Ques­tions? Com­ments? Ask away:

96 thoughts on “Contact

  1. There’s a pop­u­lar anec­dote in Chi­na about Churchill’s moth­er, Jen­nie, that she said in her final moments — I’m trans­lat­ing from Chi­nese here — “I have no regrets in my life, because I gave birth to Win­ston Churchill for Great Britain.” Is there any truth to this anec­dote? Thank you.

    Pure inven­tion. No attri­bu­tion. She might have said that in 1940, but she died in 1921, Winston’s sto­ry still untold. -RML

  2. I don’t believe it! After read­ing your arti­cle about Churchill’s sig­na­ture, I’m con­vinced that the one I bought from a stamp deal­er, in Lon­don, that’s sup­pos­ed­ly “gen­uine,” is, in fact, done by a machine. There’s a cer­tifi­cate of authen­tic­i­ty, but I think oth­er­wise. I paid a lot of mon­ey, for it. There’s a pho­to of the great man, under­neath is his “sig­na­ture,” but it doesn’t seem real. I col­lect auto­graphs as a hob­by, most­ly I col­lect­ed in person.

    There are two posts on sig­na­tures. I’m not sure whether you refer to “Duly Inscribed” or to “Churchill Fac­sim­i­le Holo­graph Let­ters.” The fac­sim­i­le holo­graph print­ed let­ters were very well done and it is often hard to dis­tin­guish their sig­na­tures from the real thing. —RML

  3. What an inter­est­ing web­site, but on your home­page you have the flag Cana­da adopt­ed in 1965, just after the death of Churchill.

    Glenn: Quite so, but web­sites have to remain offi­cial. But on my boat (made in Cana­da) I fly the one you like. —RML

  4. Hi, please could you tell me if Win­ston Churchill ever owed a vehi­cle with ‘777’ on the num­ber plate and if so are there any pictures?

    Steve, In my arti­cle for The Auto­mo­bile, the text of which is post­ed begin­ning here, I tracked the num­ber plates of 21 of the 25 cars owned out­right by Churchill. None con­tained the num­bers 777. —RML

  5. In Churchill’s House of Com­mons 1947 speech, the intro­duc­to­ry ‘it has been said’ does not nec­es­sar­i­ly refer to the words of some­body else; it could just eas­i­ly be the intro­duc­tion to a self-effac­ing sum­ma­ry of what Churchill him­self had said (and believed) on more than one occasion.

    Yes, it could, but that would be eas­i­er to prove if there was one oth­er instance of Churchill say­ing any­thing like those words. The 80 mil­lion in our dig­i­tal scans are not the whole of what he said, but they are a huge part of it. —RML

  6. Hi Richard, I’ve been read­ing your auto­mo­tive arti­cles since I was 16, start­ing with the arti­cle about the Packard Cus­tom 8 in Cars and Parts in 1972. I was 16 at the time, and liv­ing near Sch­enec­tady, NY, and a week after read­ing the arti­cle found a black 1948 Cus­tom 8 sedan for sale in my neigh­bor­hood with 35,000 miles on it. I bought it for $800 (which used up all my lawn-mow­ing and snow-shov­el­ing mon­ey from the past sev­er­al years) and drove it through­out high school and col­lage. I still have it–my first car–and it all start­ed with your arti­cle! So many, many thanks!

    The arti­cle was part of a series about Mile­stone Cars and the Mile­stone Car Soci­ety, which I joined at that time. The pub­li­ca­tions and arti­cles were amaz­ing. Some­how it appears, despite your best efforts, that the MCS has with­ered. What hap­pened and what remains of it? Still seems like a great idea. Very much appre­ci­ate your many incred­i­ble con­tri­bu­tions to the col­lectible car community.

    John, thanks for the kind words. I put my mon­ey where my mouth was and also had a ’48 Cus­tom Eight (named “Fat Albert”), but nev­er had the mon­ey to restore it. But now I own a ’50 Eight coupe with only 50,000 miles, smooth as silk and a great road car, though with­out that mas­sive 356 straight eight. See cov­er sto­ry in “The Packard Cor­morant” a year ago.
    We start­ed the Mile­stone Car Soci­ety as an ecu­meni­cal all-makes club for dis­tinc­tive post-WW2 cars, a kind of con­tin­u­a­tion of the Clas­sic Car Club for pre­war greats. It worked for awhile, but the one-make clubs were fast improv­ing, and col­lec­tors of post­war cars tend­ed to be more one-make-mind­ed than we thought. “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”

  7. I work for a lab that melts down gold for the pur­pose of recy­cling to the Roy­al Cana­di­an Mint. We usu­al­ly get bro­ken jew­el­ry but I came across this 22ct gold Win­ston Churchill medal­lion. Not sure what to do with it. Do you know any­thing about this arti­fact? Any advice?

    This medal is #35 in J. Eric Engstrom’s cat­a­logue,
    The Medal­lic Por­traits of Sir Win­ston Churchill (Lon­don: Spink 1972). Quite a few copies of the book are offered on The medal was cast by John Pinch­es (Medal­lists) Ltd., Lon­don for B.A. Sea­by Ltd., Lon­don. It is a 50mm ver­sion of the 63mm Allied Vic­to­ry image cast by A. Lowen­thal in 1945, with the date of death added. (Image from

    Pinch­es pro­duced 500 medals in 22ct (.916 fine); 200 in 9ct (.375); 736 in sil­ver, and 1421 in bronze. All were 50mm in diam­e­ter. The dies were pre­sent­ed to the British Muse­um and there is one at the Smith­son­ian. We referred Mr. Line to sev­er­al Churchilliana deal­ers and collectors

  8. I was sur­prised to see your name come up from Hillsdale…Churchill? Lang­worth? I know that name from count­less car arti­cles and Last Onslaught on Detroit, which I’ve owned for years. I enjoy well researched gen­uine auto his­to­ry. Thank you! I’m a vol­un­teer docent at the Nether­cutt Muse­um, just to fur­ther bol­ster my addic­tion, as well as doing cus­to­di­al duties on too many of my own pedes­tri­an auto­mo­tive orphans. You were priv­i­leged to inter­view many in the auto indus­try, now gone. I was, this morn­ing, read­ing an old Spe­cial-Inter­est Autos arti­cle from 1975 by Ken Gross, and he men­tioned your inter­view­ing Joe Fraz­er. With­out re-read­ing Last Onslaught, any fur­ther reflec­tions on Mr. Fraz­er? It seems to me that he deserves more recognition.
    Thanks for the kind words. I nurse an odd com­bi­na­tion of pas­sions: old cars and Old Excel­lence (Win­ston Churchill). Few share both. (I used to refer to “the saint­ed sev­en” sub­scribers to both The Packard Cor­morant and Finest Hour.) For­tu­nate­ly I man­aged to switch from one to the oth­er, keep­ing myself employed. (George III said to Edward Gib­bon, who pre­sent­ed him with the fifth or sixth vol­ume of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: “‘What, Mr Gib­bon, anoth­er great big vol­ume? Always scrib­ble, scrib­ble, scrib­ble!” Or Edward VIII to Churchill: “Thank-you for your lat­est vol­ume. I have put it on the shelf along with all the others.”

