‘Very important' for young to thank veterans – Churchill's great-great-grandson
Sir Winston Churchill's great-great-grandson has said it is 'very important' for his generation to thank Second World War veterans and to 'never forget' those who fought for freedom in Europe.
Alexander Churchill, 10, will take part in a thanksgiving service marking the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day (VE Day) at Westminster Abbey on Thursday.
He will light a candle of peace at the service, while young members of the congregation hand out white roses to veterans.
Speaking before the event, Alexander said he felt 'very honoured' to have been chosen to participate in the commemoration which will be attended by the King, the Queen and the Prince and Princess of Wales.
He added: 'My great-great-grandfather's very important to us and we're just very proud to know that he is part of our family and also I think it's very important for our generation, my generation, to say thank you to all the veterans and everyone who took part in the war because I think that's very important.'
Alexander continued: 'I think people can learn that they should never forget all of the people who have sacrificed and helped us restore freedom to England and Europe and also I think it's very important that they should carry on fighting for freedom.'
Of his part in the service, he added: 'I feel a bit nervous, but I think that's all right.'
The live televised service will begin with a national two-minute silence in honour of those who made sacrifices during the conflict, both on the front line and at home, to protect people's freedom and shared values.
Charles and William will then lay wreaths of seasonal flowers at the Grave of the Unknown Warrior.
The King will do so on behalf of the nation and Commonwealth, and William for the veterans and the wartime generation.
The two will be joined by Ken Hay, 99, who served in the infantry regiment.
Some 78 veterans are expected to attend alongside Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who will give a bible reading.
On VE Day – May 8 1945 – short 'thanksgiving for victory' services were held every hour in the abbey from 9am to 10pm, with an estimated 25,000 people attending.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
28 minutes ago
- Sky News
NATO chief's speech was meant as a call to arms, but it was also a shameful admission for the alliance
For all the stark warnings and ominous predictions made by the head of NATO today, one key fact remained unmentioned. The West is still funding the Russian war effort to the tune of billions by buying oil and gas, funnelling vast amounts into an economy that is now fully militarised. Russian gas exports to Europe went up by 20% last year and its LNG exports to the EU are now at record levels. Vladimir Putin's Russia is now making more money from selling fossil fuels than Ukraine receives from allies. NATO's secretary general Mark Rutte did not mention any of that. But he did spell out what Russia is doing with all that hydrocarbon revenue. It is using it to put its economy onto a war footing that is now pumping out munitions at a rate that puts the West to shame, to the extent Russia could have the capability to take on NATO in three to five years, according to Mr Rutte. The secretary general meant his speech in London as a warning and call to arms. But it was also a shameful admission for the Western alliance he heads. More than three years into this war, Russia is outstripping the entire Western bloc by four to one in terms of munitions production. 5:09 Russia's economy is 1/25th that of NATO's combined economic might and crippled by sanctions and yet every three months pumps out more shells than the entire NATO bloc manages in a year. And while Europe carries on funding Russia's war effort by buying its oil and gas, none of that is going to change. We are now in the insane and obscene situation where European taxpayers will have to fork out more, a lot more, to counteract the threat of a militarised Russia, whose resurgence is being subsidised by Western countries buying its fossil fuels.
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why is Kemi Badenoch engaging in a new culture war on the burqa?
In clear evidence she is attempting to appeal to the right, Kemi Badenoch recently announced a review of Conservative policy on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and promised the end of 'lawfare' against service personnel accused of crimes as well as curbs on 'activist' judges. Over the weekend, prompted by developments in Reform UK, she also said she wouldn't speak to any constituent who came to one of her surgeries wearing a burqa, and described sharia courts and cousin marriage as 'insidious'. It feels a bit desperate… What is Kemi Badenoch up to? You don't have to be an expert engineer, as she is, to work it out. Reform UK and Nigel Farage have been eating her lunch, opening up a 10-point lead in the opinion polls, taking eight county councils from the Conservatives, humiliating Tory candidates in the Runcorn and Hamilton (Scottish parliament) by-elections, grabbing media attention (albeit not always positive) and generally behaving like the 'real' opposition – more rallies, more headlines, more ideas, more presence and momentum. Even a leader as self-confident as Badenoch has cause to be worried. What is she doing? Exactly what her critics on the right demand: attempting to appeal to ex-Conservatives who have been abstaining or defecting to Reform UK. This explains the 'culture war' assault on the independent judiciary, net zero, and human rights legislation (plus the tentative interventions on the burqa, sharia law and cousin marriage). Badenoch does point out the complexities, such as how the ECHR affects the Good Friday Agreement, and the need to take time to get things right this far away from a general election. Badenoch's line is that Labour and Reform both promise all things to all people, and she's not prepared to do that. Why are some Tories unhappy with Badenoch's leadership? Sources grumble that she doesn't work hard enough, gives an arrogant impression, and that she's not very good at Prime Minister's Questions. There's also frustration at the lack of eye-catching initiatives (as Tony Blair once called populist stuff), failure to take on Farage directly, and sheer fear of more heavy electoral losses to Reform. The smaller the Tories' representation at every tier of government, the lower their profile and relevance and the more they look like a dying party. Unlike Margaret Thatcher in opposition from 1975-79, Badenoch can't just rely on the failures of a Labour government. Crucially, the Tories now have a formidable and unprecedented challenge from the right that makes Badenoch's