I can still remember when the news came over the radio. It was a Sunday morning in late January, 1965. Sir Winston Churchill had died.

His funeral was the following Saturday. He was only the second commoner in the history of Great Britain to be given a state funeral, normally reserved for royalty. The first had been for the Duke of Wellington, the military genius who had thwarted Napoleon's plans for world conquest at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, thereby ushering in a century of Pax Britannica. Churchill had defeated an even greater evil, Hitler's Third Reich. He didn't do it single-handedly, of course, but without him the outcome would almost certainly have been very different.

I also well remember the silence after the funeral. It was the only time I can remember all of the television and radio stations closing down for a period of silence in honor of the great old man to whom so much was owed.

People were truly thankful for the fact that he had led them to victory in World War II-at a time when everybody else seemed inclined to compromise with Nazi Germany.

Churchill rejected the honor of a dukedom and turned down the opportunity to be buried in Westminster Abbey along with many other famous Britons.

Churchill's funeral was, for Britain, the end of an age.

Ironically, his death came at the end of a 20-year-period that had seen the nation reject just about everything he stood for.

Postwar Britain

It had started 20 years earlier, shortly after VE Day. With the European war ended, Churchill had called an election. All indications were that his Conservative Party would win. The world was shocked when the results came in. The Labour (Socialist) Party had won by a landslide. Although grateful for Churchill's role as a wartime leader, people had decided they wanted change. Their desire was for a different world. They didn't want their young men fighting wars in far off places they had never heard of; nor did they want them coming home to low-paying jobs or unemployment.

It seems the time had come when God would "break the pride of [their] power" (Leviticus 26:19). After being universally acclaimed as the British lion that roared in defiance of Hitler and the man who had led them to victory, Churchill appeared to be headed for victory. But, seemingly, it was time for Britain's rapid decline to begin. The prophet Daniel reminds us that it is God who "removes kings and raises up kings" (Daniel 2:21). The same God who had given Britain its victory, then took away the empire that He had given to them, the multitude of nations promised to Joseph's son Ephraim (Genesis 48:19).

The next few years saw massive changes, including the nationalization of key industries (steel, railways, coal mines) and the institution of a government-run medical system. To concentrate on these radical reforms, the country turned its back on an empire that had been built up over 400 years. India and Pakistan were granted independence in 1947. By the time of Churchill's death, all the major colonies had gone. Britain had, to quote U.S. statesman Adlai Stevenson, "lost an empire and not yet found a role."

It might have been very different if Churchill had won that pivotal election. He was an empire loyalist. His love of history taught him that Britain's security lay with the multitude of nations built up gradually since the time of Queen Elizabeth I. Later, after winning the 1951 election, as prime minister at the time of the accession of Queen Elizabeth II, he talked of a "new Elizabethan age," surpassing the first in greatness, but it was not to be.

Great Britain had embarked on a new course, which continues to this day. With the British Empire gone, now it is Britain's turn to be dismantled and the present Labour government has set the course.

The Abolition of Britain

A thought-provoking book on this subject by British writer Peter Hitchens was recently published. In this work, titled The Abolition of Britain, Hitchens contrasts the country at the time of Churchill's funeral with the nation 32 years later at the funeral of Princess Diana. By his own account, it is as if he is looking at two different countries.

Outside the British Isles many people get confused at exactly what constitutes Great Britain and where England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland fit into the equation. At one time all four nations were separate entities. Their eventual union came about over a long period.

England conquered Wales during the time of Edward I in the 13th century. Edward proclaimed his son the Prince of Wales, emphasizing the fact that Wales is a separate principality, but was to be administered as a part of England. For 700 years, the heirs to the British throne have been titled "Prince of Wales."

Scotland and England (with Wales) were united later. When Elizabeth I died in 1603, she left no heirs. This was deliberate on her part. Historically, Scotland had often allied itself with France against England. It was time for the two countries to be united, so that this would never happen again. Upon her death, her cousin's son, James VI of Scotland, became King James I of England. James gave the country its new name, "Great Britain." The new flag was nicknamed the Union Jack after him.

The two kingdoms were still administered separately, but they had the same monarch. A century later (1707), they were fully united under one parliament, giving Scots the opportunity to share in the benefits of the growing worldwide empire. Another century later, the Irish Parliament was abolished and the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" was formed (1801).

