Getting silly now...!
David Riddle
Churchill statue 'may have to be put in museum', says granddaughter https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53033550
David Riddle
Mobile: 07966 472340
Sent from my iPhone
Donald Jakeway
Don
Don Jakeway
San Antonio, TX
210-845-2405
> On Jun 13, 2020, at 5:15 PM, David Riddle <dpre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Arghh!!!! Whatever next? All those Roman Emperors weren’t very nice either were they...
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to churchillcha...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/722BD595-A289-4123-B4D9-1AEA4A395ADE%40gmail.com.
Antoine Capet
As a nice change from toppled or defaced statues :
Unusually The Observer (Sunday version of the Guardian) has an editorial
which carries a link to the ICS site.
“Action this day” was one of Winston Churchill’s famous injunctions. For
Boris Johnson, it has been: “An empty pledge to get me through the day.”
“Action this day” is "hot" in the electonic version of the paper :
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/14/even-tories-increasingly-fear-they-have-inflicted-the-worst-of-all-worlds-on-britain
The link takes the reader to
https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-177/action-this-day-churchill/
“Action this day”
Finest Hour 177, Summer 2017
Page 47
By Michael McMenamin
With all best wishes,
Antoine CAPET, FRHistS
Professor emeritus of British Studies
University of Rouen
76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan
France
antoin...@univ-rouen.fr
'Britain since 1914' Section Editor
Royal Historical Society Bibliography
https://www.lisez.com/livre-grand-format/churchill/9782262065355
--
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Robert Courts
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/35DE44F1-09FD-4D37-94B2-79974942C425%40satx.rr.com.
David Riddle
David Riddle
Mobile: 07966 472340
Sent from my iPhone
>
> Please look for Andrew Robert’s article tomorrow in The Mail regarding this issue in the U.K.
Dave Turrell
Dave
Johan Arve
I'll be interested to see how long it takes to haul down all the statues of Washington and Jefferson - not to mention dumping the Washington Monument into the Potomac.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: church...@googlegroups.com [mailto:churchillchat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Riddle
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2020 9:12 AM
To: church...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Getting silly now...!
Arghh!!!! Whatever next? All those Roman Emperors weren’t very nice either were they...
Churchill statue 'may have to be put in museum', says granddaughter https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53033550
David Riddle
Mobile: 07966 472340
Sent from my iPhone
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to churchillchat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/722BD595-A289-4123-B4D9-1AEA4A395ADE%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to churchillchat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/002c01d641fa%24dc8017e0%24958047a0%24%40verizon.net.
Stephen Bohrer
ric...@langworth.name
Just to say that I live in the UK.. and I’m not sure the Daily Mail would be my favoured source of unbiased comment on the matter.
ric...@langworth.name
Johan Arve
Just to say that I live in the UK.. and I’m not sure the Daily Mail would be my favoured source of unbiased comment on the matter!!
David Riddle
Mobile: 07966 472340
Sent from my iPhone
> On 13 Jun 2020, at 23:59, Donald Jakeway <djak...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Please look for Andrew Robert’s article tomorrow in The Mail regarding this issue in the U.K.
>
> Don
>
> Don Jakeway
> San Antonio, TX
> 210-845-2405
>
>> On Jun 13, 2020, at 5:15 PM, David Riddle <dpre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Arghh!!!! Whatever next? All those Roman Emperors weren’t very nice either were they...
>>
>> Churchill statue 'may have to be put in museum', says granddaughter https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53033550
>>
>> David Riddle
>> Mobile: 07966 472340
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to churchillchat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/722BD595-A289-4123-B4D9-1AEA4A395ADE%40gmail.com.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to churchillchat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/35DE44F1-09FD-4D37-94B2-79974942C425%40satx.rr.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to churchillchat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/2039D4DB-F7D9-4B85-B9E9-C70672A7A8FA%40gmail.com.