    Over a decade ago I post­ed stray rec­ol­lec­tions of Joe Fraz­er in three parts start­ing here. It’s rather dat­ed and incom­plete, and I plan to reprise and add mate­r­i­al in one or two parts, so you might like to sub­scribe and be noti­fied when it’s up. —RML

  9. Can you help me with a ref­er­ence for the fol­low­ing quo­ta­tion alleged­ly by Churchill from one of the last years of his life. Unfor­tu­nate­ly I only have the quo­ta­tion in Dan­ish from which it is trans­lat­ed into Eng­lish: I believe that human­i­ty will be exposed to the tri­al of extreme rich­ness. Thank you in advance.
    Thank you for this inter­est­ing ques­tion. There is no occur­rence of “extreme rich­ness” or “extreme lux­u­ry” (or in var­i­ous allied expres­sions I searched for) in the dig­i­tal Churchill canon of 20 mil­lion words, although of course he might have said the same thing in anoth­er way. Indeed, human­i­ty being chal­lenged by “extreme rich­ness” is a theme in his fore­cast of the future, “Fifty Years Hence,” pub­lished in The Strand Mag­a­zine, Decem­ber 1931, and reprint­ed in his book of essays, Thoughts and Adventures:
    “Projects undreamed-of by past gen­er­a­tions will absorb our imme­di­ate descen­dants; forces ter­rif­ic and dev­as­tat­ing will be in their hands; com­forts, activ­i­ties, ameni­ties, plea­sures will crowd upon them, but their hearts will ache, their lives will be bar­ren, if they have not a vision above mate­r­i­al things.”

  10. Re:
    Hel­lo, I have a signed and num­bered print I would like to sell. Val­ue? Nev­er Flinch Nev­er Weary artist proof 4/50 23 inch­es by 35 inches
    Signed with certificate.

    Sor­ry, I have no appraisal exper­tise. I would sug­gest look­ing for Hoop­er prints on offer on eBay and sim­i­lar sites, or ask­ing the lead­ing Churchill book­seller spe­cial­ists: Google Chartwell Book­sellers or Churchill Book Col­lec­tor. —RML

  11. I have always found it hard to believe the nar­ra­tive pro­vid­ed by evan­ge­list Bil­ly Gra­ham of his vis­it to Win­ston Churchill in the ear­ly 1950s when Churchill was Prime Min­is­ter. In his auto­bi­og­ra­phy, Gra­ham claims to have found Churchill despon­dent, refer­ring to “hope­less­ness” mul­ti­ple times, and recep­tive to hear­ing about reli­gious redemp­tion. This nev­er seemed to fit into oth­er writ­ings and descrip­tions of the great man dur­ing this time peri­od. I would appre­ci­ate your thoughts on this.
    Rev. Graham’s report was a snap­shot in time and might have cor­re­spond­ed with a down time. His daugh­ter, who nev­er accept­ed descrip­tions of him as a man­ic depres­sive, said some things he went through “would depress any­body.” In the Fifties it was the nuclear threat, his inabil­i­ty to fos­ter a sum­mit and his advanc­ing age, all of which at times depressed him. See also: “Depres­sion or Black Dog” And, more sub­stan­tive­ly (with dis­cus­sion fol­low­ing): “Win­ston Churchill and the Black Dog RML

  12. Cars are in the DNA around here. My par­ents have always been car fanat­ics, rac­ing, hot-rod­ding, and lov­ing bet­ter vehi­cles all around. I brought the for­eign influ­ence into the fam­i­ly, with inter­est in Fer­rari, Lam­borgh­i­ni, Mer­cedes, BMW and Maz­da. My par­ents weren’t sure what to do with me, they were not big fans of the for­eign jobs, but they had fun tak­ing me to auc­tions and shows. Odd­ly, I think I exposed them more broad­ly too, as I seemed to have taught them quite a lot about cars from abroad. One year, my aunt, odd­ly a dyed-in-the-wool Mer­cedes fan, sent me your Com­plete Book of Col­lectible Cars 1940-1980. It was instant­ly a favorite. Not a week went by that I wasn’t dig­ging into that book just to learn a lit­tle more about some car or anoth­er, a prac­tice that made me buy more books with more detailed infor­ma­tion for var­i­ous makes and mod­els. I was prob­a­bly 8 when I received that book and now, at 47, I still trea­sure it. That book large­ly influ­enced me to want to write about cars. I stud­ied jour­nal­ism and worked for Motor Trend before becom­ing a free­lancer. Today I run my own Garage Style Mag­a­zine, all about col­lec­tions and garages. I’m cur­rent­ly research­ing the Kaiser Vir­gin­ian for an auc­tion cat­a­logue. Your book was among the things that influ­enced me, so thank you for writ­ing great books that inspired and influ­enced young enthu­si­asts to find their own inter­ests, their own voices.

    Don, thanks for the kind words, always hard to come by. RML

  13. It was an hon­our for my book, Churchill’s Britain, to be reviewed by such an out­stand­ing schol­ar, and I am grate­ful for your com­ments. I appre­ci­ate that there were omis­sions, but there were edi­to­r­i­al con­straints, and I want­ed the book to be acces­si­ble. There will be a paper­back edi­tion next year and I will incor­po­rate some of your sug­ges­tions. If there is an oppor­tu­ni­ty for acknowl­edge­ments, may I use your name?
    I am not an aca­d­e­m­ic and the book was not intend­ed to be an aca­d­e­m­ic work. It was also dif­fi­cult to clas­si­fy – His­to­ry? Biog­ra­phy? Trav­el? I pre­fer to see it as a con­tri­bu­tion to trav­el lit­er­a­ture, with the idea of illu­mi­nat­ing the life, per­son­al­i­ty and career of Win­ston Churchill through place.
    I appre­ci­ate the points about the places you men­tion in the West Coun­try, but they are large­ly about the first Duke, rather than about Churchill himself.
    It would have been great if the late Sir Mar­tin Gilbert had writ­ten the book, Churchill’s London.
    It was grat­i­fy­ing that you found no fac­tu­al errors in the book though you did miss one appalling mis­quo­ta­tion of one of Churchill’s most famous sen­tences on page 144. With renewed thanks and appre­ci­a­tion, Peter Clark.
    Well, that is the most gen­er­ous retort to a grumpy review of mine that I’ve ever read! I thank you for it. (It will run even­tu­al­ly on my web­site, but only as an abridgement.)