Reversal

The dismantling of this kingdom actually began 80 years ago when most of Ireland was given independence as the Irish Free State, theoretically still subject to the Crown. In 1949, the Free State became the Irish Republic, severing that tie. The six counties of Northern Ireland that have remained within the United Kingdom (U.K.) have been strife-torn for over three decades. The problem remains insoluble. At some point, it is likely that another "reforming" government in London will force a change on the province, as British governments since Churchill's time have eventually given in to terrorists in every disputed territory.

With increasing support for Scottish and Welsh nationalists, the present British government, led by Tony Blair, came to power in 1997 promising "Devolution." The two ancient Celtic peoples would be given their own parliaments and be responsible for their own internal affairs. London would still conduct foreign policy. Both Scotland and Wales now have their own assemblies with increased calls for full independence.

Some of the English, meanwhile, are resentful of the fact that they do not have their own parliament. Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish members still sit in the House of Commons in London and can vote on legislation that affects the English people, while the English people do not have a say in the internal affairs of the Celtic nations around them.

Meanwhile, the European Union has been fulfilling its dream of an "ever closer union." The Irish Republic has benefited greatly from its membership in the EU, ironically partly subsidized through Brussels by the U.K. taxpayer. This has reduced some fears of Irish unity in the North. The South had always been poor, the North far wealthier, so even Catholics had been somewhat apprehensive of unity with the South. Not any more.

Polls show the English to be increasingly weary of the EU. Scottish Nationalists, however, see the EU as increasing the likelihood of Scottish independence. No longer would the five million people of an independent Scotland be unable to make it economically on their own-within the EU, they would prosper, just like Ireland and other small countries. Similar feelings are evident in Wales.

It is conceivable that at some future time the English could find themselves outside of a politically unified EU, with the Scots, Welsh and Irish inside. Queen Elizabeth I's worst nightmare would have come true, four centuries later, of an England surrounded by hostile nations in alliance with the continental powers.

Historians like Norman Davies think that none of this matters. In his recent book, The Isles, he reminds readers that England at one time was physically a part of the European landmass. At other times, it was a part of Europe. It was the most westerly province of the Roman Empire from 43 to 410 A.D., a period of almost four centuries. The English church was a part of the Roman church for almost 1,000 years. The Plantagenets in the Middle Ages ruled England as well as parts of France, spending most of their time in the bigger and warmer part of their territories.

But Paul Johnson, another British historian, gave the following cautionary warning in the pivotal year 1972 (between the British Parliament's vote to join Europe and Britain's accession the following January): "Disunity has always proved fatal to the offshore islanders." (The Offshore Islanders was the title of his book, dealing with Britain's relationship with Europe throughout history.) In other words, the disuniting of the United Kingdom has always been fatal in the past, enabling hostile powers to successfully invade the country. Why should it be any different this time?

The biblical wisdom holds true: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand" (Matthew 12:25).

A new generation

A different generation is in power now. Tony Blair, today's British prime minister, prefers to identify with a different period. He is the first British prime minister who does not remember Winston Churchill. In a speech just before the election that brought him to power, he described himself this way: "I am a modern man. I am a part of the rock and roll generation-the Beatles, colour TV, that's the generation I come from" (The Abolition of Britain, paperback edition, p. xix).

It's a generation that is the victim of "revisionist history," with an emphasis on "multiculturalism," downplaying Britain's role in frequently leading its empire into conflict against despotic European powers that wanted to conquer the world, while, at the same time, emphasizing all the mistakes Britain made, negatively presenting the British Empire as a shameful era in the nation's history.

It's also a generation that, as in the United States and other Western countries, has been raised with emphasis on material values, with little concept of morality and often lacking any knowledge of God. Many in the new government reflect these realities.

Writing of "the end of Britain" in Newsweek (July 10, 2000) American columnist George F. Will reminded readers of the late English writer George Orwell's dismissive comment on English intellectuals: "England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their nationality." (Orwell died in 1950 before this disease spread to America.)

Mr. Will added, "Many Europhiles are English intellectuals of the sort George Orwell despised because they despised their nation." It's hard to understand how much hatred so many people now have for all of the old values symbolized by Sir Winston Churchill. "God, King and Country" have no place any more in the minds of so many, certainly the majority of English intellectuals.

Does this matter to Americans and the rest of the world?

Let George Will have the final say: "What is vanishing, and not slowly, is the nation to which the United States traces much of its political and cultural DNA. Unless this disappearance is resisted, and reversed, soon all that will linger… will be a mocking memory of the nationhood that was the political incarnation of a people who (as has been said), relative to their numbers, contributed more to civilization than any other people since the ancient Greeks and Romans" (ibid.). WNP