History Live July 2013

On Saturday the 23^rd July I dragged my mum and my sister all the way to Northamptonshire, a good 2 ½ hours drive, to the annual English Heritage History Live Festival.  The event spanned the whole weekend and was filled with battle re-enactments, various Medieval stalls and lecture tents where I spent the majority of my time.   Sadly we arrived in the BBC history lecture tent too late to enjoy the first talk about Vikings and the English Civil War by Giles Kristian because someone (my sister) pressed her snooze button a few too many times, but listened to the next talk by Marc Morris on the Norman Conquest.  

Having explored the usefulness of the Bayeux Tapestry, and pointed out how Bishop Odo of Bayeux who commissioned the tapestry is unsubtly depicted as heroic, Morris then explained the main three ways in which the Normans affected Britain.  One way was castle-building, although they did have sizeable cathedrals, before the Norman invasion the British didn’t have any proper castles.  The Normans took down and reconstructed many of these cathedrals on a much larger scale.  As well as having these new castles,  British fighting techniques were also enhanced by the use of cavalry- pre-invasion, the English got their fighting techniques from the Vikings so had a lot of see warfare and would generally ride to battle and then dismount their horses before fighting- this changed.  Finally, and in my opinion most interestingly, all the ideas of chivalry came from the Normans.  All these fairy-tale like images of a ‘knight in shining armour’ actually came from abroad.  Sparing your enemy if he surrendered had previously been practically unheard of, however William the Conqueror killed a relatively small number of the British once he had secured his place of the throne, and people followed his merciful example.  In fact, once this had become the norm it actually distanced England from Scotland and Ireland who hadn’t changed their ways and were now often view as ‘savage’  by the Medieval English.

Following this, Anna Whitelock talked about her new book, ‘Elizabeth’s Bedfellows’.  When she had finished, I bought (and had signed!) both her books.  ‘Elizabeth’s Bedfellows’ explores Elizabeth the First’s personal life, including facts about her various health problems, her close relationship with her ladies-in-waiting and, of course, her love life.   I’m also currently working my way through her other book about Mary Tudor which is very interesting because instead of writing about her as ‘Bloody Mary’, Whitelock explorers her in a sympathetic light, first exploring the aspects of her childhood which would cause her to make various decisions later in life.  For example, from an early age she was widely praised throughout international courts and referred to as ‘a pearl of the world’, but following her mother’s death, her father’s re-marriage and her refusal to accept her father as the Head of the Church, this previous love and affection was harshly withdrawn.  I would thoroughly recommend both books.

Next, while my mother and sister went to watch a re-enactment of the Battle of Dunbar, I listened to a talk from Roy Hattersley about the Devonshires.  What makes this family so special is that while you find some family names reappearing in political history, such as the Cecils and Dudleys, the Devonshires are present the whole time.  They also tend to have some character traits which Hattersley discussed fondly- for example, at one point in history one of the family members was asked if he wanted to be Prime Minister, to which he accepted on the condition that it wouldn’t be too time-demanding.  If I remember correctly, he was Prime Minister for 3 weeks.

By this point my concentration span had almost completely gone, but I stayed in the tent to listen to the remaining two talks. While,  Sam Willis‘ talk was entitled ‘Despatches from Trafalgar’, he instead focused on a new source he had discovered.  Doing research, he was in the British Library (notably not the national archives) when he asked for a book, not expecting the heavily-protected chest which arrived for him.  Inside was a beautifully decorated book containing naval dispatches, accounts of a battle written by the captain, during the 19^th century.  This was a time filled with sea warfare and some of the accounts had been written in the middle of the battle while the captain was injured or parts of the ship were on fire which makes them really seem to come alive.

Finally Linda Porter, sitting down because of a recent foot injury, gave an in depth account of Mary Queen of Scots’ life, her failed marriages and other tragedies which unfolded and led to her death in 1587.

Overall, it was a thoroughly enjoyable day and I would encourage you to go next year!  E.D. 