David Riddle
On 15 Jun 2020, at 22:51, Stephen Bohrer <Ste...@bohrer.com> wrote:
Hello Dave,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to churchillcha...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/FABBE19E-8417-40D9-955F-533668939423%40Bohrer.com.
<Statue of Robert Baden Powell given 24 hour guard.docx>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to churchillcha...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/FABBE19E-8417-40D9-955F-533668939423%40Bohrer.com.
Antoine Capet
Some of you know that I am preparing a much enlarged English version of my
Dictionnaire Churchill.
In the course of the spadework for it, I came across a reference to a
portrait of Lady Churchill by John Napper (1954).
The main allusion to it is in David A. Thomas, Churchill : The Member for
Woodford. Ilford: Frank Cass, 1995 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2004), p. 170.
His obituary in the Daily Telegraph says :
"During the 1950s, he painted the Queen and Lady Churchill."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1327101/John-Napper.html
Thomas says it was a present from the Woodford populace on 23 November 1954
to celebrate Churchill's 80th birthday and his 30th year as MP for the
place.
I cannot find any details in the OB or in Mary's or Hardwick's _Clementine
Churchill_. Nothing in Purnell's _First Lady_, either.
No image or even clue on Google.
Another case of the "Sutherland Portrait" ?
All very puzzling !
Best wishes to all,
Antoine CAPET, FRHistS
Professor emeritus of British Studies
University of Rouen
76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan
France
antoin...@univ-rouen.fr
'Britain since 1914' Section Editor
Royal Historical Society Bibliography
ric...@langworth.name
Antoine Capet
Many thanks for your trrouble. And of course many thanks to Katherine Carter
for immediately providing this rare and extremely informative link.
I looked at the video, naturally (I seemed to recognise Diana on the left of
the platform).
It seems incredible that the location of the portrait should remain unknown
today, and also that none of the major Churchill books except David A.
Thomas's Churchill : The Member for Woodford should mention it except as in
an allusive manner.
OB VIII only says 'On November 23 Churchill spoke at Woodford at the
presentation of a portrait of his wife.' (p.1070).
It is also odd that there should be no image of it, however reduced or
re-framed, on Google. All the more puzzling since, as you say "I think it
wonder ? Mary's silence in her magnificent biography of her mother would
suggest something like that. Unfortunately, we can no longer ask her . . .
Any clue welcome !
Best wishes to all,
A.C.
===========
Gilbert, Martin. Winston S. Churchill: Never Despair, 1945–1965 (Volume
VIII) (Churchill Biography Book 8) (p. ). RosettaBooks. Édition du Kindle.
should
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ChurchillChat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to churchillcha...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
Barbara Langworth
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/06DFA81E3F674B46BBA10F0B818BF546%40PCAntoine.
Barbara Langworth
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to churchillcha...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/4AFB2A1F7DBB45E4A896D6268638BD7D%40PCAntoine.
Antoine Capet
Wilfred Attenborough
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/07A85498-F0E5-47C9-9BD2-25EFC5A2E7C7%40gmail.com.
Dave Turrell
Whatever one’s personal opinion of the merits of the Sutherland portrait, I cannot help but feel that to dismiss it as a ‘daub’ betrays a certain artistic tin ear.
Personally I find it to be a powerful study of a real, old, and righteously tired, man – much better than an idealized soviet-style heroic depiction. While realizing the absolute right of the Churchills to do as they wished with their personal property, I regret its destruction. But, better burned at the hands of Lady Churchill (via Grace Hamlin) than torn down and destroyed by the Woke.
