It is my hope to do several short articles on Queen Elizabeth II and history, likely spreading them over perhaps a fair amont of time. This is, I hope, the first of, oh, maybe a half a dozen.

Elizabeth was likely the most influential Briton of the 20th century and succeeded in extending her position well into the 21st. Her only real competition for this position would have to be Sir Winston Churchill, the greatest British leader of the 20th century, perhaps any century. You do not have to agree with everything about Winston, do not need to approve of every one of his opinions or actions(I don’t)to consider him great. But great he was in my opinion despite a few mistakes, sometimes serious ones. John O’Hara once pointed out that since he was in positions of power his mistakes tended to be disastrous– true enough, but for the same reason, his victories were magnificent and the biggest one, over the Axis Powers, was his greatest contribution to his country and the world.

So we have here the most effective Queen since Elizabeth I and one of the prime movers of Western Civilization of the second half of the 20th century, and the greatest conqueror of evil during that century–well beyond it, in fact. My purpose here is to look at their relationship, see how they dealt with and influenced each other and ask if any significant conclusions may be drawn from all this.

Elizabeth was born in 1926 and the earliest known Churchill reference to her in writing is in a letter to his wife about two years later. He commented on her “air of authority & reflectiveness, astonishing in an infant.” Astonishing in a two year old it certainly would be, but apparently Winston was gifted with extraordinary depth of perception into the human personality. He does seem to have been with a number of people later on.

Churchill’s career is well known, particularly through victory in WWII. Most of the rest of it is fairly well know to anyone interested, but it may be well to mention a few facts. Resigning as PM after the Conservative defeat in the 1945 election, he became, as the party’s leader in the Commons, automatically the leader of the the Opposition, a position he would hold for about 6 years. During this time he is known particularly for actions and opinions on foreign affairs, mostly the decline of the Empire and the Soviet-Western relationship. This latter one included his involvement with the new issue of nuclear weaponry

Regarding the Empire he was opposed to most of the dismantling which was obviously coming, but powerless to prevent it. He was what today is defined as “on the wrong side of history” there. I think he may have grasped that this “wrongness ” was strong, if not in ultimate terms, at least in short run expediency and perhaps more. There was little he could do about it. Not much of the dismantling took place with him in power, but what had happened and was about to happen was clear.

Regarding the East-West matter there was more he could do and he did. At first he believed that the US was in error in, if not “trusting” Stalin, at least giving in too much to his wishes. He wanted to seize Berlin at the end of the war before the USSR could and he was angry about the refusal of the US to cooperate. Most famously Churchill made the “Iron Curtain” speech in the US and provided a phrase which would be used for a generation or more, a phrase which denoted the division of Europe. He was seriously mistrustful of the USSR and as was natural given his experiences, inclined to see Stalin as another Hitler who had to be resisted, one way or the other.

There is some indication that sometime before the Soviets acquired the A-Bomb, he may have advocated to the Americans that they consider an atomic “first strike” which a powerful and threatening but non-nuclear USSR would be unable to resist. Or he may have been essentially saying that the US should threaten the USSR with such a strike if they didn’t hold to the US line in European affairs. I checked 3 or 4 sources on this and the evidence is not overwhelming, but does lean toward a very aggressive attitude—much more so than the US at that time–and a willingness to consider the use of the A-Bomb.

This changed dramatically after 1) The USSR become a nuclear power and 2) the Hydrogen Bomb came into consideration.(One could also add after the beginning of the Eisenhower Administration) Although I think he was a bit overly aggressive in the atomic threat/use issue, given his background and the miseries of war he had to lead the UK through, it was understandable. He changed quickly when he came more fully to understand what nuclear weapons might actually do to the world and what mankind would go through if they were used. By the early fifties he was, though still strong for defense, an opponent of nuclear carelessness and an upholder of caution in nuclear matters. I found one article which suggested that Churchill, an agnostic as far as one can tell from his public record, even drifted toward religion as his anxiety for humankind increased, mainly because of the continuing arms race, then just getting going, between the two nuclear superpowers.

