April 25, 2015

Finest Hour 117, Winter 2002-03

Page 04

Untrue

Some weeks ago several of our glorious tabloids carried the story of the Macaw parrot (FH 116:6). I exploded and did nothing! However, now that this mendacious paragraph appears in a respectable publication I would really like to put the record straight. My father never owned a Macaw in the 1930s or at any other time as far as I am aware. He did own an African Grey Parrot in the mid- to late-Thirties. I do not know how he acquired it—it may well be as stated in the offending piece. I cannot remember the parrot’s name; it was quite disagreeable and frequently bit those who tried to curry favour with it (including WSC). It lived in a large cage in the dining room at Chartwell. The bird did not spend the war at my father’s side; when the family removed from Chartwell to London in September/October 1939 I have the impression the parrot had a good home found for it. I would be glad if Finest Hour would correct this tiresome though trivial inaccuracy.
THE LADY SOAMES, DBE, LONDON

Right

2024 International Churchill Conference

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

More

“Around & About” (FH 116) was right to cite a “curious reference” in Eliot Cohen’s Supreme Command to an International Churchill Society which “embodies the kind of hero worship that most historians instinctively reject.” Show me one great person who did not engage in hero-worship. Heroes are guides and models for right behavior and nobility of purpose. But worship in this context is a demeaning term, for it suggests irrationality. I believe most Churchillians share my view that his imperfections make Churchill a fit reminder that we cannot use our own inadequacies as an excuse for lack of accomplishment. We study his life because of his unique admixture of qualities and the way he put them at the service, amid real-life challenges, of values we share. Whatever our individual attainment, he continues to inspire us.
TOM PAZZI, WASHINGTON

Horror

What a horror, the picture on the cover of FH 115 by Bernard Hailstone! I was appalled that such a monstrosity exists, let alone on the cover of Finest Hour! It is an ugly, tenth rate work, and the artist appears even to have liberally applied bright red lipstick! It is more unattractive than the Sutherland! I note the implication that my grandfather actually sat for this inferior artist. Do we have any evidence to substantiate this?
WINSTON S. CHURCHILL, LONDON

Joy

Curt Zoller’s article on Bourke Cockran (#115) was most welcome. Cockran seemed prominent in young Winston’s life but I had no idea what he was about. And Robert Courts is only 23? If only we could clone him we would never have to worry about future leadership! I wish Chris Hanger’s articles weren’t over. Our meetings won’t be the same without him. He really took care of people who were alone at the Alaska conference. I always appreciate the book reviews. “On War Crimes” was excellent. “Winstony Blair” is disgusting.
JIM MACK, FAIRFIELD, OHIO

Non-Elites

Seeing the results of the reader survey (FH 116) reminded me that I never responded, but I concur with the favorable feedback. As for the “elitism” charge, I have been to five or six conferences and have not found an elitist attitude. I do prefer the black tie, top-drawer approach that has characterized our conferences. As for future conferences, how about Cuba? Could be a blast, and since we don’t have any “hosts,” I would be glad to help. Finally, on the Spode article, I have a USA design pitcher that has Patent 130618 on the bottom—so they succeeded in patenting it after all.
RICHARD D. BATCHELDER, BOSTON

Learned

I would like to thank you for involving students in the 19th International Churchill Conference. Although I speak only for myself, I know all my peers were grateful for the myriad things we learned. In my view, two premises underpinned the conference: First, that Winston Churchill’s life is still relevant today and will continue to be in the foreseeable future. Second, that people who believe in Churchill’s relevance have a responsibility to communicate it. As a student, I accept the first point as a premise and the second as a challenge. The conference energized me to spread the word within my sphere of influence. I thank you for broadening our horizons, and I challenge the Centre to continue the search for “glowworms” of all eras.
BRIAN GUNIA, WASHINGTON UNIV. IN ST. LOUIS

Semantics

The list of WSC’s political offices in FH 114:46 was extremely useful. However, he was not actually head of government when Prime Minister. This is the Sovereign’s prerogative, hence “Her Majesty’s government.” Churchill was always careful to respect this. Indeed the post of Prime Minister was only officially recognised by a place in the Order of Precedence in 1905. The term originated as a pejorative reference to over-ambitious Cabinet members!
ALEX CROUCHER, LONDON

Editor’s response: Paul Courtenay and I believe it’s a question of semantics, since “Head of Government” is widely used to distinguish the Head of [Her Majesty’s] Government from Her Majesty. Paul writes, “the PM is Head of Government, even though he is acting on behalf of the Head of State.” Quite right about the Order of Precedence: it was not until 1905 that the First Lord of the Treasury was officially recognized as “Prime Minister,” though the term had long been used in what was technically an informal way.

Prescience

Enclosed is a photocopy of page 228 from Churchill’s The World Crisis, vol. III, part 1 (1927) in which he mentions, with regard to the American constitution, “the legislatures of fifty Sovereign States…” Since he wrote this in the 1920s, we have to put this down as another example of Winston Churchill’s unimitated prescience!
WAYNE BRENT, CULVER CITY, CALIF.

Eighty-Nine

In “Cruising Speed” (FH 116) you commend a man of 80 for writing like a man of 40. The man of 80 should write better than a man of 40. Now a man of 89, I was taught English in school.
JERRY McCUE, LEXINGTON, MASS.

Editor’s response: On reflection, Jerry, you’re spot on! I stand corrected.