Email: [email protected]
NEW YORK—Your number 175 on “ The Churchill Women ” is an outstanding theme, extremely well executed. Congratulations. I am also pleased that you use the Chicago Manual of Style. When my footnotes or endnotes are so extensive, I sometimes truncate them. My teachers in undergraduate and graduate school would take the ruler to me. —Lewis E. Lehrman
MONT-SAINT-AIGNAN, FRANCE— Our new International Churchill Society President Randolph Churchill was so pleased with my “biting” review of the biographie gourmande in FH 175 [p. 46] that he had a quiet word with his good friend Christian Pol-Roger. Imagine my surprise when I received a carton of six 2008 vintage bottles!—Antoine Capet
In the first paragraph on page 6 of FH 175, the year of the wedding of Churchill’s parents was incorrectly given as 1875 instead of 1874. The Editor is aghast at his oversight, which was not the fault of the author. Can we blame the Pol Roger? [Yes, yes we can.—Dep. Ed.]
SHAKER HEIGHTS, OH—In his article “Cape Town Gold: A Churchill Myth in Reverse” in FH 172, Professor Warren Kimball wrote that Churchill “had printed in his memoir a draft message as having been sent to Roosevelt” when it was not. It was recently brought to Professor’s Kimball’s attention that British Foreign Office records as well as the Official Biography both indicate the message was sent. Based on this, Professor Kimball allowed that the message may have been sent, but he pointed out that it did not mean that Roosevelt received the message, for he was unable to locate it among the Roosevelt Papers during his research for his Churchill and Roosevelt: The Complete Correspondence.—Michael McMenamin
Get the Churchill Bulletin delivered to your inbox once a month.