Dave
From: church...@googlegroups.com [mailto:church...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Wilfred Attenborough
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 4:40 AM
To: church...@googlegroups.com
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groupsgoogle.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/07A85498-F0E5-47C9-9BD2-25EFC5A2E7C7%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to churchillcha...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/CAMMCYkRXW5M0reBB0oysF7QuLvYRbUtEhCh79mfVSWXscoHcpQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Antoine Capet
This Sunday's _Observer_ offers (free access) a well-balanced review of
_Ernest Bevin : Labour’s Churchill_ by Andrew Adonis, the former Labour
Transport Minister, featuring the celebrated Low cartoon, "All behind you,
Winston" :
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/28/ernest-bevin-labours-churchill-by-andrew-adonis-review?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlVS19XZWVrZW5kLTIwMDYyOA%3D%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&CMP=GTUK_email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUK
With all best wishes,
Antoine CAPET, FRHistS
Professor emeritus of British Studies
University of Rouen
76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan
France
antoin...@univ-rouen.fr
'Britain since 1914' Section Editor
Royal Historical Society Bibliography
Wilfred Attenborough
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/006101d64c2e%24c3c82a10%244b587e30%24%40verizon.net.
Dave Turrell
Wilfred,
The Weimar Woke – I love it. That will definitely be the name of my next rock band.
Your point is well taken regarding the portrait. It would, indeed, have been nice to give the old boy something he liked and wanted. My reaction was to classifying the painting as a daub – it wasn’t. I believe that Sutherland, like all great portrait painters, saw through to the man underneath and gave us a glimpse of that. I do not believe that Churchill was in any way exuberant in 1954, or in 1955 when he made his last major speech to the House of Commons – a speech of somber realism, where he spoke, as a surviving member of Victoria’s last parliament, of living in an era which would be shared with atomic weapons. The peroration may have been intended to be inspirational, but it wasn’t the sunlit uplands.
“The day may dawn when fair play, love for one’s fellow-men, respect for justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forth serene and triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have to dwell. Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair”.
That is the Churchill I see in the Sutherland portrait.
Dave
From: church...@googlegroups.com [mailto:church...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Wilfred Attenborough
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 10:22 AM
To: church...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] portrait of Lady Churchill by John Napper (1954)
Dave,
I agree with your final comment. 'The new normal' is, I fear, the new Weimar.
As for the Sutherland portrait, I continue to believe there is a time and place for a representation as you characterize it, but surely Parliament's retirement gift should have celebrated the exuberant Churchill. This Churchill was still around at that period, and must have put in an appearance on some at least of his sittings for Sutherland - an evidence-based assertion: for example, see the film record of the presentation ceremony, when Churchill's performance completely belied the image and the message of Sutherland's work.
Wilfred
On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 22:32, 'Dave Turrell' via ChurchillChat <church...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Whatever one’s personal opinion of the merits of the Sutherland portrait, I cannot help but feel that to dismiss it as a ‘daub’ betrays a certain artistic tin ear.
Personally I find it to be a powerful study of a real, old, and righteously tired, man – much better than an idealized soviet-style heroic depiction. While realizing the absolute right of the Churchills to do as they wished with their personal property, I regret its destruction. But, better burned at the hands of Lady Churchill (via Grace Hamlin) than torn down and destroyed by the Woke.
Dave
From: church...@googlegroups.com [mailto:church...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Wilfred Attenborough
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 4:40 AM
To: church...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ChurchillChat] portrait of Lady Churchill by John Napper (1954)
Dear Professor Capet,
The Fishman book referenced by Barbara Langworth casts further doubt on the notion that the fate of the Napper portrait was comparable to that of the infamous Sutherland daub. Colonel Barlow Wheeler, WSC's constituency agent (one of Fishman's informants: see p xiii of the 1963 edition of My Darling Clementine) made clear that both Winston and Clementine were delighted by Napper's work: "... Clementine was obviously as happy as Winston with the gift, and [at the presentation ceremony] they inspected the portrait hand in hand.... It was perhaps unfortunate that the presentation of Clementine's portrait should have coincided with the presentation ... of the ... Sutherland portrait .. It is no secret that both Clementine and Winston regard the latter with less than temperate enthusiasm. And, because of that sad fact, Clementine's picture has never been hung in public view." Wheeler fleshed out this last point by imagining that people viewing the Napper portrait would have been prompted by it to ask WSC what had become of the Parliamentary gift. (Fishman, 1963, pp 383-4.)