NONSUCH

With the celebrations of the School’s 75^th Birthday last year, we delved into the school’s past to learn more about life for students and staff through the decades. As is common knowledge, ‘Nonsuch High school’ was named after the legendary ‘Nonsuch Palace’, but it is surprising how little most of us actually know about ‘Nonsuch’.  Firstly, ‘Nonsuch’ got its name two months into the building process which began on the 22^nd April 1538, the 30^th anniversary of Henry’s accession, because there was ‘no such palace elsewhere equal to its magnificence’.  Notably, the palace was built from scratch, unlike most of Henry VIII’s palaces which were normally converted from other old buildings. It was a massive project, entailing the re-routing various main roads in order to give the King access to the best hunting grounds, and costing at least £24,000 (109 million in today’s money), predominately due to the rich ornamentation and scale of the building.   The grandeur of the whole project could well have been a result of Henry’s ambition to compete with Francis I’s Château de Chambord in France.
Sadly, Henry died on the 27^th January 1547 before construction was completed. Various factors, including Mary’s disinterest in hunting, led her to sell the hunting lodge onto the 12^th Earl of Arndel who finished off the site’s construction after 1556.  As is excitingly apparent in many Tudor novels, Elizabeth frequently stayed at ‘Nonsuch Palace’ and the site was returned to the throne during the last decade of her reign. It then passed through various hands as it was confiscated and sold off by Parliament after Charles I’s execution in 1649, but then returned again to the throne in 1660.
For a long time historians didn’t know too much about the site because it was taken down in 1682-3 by Barbara, Countess of Castlemaine who was Charles II’s mistress and had been given it in 1670.  She used the money from re-selling the materials to pay off gambling debts- such a waste, think of the ever-so-convenient history trip which Year 8s could have taken annually when studying the Tudors!  And although fragments of the building are held by the British Museum and some of the original wooden panelling can still be seen in the Great Hall at Loselely Park, only three contemporary images of the palace survive.
Apart from the discovery of pieces of pottery from the Palace when soldiers were digging trenches in WW2, Nonsuch Palace was left relatively untouched until 1959 when Martin Biddle excavated the site. Being one of the first post-medieval examples of archaeology meant that the excavation attracted over 60,000 people in a 12week period.  The project was very successful and much information about both the layout of the site and its rich ornamentation was recovered.  For more information on this, please visit http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba60/feat1.shtml.  E.D

Who ever heard of Thomas Paine?

Well, here I am again, you lucky, lucky people. I promise you that it was not my intention to post an article today, but if somebody was the wander round in my head looking for good ideas right now, they'd have about as much luck as a reporter trying to find out where exactly the government expenses has gone. Good ideas are rare, so rare, in fact, that I have ceased to notice them properly, case of point; the time I thought that no harm could come from me gaffer-taping my school bag together. In short, I apologise if today's 'Good Idea' actually transpires to be an idea that frankly leaves you bored out of your mind, and wondering why you don't just skip all the articles with 'E.C' at the bottom of them. You see, for ages I had completely written off Radio 4 in my head as a channel for over-privileged, over-indulged men in their fifties, who like nothing more than to comment on politics while knowing absolutely nothing at all, but decided to give it the benefit of the doubt and tune in last night. I must say, for the billionth time that day, I was proved absolutely and completely wrong. I've always had a little bit of a thing for the unsung hero's of history (Winston being the exception), because usually the only reason they are 'unsung' is that they have been written out of history by the people who would rather they didn't exist. For example, I assume I wasn't taught in depth about American Independance while in primary school because my lessons went along the lines of the teacher pointing at a map and saying 'Used to be ours, used to be ours, used be our, the French got that bit - no idea how that happened but there you go, there's america, we gave that bit back', and some bright spark in the class piping up with 'Why did we give that bit back? Whoever dun that must be a right div'. And because I am, for want of a better word, a bit of a nerd, I always want to fill the gaping holes in my knowledge at every possible opportunity, fully aware that this will be finished by the time I am about 1000 years old. It was with this idea in mind that I tuned into radio 4 to listen to a programme ( is it still a programme if its on the radio?) about a certain Thomas Paine, an eighteenth century revolutionary writer, who apparently lay the foundations for the political landscape of Britain, America, and even France to be changed irreconcilably. So. Who on earth was Thomas Paine, and why am I banging on about him?

