Contact

Contact

Ques­tions? Com­ments? Ask away:

43 thoughts on “Contact

  1. Thank you. I’m review­ing Scott’s book now and will post in a few weeks on our Hills­dale site, https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/
    Search there for “bib­li­og­ra­phy” and you’ll find a list of books about Churchill with brief reviews back to 1905. This is not up to date pend­ing a new site design, but more recent books are reviewed in depth in the “Books” sec­tion. Please sub­scribe to both sites as I often post only extracts of my Hills­dale arti­cles here. It is our objec­tive ulti­mate­ly to list every seri­ous Churchill title. The V-12 Cen­tu­ry is cer­tain­ly a great one.

  2. I have just been intro­duced to your web­site and am look­ing for­ward to many hours of brows­ing. I won­dered if you have had the good for­tune to read Churchill At The Gal­lop by Brough Scott as I can find no ref­er­ence on the web­site. It is a per­spec­tive on WSC through his asso­ci­a­tion with the horse by one of our fore­most horse rac­ing jour­nal­ists. Inci­den­tal­ly I am also a motor car enthu­si­ast cur­rent­ly dri­ving a Toy­ota Cen­tu­ry. Designed to cel­e­brate Mr Toyota’s 100th birth­day in 1967 it has a hand­built V12 engine and was in pro­duc­tion with only minor cos­met­ic changes from 1967 until 2017. A new body shape was intro­duced last year.

  3. Your ques­tions are good ones and I will post a fuller reply on my web­site, but I will try for the nonce to pro­vide a brief answer. I am glad you have my book because it answers your first ques­tion on the same page:

    He did write some­thing sim­i­lar in 1897, when he was twen­ty-three: a note past­ed into his copy of the 1874 Annu­al Reg­is­ter, where he was review­ing polit­i­cal issues to decide which side he would take…. [His] oppo­si­tion was “on the grounds that it is con­trary to nat­ur­al law and the prac­tice of civ­i­lized states[;] that no neces­si­ty is shown[;] that only the most unde­sir­able class of women are eager for the right[;] that those women who dis­charge their duty to the state viz mar­ry­ing and giv­ing birth to chil­dren are ade­quate­ly rep­re­sent­ed by their hus­bands[;] that those who are unmar­ried can only claim a vote on the ground of prop­er­ty, which claim on demo­c­ra­t­ic prin­ci­ples is inad­mis­si­ble…” (WSC, “Com­ments on [1874] Annu­al Reg­is­ter, 1897,” in The Churchill Doc­u­ments, vol. 2, Young Sol­dier 1896-1901, Hills­dale, Mich.: Hills­dale Col­lege Press, 2006, 765.)

    I go on to say that Churchill’s views on suf­frage in 1897 were not only those of most British peo­ple, but most British women, includ­ing his moth­er. When the suf­frage move­ment gath­ered steam, and encour­aged by his wife Clemen­tine, he changed his view. There is a vast sub­text to this, which I will expand upon lat­er. But as an MP, he nev­er wavered from his view that sex dis­crim­i­na­tion was wrong.

    Con­cern­ing Churchill’s let­ter to Asquith on 21 Novem­ber 1911: An extract from this let­ter is in both the Offi­cial Biog­ra­phy (Vol. 2, 405) and The Churchill Doc­u­ments Vol. V (Orig­i­nal­ly Com­pan­ion Vol­ume II part 3), page 1475. But the words you quote from that source are not there. I am com­par­ing the extract line by line in search of our “smok­ing gun.” Fic­ti­tious quotes twist­ed or made up to suit people’s pre­con­ceived prej­u­dices are, of course, not unique to Churchill.