Wilfred Attenborough
Author: Churchill and the 'Black Dog' of Depression (Palgrave, 2014); Diagnosing Churchill: Bipolar or 'Prey to Nerves'? (McFarland, 2019).
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 22:26, Barbara Langworth <barba...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Antoine,
Here is one reference I found.
Jack Fishman “My Darling Clementine.” page 353.
B. Langworth
On Jun 25, 2020, at 4:16 PM, 'Antoine Capet' via ChurchillChat <church...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Richard,
Many thanks for your trrouble. And of course many thanks to Katherine Carter for immediately providing this rare and extremely informative link.
I looked at the video, naturally (I seemed to recognise Diana on the left of the platform).
It seems incredible that the location of the portrait should remain unknown today, and also that none of the major Churchill books except David A. Thomas's Churchill : The Member for Woodford should mention it except as in an allusive manner.
OB VIII only says 'On November 23 Churchill spoke at Woodford at the presentation of a portrait of his wife.' (p.1070).
It is also odd that there should be no image of it, however reduced or re-framed, on Google. All the more puzzling since, as you say "I think it was much too good to meet the fate of the dreadful Sutherland".
Is there something which cannot be said or shown about this portrait, I wonder ? Mary's silence in her magnificent biography of her mother would suggest something like that. Unfortunately, we can no longer ask her . . .
Any clue welcome !
Best wishes to all,
A.C.
===========
Gilbert, Martin. Winston S. Churchill: Never Despair, 1945–1965 (Volume VIII) (Churchill Biography Book 8) (p. ). RosettaBooks. Édition du Kindle.
should
From: ric...@langworth.name
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 9:34 PM
To: ChurchillChat
Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: portrait of Lady Churchill by John Napper (1954)
Antoine,
I asked Katherine Carter at Chartwell writes:
"Yes I know the portrait - it's the one that features in this video https://www.britishpathe.com/video/woodfords-gift-to-the-premier
Sadly I do not know where it can be found today, it is not one of the portraits of Lady Churchill that we have at Chartwell."
I think it was much too good to meet the fate of the dreadful Sutherland...
RL.
On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 11:22:33 AM UTC-4 antcapet wrote:
Dear All,
Some of you know that I am preparing a much enlarged English version of my
Dictionnaire Churchill.
In the course of the spadework for it, I came across a reference to a
portrait of Lady Churchill by John Napper (1954).
The main allusion to it is in David A. Thomas, Churchill : The Member for
Woodford. Ilford: Frank Cass, 1995 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2004), p. 170.
His obituary in the Daily Telegraph says :
"During the 1950s, he painted the Queen and Lady Churchill."
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/CAMMCYkS83AKodLsqQNpCBJ6Cks4FreCshfKQAo9bw11fs1RJMQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Antoine Capet
"DeChurchilling the curriculum in a 57 second video"
This short video contains the usual calumnies, but I had never heard of the
Cheddi Jagan one :
https://twitter.com/mxmovement/status/1270403064755826690?s=21
With all best wishes,
Antoine CAPET, FRHistS
Professor emeritus of British Studies
University of Rouen
76821 Mont-Saint-Aignan
France
antoin...@univ-rouen.fr
'Britain since 1914' Section Editor
Royal Historical Society Bibliography
Liam McLoughlin
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/churchillchat/CAMMCYkS83AKodLsqQNpCBJ6Cks4FreCshfKQAo9bw11fs1RJMQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Antoine Capet
This Sunday's _Observer_ offers (free access) a preview of Winston Churchill
: A Life in the News, by Richard Toye (due to appear on 13 August)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/09/winston-churchill-waged-war-on-paper-over-fake-news-photo-caption