At the time of Tom Paine, America was basically a group of colonies ruled by Britain, and needing to pay tax to Britain, and probably not liking Britain. All Americans wanted at the time was to be seen as more important on an international scale, but Tom pushed the boat out with an even more revolutionary idea: That America should be independent, and he publicised this in the (I think) fantastically named 'Common Sense'. Because if you are going to criticise your opponents point of view, you may as well do it in style, and undermine the foundations of British politics, by proposing that we should be a republic. A fierce republican, Paine argued that the concept of inherited leadership was about as credible as the prospect of a hereditary mathematician, and if that were true I'd be whizzing through my maths GCSE right now (my Nan being a genius). Obviously, this didn't really gain him any fans in the British aristocracy, who relied entirely on the power of the monarchy in order to justify their own high status, and the people who did support Paine were the working class, who didn't really have any way of expressing themselves. Paine then went on to write up 'The Rights of Man' part one and two, which stopped just short of socialism, preaching that men should be equal, and inherited superstitions should become a thing of the past. Not only did the British Aristocracy disagree with his idea, they also disliked his writing style as they thought it 'vulgar', meaning that people actually could read it. Its like when broadsheet newspapers slam anything vaguely readable, because you must be really brainy if you can read something that's barely in English. I'm pretty sure those writers of today and the 18th century would pass out if they read any of my articles!

So there we are. A little introduction to good old Tom Paine. I suggest reading more about him if you're interested, as to be honest with you, I haven't the time to continue any further with this article. Thanks again for reading this far, and I hope the article was vaguely entertaining for you!

E.C

   Click here if i've sparked any kind of interest to read more!

Obama's Impossible Decision.

   

It's alright. You can all stop worrying now. You can come out of the corner from which you have taken refuge, and take the tinfoil hat off of your head. I'm back. I know, I know, your life has been empty without me. Well, here I am again with your usual dose of madness. Except todays article is a little different from my usual, because I belive there are some things you just can't joke about, but things that probably belong on a history and politics blog. Like the current situation in Syria. So I apologise if  I send you into a sleep deeper than that of Henry VI ( look it up).
 Well, I suppose it's always best to begin with the facts, but to be honest there's very little we know for sure about the situation, although we can make an educated guess. What we know is this: On the 21st August the nerve gas Sarin was released in Damascus, killing many and permantly damaging many more. I won't go into the gory detail about what Sarin does, because the majority of the public have seen it on the news, but it's far to say that it's pretty nasty. However, from there, the 'facts' become bluured; namely who excatly released the gas, although an educated guess has been made that it was the government. This wasn't decided ''because the syrian governments obviously dodgy'', as the girl at my bus stop said this morning, but rather because it's thought that only the government has large enough stocks of sarin to cause harm and the means to disperse them, making it seem obvious that it must be the goverment who had released it upon the rebels, which may have been seen as a final attempt to end the civil war. But although the facts are largely agreed upon by the U.N ( though not Russia), ideas about what to do as the 'next step' are the cause of many a heated debate, not just in the houses of parliament, but also in ordinary housholds. I've just about separated the different ideas into four basic categories:

  There's School of thought One: That we should take miliary action on Syria to ensure that such gas attacks cannot happen again. If we don't do anything, the the U.N will appear weak, and that will be it's downfall - basically history repeating itself (Leauge of Nations, anyone?). It may bring us into a war, but we cannot let these kind of attacks go on unreprimanded.

  School of thought Two ( usually in debate with One): Syrias alliances with very powerful countries could potentially drag us into an incredibly destructive war, mainly based on allainces,which is again history repeating itself. Also, we can be seen to ignore other countries in the UN, that would basically undermine the point of it, and cause it to fall apart.

School of thought Three ( usually held up by the person annoyed by this debate): The UN is on its way out, thats clear. Either way people will get hurt, so why bother arguing about it. None is particularly better than the other, so it's just damage limitation that we're looking at.