    To your sec­ond ques­tion: The Churchill Archives—one mil­lion doc­u­ments, vir­tu­al­ly every one he produced—fail to pro­vide any instruc­tions about han­dling suf­frag­ists dat­ed 16 or 18 Novem­ber 1910. They do how­ev­er con­tain his 22 Novem­ber let­ter to Sir Edward Hen­ry, Com­mis­sion­er of the Met­ro­pol­i­tan Police. Direct­ly address­ing “Black Fri­day,” it refers to no ear­li­er instruc­tions. It clear­ly sets out Churchill’s views on police han­dling of demon­stra­tors:

    Dear Sir E. Hen­ry, I am hear­ing from every quar­ter that my strong­ly expressed wish­es con­veyed to you on Wednes­day evening and repeat­ed on Fri­day morn­ing that the suf­fragettes were not to be allowed to exhaust them­selves but were to be arrest­ed forth­with upon any defi­ance of the law, were not observed by the police on Fri­day last, with the result that very regret­table scenes occurred. It was my desire to avoid this even at some risk; to arrest large num­bers and then sub­se­quent­ly to pros­e­cute only where seri­ous grounds were shown and I am sor­ry that, no doubt through a mis­un­der­stand­ing, anoth­er course has been adopt­ed. In future I must ask for a strict adher­ence to the pol­i­cy out­lined here­in. Yours very sin­cere­ly, WSC

    These false alle­ga­tions have been around for over a cen­tu­ry, and are with us yet. In “Post-Truth” His­to­ry on the Hills­dale Churchill web­site, his­to­ri­an Andrew Roberts writes:

    At the Jaipur Lit­er­ary Fes­ti­val, I was on a pan­el dis­cus­sion enti­tled “Churchill: Hero or Vil­lain?,” where a biog­ra­ph­er told a large crowd that Churchill…had “giv­en instruc­tions for police that they can bat­ter the women and assault the women and sex­u­al­ly assault them as well.” He alleged­ly told police­men to “put their hands up their thighs, they can grope them and press their breasts.” “Can I just point out that that is com­plete­ly untrue?” I inter­vened. “He at no stage ever okayed the sex­u­al assault of any woman ever. It would be mon­strous were it to be true, but there’s no evi­dence for it.” To which she replied: “It’s your word against mine.” Wel­come to post-truth his­to­ry…. Any­one who knows any­thing about Churchill knows how gal­lant he was towards women, even towards suf­frag­ists who dis­rupt­ed his polit­i­cal meet­ings. It is unthink­able that he would have let it be known that such dis­gust­ing behav­iour would be tol­er­at­ed offi­cial­ly or unof­fi­cial­ly. It is for­tu­nate for the his­to­ri­an who made this alle­ga­tion from the stage of the Jaipur Lit­er­ary Fes­ti­val that the dead can­not sue for libel, as if they could she would be bank­rupt­ed.

  4. I am a His­to­ry stu­dent at the Uni­ver­si­ty of West­min­ster in Lon­don and for my dis­ser­ta­tion, I am writ­ing about the rela­tion­ship between Home Sec­re­tary Churchill, the Met­ro­pol­i­tan Police, and their treat­ment of Suf­fragettes dur­ing the Lon­don demon­stra­tions of 18-23 Novem­ber 1910—particularly on Black Fri­day on the 18th. There are two areas where I hope you may be able to assist me.

    The first ques­tion relates to an alleged quote by Churchill relat­ing to his con­ser­v­a­tive views on women gen­er­al­ly and women’s suf­frage in par­ti­clu­ar: “The women’s suf­frage move­ment is only the small edge of the wedge, if we allow women to vote it will mean the loss of social struc­ture and the rise of every lib­er­al cause under the sun. Women are well rep­re­sent­ed by their fathers, broth­ers and hus­bands.”

    In your book Win­ston Churchill, Myth and Real­i­ty you main­tain on page 25 that Churchill nev­er said these words in or out of the House of Com­mons, yet anoth­er source I have found sug­gests that Churchill did say these words in a let­ter to Asquith on 21 Decem­ber 1911. It is intrigu­ing as why such words should be invent­ed if nev­er said, so would you be able to shed light on why you dis­missed the quot­ed state­ment.

    For my sec­ond ques­tion, I am search­ing for the instruc­tions appar­ent­ly issued by Churchill to the Com­mis­sion­er of the Met­ro­pol­i­tan Police as per Churchill’s let­ter dat­ed 22 Novem­ber 1910 which refers to instruc­tions issued by Churchill on the 16th and 18th as to how the suf­fragette demon­stra­tors were to be han­dled. In your research­es on Churchill, have you come across these instruc­tions?

