ENG 106- P6

Thursday April 29th, 2021

Essay III, Second Revision
A blind eye to the monarchy

Born into a cradle of noble lineage, Winston Churchill carried throughout his life a sense of
loyalty and responsibility to defend royalty. Dukes tended to believe that they were as good as
any monarch. Churchill's characteristic treatment towards the monarchy to the point of seeming
as an "idolatry" treatment is seen in expressions like "It was not his fault, it was his fate," or
endorsing the neutrality of someone influential in a major international conflict. By analyzing
and seeing between the lines the premises made by Geoffrey Best about Churchill's relationship
and the monarchy in his book "Churchill: A Study of Greatness," an analysis on "Churchill and
the Monarchy," by Paul Addison and various Churchill writings on monarchs, it is possible see
Churchill´s characteristic treatment towards royals. Churchill maintained an exclusive
relationship and unpunished treatment towards the monarchy.

Churchill had a natural admiration for royal lineage leaders. Geoffrey Best, in his book "Churchill: A
Study of Greatness", expresses that the family in which Winston Churchill was born was far from being
one in which loyalty to royal blood transcended any other consideration. (p. 174) Although his family had
a different approach to monarchy, Churchill did not follow the same path. Throughout his life, Churchill
maintained a differential opinion and special treatment for anyone of royal lineage. "Churchill and the
Monarchy," by Paul Addison, says that Churchill began to come into contact with the royal family of
Britain and it was beneficial for him, because his father had long been forgiven and his mother was high
in the royal favor. Churchill had a close and intimate relationship with Edward for many years when he
was Prince of Wales. He supported Edward and never underestimated his potential to be a good king. In
best words, Churchill was such a firm, “even romantic,” believer in hereditary monarchy that he was
adamant that Edward should remain King. (p. 148)
Churchill continues to express his support for the monarchs even after these are rejected by their
nations. Paul Addison states various opinions from different people about Churchill’s relationship with
the monarchs, one of them says that “his respect for the monarchy amounted almost to idolatry.” (p. 188)
This statement carries a lot of weight, but in a way, it implies this unconditional and blind support that
Churchill gives to those who are part of the royal lineage as if he were a devout worshiper of them. King
Alfonso XIII of Spain was one of the monarchs that Churchill had the opportunity to share time with and
he wrote an essay about him in one of the most crucial moments of his reign. According to Best (2001),
Churchill had a deep appreciation for royalty and a sensitive sympathy for living kings and queens
throughout his life. (p. 97) The way he starts his writing, questioning how the people Alfonso lived for
betrayed him and it is interesting how he outlines all the good qualities that Alfonso had, like always
caring about the wellbeing of his country, but slightly avoiding calling up any major mistake that made
the people make him leave the throne. (Churchill, 175) His major arguments were based on a new "trend"
based on what was happening with the last emperor of Germany, William II. Churchill bases his opinions
on Emperor William II's linage, as well as the admiration and veneration that every class in society felt
for him. Churchill brings up all this information about the exalted life of an emperor to ask if someone
who lived like this would be humble despite the situation. Unlike Alfonso XIII, if the priority that the
young Emperor William II learned was his own importance, the second was his duty to affirm the
importance of the German Empire. Churchill clearly differs in opinion regarding these monarchs, but in
his writings, he takes their lineage and the respect he has for that status as the highest starting point for
making assumptions and make judgements.
Churchill's perspective on the actions of the monarchy on important issues like World War I
renders these indirectly unrelated to the conflict. Best (2001) says that Churchill was deeply concerned
about the plight of Russia's royal family. (p. 97) He also had a chivalrous duty to not let down the
beleaguered empire officers now that history had turned against them, and this transcended to other
monarchies in Europe. Churchill expressed how history portrays Willian II's accusations of planning and
plotting the World War as a terrible fate. Churchill says that William II’s administration in his position
may have caused World War. A person in his position, overrated, made it possible for this kind of tragedy
to occur. Looking at it from this point of view, it could be said that Churchill directly accuses William II
as the guilty of this great crisis, but this whole argument changes its course when Churchill expresses that
"It was not his fault, it was his fate." (Churchill, 32) Churchill attempts to soften William's attitudes by
claiming that he lacked all the characteristics of modern dictators except their airs. Churchill tried to
deflect the guilt that William II may have had for the development of the First World War, and his
statements placed him as a victim of his mismanagement as emperor by comparing it to the well-
developed Empire of Great Britain. Churchill expresses how disappointing the fact that Alfonso XIII was
dethroned by his country, the people he lived for. After the First World War, Churchill advocated Spain's
neutrality, recognizing that this strong country may have been decisive in the war's outcome. Churchill's
judgment on those of royal lineage related to war can be seen as a protector, ignoring the major and
decisive role as a representative of a monarch power can play in a conflict like this. The case of Alfonso
XIII is one of them. Churchill in his writing expresses his admiration for the decision that Alfonso had to
keep his people away from the conflict of the War. “[Churchill] was interested in, indeed fascinated by,
war from his earliest years is obvious.” (Best, 16) Churchill's inclination did not lead him to consider the
possibility that the presence of a great force like Spain could be decisive in avoiding such a catastrophic
situation. Churchill's support for the absence of Spain was based on his conviction that there would be no
more great wars in Europe following World War I.  Best says that "[Churchill] was confident that the
unprecedented steps taken to ensure that it was" the War to End Wars "must be worth something". (p.
151) Churchill saw more noble the fact that Spain remained neutral, ignoring the disaster that in a certain
way could have affected them. It is interesting how Churchill did not take into consideration that the
diplomatic intervention of Alfonso XIII as an exemplary power and leader who worked and lived for the
welfare of his people, as he puts it, could have altered, or even changed the course of the war. Churchill
outlined the monarchs’ decisions and behaviors to be sure that they were the extent of any guilt or
responsibility for this major issue.
The relationship Churchill had with the monarchy was intricately untied to what he grew up with
and was raised with. It can be understood that the motivations that Churchill had to maintain this
differentiated treatment may have been diverse, but the main one of all must be the search for power
linked to relationships. Churchill was a man who greatly respected the monarchy, but sometimes his
respect blinded him to the flaws in these people. In those times, even the monarchies had great control of
power in the nations, and like every politician, Churchill went after the acceptance of these by
maintaining differential treatment, even making himself blind to many important things. Compared with
Churchill’s times, today’s monarchs do not have the same power as before. Nevertheless, today power-
hungry politicians seek the support of powerful leaders by seeking to please them. But, based on how
Churchill handled these situations, was his decision truly based on his concept of protecting the
reputations of people of royal lineage, or was it motivated by profit?