A couple of weeks ago I saw the movie, The King's Speech, and enjoyed it. However, there is a moment where Churchill mentions to George VI that he too (Churchill) had once had a speech impediment and George seems genuinely surprised. It struck me that if this exchange had actually taken place then George VI would be the only person in England who didn't already know that Churchill had a speech impediment, and Churchill would have been the only person in England who believed that he (Churchill) no longer had a speech impediment. It also got me thinking about Churchill's seemingly irrational defence of Edward VIII during the abdication crisis. If you go to www.slate.com and then click on Christopher Hitchens you will find one columnist's take on all this. Hitchens is conventionally critical of Churchill's behaviour in the lead-up to the abdication of Edward VIII but, it seems to me, that all of the elements are there for at least making the case that Churchill's actions were not entirely without reason. For example, you might expect Churchill to have known the characters and foibles of both prospective kings quite intimately and may have had misgivings about the future George VI's ability to carry out the duties of a monarch and to raise morale particularly during a war with Germany. Churchill might then have decided that Edward VIII was the better option for reasons of image and national resolve. Churchill might also have known that the future George VI was not at all keen on the idea of Churchill becoming Prime Minister, whereas his brother Edward might have been more supportive or at least compliant. In the end, of course, Churchill likely discovered that Edward VIII was much more of an immutable twit than Churchill had ever imagined and George VI turned out to be a much better monarch than anyone might have thought possible. Similarly, George VI probably developed a higher opinion of Winston Churchill once he became Prime Minister. In any case, it seems plausible to me that Churchill could have thought that publicly supporting Edward VIII was a defensible action, while criticizing his brother as an inadequate replacement would have been scurrilous.
Stan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat?hl=en.