    I was inter­est­ed because I host­ed many Churchill tours and have dri­ven 80,000 miles in Britain. I appre­ci­ate what you say about “edi­to­r­i­al con­straints.” They may be mild com­pared to some of the pub­lish­ers I’ve had–and reviews. “Any review is a good review,” my best edi­tor always said.

    About the West Country–that’s large­ly true, though the fleet dra­ma at Port­land deserved men­tion. More­ton and Lymp­ne are not about WSC either, but you qual­i­fy Lawrence and Sas­soon, and right­ly so. Their influ­ence was far less than Marlborough’s—in Churchill’s biog­ra­phy we read the great war speech­es aborn­ing. (There is an inter­est­ing sto­ry about how WSC misiden­ti­fied the Duke’s birth­place, and how his daugh­ter Mary was reluc­tant­ly per­suad­ed that Papa had muffed that one….)

    I com­plete missed “human con­quests” for “human con­flict” in “The Few” speech on page 144; went right by me. The bunker at Uxbridge is still a mov­ing place. As for acknowl­edge­ments, sure. RML

  14. I believe Churchill received the Free­dom of the Bor­ough of Brighton in Octo­ber 1947. Do you know the exact date, please and also whether that cer­e­mo­ny took place at Brighton Town Hall or the Roy­al Pavilion?
    Sor­ry, no idea. The only ref­er­ence I found to the event is in John Rams­den, Man of the Cen­tu­ry, 96-97, who says it was in 1946, below. I should think the Brighton news­pa­per archives would be the place to look. RML
    -Rams­den writes:

    Stormy, tem­pes­tu­ous, com­pet­i­tive and obsti­nate, per­haps the most remark­able aspect of his char­ac­ter was that he always evoked affec­tion, even from those who dis­agreed with him.’ The last point was often asso­ci­at­ed by lat­er writ­ers with the crowds and cheers in Brighton in 1946, when his car could bare­ly get through the streets to reach the var­i­ous places of cer­e­mo­ni­al, because of that spon­ta­neous affec­tion. But the mes­sage had sub­tly changed since 1947, for when the free­dom of Brighton was actu­al­ly con­ferred the empha­sis was on the link between the ordi­nary people’s war record and Churchill’s lead. By 1964-5, it had become a much less com­pli­cat­ed mat­ter of the homage paid to a great man by his admirers.55 Portsmouth proved a rather dif­fer­ent sto­ry, large­ly because Churchill had vis­it­ed far more reg­u­lar­ly, often in the course of his con­nec­tions with the Roy­al Navy…

  15. Richard, I recent­ly bought a copy of your excel­lent Churchill in His Own Words. Being mind­ful of the Appen­dix of “Red Her­rings” or false attri­bu­tions, one of the many quotes attrib­uted to Churchill on the inter­net is: A pre­sen­ta­tion [some­times “a good speech”] should be like a woman’s skirt: long enough to cov­er the key points and short enough to retain inter­est.” Is there any truth in Churchill hav­ing deliv­ered that, please?

    Simon, Thanks for the kind words. On that one the answer is none what­ev­er. “Red Her­rings” are kept up to date on this site and you will find that one by scrolling to “Sex­ism” at this loca­tion. WSC sim­ply was not giv­en to crude remarks about women. For anoth­er install­ment on his exchanges with women, click here. RML

  16. Hel­lo,

    Is it true that Win­ston Churchill was once asked how the British man­aged to rule a vast empire and replied some­thing sim­i­lar to “…by igno­rance or illit­er­a­cy of the major­i­ty and dis­loy­al­ty of the minority”?

    Noth­ing like that can be tracked. RML

  17. Richard,Thank you for the updat­ed Anno­tat­ed Bib­li­og­ra­phy of the works about Churchill. It brings every­thing up to date, was much antic­i­pat­ed and is great­ly appreciated.

    Paul, Thanks for the kind words.

  18. [To Thomas Ash­ley, below.] Tom, that’s very kind of you, and much appre­ci­at­ed. Kind words are always hard to come by. I only hope my mean­der­ings haven’t led you down any false trails and into pur­chas­ing old cars you wish you’d let go by!
    I hap­pen to have known the man who ghost­ed that book for Nixon, James Humes. You can read some amus­ing sto­ries about his time at the Nixon White House by click­ing here. …I’m sure you can fig­ure out what Humes was try­ing to do with his first draft for the inscrip­tion on the moon plaque. Bob Halde­man caught it right away!
    In thanks for your mes­sage I attach my arti­cle on Churchill’s Cars, which com­bines the two main sub­jects that have kept me in mate­r­i­al all these years. Hope you enjoy it. RML

  19. This is a long over due fan let­ter. I haven’t read any of your works on Churchill but have spent many hours (days) read­ing your auto­mo­tive his­to­ries. I recent­ly bit the bul­let and ordered a first edi­tion copy of Kaiser-Fraz­er: Last Onslaught on Detroit. It was very dear in price but I have want­ed to read it for years. It is a fas­ci­nat­ing read. I have had the oppor­tu­ni­ty to vis­it and have meals at Joe Frazer’s grandfather’s Wessyn­g­ton Plan­ta­tion north of Nashville. Is still a mag­nif­i­cent place, espe­cial­ly in the late autumn with all the tobac­co barns smok­ing their leaves. That smell com­bined with the autumn col­or is real­ly some­thing. Best part was that it was accom­pa­nied by the car­a­van of Packards and Chryslers I was part of.
    Your sto­ry about the Packard Clip­per (1941-1947) in Col­lectible Auto­mo­bile haunt­ed me until I found and bought a ’47 Clip­per Super. What a great dri­ving car and utter­ly depend­able. In a weak moment, I sold it after a decade and a half of own­er­ship. Also your book Chrysler: The Post­war Years encour­aged me to find a beau­ti­ful ’48 Chrysler Wind­sor club coupe which I still have. That book, plus the ones you wrote about Hud­son and Stude­bak­er I have read and reread. I could go on and on talk­ing about your mag­a­zine arti­cles, oth­er books, plus the years I was a mem­ber of the Packard Club and received The Packard Cormorant.
    I am read­ing an old book by Richard Nixon called Lead­ers. The first chap­ter is about his expe­ri­ences with Win­ston Churchill. Read­ing that pushed me to find a way to con­tact you and thank you for your enor­mous body of work in auto­mo­tive history. 

