Sunday 21 November 2004
The Queen and the Presidents
The recent U.S. election seems to have secured George III as in George Washington,
George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush a continued reign of four more years. Meanwhile, many U.S. citizens who supported John Kerry are at least joking about becoming
subjects of the Queen by a move north into Canada. Some are serious.
I always wonder what Queen Elizabeth really thinks
of the parade of U.S. Presidents that
have come and gone during her reign. She came
to the throne in the last year of the administration of Harry S. Truman. Since then she has seen the coming and going of
Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy
Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. That is eleven of the U.S.s forty-three Presidents.
The relational dynamics between the Palace and the
White House are always interesting to observe. For
various reasons, including the longstanding ties of the Democratic Party to Ireland, the relationship usually seems cosier when
Republicans are in power in Washington. Because of the bonds forged in World War II,
President Eisenhower enjoyed a warm friendship with the royal family dating from a famous
visit to Balmoral shortly after the war. The
Queen visited him at the White House early in her reign; and Ive been told that Ike
loved the Queens recipe for scones that he enjoyed during a visit while she was
expecting Prince Andrew. A few years on,
Richard Nixon was almost sycophantic in his hosting of Prince Charles and Princess Anne. Rumor at the time had it that Nixon was hoping to
stir up some interest between Charles and his daughter Tricia. (Hmmm
I wonder if W has thought
of trying to fix Jenna or Barbara up with William? The
lovely Ms. Middleton is duly warned to be on guard.) Soon
after the Nixon departed in disgrace, one of my favorite pictures of the Queen is of her
dancing with President Ford in the East Room of the White House during her visit to mark
the U.S. Bicentennial. She and the old
football player made a handsome couple, and they seemed very much at ease as they took
their turn on the floor.
Then, of course, there were the Reagans. Charles and Dianas famous visit, during which
Diana danced with John Travolta at the White House, began with them being greeted by
the Gipper who was wearing a Wilson tartan sport coat. (Wilson was his middle name, derived from a maternal
ancestral line.) One British commentator noted
that The President greeted the Prince and Princess wearing a coat resembling the
carpets at Balmoral. Cheeky, but
accurate. Later the President rescued his
sartorial reputation a bit during the Reagans visit to Windsor Castle, where he looked
equally dapper in white tie and tails at the banquet, and later in proper togs when out
riding with the Queen. The mood may have been
dampened a bit during the Queens subsequent rain-sodden visit to the Reagans in California I recall a picture of fairly
wilted feather on the Queens hat when they visited his beloved ranch but Mr.
Reagans famous charm seems to have forged a friendship.
Her Majesty also seems to take to the senior
Bushes, despite the unfortunate talking hat episode when the Queen was hidden
by the podium microphones during her visit to Washington. As I recall the queen
personally gifted the Bushes (or was it the American ambassador?) with a puppy or some
such. I distinctly recall the elder Barbara
Bush talking about it in an interview. I have,
however, always wondered if the Queen didnt slip in one of her occasional deadpan
zingers when during a banquet in Texas
she said, The rest of the world pities those unfortunate enough not to be born a
Texan. (Texans, of course, assumed she
was in dead earnest.)
By contrast, the Democratic Presidents have fared
less well in the royal relationship. The most
notorious incident came when Jimmy Carter, in true southern style, kissed the Queen Mum. (Its what one does to a grandmother!) She was appalled by the gesture.
All of which leads me to the current Bush. While it seems that the Queen and these younger
Bushes get on fairly well personally, last years State Visit to Britain caused much
comment when, according to reports, the irritated Queen refused to let the Americans
virtually reconstruct, for security purposes, the part of the palace in which the Bushes
were to be lodged. The pseudo-footman episode
did somewhat vindicate the Americans concern, but there do have to be some limits to
how accommodating one can afford to be. Then
there was that unprecedented special arrival tent put up in the forecourt of the palace so
that the Bushes would be safe from being paraded through the streets in carriages like
other heads of state. Once again, while some
of the precautions are understandable, it is also symptomatic of the virtual obsession for
Presidential security that has grown ever more pronounced ever since the Kennedy
assassination in 1963.
What I found most remarkable in last years
visit was the renewed realization that the Americans, who began in rebellion against the
pomp and circumstance of monarchy, now in many ways overshadow the British Crown in the
court that they provide their Presidents.
The Presidents accompanying entourage is vast, wherever he goes. Air Force One surpasses dear old Britannia and the
ageing Royal Train for imperially splendid travel. And
though the only official Presidential accommodations are the White House (with guest
quarters at neighboring Blair House) and Camp David, every President and former President enjoys tax-supported home security and
tax-supported offices for life. There is also
an official Vice Presidential residence. The
American equivalent of the Civil List supports all living ex-Presidents and their spouses
in relatively high style. Currently the list
of American royals includes Mrs. Lady Bird Johnson, the Fords, the Carters, Mrs. Nancy
Reagan, the senior Bushes, and the Clintons. And capping all of this, each
President since Herbert Hoover has left behind the modern equivalent of the ancient
Egyptian pyramids, consisting of a Presidential Library that typically includes the burial
site of the former President and his spouse amidst all their stuff. (Kennedy and Johnson are exceptions to the library
burials.) Bill Clintons library was
dedicated just this last week. And speaking of
the deceased, the recent funeral of Ronald Reagan with Prince Charles in attendance
rivalled or surpassed that of the late Queen Mother in state ceremonial. And she ended up buried in a relatively tiny corner
of St. Georges Windsor.
Ironically, in many ways the current monarch of Great Britain is much more low-key and
has far more contact with ordinary people than the head of the most prominent democracy
on earth. It would be unimaginable, for
instance, for a U.S. President nowadays to do a walkabout.
During the recent campaign the appearances of the President and Vice
President were restricted to ticketed supporters only.
What would George Washington or Thomas Jefferson think?
In the midst of all this, many Americans continue
a long tradition of Monarch-envy. Peruse the
letters to the editors of the major royal magazines, and about half will be from the U.S. Perhaps
there is a clue in that to the benefit of monarchy. What
I see in it is a deep longing for a non-partisan head of state, and for continuity, and
for some comfort in having a dependable presence spanning the years. Some, of course, just want the glamour and gossip
and fairytale side. But among the Americans
that look to the royals, I am convinced that there is a deeper strata of longing. And, notably, when someone in the U.S. says The
Queen no one bothers unless they are at that moment among a group of Danes,
Dutch, or Hispanics to ask if the speaker means Margrethe, or Beatrix, or Sofia. As one old Scottish chief is rumored to have said,
There are three Thes in the world.
There is The Pope, and The Queen, and The
MacGregor! Even in America the Queen remains The Queen.
Finally, in the midst of the brouhaha about Prince
Charles supposedly private memo to a member of his staff that was introduced in
current judicial proceedings, I would strongly note as others have that
there is a profound difference between the issue of education and capabilities
and that of the archaic and hierarchical notion of station in life. HRH was by all accounts commenting on the former,
and the complainant in the case was the one who apparently raised the latter red herring.
Until next month...
- Ken Cuthbertson
|