  5. I grew up in South Bend next door to the Alt­mans. I have mem­o­ries of being a young kid and see­ing sev­er­al Avan­tis in their dri­ve­way. I thought one day I would own one, but it nev­er hap­pened. Is there a way for me to buy your Stude­bak­er book for less than a hun­dred dol­lars? Is there an Avan­ti sto­ry to tell from 1970 on that hasn’t been told?

    I grad­u­at­ed from Hills­dale many years ago. I’m glad to see them take advan­tage of your wis­dom and tal­ent.

  6. All three movies are being over-dra­mat­ic. He nev­er parad­ed around naked in front of sec­re­taries or any­one else (includ­ing Roo­sevelt, whose encounter with Churchill, fresh from his bath, was inad­ver­tent). He did dic­tate occa­sion­al­ly from his bath, shield­ed by the door. One one or two occa­sions he might have appeared indeco­rous, out of pre­oc­cu­pa­tion with what­ev­er he was doing. In no way did any of this con­sti­tute “harass­ment.” He sim­ply wasn’t made that way.

  7. I came upon your blog search­ing on “Win­ston Churchill naked.” Accord­ing to at least 3 movies, he would dic­tate to his female sec­re­taries sit­ting just out­side while he was in the bath. One of the movies has him walk­ing past her naked. I’m writ­ing a book on sex­u­al harass­ment and talk­ing about “tra­di­tions” of harass­ment. Is it true that he did this? Thank you.

  8. Was that the book proofed by Paul Courte­nay? Yes. Please send to me c/o Hills­dale Col­lege Churchill Project, 33 East Col­lege Street
    Hills­dale MI 49242 USA. Thanks.

  9. Dear Richard,

    I hope you are well.

    I won­der if you would be inter­est­ed to receive a copy of ‘Churchill’s Con­fi­dant’, an upcom­ing book that describes the remark­able sto­ry of Win­ston Churchill’s rela­tion­ship with Jan Smuts. It is a book that I hope you would enjoy as it cov­ers an area of Churchill’s life that, to my mind, has been inad­e­quate­ly doc­u­ment­ed over the years.

    Please do let me know if you’d like me to send a copy.

    With very best wish­es,

    Tom

  10. Hel­lo Richard
    You have some very nice pic­tures of Mr. Churchill’s pock­et watch in the arti­cle about it. I am in the process of writ­ing a book about men’s jew­el­ry and would like to use them. Are they yours or can you help me with a source?
    BR. Oliv­er

  11. Thanks so much for the kind words, always hard to come by. Delight­ed to advise that the French­man was “about” right. From Sir Robert Rhodes James, ed., Win­ston S. Churchill: His Com­plete Speech­es 1897-1963 (New York: Bowk­er, 1974, 8 vols.) I 316-17. A heck­ler had sug­gest­ed that Churchill, hav­ing just changed his par­ty, might change it again….

    ADMINISTRATIVE HOME RULE FOR IRELAND
    16 June 1904, Pub­lic Hall, Cheetham Hill, Man­ches­ter

    “We are gath­ered here and I stand here with Lib­er­al sup­port as the Free Trade can­di­date for North-west Man­ches­ter because a dis­tin­guished politi­cian has changed his mind. Many peo­ple change their minds in pol­i­tics. Some peo­ple change their minds to avoid chang­ing their par­ty. (Laugh­ter) Some peo­ple change their par­ty to avoid chang­ing their mind. (Renewed laugh­ter)”

    The “dis­tin­guished politi­cian” was Joseph Cham­ber­lain, who had desert­ed Free Trade for “Empire Free Trade” (pro­tec­tive tar­iffs on goods from out­side the British Empire).

    The date is con­fus­ing, since Churchill did not actu­al­ly stand for North-west Man­ches­ter until 1906. It was in his sights, how­ev­er, because he knew he would not be renom­i­nat­ed as Con­ser­v­a­tive Mem­ber for Old­ham. Two weeks ear­li­er (31 May) he had crossed the floor of the House of Com­mons, desert­ing the Con­ser­v­a­tives for the Lib­er­als. (Inci­den­tal­ly, when the elec­tion did come, he won NW Man­ches­ter hand­i­ly, 5639 to 4398; but they threw him out in April 1908. The fol­low­ing month he got back in for Dundee, which he rep­re­sent­ed as a Lib­er­al until 1922.)