  20. I came across your trib­ute to Don Vor­der­man in “The Auto­mo­bile. I enjoyed the arti­cle. You made men­tion of a sto­ry by Dick O’kane and a fic­tious Allard named “Gren­del.” In my youth I enjoyed Mr. O’kane’s sto­ries of the Thun­der Bee­tle, Peter the fisherman’s Engi­neer­ing the­sis, the Goat cir­cling the dis­abled VW van and can just see the Rover inch­ing the squeal­ing Alfa into traf­fic. My ques­tion is who was Dick O’Kane and what became of him? Was he per­haps your own self?
    Mark, I only wish I had half the tal­ent of Dick O’Kane (1936-2019) a bril­liant wit and a gen­tle man, with a won­der­ful atti­tude about cars, thus his best-sell­er, “How to Repair Your For­eign Car: A Guide for the Begin­ner, Your Wife, and the Mechan­i­cal­ly Inept.” Dick, who was nei­ther the famous Navy Admi­ral nor the Long Island labor leader by the same name, was in a class by him­self. You inspired me to write about him: click here. Thanks for the memory.

  21. Dear Richard,

    Recent­ly I have been search­ing var­i­ous books and their authors on Win­ston S Churchill. I have acquired sev­er­al of your works. I have noticed that the Wikipedia entry relat­ed to you includes an entry for you as the author/editor of “The Churchill Com­pan­ion: A Con­cise Guide Churchill Cen­tre (Chica­go, IL), 2012.” I assume that it should read as the title The Churchill Com­pan­ion: A Con­cise Guide to the Life & Times of Win­ston S. Churchill. In oth­er words the book is about the states­man, rather than the Churchill Cen­tre. I hope this obser­va­tion and assump­tion is correct.
    Thank you for your work.
    Thanks for the kind words and the cor­rec­tion. RML

  22. Dear Richard, Did Churchill real­ly say “We Will Force This War Upon Hitler, If He Wants It Or Not” in a radio broad­cast in 1936? I don’t think he did, but appar­ent­ly Pat Buchanan says he did in his book “The Unnec­es­sary War.”

    Dear Maxwell, There is no trace of any quo­ta­tion like that among Churchill’s 20 mil­lion pub­lished words and 60 mil­lion about him com­piled by Hills­dale Col­lege. Pat is a charm­ing gent, and we had jol­ly argu­ments about his book, but he is, as I had to write a “mas­ter of the selec­tive quote,” and orig­i­na­tor of some nobody else mas­tered. RL

  23. Hi,
    Can you please Email me the full arti­cle by Win­ston Churchill titled: “Zion­ism ver­sus Bol­she­vism” from the Sun­day Her­ald in Feb­ru­ary 1920.

    I reg­u­lar­ly debate on numer­ous plat­forms and recent­ly debat­ed a mem­ber of an anti Semit­ic organ­i­sa­tion called Patri­ot­ic Alter­na­tive. They believe in a con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry where Jews and Israel con­trol the West. My oppo­nent quot­ed Win­ston Churchill out of con­text from the above arti­cle but “con­ve­nient­ly” missed out the article’s title. Your web­site and the article’s title allowed me to squash my opponent’s case.

  24. Dear Mr. Langworth,

    What exact­ly was Win­ston Churchill’s con­nec­tion (if any) in the coup that over­threw Prime Min­is­ter Mossadegh in 1953? 

    Thank you.

  25. Good ques­tion because this is tricky. The quotation’s only appear­ance in print is in exchanges dur­ing Churchill’s speech, “Unit­ed Nations Pol­i­cy in the Far East,” House of Com­mons, 1 July 1952, in Win­ston S. Churchill, Stem­ming the Tide: Speech­es 1951 and 1952 (Lon­don: Cas­sell, 1953), pages 301-16. The quote (page 312) is among Churchill’s replies to inter­rup­tions which began quite ear­ly (page 305) in his speech. Churchill was reply­ing to a cen­sure motion brought against his gov­ern­ment by the Labour oppo­si­tion for its con­duct of the Kore­an War. Vitu­per­a­tive exchanges occu­pied most of the remain­der of the speech which doesn’t end until page 316. I have sent you the com­plete tran­script by email.

    Churchill argued that con­duct of the war was large­ly in the hands of the USA which was bear­ing the brunt of casu­al­ties, and that if Labour want­ed to cen­sure any­body, it should prob­a­bly be the US gov­ern­ment. The argu­ment was over whether or not state­ments of US Sec­re­tary of State Dean Ache­son should be admit­ted into debate. 

    Only part of Churchill’s speech (enti­tled “The Kore­an War”) appears in the Com­plete Speech­es (which alas are not com­plete). It occu­pies only four pages (8388-8391, Vol­ume 8). It leaves off where Churchill says the cen­sure motion real­ly should be against the USA. Edi­tor Robert Rhodes James adds in brack­ets: “At this point there was a lengthy and heat­ed dis­cus­sion as to whether Mr. Acheson’s speech could be debated.]

    Although Sir Robert told me he com­piled the Com­plete Speech­es from Hansard, the full speech with exchanges and inter­rup­tions is report­ed in Hansard Online. So the omis­sion is only in the Com­plete Speech­es. I am grate­ful to you for bring­ing this omis­sion to my attention.

  26. Sir, Where is the pri­ma­ry source for Churchill’s quote on pris­on­ers of war? (I’d like to read the greater con­text of the speech.) I’ve tried research­ing tran­scripts for the House of Com­mons on 1 July 1952 but can­not find this list­ed. Quote on your site: “What is a pris­on­er of war? He is a man who has tried to kill you and, hav­ing failed to kill you, asks you not to kill him.” Thank you for your assistance.

  27. That is per­fect­ly accu­rate as you quote it, but as I wrote, AZ Quotes sup­plies an con­trived final sen­tence: “Not enough peo­ple see it as a healthy horse, pulling a stur­dy wag­on.” That man­gles what Churchill actu­al­ly said.