School of thought Four ( One that I haven't heard as often as the others) : A military strike on the stores of Sarin would do more harm than good. A medium- strength missile would fail to destory all the Sarin, and a strong one would only succeed in blowing the sarin up into the air, where it could blow into many overpopulated areas. What we should be trying to do is provide people with the anti dotes for Sarin and Mustard gas, and also give them leaflets telling them what to do in case of a gas attack.
 
   Each idea has it's own individual problems, and at the moment all eyes are on America, watching to see what it will do. For the meantime, we'll have to be content in our intense squabbling. Whatever America does, it's sure to cause fireworks with the rest of the world, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

  So there we are. A moderately serious article from me. I haven't joked for so long, I can feel the 'bad joke' part of me slowly dying. I may have to call up the wonderful Nan and Grandad and annoy them with my horrendous sense of humour, just to get back to my old self again. I hope this article was at least a tiny bit informative, and I will be back soon to my old mental self, jabbering on about something or another. Thanks again for reading!

E.C

Downton Abbey: how realistic is it?

My all-time favourite programme; Downton Abbey, is starting in a few weeks, and I can’t wait! But, this got me thinking, how realistic is this award winning TV programme? 

After surfing the web, I found that there are many inaccuracies. The endearing relationship between the servants and the family as portrayed, rarely happened in reality as during the post-Edwardian era, the family and servants barely talked! Mistresses and ladies’ maids were the only exception, as usually mistresses would become quite attached to them.

Also, the conditions that the servants lived in were actually very poor, nothing as nice as the Downton Abbey film set, as more often than not, servants were expected to share cramped bedrooms and beds and had no access to bathrooms or toilet facilities. As a result, in order to conceal their dirty hands, they wore white gloves when serving at the table.

There are many more examples, however, I doubt that any of these will stop me from watching the new series. I’ve been waiting for it since the Christmas special aired last year!

BY: JG

The Duke of Northumberland

John Dudley, the Duke of Northumberland, was executed for treason on Tower Hill on August 22nd 1553.  His crime?  Backing the wrong candidate for the throne, Lady Jane Grey.  History has portrayed him as a scheming politician out for himself, but is this really what we should remember or did he achieve anything of note as effective ruler of England under the minority of Edward VI?  What's  your view?

Should Obama seek congressional approval for Syrian action?

Following David Cameron's decision for Britain not to participate in any action against Syria following a parliamentary vote on the issue, President Obama surprised everyone by agreeing to seek congressional approval before any US action, rather than simply acting without authorisation as many commander-in-chiefs have done before. Is Obama right to seek congressional approval or does the process weaken both himself and the office of president?

'My Winston'

Well. Here we are. The post that you have all been waiting for with baited breath... the final article in what I like to call the Winston Churchill 'saga'. It doesn't matter to me that its been a very short 'saga', of only 3 articles, it has been a saga. And, sadly, it is coming to an end. I have known that an article on my Winston was on the cards, but I always fell victim to something that I call the 'gym complex'. I sit down at my computer and tell myself that this is it, this is the article, but somewhere along the line I decide that 'I'll do it tomorrow'. take off my figurative trainers and eat a figurative ice cream. Well not today. Today, but some miracle of nature, I have galvanised myself to put on the trainers, walk out of the door, and actually go to the gym. Let's not go mad here, I'm still speaking metaphorically. Okay, so actually doing anything has been delayed be some waffle and absolutely crazy metaphor that has left many people questioning my sanity (you're right to question), but here I am. The metaphorical Winston Churchill gym. I'll try to contain my emotions.

