November 4, 2011

The Rt Hon Sir Winston Spencer Churchill Society of British Columbia
Annual Banquet
Friday 13th June 2008

by Admiral The Lord Boyce GCB, OBE, DL

President, members of the WSC Society of British Columbia, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Very many thanks for your kind and generous introduction.

May I start by saying many thanks for the superb dinner we have enjoyed this evening; I am sure everyone would want to join me in congratulating the team here at the Vancouver Club for looking after us so well.

2024 International Churchill Conference

Join us for the 41st International Churchill Conference. London | October 2024

More

And may I go on to say many thanks for the marvellous welcome Fleur and I have had. It really could not have been friendlier and it certainly brings back happy memories to me of the couple of times I have previously visited Canada – although not to Vancouver, so this is a most pleasant experience. And I know it is already making an indelible impression on Fleur who is on her first visit to your beautiful country.

Ladies & Gentlemen, when I was kindly asked to come and speak at your Society’s Annual Banquet, I do not think I fully appreciated what I had agreed to undertake – but that became very clear when I received a copy of the ‘Heroic Memory’. My heart sank as my eyes ran down the list of my illustrious predecessors, all of whom seem to have had some personal knowledge of Winston Churchill to judge by their excellent renditions – which made my heart sink even lower as I read them, for I make absolutely no claim to be a Churchill scholar, nor have I any personal connections with him, nor any forebears who had. So to say that I am daunted as I stand before this knowledgeable gathering is putting it mildly. I hope, at the end of my contribution his evening, you are not minded to recall with a rueful sigh WSC’s words on being asked by a young MP whether or how he might have put more fire into his speech. WSC: “What you should have done was put the speech in the fire”.

I suppose, however, I have got something going for me in that I have, in a small way, followed in some of Churchill’s footsteps.

I have been a member of the Admiralty Board, and presided over the Navy Board (the Executive Arm of the former) as First Sea Lord, sitting in the same chair as he would have used as First Lord of the Admiralty in the historic Admiralty Board Room in Whitehall; and like him, no doubt, admired the famous 300 year old Grinling Gibbons carvings around the fireplace; and been distracted by musing over what sort of decisions may have been driven by the great wind indicator as our predecessors sat in that same room in the C18th and C19th in the days of sail. Incidentally we no longer have a First Lord as such, as the Admiralty Board is now presided over by the Secretary of State for Defence – as he does over the Army and Air Force Boards.

Then I go on to reflect that, like me, Churchill was an Elder Brother of Trinity House – an honour he assumed in 1913 when he was First Lord for the first time.

Trinity House is an ancient fraternity which obtained its charter from King Henry V111 in 1514 – primarily “to act for the relief, increase and augmentation of the shipping of this realm of England” – and today is still the lead authority for safe navigation around the shores of England, responsible for all light houses and buoyage; and is also a leading world authority in this area. WSC was enormously proud of his Elder Brother uniform and greatly enjoyed wearing it on ceremonial occasions and, indeed, wore it when he accompanied the Naval Division (which he had been largely responsible for forming) when it went to try to relieve Antwerp in the First World War. And you will also have seen him wearing his Trinity House cap in the famous picture sitting down talking to Franklin D. Roosevelt on board HMS Prince of Wales in 1941 – a picture caught in the life-size sculpture of them in the same pose that can be found in Bond Street in London.

He was proud too to wear his Royal Yacht Squadron cap that one sees in many pictures with his double-breasted naval looking coat because he was, as I am, an honorary member of the Squadron.

And, of course, he was, as Lord Warden, associated with various organisations in the Cinque Port area that I am likewise involved with today such as Hastings Winkle Club – a very special charity that I am happy to talk more of afterwards if anyone wishes.

So I guess I do have a first-hand feel for some of the positions he occupied; but most of all, it is the Royal Navy connection and the ancient appointment of Lord Warden that are the strongest links – and on which you have asked me to speak tonight. Incidentally, as you will see, the Royal Navy and the Cinque Ports are inextricably linked.

“Winston is back” was the famous signal that went out to the Royal Navy when, on 3rd September 1939, WSC reassumed the role he had held some 24 years earlier as the First Lord of the Admiralty. As he later wrote, “So it was that I returned again to the room that I had quitted in pain and sorrow almost exactly a quarter of a century before”. There is no question that the Navy warmly welcomed his return, though that was by no means universal amongst the more senior who had encountered him in his first incarnation.