  12. I would like to con­grat­u­late you for your ded­i­cat­ed efforts to sep­a­rate truth from false­hood regard­ing the life of a his­tor­i­cal fig­ure of such impor­tance. I stum­bled on your work while mak­ing online research regard­ing Churchill’s posi­tion on the Euro­pean con­struc­tion, although I haven’t read yet your Win­ston Churchill, Myth and Real­i­ty. I’m look­ing for­ward to do so.

    In a recent polit­i­cal argu­ment between two politi­cians in France, Churchill was quot­ed as say­ing: “Some men change their par­ty for the sake of their prin­ci­ples ; oth­ers their prin­ci­ples for the sake of their par­ty”, did he ever utter these words and if so in what con­text and when?

  13. I have a ques­tion that I hope you can answer. I’m writ­ing a book on the 1939 strike at Chrysler. In your co-authored book on the com­pa­ny, you dis­cuss the mod­els by year. Is that the chrono­log­i­cal year or the mod­el year, as they used the term it then? For exam­ple, when you dis­cuss the engi­neer­ing changes for 1940 (99), does that refer to pro­duc­tion that began in August, 1939 or in August, 1940?

  14. Thanks for the kind words. I’ll make your ques­tion into a post and run the illus­tra­tion: watch the web­site. The draw­ing is by Frank Spring’s styling staff at Hud­son, but only an alter­na­tive pro­pos­al for the basic “Step-Down” Hud­son. My guess of the artist is Art Kibiger, but there’s more to the sto­ry. Alas the only pro­to­type draw­ings I could find are in the book. Hud­son had the habit of destroy­ing pro­to­type images, and these came from the design­ers I inter­viewed.

  15. Recent­ly I picked up your book Hud­son 1946-1957: The Clas­sic Post­war Years and found it an excel­lent read. On page 38 is a ter­rif­ic sketch of a car that should have been built, rather than the designs that man­age­ment chose. My ques­tion is who drew that sketch? It seems a bit unclear, and are there more draw­ings like that in exis­tence. It would make a ter­rif­ic guide for a project car.

  16. I am an artist of fine art lith­o­graphs and etch­ings, and am the unnamed, unrec­og­nized artist who worked direct­ly with Sarah Churchill and Cur­tis Hoop­er on the entire “Churchill series.” Sarah and I select­ed every quote that was blind embossed on every ORIGINAL print. I cre­at­ed the print­ed copy of every quote that was then made into a plate and used to blind-emboss adja­cent to Cur­tis Hooper’s image of Sir Win­ston and above the blind emboss­ing cre­at­ed by Sarah. Cur­tis was allowed to sign on the lith­o­graph plate, which was then print­ed on each print with his orig­i­nal draw­ing. Sarah hand signed her sig­na­ture in pen­cil on every ORIGINAL. My sig­na­ture was under­stand­ably not allowed, but I appre­ci­at­ed the priv­i­lege of being a part of what was a large project.

  17. One can only review these with spe­cial per­mis­sion of the Prime Min­is­ter of the day. Sug­gest you make a request of your Mem­ber of Par­lia­ment.

  18. In a 4 May 2015 post, A.R. of Lon­don states “I reviewed the 1940-45 vis­i­tors books at Che­quers”. My moth­er was at Che­quers in March 1943 and I want to get a copy of the page that she signed on March 15 (maybe 14), between Antho­ny Eden and the King of Greece, but I don’t know whom to ask. How can I review these vis­i­tors books?

  19. You com­ment­ed to The Syd­ney Morn­ing Herald/The Age that Churchill nev­er said the words they ascribed to him: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/parliamentarians-fail-basic-english-proficiency-test-20170623-gwxfpd.html

    “Win­ston Churchill is report­ed to have described Aus­tralian Eng­lish as ‘the most bru­tal mal­treat­ment which has ever been inflict­ed upon the moth­er tongue of the great Eng­lish-speak­ing nations.'”

    You are of course com­plete­ly cor­rect. It’s by New York-born philol­o­gist *William* Churchill (1859-1920), in his 1911 book Beach-la-Mar, the Jar­gon or Trade Speech of the West­ern Pacif­ic, p. 14. The book can be found online at babel.hathitrust.org.

    One could say some­thing sar­cas­tic like, “Jour­nal­ists fail basic fact-check­ing test”, but in grudg­ing fair­ness to the author it’s mis­at­trib­uted all over the inter­net.