  28. Thank you for your work. May I noti­fy you of a slight dif­fer­ent ver­sion in your great list of “AZ Quotes: A Cor­nu­copia of Things Churchill Nev­er Said” for num­ber 32 (Social­ism). “Among our Social­ist oppo­nents there is great con­fu­sion. Some of them regard pri­vate enter­prise as a preda­to­ry tiger to be shot. Oth­ers look on it as a cow they can milk. Only a hand­ful see it for what it real­ly is—the strong and will­ing horse that pulls the whole cart along.” Source: Wood­ford, Essex, 29 Sep 59

  29. Thank-you for rais­ing this impor­tant point. I believe you are right. (1) The quo­ta­tion through “spe­cial­ly-relat­ed ally and friend…” is as stat­ed from the Nation­al Archives. It is also in the upcom­ing Churchill Doc­u­ments Vol. 23 (1951-65), and in John Charm­ley, Churchill’s Grand Alliance (Lon­don: Hod­der & Stoughton, 1995, 250). (2) The quo­ta­tion “…it is only when…” etc. fol­lows the pre­vi­ous quote in Charm­ley, in ellipses: “…It was ‘only when plans for unit­ing Europe’ etc.) Charm­ley pro­vides a sep­a­rate foot­note: “DBPO 2/1, no. 409, AE to Stras­bourg, 6 Decem­ber 1951, 29 Novem­ber 1951.” Thus the author was Eden, and the quote is either cor­rect­ly attrib­uted to Eden or dropped from my four posts where it appeared:

    I am hap­py to quote Churchill’s words on 29 Novem­ber 1951, which you sug­gest I should have included:

    On the eco­nom­ic side, I wel­come the Schu­man Coal and Steel Plan as a step in the rec­on­cil­i­a­tion of France and Ger­many, and as prob­a­bly ren­der­ing anoth­er Fran­co-Ger­man war phys­i­cal­ly impos­si­ble. I nev­er con­tem­plat­ed Britain join­ing in this plan on the same terms as Con­ti­nen­tal part­ners. We should, how­ev­er, have joined in all the dis­cus­sions, and had we done so not only a bet­ter plan would
    prob­a­bly have emerged, but our own inter­ests would have been watched at every stage. Our attitude….etc.

    Obvi­ous­ly Churchill was always mind­ful that Britain’s inter­ests required the UK to be involved in dis­cus­sions about a unit­ed Europe. I don’t see that any­thing above sig­nif­i­cant­ly alters his view. Of course, that was in the 1950s. No one can say what his view would be today, and improp­er use should not be made of him in sup­port of either side of today’s argu­ment. See “EU and Churchill’s views.”

  30. I have a ques­tion relat­ing to your book “Win­ston Churchill, Myth and Real­i­ty” and I notice it is also men­tioned on this site. You include a quote as follows:
    “Our atti­tude towards fur­ther eco­nom­ic devel­op­ments on the Schu­man lines resem­bles that which we adopt about the Euro­pean Army. We help, we ded­i­cate, we play a part, but we are not merged with and do not for­feit our insu­lar or com­mon­wealth char­ac­ter. Our first object is the uni­ty and con­sol­i­da­tion of the British Commonwealth….Our sec­ond, “the fra­ter­nal asso­ci­a­tion” of the Eng­lish-speak­ing world; and third, Unit­ed Europe, to which we are a sep­a­rate close­ly- and spe­cial­ly-relat­ed ally and friend….it is only when plans for unit­ing Europe take a fed­er­al form that we our­selves can­not take part, because we can­not sub­or­di­nate our­selves or the con­trol of British pol­i­cy to fed­er­al authorities.”

    You attribute this to Win­ston Churchill but when I checked the nation­al archives for this (see page 188 of this: only the first part of this para­graph is there and the sec­ond part, it seems, is not from this doc­u­ment. Upon a bit more research I have also found this last part attrib­uted to Antho­ny Eden, the then For­eign Secretary.Please can you con­firm the source of this quote and where the con­fu­sion comes from?

    Also, in the con­text of your page regard­ing whether Churchill would be pro-EU or not, the bit imme­di­ate­ly before your quote is also insight­ful, where he explains that we should be more involved in the dis­cus­sions with­in a unit­ed Europe so we can bet­ter pro­tect our inter­ests. It seems a shame you trun­cat­ed this part and yet seem to have added a con­trary bit on.

  31. Good ques­tion, which I relayed to David Lough, author of No More Cham­pagne, an excel­lent book on the Churchill finances. Mr. Lough replies: “Chartwell or the Lit­er­ary trust (both names for the same Trust) bought Stour for him and gave him reg­u­lar gifts (as it did also to the oth­er chil­dren, to be fair). Clemen­tine Churchill was the main mover in push­ing her co-trustees to buy him a place away from Chartwell. It had been orig­i­nal­ly intend­ed that he would inher­it the Chartwell Farm­house and some land, but she thought he would prove an impos­si­ble neigh­bour for the Nation­al Trust!” Of course, in those days, costs and over­head were a lot low­er in Suf­folk than today, when it is valu­able real estate. Even so, Sir Mar­tin Gilbert told me, Ran­dolph was fre­quent­ly chased by cred­i­tors: the butch­er, the bak­er, etc….

  32. Thank you for your series on Ran­dolph Churchill. The pho­to­graph from Part 2 show­ing the back of Stour is the first that I have seen. My ques­tion is: how did Ran­dolph afford to live, in the grand style, at Stour? I know he was an accom­plished jour­nal­ist and writer, but nowhere near the lev­el of demand of his father, nor I am sure in the same pay scale.

  33. Greetings…this is not cur­rent for you, by any means, but I recent­ly pur­chased Stude­bak­er: 1946-66, The Clas­sic Post­war Years and devoured the book! A won­der­ful­ly con­cise and yet com­plete recap of the end of Stude­bak­er. Thank you for writ­ing such a won­der­ful book.

    I am a dis­af­fect­ed Mon­ey­ball pio­neer who loves cars and has an (unhealthy) obses­sion with defunct Amer­i­can makes.

  34. Roland, I didn’t have this edi­tion and asked bib­li­og­ra­ph­er Ron Cohen to check his Churchill col­lec­tion. Ron writes: “The answer is that the text the Folio Soci­ety used is that of the 1949 Cas­sel “new, revised edi­tion,” and that is clear by just look­ing at the title page ver­so.” So the Folio edi­tion, while it con­tains revi­sions through 1949, is not the final edit­ed ver­sion, which appeared in 1951 with the Reprint Soci­ety edi­tion, and the 1956 Chartwell edition.

  35. I have been try­ing to find out which edi­tion which the Folio Soci­ety used for their edi­tion of The Sec­ond World War but I have not been able to find out any infor­ma­tion at this time. I do col­lect some of their books and I like the look of this set but would hope it is based on the Chartwell Edition.

  36. Reply­ing to Paul McShea below…

    The “dropped by Churchill” the­o­ry was advanced by William Man­ches­ter, who nev­er estab­lished it in detail. In ret­ro­spect I think it is some­what over-drawn. In 1952, Hillsdale’s The Churchill Doc­u­ments Vol. 23 records Mor­ton writ­ing Churchill: “…there is no sin­gle occa­sion on which you could have done oth­er than you did. Your crit­ics after the event – and they are but few – are piti­ful­ly unaware of the lim­i­ta­tions placed some­times upon your bet­ter judge­ment by per­sons and events beyond your con­trol.” In 1956 after receiv­ing Vol­ume 1 of Churchill’s His­to­ry of the Eng­lish-Speak­ing Peo­ples Mor­ton wrote: “May you live bold­ly and rejoice in see­ing the remain­ing vol­umes giv­en to the world – and long after that too.”

    Yet by the 1960s he was speak­ing of WSC in vitu­per­a­tive terms to R.W. Thomp­son, author of The Yan­kee Marl­bor­ough, who ulti­mate­ly revealed his source in his excel­lent sequel, Churchill and Mor­ton. That would be the place to look for more details on Morton’s change of heart.

    Churchill’s crit­ics often say he had no time for any­one who was of no use to him, which is belied time and again by his kind­ness­es to so many such folk. (My anno­ta­tion quotes Kirkus Reviews in this respect, though I liked The Yan­kee Marl­bor­ough more than Kirkus did.)

    Churchill always Mor­ton for risk­ing his career to keep him informed on Hitler’s rear­ma­ment in the 1930s. He sent Mor­ton each vol­ume of his war mem­oirs and his His­to­ry, though Mor­ton had no involve­ment in the lat­ter. I sus­pect that Mor­ton some­what resent­ed being “on the out­side” after the war. Or he may have sim­ply fan­cied him­self a wor­thy crit­ic, and Thomp­son a will­ing ear. He was cer­tain­ly not the first. Or the last.

  37. Regard­ing Hillsdale’s anno­tat­ed bib­li­og­ra­phy, “Books about Win­ston S. Churchill.” in ref­er­enc­ing R.W. Thompson’s “The Yan­kee Marl­bor­ough” (1963), you say it is “A cri­tique per­haps over­ly based on rec­ol­lec­tions of Churchill’s rue­ful ex-friend Desmond Mor­ton, who was dropped by WSC and nev­er got over it.” Is there an author­i­ta­tive expla­na­tion of why WSC part­ed ways with Morton?

  38. Research­ing Anti­semitism, I came across a white suprema­cist / anti­se­mit­ic site in which they pub­lished Churchill’s “Zion­ism vs. Bol­she­vism” arti­cle. An image of the front page of a British news­pa­per with the arti­cle on the front page was included.
    I want to com­pare that arti­cle with one from a REAL source.

  39. Hel­lo!

    I have spent this year writ­ing for a book in Swedish about André Cit­roën, and I am curi­ous about your state­ment that Howard A “Dutch” Dar­rin built a pro­to­type of Cit­roën Trac­tion Avant in 1932. As you can under­stand, I would like to know every­thing about the pro­to­types that was made before Flaminio Bertoni made his style sug­ges­tion (there were sev­er­al run­ning pro­to­types before André Cit­roën and his wife decid­ed in favour of Bertoni’s pro­pos­als in 1933, after reject­ing pro­pos­als by the design man­ag­er him­self, and one from Louis Cit­roën, a rel­a­tive of André Citroën).

    I hope to hear from you soon if you have time, and many thanks in advance!

  40. Ter­vi­tused, mu sõber, palju aas­taid tagasi!

    Good to hear from you, Mar­gus. I was unable to email to the email address you sent. I am inter­est­ed in your project. What lan­guages of pub­li­ca­tion? I can send you a .jpg pho­to, 300 dpi, which I hope will suf­fice. But I need an email address that works. Yours will not accept mail.

    I am still writ­ing about cars, albeit as a side­line, with all my Churchill work at Hills­dale Col­lege. Gra­ham Rob­son and I have just repub­lished a fine new edi­tion of Tri­umph Cars, revised and updat­ed with many new pho­tos, which we first pub­lished in 1977.
    A sum­ma­ry of my activ­i­ties, and list of books are on this web­site under “about” and “books.”

    Did you know that after my 1992 vis­it, I returned with three col­leagues in 1995, to bicy­cle the coast of Latvia, 660km, from the Lithuan­ian bor­der to Esto­nia? Accounts are avail­able of this mem­o­rable trip. It was the cold­est May locals had expe­ri­enced in years–President Ulma­n­is pro­claimed he heroes of the Republic…..

    I gath­er you are still in Eesti and hope you are pros­per­ing. How is the coun­try doing? I hear it’s the most pros­per­ous of the three Baltic states. Hope so. I well remem­ber our vis­it to your beau­ti­ful bun­ga­low. I think I was with my friend, Cel­wyn Ball Alas he has left us:

  41. How can I con­tact you, old friend? Need your pho­to for a forth­com­ing book about AUTO CULTURE AND ITS SERVANTS. Many have been already col­lect­ed: Gra­ham Gauld, Nick Georgano, Wade Hoyt, Fer­di­nand Hedi­ger, Mike Lamm and so on. 

  42. Good ques­tion. On the Nobel Prize, the late John Rams­den writes in his Man of the Cen­tu­ry, 129:

    There was a good deal of con­so­la­tion to be found in beat­ing off the claims of Ernest Hem­ing­way, who was also nom­i­nat­ed for the Lit­er­a­ture Prize in 1953. Hem­ing­way, being as bad a los­er as Churchill him­self could some­times be, com­ment­ed on the 1953 award that Churchill was ‘the great­est mas­ter of the spo­ken word’, which was not what the Nobel Prize for Lit­er­a­ture was sup­posed to be for, though Churchill’s war speech­es were indeed includ­ed in the cita­tion prais­ing his lit­er­ary efforts. This was of course to miss the point, for since he read his speech­es and dic­tat­ed his books, the two were essen­tial­ly the same thing.

    Churchill’s writ­ings are laden with praise of many writ­ers. The Hills­dale Churchill project has post­ed an essay on Churchill and Twain, and will short­ly post one on Churchill and Kipling. See Dar­rell Holley’s out­stand­ing work, Churchill’s Lit­er­ary Allu­sions, which offers scores of exam­ples of Churchill draw­ing on writ­ers from the Clas­sics to the Edwar­dians, many of whom he extrav­a­gant­ly praised. His beau­ti­ful trib­ute to Rupert Brooke can be found in The Churchill Doc­u­mentsVol­ume 6 (Hills­dale Col­lege Press).

    I can find noth­ing of Churchill’s specif­i­cal­ly about Hem­ing­way, though he cer­tain­ly appre­ci­at­ed Hemingway’s war nov­els. The schol­ar Man­fred Wei­d­horn offers an inter­est­ing com­par­i­son of the two as nov­el­ists in his clas­sic work on Churchill’s writ­ings, Sword and Pen:

    [Churchill’s Savro­la] appeared in the age of James and Con­rad and indeed shares some of its sub­ject mat­ter with the soon to be writ­ten Nos­tro­mo, but it is not even remote­ly com­pa­ra­ble in qual­i­ty. A par­al­lel sug­gests itself also with a nov­el that would appear three decades lat­er, Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms, for here also a man in love turns away from a nation falling apart, from a cause los­ing its mean­ing, from a word like “hon­or” which sounds hol­low. Churchill, unlike Hem­ing­way, avoids the exis­ten­tial­ist depths and tacks on a hap­py end­ing; his stilt­ed Vic­to­ri­an emo­tion­al­ism is whol­ly unlike the American’s impas­sive but mov­ing style. Where­as Hemingway’s book, more­over, makes use of per­son­al expe­ri­ence and reflects his val­ues, Churchill’s does nei­ther, and that per­haps explains the lame­ness of the prod­uct. He nev­er said farewell to pol­i­tics and seems not to have placed the love of a woman above it at any time, at least not in any dra­mat­ic, overt way.

  43. I have not read many ref­er­ences where Win­ston Churchill com­ment­ed on oth­er writ­ers in his life­time. I am curi­ous if he ever com­ment­ed on the writ­ings or the per­son of Ernest Hem­ing­way. Since they won the Nobel Prize for Lit­er­a­ture one year apart from each oth­er, it would seem that they must have been aware of each oth­ers oeuvre.

  44. There is not. It was a ver­bal fusil­lade. The gen­er­al­ly agreed best ver­sion of it is in Ben Pim­lott, ed., The Sec­ond World War Diary of Hugh Dal­ton (Labour MP, then Min­is­ter of Eco­nom­ic War­fare in Churchill’s coali­tion gov­ern­ment). Pim­lott writes in an edi­to­r­i­al note: “Although there is an entry for vir­tu­al­ly every day for much of the peri­od of the Coali­tion, Dal­ton did not com­pose his diary dai­ly. His usu­al prac­tice was to dic­tate a week’s mate­r­i­al at a sin­gle sit­ting.” From inter­nal evi­dence, his entry for 28 May was writ­ten at least two days lat­er. It is repro­duced by Mar­tin Gilbert in The Churchill Doc­u­ments, Vol. 15 Nev­er Sur­ren­der May-Decem­ber 1940 (Hills­dale Col­lege Press, 2011), 182-84:

    28 May 1940
    In the after­noon all min­is­ters are asked to meet the PM. He is quite mag­nif­i­cent. The man, and the only man we have, for this hour. He gives a full, frank and com­plete­ly calm account of events in France. When the Ger­mans broke through on the Meuse, French morale for the moment col­lapsed. There­fore, he flew to France and saw Rey­naud and Gamelin. The lat­ter said, ‘We have been defeat­ed by Ger­man supe­ri­or­i­ty in num­bers, in mate­r­i­al and in meth­ods.’ Churchill said, ‘What then are you going to do?’ Gamelin mere­ly shrugged his shoul­ders. Churchill said, ‘Will you please leave the room’, and then, alone with Rey­naud, they went into every­thing, includ­ing the High Command. 

    The French, before this war, had giv­en up all ideas of the offen­sive. They were hyp­no­tised by the Mag­inot Line. Gen­er­al Bil­lotte com­mand­ing the forces north of the Somme, includ­ing our own, had giv­en no impor­tant or sig­nif­i­cant order for four days! Since then he had been killed in a motor acci­dent and suc­ceed­ed by Blan­chard. The French had failed to make a push north­wards from the Somme. They had had too few Divi­sions between the sea and Amiens and their com­mu­ni­ca­tions had been bad­ly bombed. There­fore, though we had done our best from the north, it had been impos­si­ble to close the gap, and we were in grave dan­ger of being sur­round­ed. Now, there­fore, it was nec­es­sary to fight our way through to the Chan­nel Ports and get away all we could….

    Only Dunkirk was left to us. Calais had been defend­ed by a British force which had refused to sur­ren­der, and it was said that there were no sur­vivors. We could only use the beach­es east and west of Dunkirk in addi­tion to the port itself. Dunkirk was under a great pall of black smoke, to which our ships were adding arti­fi­cial smoke so as to screen our embarka­tions from the air. The Air Force were main­tain­ing the most pow­er­ful pos­si­ble fight­er patrols over this scene, and the Ger­mans were suf­fer­ing immense loss­es in the air, as on the ground, in their attempts to inter­fere with the embarka­tion. The supe­ri­or­i­ty of our fight­ers was once again being man­i­fest­ed, and on two occa­sions great flights of Ger­man bombers had turned away and declined bat­tle when they saw our fight­er patrols.

    The PM went on to say that our claw­ing-down rate was grad­u­al­ly ris­ing, tak­ing an aver­age of one day with anoth­er, to 3:1, to 4:1, and late­ly to 5:1. It was clear that we had killed off most of the best Nazi pilots, unless, which seemed unlike­ly, they had been hold­ing some of their best in reserve. ‘They’re cold meat,’ our air­men say. He was deter­mined to pre­pare pub­lic opin­ion for bad tid­ings, and it would of course be said, and with some truth, that what was now hap­pen­ing in North­ern France would be the great­est British mil­i­tary defeat for many centuries. 

    We must now be pre­pared for the sud­den turn­ing of the war against this island, and pre­pared also for oth­er events of great grav­i­ty in Europe. No coun­te­nance should be giv­en pub­licly to the view that France might soon col­lapse, but we must not allow our­selves to be tak­en by sur­prise by any events. It might indeed be said that it would be eas­i­er to defend this island alone than to defend this island plus France, and if it was seen through­out the world that it was the for­mer, there would be an immense wave of feel­ing, not least in the USA which, hav­ing done noth­ing much to help us so far, might even enter the war. But all this was spec­u­la­tive. Attempts to invade us would no doubt be made, but they would be beset with immense dif­fi­cul­ty. We should mine all round our coast; our Navy was immense­ly strong; our air defences were much more eas­i­ly organ­ised from this island than across the Chan­nel; our sup­plies of food, oil, etc., were ample; we had good troops in this island, oth­ers were on the way by sea, both British army units com­ing from remote gar­risons and excel­lent Domin­ion troops, and, as to air­craft, we were now more than mak­ing good our cur­rent loss­es, and the Ger­mans were not.