But for himself, he was delighted to be back in a key post after his years in the wilderness and one on which he had written in 1920 as being “the four most memorable years of my life” when describing his time as First Lord from 1911-1915.

Looking back at that particular time, there is no doubt about the impact he had on the Navy at the turn of the second decade of the 20th C – a Navy that was desperately complacent after 100 years of Pax Britannica, a Navy where smartness of ship was more important than gunnery accuracy (because nasty gunnery practice produced smoke and powder which dirtied the decks), a Navy whose initiative had been squeezed out and where proper staff work was viewed with great suspicion in the senior echelons, and a Navy that had for years been dominated by an extraordinarily powerful Admiral called Fisher.

Probably the greatest of these naval shortcomings was the lack of a proper staff – as WSC later recorded: “The Navy did not want a special class of officer professing to be more brainy than the next: sea time should be the main qualification and next to that technical aptitude”, and he went on to say “the Silent Service was not mute because it was absorbed in thought and study, but because it was weighed down by its daily routine…… so that at the outset of conflict we had more captains of ships than captains of war”. I am afraid that in this he was only too correct.

So Churchill’s arrival at the Admiralty in 1911 must have seemed something like a tsunami to the Board members and Cs in C in the Navy, for he had very firm ideas of what he wanted, and saw himself, as he said, as “accepting full responsibility for bringing about successful results, and in that spirit I exercised a close general supervision over everything that was done or proposed. Further I claimed and exercised unlimited power of suggestion and initiative over the whole field, subject only to the approval and agreement of the First Sea Lord on all operation orders”.

Ladies & Gentlemen, how a Minister squares the circle of exercising supervision at once ‘close’ and ‘general’ is difficult to imagine; and it undoubtedly lead to his getting into a level of detail that not only diminished the status of the First Sea Lord but also cramped his freedom of action, particularly when Churchill got down to drafting operational signals and telegrams – one of the worst outcomes of which, it can be argued, was the escape of the German raider Goeben in the early stages of the war; and the disaster at the Battle of Coronel where the Royal Navy lost a battle squadron off the Chilean coast, destroyed by Admiral Graff von Spee’s powerful battle group. There may have been some truth in the remark by a naval officer on one of the German marauding cruisers that “one had in the First Lord of the Admiralty an involuntary ally”.

But Churchill was very adamant in his belief in his overall philosophy and underlined it by saying “all I want is compliance of my wishes after reasonable discussion”. I am sure your President would agree with this sentiment!!

Well, his modus operandi was an excellent way to get attention from the outset and it was a philosophy that WSC very much carried over into 1939 when he once again became First Lord. But with his huge energy, innovative mind and seemingly unlimited stamina, such a mind set was bound to cause problems – especially when there was a lack of compliance from those opposed to his ideas, and who as a result might be dismissed or rusticated.

And here the lack of a properly trained staff served the Navy ill, for there was no machine equipped to channel WSC’s good ideas (of which there were plenty) in the best direction; and deflect or bury those that were bad. And there were a few of them, because WSC was, of course, not only not familiar with the Navy or the sea before 1911 – he was at heart a cavalryman, and if an idea entered his head he rode it hard! Indeed, he always remained in many respects a Hussar officer, and it is noteworthy that in his later speeches he often used military expressions and metaphors but rarely naval ones. That is not to say he did quickly rise to a naval riposte when the occasion demanded. For example, take his response to a Temperance group hectoring him about breaking a bottle of champagne across the bow of a ship at a launching ceremony because it glamorised champagne: “But Madam, the hallowed custom of the RN is indeed a splendid example of temperance. The ship takes its first sip of wine then proceeds on water ever after”!