lack of urgency look fatal. All she can do is say she's getting better at the job of leader of the opposition, which is a tough gig. One hopeful move is that she's allowed shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, to denounce the Liz Truss era mini-Budget (without actually saying sorry). Is Badenoch popular in the party? She won the leadership election last autumn among the membership by a clear but not overwhelming margin over Robert Jenrick of 56.5 per cent to 43.5 per cent, but among MPs by only one vote over Jenrick and five ahead of third-placed James Cleverly (42, 41 and 37 MPs respectively. According to the regular Conservative Home poll of activists, Badenoch is now incredibly unpopular given her role. She stands on a net zero approval rating, way below top of the flops Jenrick (+63), Chris Philp (+39) and Stride (+34). What happens next? A possible tricky by-election in North East Somerset and Hanham, where ex-Labour MP Dan Norris was arrested and bailed on suspicion of rape, child sex offences, child abduction and misconduct in a public office and is currently sitting as an independent having been suspended from the party. He ousted Conservative Jacob Rees-Mogg at the general election, and normally this would become an easy Tory gain; but now the question is whether the Tories and Reform will fight each other, potentially letting Labour back in; or will they cooperate (formally or informally) to get Rees-Mogg back, whichever party he chooses to run for.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves may have U-turned on winter fuel, but her problems are far from over
Standing in what appeared to be a garden centre to announce her latest U-turn on the pensioners' winter fuel payment, Rachel Reeves looked as if she was wilting a bit. Never at ease in front of a camera, the chancellor was more stilted than usual and didn't make much of an attempt to justify the change on any rational grounds. If this 'difficult decision' was the right thing to do last year, when the public finances were under pressure, one might ask: why is it the wrong thing to do this year, when the public finances are still under pressure, albeit for different reasons? She cannot, for reasons of pride, admit the U-turn is because of the recent electoral punishment-beating administered by an angry public – with the added force of Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage both declaring they'd restore the payment in full and immediately. She certainly cannot concede that this totem of her 'iron determination' to do whatever it took to achieve sustainable public finances has had to be tossed away, against her wishes, because the prime minister publicly ordered her to do so and her backbenchers increasingly demanded this hated policy be ditched. But she knows that everyone knows the truth – and to her credit, she cannot disguise her discomfort. She is in the worst of all worlds: she looks callous (even if she is not) but now she also looks weak, and will get few thanks for giving the winter fuel payment back (mostly). This is not a dream combination of attributes for a senior Labour figure or, for that matter, for a finance minister hoping to dazzle the markets. In fact, even in executing this U-turn she has somehow managed to botch things, by trying to retain some element of the means-testing she introduced last year, just to save face. So, even now, not all pensioners will receive their £200 or £300 (depending on age). Or rather, all will receive it initially, but some, not fantastically rich on an income of £35,000 or more, will find it entirely clawed back by HM Revenue and Customs through the self-assessment procedure. It would have been easier all round just to complete the U-turn: instead, Ms Reeves has stopped around the 170-degree mark. It hardly seems worth it. Even when it was first announced at the end of July last year, means-testing the WFP was an ill-conceived move. Of all the options available to her – and all chancellors, even in the tightest of binds, have choices – she plumped for the one that combined an incredibly modest saving (about £1.5bn) with the maximum political damage. Some 10 million active and motivated pensioners were ready to head to the nearest polling station at the earliest opportunity to make their displeasure clear. Too late, Ms Reeves and Liz Kendall pointed out how relatively generous the triple lock on the state pension was. Yet they didn't attempt to point out what a functioning NHS might do for the quality of life of older people. There was never so much as the faintest hint that an incoming Labour government would scrap something introduced by Gordon Brown and retained by the Conservatives since 2010. Making the U-turn announcement now, two days ahead of the comprehensive spending review was, presumably, an attempt to manage the news cycle – getting the good-but-embarrassing news out of the way. That might be shrewd, if the review does indeed show how the public services will 'live within their means' in the coming years, with welcome extra resources for the NHS, schools and the defence of the realm, restoring Ms Reeves's prestige. Yet the authority of the chancellor has been badly compromised by the missteps she's taken in her first year in office – unforced errors compounded by poor presentation. The so-called 'tractor tax' and an over-reliance on employers' national insurance contributions have also landed badly. As some old Treasury hands suggest, it feels very much as though her civil servants reached for their favourite policies when the inexperienced chancellor asked about options, and she accepted the recommendations all too readily, in a way her predecessors did not. Maybe the very real 'black hole' she inherited panicked her. It looks like it. At any rate, she is finding it even more difficult to resist her more powerful colleagues in the spending departments when they push for politically expedient solutions. We need not exaggerate matters, though. Ms Reeves is not like Kwasi Kwarteng being recalled from an IMF summit to be sacked by Liz Truss for delivering (her) mini-Budget in 2022. Nor is this a repeat of a dazed Norman Lamont staggering into Whitehall to announce that sterling was leaving the European ERM in 1992. Unlike in those episodes, the government's economic policy has not been destroyed by an adjustment of about £1bn in a social security budget of more than £300bn. But she knows that she is in a weakened position – and, with no following in the party, depends heavily on the confidence of the prime minister to survive. Sir Keir Starmer knows, as she does, that if he were to move her this early in the life of the government it would only make matters worse in every respect. For now, they're still in this together.
