness of their position.
3)
He saw them as political issues, often a nuisance.
So, virtually everything was
negotiable! Marlborough was someone who could "pick and choose between
sovereigns", which is virtually what Churchill did! He modified his
opinions, it was not all ceaseless admiration. The same worked in reverse.
Constitutional monarchy is the art of the possible, but it was not all
negotiable. The monarchy was not – it was an institution to be revered, but
Parliament was supreme ("This was his cardinal axiom – Cannadine) ,
totally. Churchill would give way on minor issues, but on the major ones, he was
determined to prevail. Ziegler:
"it is hard to think of an occasion when Churchill changed his opinion on a
major issue because of the monarchy".
There was a symmetry to the relationship: Churchill began his career at the end of one great reign and ended it at the start of what he thought would be another. This ease and serenity was hard-won and was a long time coming. Only as he got close to the throne did each see the other's virtues. Churchill was never really a radical, and increasingly saw society and politics in a conservative light, so he saw the monarchy as the best available solution to the problems of his world. The British crown was secure through all, and he warmed to it. "No institution bears such dividends" as he said of it. The Queen, for her part, feels that she owes "her life and throne" to Churchill.
Answers
to Questions:
Churchill was disaffected with
mass democracy in the 20s and 30s because he saw people like Chamberlain
and Baldwin thrown up. He didn’t see great figures replicated. The choices
available were pretty tough. Churchill was never hostile to democracy, but was
apprehensive of mass suffrage. He was a very complicated figure, not the
cardboard cut out he's painted as. Remember the level of his rhetoric. He was
the grandson of a Duke, born in Blenheim Palace and came from a very great and
important family. Moreover, like the Spencers, it was one that was older and
greater than the Windsors! It was a very different world to ours. The social
world was important – politics and close relations with the monarchy. It is
all gone now.
Gender
issue – he did have a golden view of the young Queen. Interesting reverse,
when he was young, there was a matriarchal monarch, and when he's old, a young
filmstar monarch.
Clementine
– was certainly an admirer of Mussolini and had a signed photo in Chartwell
until the mid-1930s. Odd for a lifelong liberal. Clementine sceptical of
Churchill's attitude to the monarchy. Her judgement usually sounder than his.
Churchill's appreciation of the Biriths monarchy often shown in his actions
elsewhere. If only the great monarchies had been kept after WW1, he felt, there
would have been no Hitler, and so on. The great villain of this was Woodrow
Wilson, to Churchill. Getting rid of the monarchies, he felt, was ruinous. In
the middle east, as Colonial Secretary, he set up monarchies – entirely his
creation – modelled on the Indian princes. Kings of Greece and soon. Saw them
as a bulwark against Communism. This was ironic because, in WW2, he was allied
to two people who hated monarchies!! Churchill saw monarchies as the best of all
worlds and very much a part of the democratic principle. This shows the
differentiation Churchill made between individuals and institutions.
Before 1940, Churchill didn't
have much good to say about the USA, despite the fact that he was seen by the
establishment to be part of an American set that was Americanising Britain. His
dislike of President Wilson was very strong. New v Old World: Roosevelt hated
the monarchy and spoke of shutting the British Empire down.
Everything Churchill cared
about went in his life. Hence the title Triumph and Tragedy for the last volume
of "The Second World War". His huge effort to hang on to the empire
didn’t really work. Attlee gave it all away, Churchill saw him in the same
vein as Baldwin. Churchill lamented the loss of India
because of the loss of the Indian Army. It was not possible for Britain
to be a first-class military power without this and Churchill knew it. Britain
didn’t pay for it, and had always had that army, which was sent to put out
fires all over the Empire. Churchill was right – he had geo-political sense.
By 1950, at the age of 75, Winston Churchill's world had gone.
Back to Churchill Online Homepage
© Unless otherwise accredited, the Copyright of all photographs and text on this site is the author's, 2001/2, who claims the sole right to be identified as the author such work.