There can be no doubt that WSC, in his first tenure, threw himself with ardour into the study of Naval Questions. New plans were evolved – very different from Lord Fisher’s and more coincident with a younger school of naval thought. They were issued in 1913, underwent some minor modifications in 1914 and remained the basis of naval strategy throughout the First World War. It is his work during that period that gives WSC his place in naval history. He had a quick flair for strategy (though this at times went disastrously wrong). He championed a scheme of naval construction sufficient to meet the burgeoning threat from Germany. He launched an initiative for the supply of oil fuel and the accumulation of an oil reserve – and encouraged the replacement of coal that so stymied Fleet endurance at sea. It was in his regime that the new classes of large warship with 15inch guns and 25 knots speed were laid down [prompting his comment: “Megalomania is the only form of sanity”]. He appreciated the necessity for protecting naval havens in the north of Great Britain in Cromarty and Scapa Flow – although he could not get the War Office to see it. He carried the naval budget estimates for 1914 through parliament in the face of hard national economic choices. And, of course, he produced a sound template for the organisation of the naval staff – although the advent of war put that on a back burner.

Suffice to say that, when the storm clouds were gathering in 1914, the Fleet was ready – and for that the country had cause to be grateful.

Winston was also interested, albeit sometimes obsessively, with new warfare ideas – he is for example given no little credit for the introduction of the tank, of turbines and of new types of guns; he supported the fledgling Fleet Air Arm, reputedly coined the expression ‘seaplane’; and he certainly saw the value of submarines. Incidentally, that is a fraternity not necessarily loved by all! In a parliamentary debate in 1901, Vice Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson VC (who won his VC on horseback incidentally!) said of the submarine that it was underhand, unfair and damned un-English; that it was no occupation for a gentleman; that submariners were all unwashed chauffeurs; and any submarine captain captured in war should be hanged as a pirate! I don’t think he liked the concept – but it did lead to one of our most famous submariners, Admiral Max Horton, initiating the tradition in the First World War of flying the Jolly Roger on returning from patrol. But I leave it to Winston Churchill to sum up the Trade as it has always called itself. In 1943, he said: “Of all the branches of men in the forces there is none which shows more devotion and faces grimmer perils than the submariner. Great deeds are done in the air and on the land; nevertheless nothing surpasses your exploits”. I could not possibly say whether this was prompted by Commander Tommy Thompson, Churchill’s PA throughout WW2 – a submariner!]

But back to WW1. It was the Dardanelles operation which brought all the more unfortunate aspects of Churchill’s type of leadership together, and marginalised all his many merits – and led to his dismissal in November 1915 after which, as we know, he acquitted himself with great distinction in command of the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers in France where he established himself as a brave and resourceful battalion commander and won the admiration of his juniors. Hands on courage is something on which he could certainly never be faulted.

It had been a turbulent four years – obviously exacerbated by the war and the relationships he had had with his admirals, some good and some bad, and where his penchant for having favourites, and definitely non favourites (usually based on his perception of their compliance and how aggressive/offensive an admiral was in his conduct of an operation), could be most corrosive. And no more can this be seen than in the love/hate relationship he had with Fisher, the fire eating architect (some would say) of the then modern navy in the first decade of the C20th whom he brought out of retirement to be his First Sea Lord at the age of 74, having sacked his first two First Sea Lords in his first couple of years in office. In the end the relationship he had with Fisher did him great harm.

Between the world wars, Churchill had little to do directly with the Royal Navy, especially when he was out of office between 1929 -39; although it is worth noting that he had been less than helpful to the naval case in the late 20s when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and became very much poacher turned game keeper, waging an annual war with the Admiralty over the Naval Estimates.

His second stint with the Service, as I have mentioned, began in September 1939 when he once again became First Lord; and he threw himself with characteristic vigour into his duties, within hours of taking up his appointment firing off signals, telegrams, directives and ‘prayers’ as they became known: “Pray tell me why/how/what….”. He had this time Admiral Sir Dudley Pound as his First Sea Lord and they were to enjoy a satisfactory working relationship until Pound died – largely from exhaustion – in 1943. And this relationship held up not least because Pound adopted a policy of not putting up brick walls to Churchill’s even wildest ideas, unless about a thing really vital, and trying to acquiesce wherever possible. Of course, this suited WSC very well, even if it did not always stand the Navy in good stead; and I can only imagine that, apart from everything else, he did not want to go through the bruising experiences he had had with Fisher as First Sea Lord in World War I. I form that view because, when Pound died, WSC (then Prime Minister of course) was most reluctant to have as his relief the aggressive Admiral Cunningham, hero of the Mediterranean, who had always been fearless in expressing his views on many of Churchill’s operational and tactical interjections. According to Alexander, who relieved Churchill in 1940 as First Lord, when WSC finally gave approval for Cunningham to be First Sea Lord, he said “Alright you can have your Cunningham, but if Admiralty don’t do as they are told I will bring down the Board in ruins even if it means my coming down with it”.

