by The Laird o’Thistle
Nov 21 2004

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 cozier 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 I’ve been told that Ike loved the Queen’s 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 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 Diana’s 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 Queen’s subsequent rain-sodden visit to the Reagans in California – I recall a picture of a fairly wilted feather on the Queen’s hat when they visited his beloved ranch – but Mr. Reagan’s 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 didn’t 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. (It’s 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 year’s 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 year’s 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 President’s accompanying entourage is vast, wherever he goes. Air Force One surpasses dear old Britannia and the aging 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 Clinton’s library was dedicated just this last week. And speaking of the deceased, the recent funeral of Ronald Reagan – with Prince Charles in attendance – rivaled or surpassed that of the late Queen Mother in state ceremonial. And she ended up buried in a relatively tiny corner of St. George’s 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 the 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 ‘The’s’ 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