  20. If you refer to the mon­tage of illus­tra­tions it was designed by arrist Char­lotte Thibault (Google her), and incor­po­rates a paint­ing by Char­lotte of Churchill and Eisen­how­er vis­it­ing the Get­tys­burg bat­tle­field.

  21. Hel­lo, I am an fol­low­er of most things Churchillian, in par­tic­u­lar fresh images, since I am a quite pro­lif­ic ‘Churchill’ artist. The car­i­ca­ture which illus­trates your ‘blog’ I find very inter­est­ing and would like to know who the artist was.Thanks for the very enjoy­able con­tent.

  22. I have writ­ten noth­ing for The Fed­er­al­ist so I am not sure what piece of mine you refer to. I did read the 1994 arti­cle, “How Churchill, Rhodes and Smuts caused black South Africans to lose their rights.” I find it gen­er­al­ly accu­rate, but not dis­pos­i­tive.

    It is true that Britain dropped its oppo­si­tion to mak­ing South Africa “white man’s coun­try” by pass­ing the Union of South Africa Act 1910. Churchill sup­port­ed that Act because he saw it as the one way to ease lin­ger­ing ten­sions with the Boers. Churchill jus­ti­fied his sup­port of the Act by say­ing explic­it­ly that it was the best pos­si­ble, and he did not like it.

    Churchill was a polit­i­cal man. He need­ed, and thought he need­ed, the votes of a major­i­ty. If he lived in an age of prej­u­dice (and every age is that) then of course he would be care­ful how he offend­ed those prej­u­dices. See “Churchill and Racism
    It is quite true that Smuts believed in the “white man’s coun­try” and in seg­re­ga­tion in his ear­li­er years. But the arti­cle doesn’t men­tion that when the pro-Apartheid Nation­al Par­ty won the 1948 elec­tion, they defeat­ed Smuts, who had run in sup­port of the Fagin Com­mis­sion, which rec­om­mend­ed relax­ing seg­re­ga­tion.

    Both Churchill and Smuts ear­ly expressed very lib­er­al atti­tudes toward races their respec­tive soci­eties gen­er­al­ly con­sid­ered infe­ri­or. In 1900, young Win­ston argued with his Boer cap­tors that blacks were enti­tled to the same rights as any oth­ers in the British Empire. In 1939, Smuts wrote an essay for a com­mem­o­ra­tive book on Gandhi’s 70th birth­day. Although Churchill and Smuts were Gand­hi adver­saries at times, they had a mutu­al respect and even admi­ra­tion for each oth­er. See “Wel­come, Mr. Gand­hi.”

  23. I have read your arti­cle about bust­ing four myths about Win­ston Churchill from The Fed­er­al­ist. There is this one arti­cle I have that I like you to read and I’d like to hear your feed­back. Click here.

  24. Kieron, sor­ry, I have no knowl­edge. Try the book Mas­ter Motor Builders by Robert Neal, which is the last word on the sub­ject includ­ing Packard’s involve­ment with the Rolls-Royce Mer­lin in WW2.

  25. Hi Richard. Jonathan Stein thought of you when i posed this ques­tion to him. I’m an expat Brit at Hager­ty in the US and read an intrigu­ing side­bar in an old RR arti­cle recent­ly from about 10 or 20 years ago……it implied a con­nec­tion with the end of the Packard days and the devel­op­ment of the 6.75 RR engine around the same time. Do you know if that is just rumour or did in fact some tech­nol­o­gy or tool­ing or brain­pow­er make its way from Packard to Crewe in the late 50s? Many thanks, Kieron.

  26. Hey Russ-I sold my new ’69 in ’71. It was a con­stant pain with the fed­er­al air pump and I had no room or mon­ey to keep it as a sou­venir. It has since been paint­ed and hot-rod­ded. But it’s still going!

  27. Richard –

    I sold my last Cor­vair recent­ly, ’twas a bit­ter­sweet moment.

    Still have a bunch of NOS and used parts, thank good­ness for eBay.

    What’s your cur­rent Cor­vair sta­tus?