I think it's probably a good idea to start with all the 'David Copperfield' stuff; when, where he was born, that kind of 'piffle', as Boris Johnson would undoubtedly call it. My wonderful Winston (the emotions are slipping out) was born at Blenheim Palace on the 30th November 1874, to Lord Randolph Churchill and the american heiress Jennie Jerome. Winston idolised his father who was an eminent politician when Winston was born (although that soon went to pot), and adored his mother, although his childhood was marked by an emotional neglect typical of the higher classed of the time, his parents rarely visiting him at school. As you may have guessed from his mannerisms, Churchill didn't quite go to your average state comprehensive, instead opting for the slightly more prestigious Harrow school. Now, similar to the majority of the worlds 'greats', Winston's time at Harrow was not marked with academic achievement and rather 'adventuring', as my book wonderfully words it, meaning, I assume, that he got all to all sorts. Due to this, his father pressed young Winston towards a military career, which was (in true Winston style) pursued with considerable vigour and commitment, his family ties serving useful in achieving him posting to active conflicts, which Winston much preferred to languishing in less troubled parts of India. In order to boost his income, Churchill took to writing as well as fighting, capitalising on each campaign in which he fought, especially during his escape from captivity in the Boer War (which is a whole other article entirely), his hero's welcome from this event propelling him to a seat in Parliament as the Conservative bloke from Oldham in 1900.

Churchill came to politics like a quintessentially British duck to water, gaining his first ministerial post in 1905 through the liberal party, until he jumped ship and 1924 and he returned to the conservatives. But Churchill wasn't just noteworthy during his time as a war politician, oh no! His years within the Liberals were full of a series of reforms that formed the basis of the welfare state, and he was the subject of an incredible amount of controversy, never more so than at his appearance at the 'Siege of Sydney Street'. But, like all great men, Winston's career wasn't just a rapid ascent to glory. and in 1915 he was hounded from his post as First Lord of the Admiralty when his ambitious plan to capture the Dardanelles failed, as well as incurring many casualties. Churchil was a little bit miffed about this, and so returned to service in the army, reinforcing a reputation for bravery that formed a lot of how we see him today. However, just as the lure of History sometimes proves too much for me, the lure of politics proved too much for my Winston, and he returned to a ministerial career, becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1924 to 1929, returning Britain to the Gold Standard, and working tirelessly for the rights of striking and poorly paid miners. However, the peaks and troughs of Churchill's life suffered another fall as in 1929 the Conservatives were beaten in the election, and subsequent Prime Ministers rejected Churchill for the next ten years.

For those ten years, however, my Winston did not stay silent. Much like me, he could not resist having his voice heard, and quite publicly supported King Edward in the 1936 abdication crisis, as well as vehemently opposing Indian Independence. Unfortunately, these were not the popular opinions, and so Winston became sidelined when it came to peoples opinion, and held the same respect today as many people have for Wayne Rooney's intelligence. As a result of this, his disagreement with the policy of appeasement concerning Hitler was seen as just the ramblings of a man past his political prime by many, who probably kicked themselves after the second world war. The policy of appeasement was soon shown to be a bit dodgy as the hopes of the Munich agreement soon faded into shameful recognition of a rubbish policy, Churchill slowly began to rise, so much so that when war broke out in 1939, Neville Chamberlain has little choice but to invite Churchill to return to his old post of First Lord of the Admiralty. On the 9th of May, in an event that changed history, Churchill was appointed as Prime Minster for England, although that was not a popular decision (imagine the country's reaction if Wayne Rooney became the prime minister)
I won't bang on about Churchill as a war leader, simply because my emotions may bubble out of me and leave me as a sticky, bawly mess in front of my computer screen, for this is when Winston really came into his own. I pride myself on being open for the few teenagers who can instantly recognise the voice of Winston Churchill, and this is because his voice is simply so recognisable. Apart from changing the ways that war was fought, Winston was incredible for British morale, and he became wildly popular, as well as giving the British public a sense of hope.

Despite this, a great wartime Prime Minister is rarely a good peacetime one, and Churchill was defeated in the July 1945 election. Despite this, Churchill was still a prominent political figure, and also wrote a great deal of Historical novels. During the Cold War, Churchill sounded the alarm bells that shook the world in his 'Iron Curtain', alerting the world to the dangers of communism. When Churchill was re-instated into power in 1951 at the ripe old age of 76, he continued to emphasise the threat of a nuclear war between the West and the Soviet Union. He was a strong advocate of 'jaw jaw' instead of 'war war', and also pushed for summit meetings to be held, although no such meetings were agreed to in his time as Prime Minister.

My Winston continued to serve as a member of parliament until six months before his death at the age of 90, and Queen Elizabeth II gave him a state funeral after his death on the 24th January 1965.

