“The monarchy signified for himsomething of infinite value, atonce numinous and luminous; and if youwill allow the remark in parenthesis,ladies and gentlemen, do you not sometimeslong for someone at the summit ofour public life who can think and writeat that level?”SADNESS: TheQueen returnshome after thedeath of herfather, GeorgeVI, Feburary1952. At thefoot of thestairs (r-l) arethe PrimeMinister,OppostionLeader Attlee,and ForeignSecretary Eden.realized how much the King meant to him,” we find inSir John Colville’s diary. “I tried to cheer him up by sayinghow well he would get on with the new Queen, butall he could say was that he did not know her and thatshe was only a child.” 7This was merely a momentary expression, utteredat a moment of profound sadness, and not one by which<strong>Churchill</strong> would have wished to stand once his spirit wasless troubled.It is a measure of his longevity in politics thatwhen he proposed the motion for addresses of sympathy,he could remind the House of Commons that he hadbeen an MP whenever such a motion had been movedin the past, in 1901, in 1910, and in 1936. It now fell to<strong>Churchill</strong> to describe Queen Elizabeth as a fair andyouthful figure, Princess, wife and mother, “heir to allour traditions and glories, never greater than in herfather’s days, and to all our perplexities and dangers,never greater in peacetime than now. She is also heir toall our united strength and loyalty.” 8The new monarch was ascending the throne, heremarked, at a moment when tormented mankind stoodpoised uncertainly between worldwide catastrophe onthe one side and a golden age on the other. In speakingof catastrophe, he had in mind the enmity between thewest and Russia, and the awful prospects opened up inthe age of nuclear warfare; whereas if only a true andlasting peace could be achieved and if “the nations willonly let each other alone,” undreamed-of prosperity,with culture and leisure ever more widely spread, mightcome to the masses of the people everywhere. 9<strong>Churchill</strong> adored the Queen. You will perhapsthink the language unsuitable or even a little disrespectful;but no lesser expression will do. Gazing at a photographin 1953, the one which shows her in a white dressand with long white gloves, displaying that enchantingsmile which lights up her face as if a blind had suddenlybeen raised, the Prime Minister mused, “Lovely, she is apet. I fear they may ask her to do too much. She isdoing so well.” 10And again a week or two later, as he contemplatedthe same photograph, “Lovely, inspiring. All the filmpeople in the world, if they had scoured the globe, couldnot have found anyone so suited to the part.” 11 Thereuponhe immediately began to sing from the hymn, “Yetnightly pitch my moving tent/A day’s march nearerhome.” (If you object that this piece of informationseems scarcely relevant to my theme, I merely rejoin thathistorians are sticklers for completeness and love goingoff at a tangent.)The Queen wished to confer the Order of theGarter, which he had declined when offered in 1945,upon <strong>Churchill</strong>. He had then felt that it would be inappropriateto receive such a distinction upon the morrowof his rejection at the General Election; whereas in thesummer of the Coronation, the moment seemed morepropitious. Her Private Secretary broached the matterwith the Prime Minister in persuasive terms. This time,<strong>Churchill</strong> capitulated without much resistance but witha good deal of emotion. Then he said with a grin, “NowClemmie will have to be a lady at last.” 12<strong>Churchill</strong> travelled far less than he had done duringthe war and when Parliament was sitting would normallywait upon Her Majesty at Buckingham Palaceeach week. Her Private Secretary remained in an anteroom,unable to hear the conversation but catching pealsof laughter. “<strong>Winston</strong> generally came out wiping hiseyes,” Sir Alan Lascelles once recorded. “‘She is en grandebeauté ce soir,’ he said one evening in his schoolboyFrench.” 13In those final years of office, <strong>Churchill</strong> had combinedrearmament and the strengthening of NATO witha prolonged effort to build some kind of bridge toRussia. He repeatedly postponed resignation andendured some sharp passages with his colleagues in consequence.By the spring of 1955, he knew it was time togo. A few days after his departure, the Queen wrote inher own hand from Windsor to say that while her confidencein Anthony Eden was complete, “it would be uselessto pretend that either he or any of those successorswho may one day follow him in office will ever, for me,be able to hold the place of my first Prime Minister, toFINEST HOUR 135 / 52
whom both my husband and I owe so much and forwhose wise guidance during the early years of my reign Ishall always be so profoundly grateful.” 14We may think of <strong>Churchill</strong> as an amiable or evenreverent agnostic, who conceived of himself not as a pillarof the church but perhaps as a flying buttress. He didnot invoke the Deity casually or cynically, a fact whichconfers its own interest upon his touching and heartfeltreply to the Queen:Our Island no longer holds the same authority or powerthat it did in the days of Queen Victoria. A vast worldtowers up around it and after all our victories we couldnot claim the rank we hold were it not for the respect forour character and good sense and the general admirationnot untinged by envy for our institutions and way of life.All this has already grown stronger and more solidlyfounded during the opening years of the present Reign,and I regard it as the most direct mark of God’s favour wehave ever received in my long life that the whole structureof our new-formed Commonwealth has been linked andilluminated by a sparkling presence at its summit. 15The monarchy signified for him something of infinitevalue, at once numinous and luminous; and if youwill allow the remark in parenthesis, ladies and gentlemen,do you not sometimes long for someone at thesummit of our public life who can think and write atthat level?Sir <strong>Winston</strong> was not mistaken in drawing attentionto the Queen’s role within the Commonwealth. Hecould not have foreseen how quickly governments in thiscountry, as distinct from many millions of individual citizens,would cease to feel any serious interest in theCommonwealth. Indeed, it is not clear that the associationcould have survived in a recognisable form but forthe Queen’s unfeigned commitment to it.We have failed in knowledge, by which I meanthat we have been far too ready to accept one-sidedaccounts of our relations with countries in every part ofthe Commonwealth; and we have failed in self-belief, forif we cannot be troubled to defend ourselves againstassertions that Empire was nothing more than a cloakfor greed and extortion, we should scarcely be surprisedif others multiply such allegations, sometimes on themost grotesque scale. Now we need an exercise of constructiveimagination, to realize what Commonwealthconnections can do, not only for us but for a muchwider community. Though much has been lost beyondretrieval, a good deal remains. To give fresh life to thoseconnections, to promote better understanding betweencountries and friendship between races, is of supremeimportance. Perhaps that fact is now a little more apparentthan it was, say, ten or twenty years ago. It is a taskin part for politicians, but also for all of us; and, giventhe Queen’s identification of herself and the monarchywith the Commonwealth over a span of sixty years, forthe coming generation in the Royal Family.When <strong>Churchill</strong>, nearing the age of eighty, lookedupon the Queen’s picture in a newspaper, he murmured“The country is so lucky.” 16 Exactly so; we should be lessshy of acknowledging the fact.“We have failed in knowledge, bywhich I mean that we havebeen far too ready to accept one-sidedaccounts of our relations with countriesin every part of the Commonwealth; andwe have failed in self-belief, for if wecannot be troubled to defend ourselvesagainst assertions that Empire was nothingmore than a cloak for greed andextortion, we should scarcely be surprisedif others multiply such allegations, sometimeson the most grotesque scale.”Endnotes1. There are many versions of this story in print, but the most reliableis in Chambers, R.W., Man’s Unconquerable Mind (London:Jonathan Cape, 1939), 380-81.2. On the resignation of Anthony Eden as foreign secretary, 20February 1938. <strong>Churchill</strong>, <strong>Winston</strong> S., The Second World War, vol. 2,Their Finest Hour (London: Cassell, 1949), 201.3. WSC to the King, 5 January 1941, ibid., 554.4. <strong>Churchill</strong>’s capacious memory produced this quotation ofShakespeare (Troilus and Cressida, iii. 3) in the House of Commons, 22October 1947. <strong>Churchill</strong>, Europe Unite (London: Cassell, 1950), 168.5. WSC to Princess Elizabeth, 20 May 1951. Gilbert, op. cit., 613.6. House of Commons, 19 November 1951. <strong>Churchill</strong>, Stemmingthe Tide (London: Cassell, 1953), 194.7. Colville, John R.,The Fringes of Power (London: Hodder &Stoughton, 1985), 640.8. House of Commons, 11 February 1952. Stemming the Tide,op. cit., 244.9. Ibid., 245.10. WSC to Lord Moran, 3 February 1953. Moran, Charles,<strong>Churchill</strong>: The Struggle for Survival (London: Constable, 1966), 427.11. Ibid., 429.12. Hart-Davis, D. (ed.), King’s Counsellor (London: Weidenfeld& Nicolson, 2006), 344.13. Ibid., 340.14. The Queen to WSC, 11 April 1955. Gilbert, op. cit., 1126.15. WSC to the Queen, from Sicily, 8 April 1955, ibid., 1128.16. WSC to Lord Moran, 4 November 1953. Moran, The Strugglefor Survival, op. cit., 528. ,FINEST HOUR 135 / 53