    Russ

  28. My com­ments to Mr. Reid were pri­vate. I know he con­sid­ered them all, but he was the author. WSC was cer­tain­ly an “opti­mistic agnos­tic” him­self, but he respect­ed all reli­gions (includ­ing Islam, despite fre­quent­ly being quot­ed out of con­text on it). He knew the King James Bible bet­ter than some the­olo­gians. His many ref­er­ences to “Chris­t­ian civ­i­liza­tion” make his view of it self-evi­dent. Of course every­one has their own opin­ions of Churchill’s views. There are a lot to con­sid­er.

  29. THE LAST LION — PREAMBLE
    As a past mem­ber of the Churchill Soci­ety (Reves Chap­ter) and avid read­er of near­ly all of his books I have long await­ed com­ple­tion of this trol­o­gy. Hav­ing jsut com­plet­ed the Pre­am­ble I won­der what you thought regard­ing the author’s rather strong sup­po­si­tions and con­clu­sions they drew regard­ing WSC’s views on Chris­tian­i­ty (not church­go­ing or cler­gy, the proof is in the pud­ding there).
    I felt there were two era’s in these quotes (sup­port­ed by foot­notes dat­ing con­tent) — youth vs. the wis­dom of age — and they were not dis­cussed. There seemed to be many pre­con­ceived sup­po­si­tions that felt more like the author’s views were super­im­posed over WSC’s. There were defi­nate con­flicts — but quotes on Heav­en alwsy seemed to be cites as cyn­i­cism. Seems to me WSC could be more like Thomas Jef­fer­son and his con­flict­ing views. I sim­ply did not see the con­clu­sion that he was an Agnos­tic sup­port­ed.

  30. We have cor­re­spond­ed in the past – I believe you are from the Har­ris­burg, PA area. I live Mechan­ics­burg. I am glad to hear that Vol III of the “Last Lion” series is com­ing soon. I am excit­ed to read it.

    Thank you.

    David A. Lar­son, Sr.
    CDR, USN, Retiered

  31. You might be inter­est­ed in this (undat­ed) mag­a­zine, Tai­lor and Cut­ter, fea­tur­ing Churchill and Eden on the cov­er:
    http://www.permanentstyle.co.uk/

    The blog­ger com­ments (favor­ably) on Churchill’s cloth­ing and specif­i­cal­ly his bow tie!

  32. SEO| Inter­net Mar­ket­ing| Web­site Design­ing

    Hi

    What would a huge increase in rel­e­vant traf­fic mean for your busi­ness? If I could great­ly increase the amount of cus­tomers who are inter­est­ed in your prod­ucts and ser­vices, wouldn’t you be inter­est­ed.

    In order for us to respond to your request for infor­ma­tion, please include your company’s web­site address (manda­to­ry) and /or phone num­ber.

    Sin­cere­ly,
    Gary Smith
    garyinternetmarketing@gmail.com
    COMPLETE INTERNET MARKETING SOLUTION
    SEO – Link Build­ing – Copy­right – Web Design­ing – PHP

  33. I con­grat­u­late you on your web­site. Had I more time I’d launch a site whose aim would be to take on cur­rent den­i­gra­tors of Churchill. You are obvi­ous­ly a busy man, but yet man­age to keep your site updat­ed and full of inter­est – which reveals you to be of a class of effi­cien­cy and effec­tive­ness far exceed­ing mine.

    I won­der if you’ve had any thoughts on devot­ing any part of your site to to the group of promi­nent peo­ple who seem to have tak­en a vio­lent dis­like to Churchill – David Irv­ing and Christo­pher Hitchens among them. Of the two I’ve named, the for­mer suf­fers, I think, from a meta-patri­ot­ic impulse towards Ger­many; the lat­ter, though pos­sess­ing, unde­ni­ably, a sound intel­lect, suf­fers I think from a pro­nounced infe­ri­or­i­ty com­plex vis-a-vis Churchill. Both of them have – where Churchill is con­cerned – a pseu­doschol­ar­ship that is sticks out like a sore thumb.

  34. In the fol­low­ing arti­cle, WC is quot­ed as say­ing “to jaw-jaw is always bet­ter than to war-war.”

    CHURCHILL URGES PATIENCE IN COPING WITH RED DANGERS
    By W. H. LAWRENCES
    New York Times (1923-Cur­rent file); Jun 27, 1954; pg. 1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *