King Edward VIII Archives - Richard M. Langworth

Troublesome Toffs: The Duke of Windsor and Bendor Westminster

Richard M. Langworth — Sat, 20 Nov 2021 22:38:01 +0000

“A fully equipped Duke costs as much to keep as two Dreadnoughts; and Dukes are just as great a terror and they last longer.”

The wisecrack, wrongly attributed to Churchill, was actually uttered by his Liberal ally, David Lloyd George. (Allegedly LG said it in 1909, during their battle to reform the House of Lords,) It didn’t make Churchill more welcome at Blenheim Palace, where his cousin the Duke of Marlborough forbade the name of LG in conversation.

Polo enthusiasts: Philip Sassoon, Edward as Prince of Wales, and WSC, 1936. (Wikimedia Commons)

The Duke of Windsor (formerly King Edward VIII) and the 2nd Duke of Westminster are occasionally attacked for their “near-treasonous activity in support of the Third Reich.” Some add that Winston Churchill did not turn against those “top toffs,” both of whom were for a time his friends.

“Near-treasonous” is going some in describing their activities. They may have been toffs, but they counted for little in the scheme of things, and, Churchill did try to silence them.

“Little Windsor”

The Duke of Windsor (as he became after abdicating in 1936) certainly had much to be modest about. He paid a social call on the Führer in Berlin and gave what looked like a Nazi salute. In 1940 Churchill got him out of Europe by appointing him Governor of the Bahamas. There he did not rehash his prewar pro-Nazi statements. Still, descendants of prominent Bahamians still remember the kerfuffles in Nassau during his tenure. Back home, writes Warren Kimball in Forged in War, 54, he caused Churchill

“some embarrassment.” He apparently thought the Germans would win…. Churchill claimed that the Duke’s “loyalties are unimpeachable,” while the documents available suggest that he was obsessed with matters of personal privilege and, like all the Windsors, with the safety of the dynasty. Nevertheless, one plausible tale has the Duke sending a message in 1940 via Fulton Oursler, an American journalist who had access to Roosevelt, asking if the President “would consider intervening as a mediator when, as and if the proper time arrives?”…. FDR, who apparently already knew of the proposal, contemptuously commented: “When little Windsor says he doesn’t think there should be a revolution in Germany, I tell you, Fulton, I would rather have April’s [Oursler’s teenage daughter] opinion on that than his.”

“Bendor,” Second Duke of Westminster (1879-1953)

“The will of the nation…”

The other Duke, “Bendor” Westminster (nicknamed for the “Bend’Or” in his coat of arms) was a greater embarrassment. He joined the anti-semitic Right Club and the Parliamentary Peace Aims Group in 1939, claiming to be in touch with “Nazi moderates.” The British government, wrote historian Julian Jackson, “did not take any of this too seriously. None of the pro-peace peers were first-rank, or even third-rank political figures.” (The Fall of France, 2004, 204.)

Bendor and Churchill were, however, longtime friends, and once the war started, Churchill chided His Grace. From Martin Gilbert, ed., The Churchill Documents, vol. 14 (Hillsdale College Press, 2011), 91-92:

…there are some very serious and bad things in [your Peace Aims Group statements]…. When a country is fighting a war of this kind, very hard experiences lie before those who preach defeatism and set themselves against the main will of the nation.

Bendor sent a dissembling reply and Churchill fired back with a more pointed message. From Churchill Archives Centre, Churchill Papers, CHAR 19/2A/19-20:

…in time of peace, people in a free country have a right to form their views about foreign policy; but when the country is fighting for its life against a deadly enemy, there are grave dangers in taking a hostile line to the decided plan….[Especially your] suggesting that all we were fighting for was to make money for the Jews and international finance, or words to that effect.

After that, the Duke subsided, and the Peace Aims Group disappeared after the bombs started falling on London.

Winston Churchill had a lot of loyalty toward his friends. But with the two Dukes, he certainly was aware of the problems and acted to squelch them.

“Darkest Hour,” the movie: an interview with The Australian

Richard M. Langworth — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 20:43:46 +0000

For The Australian …

Troy Bramston of The Australian newspaper had pertinent questions about the new movie Darkest Hour, starring Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill. With the thought that Troy’s queries might be of interest, I append the text of the interview.

The Australian : Of all the things Winston Churchill is purported to have said and done, the myths and misconceptions, which are the most prevalent and frustrating for scholars?

None of these appear in the film, but there are three things that rankle: 1) The lies—that he was anxious to use poison gas; that he firebombed Dresden in revenge for Coventry; that he exacerbated the Bengal famine, etc. 2) The personal nonsense—that he was an alcoholic, that he had an unhappy marriage, and so on. 3) The many one liners he never said: “poison in your coffee,” the phony “success” quotes. I’ve spent forty years researching and exploding those canards.

Politics of 1940

Australian : Darkest Hour shows Churchill under enormous political pressure and somewhat hesitant in the war cabinet about confronting Adolf Hitler. In truth, did he have any moments of self-doubt?

Doubt about the outcome, yes. Doubt in himself, never. It was not in his make-up. In the past his self-confidence had done him harm—as over his support for the Dardanelles naval action (1915) without plenary authority to direct it. In the main, he’d learned to avoid this by 1940. The two chief misconceptions in an otherwise very good film involve its suggestions of self-doubt: The scene where the King tells him to take his cue from the people, and the Underground scene where he does just that. Actually, he knew what the people wanted. He said of them later:

Their will was resolute and remorseless, and as it proved unconquerable. It fell to me to express it, and if I found the right words you must remember that I have always earned my living by my pen and by my tongue. It was the nation and the race dwelling all round the globe that had the lion heart. I had the luck to be called upon to give the roar.

It is true about the tremendous political pressure. He got the job on 10 May 1940 only because nobody else wanted it. His predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, and the only other likely candidate, Lord Halifax, had powerful support. He needed to acknowledge their views, to go through the motion of considering their proposals. But in his soul, Churchill knew there was no compromising with Hitler. “We should become a slave state,” he said about any peace deal. Thus his game-changing speech to the wider cabinet on 28 May 1940, so ably dramatized by the film, and by John Lukacs’ Five Days in London: May 1940: “If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.”

What if?

Australian : Is it accurate to conclude that without Churchill rising to power at that moment, May 1940, with Nazi Germany on the warpath in Europe, that Britain could well have ended up suing for peace? Without Churchill—one man—would history have been very different?

Probably. No one can know the outcome if things had been otherwise. The odds against victory were high. The case for a peace deal was credible. But Churchill had two unique qualities: supreme confidence and the skill to communicate. With these he inspired the nation—and the Commonwealth. That included the efforts of Australia, which made powerful contributions under its wartime prime ministers, Menzies and Curtin.

Australian : How tenuous was Churchill’s position as PM in his early months? Were Lord Halifax and Neville Chamberlain really contemplating Churchill losing Tory support or facing a vote of no confidence in the Commons?

Remember it was a coalition government—he needed Labour and Liberal as well as Tory support. There was never a threat of a no confidence vote at that time. But on 10 May 1940, Churchill was politically vulnerable. There was huge residual good will for Chamberlain, who had tried to save the peace. By May 28th, encouraged by the ongoing evacuation at Dunkirk, Churchill knew the bulk of the army was safe. Britain had a chance. His speeches did the rest. An old RAF flyer, briefly his Scotland Yard bodyguard after the war, told me: “After one of those speeches, we wanted the Germans to come.”

Oldman’s portrayal

Australian : We are presented in the movie with a Churchill who puts a lot of effort into his speeches, writing and rewriting, to make them compelling. Do the documents and the testimony of those who worked with him show this?

Yes. He used to say, “One hour of prep for each minute of delivery.” That was an exaggeration—or was it? It didn’t take that long to compose his “Finest Hour” speech of 18 June 1940. But we should consider that he’d been mulling over those ideas—a valiant Britain resisting a continental tyrant—since writing the life of Marlborough—which took him ten years. Read Marlborough and you can see those speeches forming. It was his greatest work—far more than a biography. The scholar Leo Strauss called it “an inexhaustible mine of political wisdom and understanding.”

Australian : Some things are, obviously, invented, such as the scene in the London Underground. Churchill did not use the subterranean War Rooms often. And I don’t think he had a direct line to Franklin Roosevelt until later. But does any of this really matter in dramatizing this story?

Not a lot. True, he disliked the War Rooms, slept there only a handful of nights. (Among other things, the place stank—sanitation was rudimentary.) The Underground scene is unfortunate because it misrepresents his resolution. Hollywood likes to reduce great figures to the ordinary. They aren’t. That is not to say Churchill didn’t harbor serious doubts. His bodyguard, Inspector Thompson, recalled May 10th with moving emotion. When Thompson offered his congratulations, observing that the task was enormous…

Tears came into his eyes as he answered gravely: “God alone knows how great it is. I hope that it is not too late. I am very much afraid that it is. We can only do our best.” As he turned away he muttered something—to himself. Then he set his jaw and with a look of determination, mastering all emotion, he began to climb the stairs of the Admiralty. It was the greatest privilege of my life to have shared those few moments with him.

* * *

One can only imagine what he muttered to himself, but I’ll hazard a guess. It is from Marvell’s Horatian Ode to King Charles I—a phrase Churchill frequently repeated. He said it about the British people in 1940, about Roosevelt in 1941 and, improbably, about the abdicated King Edward VIII. Why wouldn’t he have said it about himself, in that hour? “He nothing common did or mean, Upon that memorable scene…”

Australian : Churchill is seen drinking and smoking to excess, being cranky and barking orders, working in bed etc. Did you find this portrayal close to the real Churchill?

Yes, and in some versions the producers thought it necessary to say smoking, which is naughty, is only there for artistic purposes. Oh dear!

My new book, Winston Churchill, Myth and Reality, addresses these canards. Inspector Thompson wrote: “He likes to smoke a cigar, but he realises that the public like to see him doing so even more. He, therefore, takes good care to ensure that a cigar is in his mouth on all special occasions!” His sipped or drank alcohol most all of the day, every day, but it was spaced out. Contrary to the film, he never drank whisky neat. He warned those who did that they would not enjoy a long life. His heaviest consumption was at mealtimes, when it was easier to absorb without effect. In his single-minded intensity, he did bark and become obstreperous—his wife successfully got him to back off. But his staff was devoted to him, for the most part. They understood the pressure he was under.

Setting a mark

Australian : Overall, how does Gary Oldman’s portrayal of Churchill compare to the many other small and large screen treatments of his life? Do you have a favourite?

For me, nobody will ever replace Robert Hardy in The Wilderness Years. But that was a sustained performance, an eight-part mini-series, pinpoint accurate and perfectly cast. Robert followed with many separate performances. However, most everyone agrees that Gary Oldman is masterful. It is a real treat after all the many recent movie misrepresentations. I’d rank Oldman very high. He is marvelous. And his make-up artist is a magician.

Churchill Bio-Pics: The Trouble with the Movies

Richard M. Langworth — Thu, 10 Aug 2017 22:46:30 +0000

“The Trouble with the Movies” was published in the American Thinker, 5 August 2017.

David Franco, reviewing the film Churchill, starring Brian Cox, raises questions he says everyone should be asking. “Isn’t the ability to accept one’s mistakes part of what makes a man a good leader? …. To what extent should we rely [on] past experiences in order to minimize mistakes in the future? These are the questions that make a bad movie like Churchill worth seeing.”

Well, I won’t be seeing this bad movie. Described as “perverse fantasy” by historian Andrew Roberts, it joins a recent spate of sloppy Churchill bio-pics that favor skewed caricatures over historical fact.

Revisionism: A Thriving Industry

Makers of movies might think it novel to criticize Churchill, but this is far from the case. Attacks on his leadership began early after World War II and have continued ever since. There’s a thriving mini-industry in “Churchill revisionism.” But it started with books, not movies.

In 1963, R.W. Thompson’s The Yankee Marlborough portrayed Churchill as a man of flesh and blood, who made mistakes, like anybody else. In his 1970 study, Churchill: A Study in Failure 1900-1939, Robert Rhodes James focused on Churchill’s political gaffes, such as his dogged support of King Edward VIII in the 1936 Abdication crisis. Edward, later Duke of Windsor, gave up the throne to marry an American divorcee. The Duke’s tepid admiration of Hitler, and dismal performance as Governor of the Bahamas, caused Churchill to reflect: “I’m glad I was wrong.”

In 1993, John Charmley’s Churchill: The End of Glory rocked Churchill’s supporters by claiming that he should have backed away from the Hitler war to preserve Britain’s wealth, power, and empire. More recently, Max Hastings criticized Churchill’s war leadership on multiple issues in both World Wars: Catastrophe 1914, on the opening months of WW1, and Winston’s War, 1940-45.

Whatever we make of their assessments, these historians were qualified critics whose thoroughly researched theses merit consideration. Alas, we cannot say the same about the recent round of Churchill movies.

Movies Faithful to Reality

Churchill movies started off well and were honest for decades. Young Winston (1972), starring Simon Ward as WSC and Anne Bancroft as his mother, was a vivid presentation based on Churchill’s own account of his first twenty-five years. Its inaccuracies stemmed from Churchill himself in his autobiography. (In it, Anthony Hopkins played David Lloyd George. Lady Randolph says: “He has the most disconcerting way of looking at women.”)

In 1974, Lee Remick brilliantly reprised the role of Lady Randolph the television series Jennie: as accurate a portrayal as ever existed. We Churchlllians gave her an award for it—the dying Lee’s last public appearance. It was attended by Gregory Peck, who co-starred with her in The Omen, who praised her “depth of womanliness.”

That same year, Richard Burton played a believable Churchill in The Gathering Storm, about the years leading up to World War II. Again, it didn’t deviate from fact, although Burton spoiled the effect by denouncing Churchill for fictitious acts against Welsh miners, including Burton’s father. Privately, Burton had expressed his admiration for “the old boy”.…but later, the cameras were on.

The 1981 TV series Churchill: The Wilderness Years, remains the model Churchill bio-pic. Herein Robert Hardy showed us both Churchill’s human frailties and his greatness. Hardy and his writers partnered with Churchill’s official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert to portray the anxious politician of the 1930s, out of power, vainly warning of the Nazi menace. Brilliantly cast, the result was a masterpiece.

More Recently…

Albert Finney was a solid Churchill in the second Gathering Storm (2002), a 90-minute film for television. As skillfully cast as The Wilderness Years, it featured Vanessa Redgrave in a bavura performance as Clementine Churchill. The story line, while not uncritical, did not deviate from fact. Even in the cynical, anti-heroic 21st century, it seemed, filmmakers could still tell his story without reducing Churchill to a flawed burlesque or godlike caricature. Then came “Into the Storm,” a 2009 television drama broadcast by the BBC and HBO. Here in a series set in 1945 with 1940 flashbacks, Brendan Gleeson gave us the most accurate Churchill since Robert Hardy. Things were looking good.

Or so I thought. Alas, in the last couple of years, we’ve had three films which can only be described as “fake history,” and a one-dimensional documentary that fails to tell the full story.

A Turn to the Worse

The Crown, a 2016 Netflix series covering the early reign of Queen Elizabeth II, was well acted. But John Lithgow portrayed a senile prime minister who hides his 1953 stroke from the Queen and repeatedly paints his goldfish pond in a muddle of depression. Factually, the Queen knew of Churchill’s stroke three days after it happened—and he was never so dotty as to make repeated paintings of his fish pond. The Duke of Windsor resurfaces here, promising that he will get the new Queen to move into Buckingham Palace if Churchill restores his royal allowance. Where do they think of this stuff?

Viceroy’s House has not been seen yet in the US, and we’re missing nothing. A visually elaborate production, it covers the end of British rule in India, under the last Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, whitewashing the latter at Churchill’s expense. Mountbatten’s insistence that Britain leave before the India-Pakistan boundaries were settled led to violent strife and the massacre of millions. Somehow, the film manages to blame this on Churchill, who was not even in power at the time.

* * *

Churchill starring Brian Cox is built around the myth that Churchill opposed D-Day virtually to the moment of the Normandy landings. In reality, Churchill had sought “a lodgment on the continent” since the British were thrown out of Dunkirk in 1940. His concept of floating “Mulberry Harbors” for landing tanks and equipment dated back to 1917. This hasn’t prevented Mr. Cox from flaunting his ignorance in interviews repeating a host of canards, including the notion that Churchill wanted to invade Germany over the Alps.

I held my breath when the film Dunkirk appeared, hoping it would not be another dose of lame propaganda. Churchill doesn’t appear in it. But his absence, along with other heroes of the Dunkirk evacuation, reduces the film to a one-dimensional portrait. It’s war on a beach, with moving scenes of heroism and survival. Who was the enemy? A viewer has no idea why Churchill said after Dunkirk, “We shall never surrender”—though his words are read movingly by a soldier in the final scenes.

Hope Ahead? We’ll See

There’s no question that fictitious scenes and conversations are legitimate devices in bio-pics. But they must not depart from what we know. And thanks to historians like Martin Gilbert and the Hillsdale College Churchill Project, we know a lot.

There is cause for hope. This autumn, Gary Oldman will star as Churchill in another bio-pic, Darkest Hour, about facing Hitler’s armies in 1940. Promisingly, Oldman has consulted with qualified historians, striving to find “a way in” to the real Churchill. Colleagues who’ve seen previews say he has Churchill down perfectly. But his script contains some bizarre counterfactuals.

One can only wish him success. Perhaps this film will answer David Franco’s questions. Yes, accepting one’s mistakes does make a person a good leader. Yes, Churchill did learn from his mistakes. He was a man of quality—a good guide for our troubled decade. And after a long lapse, he deserves a film that does him justice.