As I have just implied, WSC was not First Lord very long before he relinquished the post on becoming Prime Minister in 1940, although the inept handling of the early Norwegian campaign by the Admiralty – whose interference and constant change of plan thwarted success – was on his watch and where he was driven by his search for a ‘naval offensive’. A complaint of the Admiral in charge of the operation at sea about “the Admiralty’s intolerable action in communicating direct to the ships under my command and entirely ignoring my presence” was understandable – and it does smack a bit of WSC’s modus operandi.

But becoming PM did not separate him from the Navy because, taking note of what he had learned in WW1 about the need for central co-ordination, the lack of which played such a large part in the Dardanelles debacle, WSC created the post of Defence Minister for himself along with being PM; and the Navy very much remained under his scrutiny and, indeed, continuing direct operational input.

And, I need to say, it was not just – of the Services – that it was to the Navy that he directed his attention. As no previous Prime Minister, WSC participated with his General Staff in devising strategy and evaluating tactics, remaining in constant touch, and submitting detailed and technical memoranda. Eisenhower noted that he maintained such contact with all operations as to make him a virtual member of the British Chiefs of Staff.

It leaves me bemused to think of what it would have been like with today’s high tech comms and armaments. I can quite imagine him having the means put at his disposal to launch missiles himself!

Ladies & Gentlemen, you do not want from me now a full catalogue of the ups and downs of the RN in WW2 – starting with the sinking of the HMS Royal Oak by the submarine ace Von Prein in Scapa Flow in the first months of the war in an anchorage that the Admiralty had singularly failed to defend properly in spite of the entreaties of the Admiral on the spot; and, on the plus side, the sinking of the Graf Spee following the famous Battle of the River Plate in December 1939.

Suffice to say, as Prime Minister, Churchill kept a tight grip on naval affairs from strategy to tactics, seemingly not wanting to stand back from the role of First Lord that he had so relished in WW1. At the highest strategic level, his impact on the Navy was most felt through both his dedication to the strategic bombing of Germany at the expense of protecting and nurturing the sea lines of communication against the awesome submarine threat by denying, in particular, Coastal Command the aircraft they desperately needed; and also his scepticism about the concept of convoys. The combination of these came close to seeing the Battle of the Atlantic lost, and with it the war. I believe his thinking here largely reflected his view of the navy which he thought should be about offensive action, battle fleets charging the enemy, and so on – and not the attritional, defensive nature of anti-submarine warfare operations.

At the other end of the scale, one has to admire – be envious of – the power he exercised to get the results he wanted; and I like the example of a certain Captain Powers, an able and brilliant staff officer (subsequently to become Admiral Sir Manley Powers), who had caught WSC’s eye in 1943 with a conceptual paper that he wrote for an assault on Anzio. Later on, when WSC was convalescing at Marrakesh in 1944, he sent for him to write an appreciation for, by then, the forthcoming Anzio operation; and Powers said that he could not produce such a document behind his CinC’s back. WSC promptly ordered the Admiralty to transfer him to his staff; once Powers had done his work (which delighted the PM), WSC ordered his appointment to be torn up and Power to return to his CinC! Power reports that he had some difficulty in placating his understandably irate Chief!

To summarise my feelings about Churchill and the Royal Navy, I would say that he was a romantic at heart and he saw the navy through romantic eyes – remembering the best aspects of Pax Britannica and the creation of the Empire of which he was such a devoted admirer. And I am sure he wanted to see himself in the same light as Admiral Lord St Vincent, First Sea Lord in the dark days of the 1790s who, on being asked his views on a French invasion, said: “I know not how they will come, but it will not be by sea”! And I am certain that he enjoyed Roosevelt’s pen name for him – ‘A former naval person’.