During most of this time Elizabeth and Churchill had minimal contact. He was, after all, the leader of the party out of power and the royals had to deal with Atlee’s Laborites in day-to-day matters. During this time, Elizabeth grew up and more. After serving as a driver and mechanic during the war, she was an experienced if very young royal with some first-hand understanding of the world of power. She was also deeply in love with her second cousin, Philip of Greece, whom she married at the age of 21, and with whom she quickly bore two children, Charles and Anne. She expected it would be a long time before she would actually take on the symbols and to some extent the reality of power.

It was not to be. Early in 1952 she and Phillip began a tour of the Commonwealth. They were in Africa when she got the telepone message that George VI had died– unexpectedly , though it was widely know his health was poor. They immediately flew home. Her coronation would not be for about a year, May, 1953, but to the extent the monarch still held some reins of power(and to some extent he or she did)they were in her hands now.

Churchill was depressed at the idea at first, commenting on her youthfulness and lack of experience. Anthony Lascalles, private secretary to George VI and the new Queen suggested to Winston that he would find her beautiful, poised, intelligent and fully capable of understanding the problems of a PM. And Winston was PM again now–in a 1951 election weirdly similar to two 21st century US Presidential elections, the Laborites had gotten more of the popular votes, but the Conservatives had won a majority of Commons seats. Winston was PM again almost immediately.

The record shows that Winston was very unhappy. He had greatly admired(thought they did not always agree)George VI and had been friends and partners is guiding their country through the war. Churchill would seriously miss his old friend and comrade. He found, however, that Lascalles was right about the new Queen. She was everything he said and more. Both she and Churchill had a well developed sense of humor and they enjoyed each other’s company immensely. The staff reported “peals of laughter” often emerging from their weekly meetings. There is no indication that they ever disagreed seriously on an important issue, and Churchill proved a wise teacher and she an apt pupil in studying the ways of power.

But there were difficulties for the old/new PM. For different reasons, some personal and some political, he no longer was an unquestioned leader as he had(almost)been during the war. A new generation was rising in the nation and in the Conservative Party. He was 76 when he took the reigns of power for the 2nd time and his health was beginning to fail. He tried and largely succeeded for some time to keep this unknown to the public and even many politicians, but this could not go on indefinitely.

In the spring of 1953 he suffered a serious stroke. This was kept a carefully guarded secret and, incredibly he presided over a cabinet meeting the next day and no one noticed there was anything amiss. But it was several months before he was fully(or nearly so)recovered. He hated giving up power and leaving problems for people whom he thought(sometimes correctly)weren’t up to handling them, but there was another stroke later on and some thought his vigor and his attention span both showed signs of declining. After several delays, the moment finally came in April, 1954. Churchill resigned as PM, no doubt realizing that he would fade from the public mind somewhat now, but slowly and never completely.

The night before he left office, Elizabeth and Phillip dined with the Churchills at 10 Downing St. This was an unusual and a aignificant matter for the monarchy and indicated the regard in which they held Winston. Already a Knight of the Garter, he could have joined the House of Lords. Elizabeth offered to make him Duke of London, but he refused. This refusal was partly because of complications regarding his somewhat unstable son, Randolph, who would have been heir to the title. But it is likely true that Winston was being honest when he said he wished to remain in the House of Common. And remain he did until 1964, when a broken hip and other health issues made him no longer functional in a public role.

Winston died in January of 1965, aged 90. His death took place on Jan 30, the anniversary of his father’s death and the month and day he had predicted for himself years earlier. As on other occasions, he was inexplicably right.

His funeral was watched by thousands in the UK in person and millions on television around the world. Many of them may have understood, at least subliminally the symbolism and irony. He was born in the reign of Queen Victoria and now the Beatles were dominating British culture. The differences could hardly have been more stark.

But there was one more honor. It was traditional for the Queen to be the last person to enter at a funeral. But at Churchill’s, Elizabeth arrived early, not wanting to take away any of the honor and accolades due the Churchill family that day. Many others would have made a similar decision had it been possible for them to do so, and so far as I know, no one ever criticized the Queen for her breaking precedent.

She would have 14 more Prime Ministers. She would be close to some of them, but never as much again as with Churchill. I shall, I hope, reflect a bit more on their relationship in another blog.