    It was idle to think that, if we tried to make peace now, we should get bet­ter terms from Ger­many than if we went on and fought it out. The Ger­mans would demand our fleet—that would be called “disarmament”—our naval bases, and much else. We should become a slave state, though a British Gov­ern­ment which would be Hitler’s pup­pet would be set up—”under Mosley (1) or some such per­son.” And where should we be at the end of all that? On the oth­er side, we had immense reserves and advan­tages. There­fore, he said, “We shall go on and we shall fight it out, here or else­where, and if at last the long sto­ry is to end, it were bet­ter it should end, not through sur­ren­der, but only when we are rolling sense­less on the ground.” (2)

    There was a mur­mur of approval round the table, in which I think Amery, Lord Lloyd and I were loud­est. Not much more was said. No one expressed even the faintest flick­er of dis­sent. Her­bert Mor­ri­son asked about evac­u­a­tion of the Gov­ern­ment, and hoped that it would not be hur­ried. The PM said Cer­tain­ly not, he was all against evac­u­a­tion unless things real­ly became utter­ly impos­si­ble in Lon­don, “but mere bomb­ing will not make us go.”

    (1) Oswald Ernald Mosley, 1896-1980. Edu­cat­ed at Sand­hurst. On active ser­vice, 1917-18. A Con­ser­v­a­tive MP, 1918-22, he sat as an Inde­pen­dent, 1922-24 and as a Labour mem­ber 1924 and 1926-31. Suc­ceed­ed his father as 6th Baronet, 1928. Labour Chan­cel­lor of the Duchy of Lan­cast­er, 1929-30. Found­ed the British Union of Fas­cists, 1932. Impris­oned, 1940-45. He pub­lished his auto­bi­og­ra­phy, My Life, in 1968. Mosley was mar­ried to Clemen­tine Churchill’s cousin Diana Mitford.

    (2) Dal­ton lat­er set down anoth­er ver­sion of Churchill’s words in the mar­gin of this diary entry: “If this long island sto­ry of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies chok­ing in his own blood upon the ground.”

  45. Is there a full text of Churchill’s speech to the out­er cab­i­net on 28 May 1940?

  46. A read­er asks: “No men­tion of the scotch and soda for break­fast, two bot­tles of cham­pagne, and four cig­ars every day?”

    All those are wrong. He did not drink scotch and soda (see below). His cham­pagne was an Impe­r­i­al Pint, like a half bot­tle today, con­sumed over the course of a two-hour din­ner. More like eight cig­ars, but more of them were chewed on than smoked. My 2003 arti­cle con­tained more, which I didn’t include in my reply below, so here it is:

    Churchill would occa­sion­al­ly wash down break­fast with a glass of white wine. His “high­ball,” which his daugh­ter has demon­strat­ed, was a tum­bler with the bot­tom cov­ered in scotch and then filled with water and nursed for hours. He picked up this habit in India and Africa where he had to add whisky to make the water potable. “By dili­gent appli­ca­tion I learned to like it.” It was more like mouth­wash than a high­ball, and he would nurse it for long peri­ods. Sounds pret­ty dread­ful to me, but since he always had a glass near at hand, peo­ple assumed he drank con­stant­ly. He did not dis­abuse them of this notion. Where he did con­sume vast quan­ti­ties of alco­hol was at extend­ed lunch­es and dinners–and per­haps this was how he got away with such con­sump­tion. William Man­ches­ter cor­rect­ly said Churchill “always had some alco­hol in his blood­stream.” But nobody, fam­i­ly or staff, saw him the worse for drink, except once at Teheran, when he tot­tered unsteadi­ly after a lengthy series of vod­ka toasts with the Russians.

  47. Paul, you have a good mem­o­ry. I report­ed on my attempt to mim­ic his day (which didn’t last a year, or a month, or even a fort­night, or I would have been divorced) in 2003:

    Churchill’s typ­i­cal day was: wake at 8 and often spend the morn­ing in bed, dic­tat­ing let­ters and read­ing the papers (he took them all, includ­ing the Dai­ly Work­er), toss­ing the sheets on either side of the bed as he got through them, much to the ire of his valet, Frank Sawyers. A reporter, Per­cy Reid, who hung around when WSC was in res­i­dence, knew when he wasn’t there because the West­er­ham news-mon­ger still had the Dai­ly Work­er. He ordered only one copy because Churchill was the only customer.

    By noon he’d had a bath and would go down to lunch, where he might hold forth for a cou­ple of hours—if the com­pa­ny was con­ge­nial. He would then stroll around Chartwell, vis­it­ing his gold­fish, black swans, and per­haps the farm ani­mals. After tea, he’d take a one-hour nap in paja­mas and eye­shade. He would wake refreshed, bathe again, dress for din­ner, which could last hours, fol­lowed by a film. Then he’d say, “Right, let’s get to work,” and dic­tate books, arti­cles or speech­es until as late as 3 a.m. Thus he got by on five or six hours’ sleep and made 1 1/2 days out of one.

    I tried this and found that it works fine—provided you have four sec­re­taries, a but­ler, valet and a cook—or one per­son to serve in all of these func­tions. My wife was not amused and the exper­i­ment did not last two days.

  48. I remem­ber read­ing an arti­cle a num­ber of years ago where the author stat­ed that he had tried to live Churchill’s lifestyle for a year and it near­ly bank­rupt­ed him. Was that your com­ment, and if so, could you give us a few tid­bits of the experience?

  49. Thank you. I enjoyed Scott’s book now and my review is now post­ed here­in. Search for “bib­li­og­ra­phy” and you’ll find a list of books about Churchill with brief reviews back to 1905. Oth­er recent books are reviewed in depth in the Hills­dale “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 car.

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. 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?

  53. 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.

  54. 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.

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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,


  58. 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

  59. 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….

    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.)

  60. 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?

  61. We refer to mod­el year, although some changes that became offi­cial for, say, 1940, might have been run­ning changes made dur­ing the 1939 mod­el run.

  62. 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?

  63. 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.

  64. 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.

  65. 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.

  66. 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.

  67. 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? 

  68. You com­ment­ed to The Syd­ney Morn­ing Herald/The Age that Churchill nev­er said the words they ascribed to him:

    “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

    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.

  69. 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.

  70. 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.

  71. 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.”

  72. 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.

  73. 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.

  74. 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.

  75. 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!

  76. 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?


  77. 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.

    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.

  79. 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

  80. You might be inter­est­ed in this (undat­ed) mag­a­zine, Tai­lor and Cut­ter, fea­tur­ing Churchill and Eden on the cover:

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

  81. SEO| Inter­net Mar­ket­ing| Web­site Designing


    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.

    Gary Smith
    [email protected]
    SEO – Link Build­ing – Copy­right – Web Design­ing – PHP

  82. 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.

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

    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 *

RML Books

Richard Langworth’s Most Popular Books & eBooks

Links on this page may earn commissions.