So there we are. the promised Winston article. It wasn't too crazed, was it?  Love him or hate him, Winston Churchill really was an iconic worldwide figure, and redefined what it means to be British. So although you may not be quite like me, and cry 'Winston' every time he is mentioned, or do some weird kind of salute every time his voice is heard, I hope you appreciate a little more just what a great man My Winston truly was.

Once again, thanks for sticking with this for this long!
E.C

Behind Every Great Man Is An Even Greater Woman...

...or so the saying goes, anyway. Yup, it's me back again with the promised second Winston-related article. I know, I know, you've been waiting so long that you doubted it would ever come. But fear not, for here we are with the promised article. Now, as people often declare after a long night of drinking 'we wouldn't get anything done in this world without women' (well, I say people, the majority being women), and often the more educated of them cite Clementine Churchill as an example of this. A few weeks ago, while at the ever-wonderful grandparents, we tuned in to a documentary focused on Winston and Clementine's relationship, and I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised by what I saw, and left with my love for Winston reinforced tenfold, with a special little place now dedicated to Clementine. You see, it's no great secret that Winston messed up quite a lot of stuff during, but especially before, his time in office. But during these times it was Clementine, his 'Cat' who he spoke to and found comfort from, and it was Clementine who advised him on top-secret and incredibly important government affairs, though I also like to think that they shared a good laugh at the expense of some of Churchill's rivals. The documentary itself featured an abundance of the letters between them, and I was honestly blown away by the relationship between them. In the letters, Winston seems affectionate and almost 'soft' - a far cry from the maverick hero he is known as, and Clementine seems very compassionate and doesn't show any sign of strain from quite literally having the world put onto her shoulders. 

To fully address her would be to get your lips around 'Baroness Clementine Ogilvy Spencer-Churchill', which is something I never have and never will intend to do, and she was born on 1st April 1885, marrying Winston in 1908. Possibly bitter about her own moniker, she named two of her four children the unforgettable Randolph, and (my favorite), Marigold. Fantastic. She had known Winston for four years, but they grew apart before becoming re-acquainted at a dinner party, at which Churchill fell wholeheartedly in love with her it seems, and so they did not experience a long courtship before Winston sent a letter to Clementine's Mother, asking for her hand in marriage.

I could bang on for ages in true 'teenager-girl' style about how romantic it all is, and the whole 'love-at-first-sight' thing, but (to be honest) I find that boring. And I don't do boring. I like my historical women ballsy. More Hermione Granger than Bella Swan. And that is exactly why I may be boring you now about Clementine. In the first world war, she organised canteens for munitions workers. After hearing Winston's policies snubbed whilst on holiday, she packed her bags and left, offended deeply. She then helped numerous charities throughout the war, all the while with her husband off in the afore-mentioned war rooms, deciding the fate of the country. That it what, to me, makes her a brilliant woman. Instead of 'languishing', as has so often been the fashion for women who's husbands are away, she did something. Some will argue not much, but she did something.

So there you are. A rambling article about Clementine Churchill for you to feast on. I'll be back soon, with more about my beloved Winston. 

E.C

The Rooms From Which Churchill Led The War.

 
  

             It's the 1930's and war with Germany  is heavily anticipated. After the use of bombs in the First World War, another bombing raid appears inevitable and military planners are sure that a target for German air raids would be the houses of parliament and Winston Churchill's offices.  With that in mind, the search for somewhere suitable to use as a refuge for war ministers and staff, with potential places being thought of daily, although none seem suitable - either there is not enough room; or it is not 'central' enough to the rest of parliament; or quite simply, it is not deemed 'safe' enough. The search continues until, finally, somebody suggests the basement store rooms in the Office of Works and Board of Trade, which, although obviously needing a lot of work in order to make them suitable for any kind of work, seem perfect ; the location is central, a mere walk from the houses of parliament, and the buildings above seem unbelievably strong. The location for the Cabinet War Rooms has been found, and renovating can begin.   