And if there were downsides to the effect he had on the Navy through his own hand by taking direct control of events down to a fine level of detail, and the frustration this sometimes caused senior staff, against that there can be little doubt about the benefits gained by the Service from his incredible energy and fertility of ideas; and, most of all of course, there was his overall dynamic leadership of the war effort – and that was a price that maybe had to be paid. It was a leadership where outstanding physical and moral courage and readiness to face impossible or deeply unpopular issues were so palpably evident – and which gave everyone the belief that any thought of defeat was not to be entertained. As Paschal said, “Courage is the only sentiment which is a contagious as fear”. And his courage was certainly contagious.

Ladies & Gentlemen, so much for last century’s Navy. Let me now take you back 10 centuries or so to the cradle of the Royal Navy – the Cinque Ports; and there once again pick up Churchill’s trail.

The precise origins and antiquity of the Cinque Ports go back to a long-lost Royal Charter, dating from before the Norman Conquest in 1066, when the Portsmen first came together informally during the 11th Century to regulate the important herring-fair held each year at Yarmouth, on the Norfolk coast.

The common, economic interest of the herring industry was reinforced by the strategic position of the Ports themselves, on a coast constantly open to attack and controlling the important sea routes across the English Channel. It is not for nothing that the coastline around that bulge of England – from about the mouth of the Thames and Sheerness around to Hastings – was known as the invasion shore, assaulted over the centuries by Romans, Saxons, Danes, Vikings, Normans and so on; and threatened in the past couple of centuries by French and Germans.

The resultant need for some maritime capability was seen by Edward the Confessor (1042-1066), and it was he who first set about replacing the then Saxon mercenary fleet with one drawn from five ports. And in return for the grant of privileges, Edward was able to muster a fleet to maintain the important transportation links to Normandy and to protect his kingdom from attack.

The Cinque Ports [‘Cinque’ as in ‘sink’ – Norman pronunciation!], as they became called, consisted of Hastings, New Romney, Hythe, Dover and Sandwich, and under the system of ‘ship service’, in return for supplying 57 ships each with a crew of 21 men and a boy for 15 days every year – for use not only in warfare, but also to transport the King, members of his entourage and his armies to and from the Continent – the Ports were granted rights which included freedom from a large number of taxes and to raise their own, hold their own courts of law and so on. They were really serious privileges. But ship service was an onerous duty, and it became difficult for the five ports to deliver the requirement – not least because of finding manpower and in maintaining access to the sea as a result of silting up. So they enlisted the help of neighbouring towns and villages, which were known as ‘members’ or ‘limbs’, to help them fulfil their quotas of ships and crew in return for the right to share in the privileges. At one time, there were 23 limbs covering an extensive area from Essex to the north of the mouth of the Thames, all the way around the SE bulge of England to the South Coast. Today, the Confederation of the Cinque Ports consists of 14 towns; and, for those who know that part of England, the other towns are Rye, Winchelsea, Faversham, Folkestone, Margate, Deal, Ramsgate, Lydd and Tenterden.

Following the establishment of a standing fleet in the shape of the Royal Navy, during the 16th century [we never had a standing Army of course – could not trust them not to revolt and so on – which is why the Royal Navy is the senior service!!], the need for the Cinque Ports’ ship service declined and, with it, most of their privileges. But some of those rights and privileges have been retained, and the Cinque Ports Court of Admiralty still has certain jurisdiction over an extensive area of the North Sea and the English Channel, including the Straits of Dover that are amongst the busiest shipping lanes in the World, although the Court has not sat for many years.

The Cinque Ports remain very conscious of their history and, for example, are extremely proud of their coat of arms which they have exercised the right to use for many hundreds of years – a device of ‘three lions passant guardant conjoined to as many ship’s hulls’ [to use heraldic language] came into use some 800 years ago, derived from the arms of the English kings of three lions from the end of the 12th century. These were joined with three ships hulls to denote the ship service rendered by the Cinque Ports to the English Crown.

The left hand segment of the Standard you see here contains the Badge from my Coat of Arms.

