June 1, 2015

Finest Hour 108, Autumn 2000

Page 41

Q: A writer at Time Inc. (actually Sports Illustrated,) editing an article on the Sydney Olympics asked us to confirm a remark by Churchill that he did not want Australia’s support during the war because Australians came from “bad blood. ” The writer did not know where he got the quote.

A: We’ve heard variations of this but could not find it in • any of the usual source books or our database, and didn’t have the TIME to track it down. Nor are we sure it’s accurate. Of course Churchill wanted Australia’s support— and spoke well of Aussie troops on numerous occasions. It would be just like Time Inc., whose misrepresentation of Churchill in their “Person of the Century” issue was despicable, to dredge up the one negative he may have uttered about Australia, just in time for the Olympics. Perhaps they should stick to their January singsong about his opposition to “women’s rights.” Clearly, they will print anything.

Q: Where could I find information on the honorary degree that Sir Winston Churchill received from the University of Miami? -Lourdes G. Castano, University of Miami Advancement Research.

A: Churchill accepted an honorary degree at the University of Miami on 26 February 1946, just two weeks before delivering his famous “Iron Curtain” speech at Fulton, Missouri. He spoke before a crowd of 17,500 in Burdine Stadium and joked that: “I am surprised that in my later life I should have become so experienced in taking degrees when, as a school-boy, I was so bad at passing examinations.” -Allen Packwood, Churchill Archives Centre, Churchill College Cambridge.

2024 International Churchill Conference

Join us for the 41st International Churchill Conference. London | October 2024

More

Q: Elizabeth Snell informs us that on February 7th The Times of London ran an article tritely entitled, “How did Winston Churchill manage to save the world while drinking like a fish?” Another reader sent us apiece by Matthew d’Ancona, in Life & Times for 7 February 1992, who wrote that Churchill’s daily intake of alcohol was 22 units, more than the recommended safe weekly allowance. How do we explain this? Was he impervious to the stuff?

A: His capacity was exaggerated, by himself and latterday reporters. Matthew d’Ancona said he drank a glass of hock at breakfast, a bottle of Champagne and some brandies at lunch, scotch and soda in the afternoon, more Champagne and cognac at dinner, more scotch as he worked in the small hours. In fact, morning hock was occasional, and the Champagne bottles were Imperial pints (a small size now extinct owing to EU regulations). The scotch in his highball barely covered the bottom of the glass before it was drowned with soda or water (“it was more like mouthwash,” said Jock Colville). And the brandy count was sometimes exaggerated. He had, undoubtedly, a formidable capacity; but no observer ever saw him drunk.

Q: I am reading A Touch of Treason (1990) by Ian Hamilton, the ringleader in the theft of the Stone of Destiny from Westminster Abbey in December 1950. Is Churchill know to have commented on the incident? -Jim Kirk

A: The only evidence that I have found in the Churchill Papers would suggest that Churchill did not want to comment on the Stone of Scone theft. John Campbell from Glasgow wrote to him on 10Jan51 complaining that “The controversy aroused by the disappearance of the Coronation Stone has led to much abusive criticism of Scots and Covenant leaders….every effort has been made by Covenant leaders to interview you and Mr. Attlee. Every path to friendly discussion has been blocked by political intransigence. Repeated appeals for realistic and statesmanlike approach to Scotland’s demand for revision of her Treaty have failed. National feeling has been unwisely ignored and, knowing the character of the Scots, you will scarcely expect such cavalier treatment to be endured indefinitely.” The letter goes on to lay the blame for the theft on Parliament for failing to meet the demands for Scottish Home Rule, and urges Churchill and Attlee to enter into discussions with regard to the revision of the Treaty of Union. Churchill simply replied, “I have received your letter of January 10, the contents of which I have noted. Thank you for writing to me.” (Reference: Churchill Papers, CHUR 2/113B/343-345).
-Allen Packwood, Churchill Archives Centre