  I think it's  probably fair enough to say that you don't need the divination prowess of Professor Trelawney from the 'Harry Potter' films to predict what this article may be about. I mean, even if your brain has become entirely frazzled from almost three weeks of daytime TV, rendering it useless and unable to infer anything from the above paragraph, you must be able to at least read. And therefore read the title, and know that this article is to be about Winston Churchill's War Rooms. Got it? Good. If i'm perfectly honest with you, I have been waiting for so long to write an article about my favorite ever historical figure, that I thought i'd start off easing myself into it, with an article about his war rooms, rather than the man himself. You see, some girls could not write a coherent article about Justin Bieber  without having a nervous break down, and others would not be able to stop their hands shaking enough to write about One Direction. But not me. Nope, for me it's my good old Winston, the man who's voice I can't hear without omitting some kind of odd battle cry and feeling my heart flutter. Teenage girls and their obsessions, what can you say? So, with a long holiday ahead of me and a crazy but brilliant godmother in town, I decided to head to Churchill's war rooms, whist remembering to pack a brown paper bag in case of hyperventilation.  This article is one of three Churchill - related articles to come, simply because I couldn't pack my feelings into just one article, so don't get too excited when you think it's over!
 The Cabinet War Rooms became fully operational on the 27^th August 1939, one week before the outbreak of war (we Brits have always cut it fine!), and although Churchill was to spend a lot of time within them, he was not fond of them at all, and only held meeting there when bombing threats made anything else suicidal. Even then, he had been known to take top War Ministers up to the roof of the War Rooms to watch the air raids, and often chose to brave the dangers outside than to remain cooped up. One of the main rooms in the Cabinet War Rooms was the (confusingly named) War Cabinet Room, where Churchill often had meetings to discuss various ideas that ministers may have had. Looking at the arms of the chair that Churchill sat on, it it evident that sometimes these discussions became heated, as they are very scratched. My audio guide confirmed that for me on the day, saying that Churchill often disagreed with his top ministers, and often pretended to be deaf in order to avoid answering difficult questions. However, (being my wonderful Winston) Churchill never overrode the consensus of opinion, even if it was very different to his own. 
 After walking around the Rooms for a while (I shall never know exactly how long - time fly's when you're having fun), my aching legs brought to my attention the sheer size of the building; as my friend would say, 'it made the London Marathon look like a walk in the park'. But then I found the exhibition dramatically named 'Undercover', which pointed out quite clearly that the war rooms housed all types of administration the staff; the main roles being that of shorthand typists, clerks, and telephonists, as well as the military policemen and Royal Marine orderlies who guarded the rooms day and night. Surviving letters and accounts from the time shows that the work was extremely stressful and pressured, but all involved knew how important the work the were doing was, and it seems that lasting friendships were made.' Many a joke was shared there', apparently, including a toilet-roll race down the corridors one Christmas! 
 In 1941 the already-massive War Rooms expanded to the 'Courtyard Rooms', which included Churchill's bedroom, his wife Clementines bedroom, and their small dining room, where they sometimes entertained guests. Although the rooms are seemingly extravagant in comparison to the other staff at the War Rooms, the threat of air raids was almost entirely gone by the time the that the rooms were ready, and as a result they were infrequently used.
  After walking through the 'Churchill War Museum' , we met the final room of the tour - the Map Room. Covered from floor to ceiling with - you guessed it- maps, this room was staffed all day, every day, with one officer from the Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force from August 1939 to August 1945. The Map Room was the central 'hub' of War information, where the constantly-changing front lines were marked by lines of cotton held up by pins, and a summary of the war had to be delivered to the King, the Prime Minster, and several War Ministers by 8AM every morning. The maps show thousands of tiny pinpricks marking where naval convoys had been, and the front lines in Russia are shown from 1941 to the fall of Berlin, those in Java, Thailand and the Pacific shown as they were just before the end of the war. Just like the rest of the war rooms, everything is kept in the Map Room as it was on the 16th of August 1945 when the lights were finally extinguished, the officers picked up their coats and hats, and went home. 
 There, wasn't that a lovely end to a slightly odd article? Thank you again for sticking with it for this long, and I hope you can contain your excitement for the next to Churchill Articles! 
 E.C