I should say that Churchill took enormous pleasure and pride in his Lord Warden’s standard, which he designed to show the Cinque Port ship-lions, the Admiralty Anchor and a crown; a sailing ship, and heraldic castles, representing his ancestral home of Blenheim where he was born. It is colourfully complicated! With the King’s permission, flew it at Chartwell whenever he was there – and it is on display there today. And he even had a small version made to fly on his car. He was greatly excited when Grace Hamblin wrote him a note on 23 July 1946 when the Standard arrived for the first time at Chartwell: “Mr Churchill, the flag has arrived and Allan has put it up”. Churchill scribbled back to Grace on the note (today framed on a wall in the study at Chartwell): “Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Collay. And he chortled in his joy”. He knew that Grace was a lover of Lewis Carrol’s ‘Jaberwocky’. His Standard’s last outing was when it was flown in January 1965 on the Port of London’s launch ‘Havengore’ when it bore his body from Tower Pier to Waterloo on the day of his funeral.

As to the post of Lord Warden – or Lord Warden and Admiral of the Cinque Ports and Constable of Dover Castle (to give the full title) – which Churchill held from 1941 until his death in 1965, it is now a purely an honorary and ceremonial position. That was certainly not always so!

When the Cinque Ports were established, for many years there was little centralised control over their activities as a whole, and it was not until the start of the 13th Century, after the loss of Normandy by the English Crown, that the need was perceived for increased and more centralised supervision of the coastal defences, especially in time of war. And so, from the mid-1200s, the offices of Constable of Dover Castle (which was created about a century earlier to be the governor in command to the front door to England) and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports have been held by the same person.

And in past years there were times when the Cinque Ports were so powerful, relative to the central government, as to act almost as an Independent state. Their parliamentary representatives, appointed by the Lord Warden at first, later elected, were not abolished until the 19th century.

So the holder of this dual appointment was once a person vested with very wide and serious powers [wish I had them today as did, I am sure, Churchill in his time!], and it was not surprising that, as one of the most ancient of honours England had to offer, it was much sought-after by members of the nobility in days gone by; and the list of the 158 holders of the post includes some of the greatest names in English history: ‘The Crusader’, who became Edward I; Henry of Monmouth, Prince of Wales — the victor at Agincourt as Henry V; James, Duke of York, Lord High Admiral, who became James II, the greatest fighting seaman of the English Royal House. Six prime ministers have held the honour, Lord North, William Pitt and the Duke of Wellington among them. The only woman to have held the office, from 1979 until her death in 2002, was Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

It is easy to see why WSC was himself much attracted by the historic splendour of the appointment – although he was somewhat daunted by the cost of rates, taxes and upkeep of Walmer Castle, the residential home of the LW. This, together with the fact Walmer only lay some 20 miles across the English Channel from enemy guns and aircraft, led him to suggest to the King that he not be invited to take up dwelling in the Castle until the end of the war, saying: “This seems most necessary as otherwise I fear the proximity of the enemy’s aircraft and artillery might create a need for heavy structural repairs before long”! And, in fact, he never did take up residence at Walmer, preferring his relatively nearby beloved Chartwell

But the post and its historical maritime component did capture WSC’s attention, as I am sure did the fact that the fleet that the Cinque Ports had been tasked to provide for defensive and offensive purposes formed the cradle of the Royal Navy (incidentally, its creator Henry VIII himself was also Lord Warden as Crown Prince) – not to mention the additional title Admiral of the Cinque Ports!

Incidentally, looking back over the centuries at the maritime basis for the Cinque Ports, I find it interesting that only one other Admiral can be counted among my predecessors: Sir Robert Blake in the middle of the C17th, a key henchman of Cromwell.

But although Blake was the only obvious naval man amongst the other Lords Warden, many of them did in fact have some sort of maritime connection, not least because of their responsibility of the seaward defence of the invasion shore. Even the Duke of Wellington, another great Lord Warden and a land warrior through to his boots, would have recognised from his Peninsula campaign the Churchillian comment that the army was but a projectile to be fired by the Navy! And William Pitt, one of the most illustrious holders of the post, took the seaward defence part of the role very seriously in the dark days before Trafalgar as Colonel of the Cinque Port Volunteers, when the French threatened invasion. He was also Lord Warden whilst being Prime Minister and, indeed, it was over the long years when he was Prime Minister that the Royal Navy played such a crucial role in the history of our Country. And it was the news of Trafalgar that prompted probably his most famous speech – and incidentally the last time his voice was heard in public – when, in brushing aside congratulations to himself, he commented that “England had saved herself by her exertions and would save Europe by her example”. A familiar story I think! And how easily could our other great wartime Prime Minister-cum-Lord Warden, Churchill, have used those words.

Staying with the Lords Warden and the maritime theme, by the time he was appointed to the post, Churchill certainly also understood the sea. It was not for nothing that the Times newspaper reported on 24 September 1941: “to this august tradition of Keeper of the Gates of England and Watcher of the English Seas, Mr. Churchill now succeeds. As First Lord in two wars he has fully qualified to preside in this ancient shrine of the seafaring tradition. As the dauntless leader of the Nation in the moment of its greatest peril he can wear the symbolic dignity as no other man can do”. In the war years that followed this accolade, WSC did nothing but enhance his qualifications.

And like Pitt, Churchill too assumed an Honorary Colonel’s role in the 5th Cinque Port Battalion of the Royal Sussex Regiment – which derived from the Cinque Port Rifle Volunteers – and proudly wore their uniform with its Cinque Port badges on the lapels when he crossed the Rhine with Montgomery and Alanbrooke in March 1945, and when he visited Berlin in July 1945.

The pride that Churchill felt about being Lord Warden was evident from the outset, and it manifested itself in many ways – from the use of the pseudonym ‘Colonel Warden’ when he was travelling about the world during the war years; to his magnificent Lord Warden’s uniform (far more resplendent than mine!) that he created for his Investiture on 14 August 1946 which, as with his quasi-naval outfits, he took great delight in wearing at ceremonial occasions, whether or not it had any remote connection with the occasion – most notably at the coronation of Queen Elisabeth where he reckoned that, as Prime Minister, he should not be outshone by anyone else; and to his address at his Installation at Dover (which had taken a terrible beating throughout the war) which vibrated with Churchillian oratory: “We have moved into a new age. Secrets have been wrested from Nature, which ought to awe us and prevent the quarrels of mankind even if they cannot assuage their rivalries and suspicions. One thing at least we can promise to all: In our own place and in our own way, this glorious and pure foreshore of England, the shrine of its Christianity, the cradle of its institutions, the bulwark of its defence, will still do its best for all”. Certainly up to Pitt’s standard!

And an appropriate response to the Archbishop who presided over the Hallowing Service for the Ceremony and whose words included “By the providence of God, in the great hours of our history, England’s greatness has been evoked and amplified by a leader worthy of it. So by God’s providence it has been again. We install as Lord Warden one, who through the years of our greatest peril and achievement, has kept watch and warded for England, for Empire, and for freedom everywhere”.

Ladies & Gentlemen, I think I have gone on long enough. Let me conclude by saying that I believe Winston Churchill had a real fondness for his country’s maritime heritage. He appeared to be a good sailor and enjoyed being at sea – he certainly made a lot use out of the Admiralty Yacht ‘Enchantress’ during his first time as First Lord although, as he wrote to Clemmie, his view of being on a ship in bad weather was like being in prison except with the added chance of being drowned! And I believe he felt it was a special privilege to be in charge of the Royal Navy – which held a special place in his heart where it probably provided a mixture of pleasure and indigestion – and he wanted to do all he could to see it live up to its past glories. And I think he saw the post of Lord Warden as an extension of all that and he will have had satisfaction, historian as he was, of knowing he had a niche in that part of our island’s ancient history.

Admiral Michael Boyce, born April 2, 1943 in Cape Town, South Africa, is a member of the British House of Lords, a former First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy and Chief of Defence Staff. Educated at Hurstpierpoint College, he joined the Royal Navy in 1961. A submariner, he commanded the submarines HMS Oberon, HMS Opossum and HMS Superb. From 1986 to 1991 he held several posts at the Ministry of Defence, first as Assistant Director of Naval Plans and then as Director of Naval Staff Duties. From 1992 to 1995 he was Flag Officer, Surface Flotilla and from 1995 to 1997 he was Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command. He was appointed Commander-in-Chief Fleet in 1997, First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff in 1998 and Chief of Defence Staff in 2001. After retiring as Chief of Defence Staff in 2003, he was created a life peer as Baron Boyce of Pimlico in the City of Westminster and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and Constable of Dover Castle.