Jack Kelly writer
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
MORE MUSTARD, YOUR MAJESTY?
(Dutchess Magazine, Fall 2004)
Odd that citizens of a country founded on the truth that
“all men are created equal” would display Americans’
fascination with royalty. If the history of the twentieth
century did not put the lie to aristocratic humbug, you
would think the current shining stars who populate British
royalty would disabuse us of the notion of high birth. Not
so.
The Roosevelts and the Royals: Franklin and Eleanor, the
King and Queen of England, and the Friendship That
Changed History (Wiley, $27.95) chronicles an occasion
when royal feet trod on the soil of our very own Dutchess
County. The 1939 trip was in fact the first time a reigning
British monarch had visited the United States.
Author Will Swift is an expert on things royal -- he’s written
for Majesty magazine and founded the Royalty Bookshop
in New York. His premise is that the king’s visit, which
culminated in a famous Hyde Park weenie roast, cemented
Anglo-American relations on the eve of war in Europe and
“changed history.” His case for the significance of the
event, though, is paper thin, and we are left with a volume
of gossip that many readers will find a royal bore.
The book stumbles with its very title, which invites the
comparison of the American president and the British
monarch. On the one hand, we have a towering figure of
world history who guided his nation through its worst
economic crisis, reordered its social compact, and set
strategy during the cataclysm of World War II. On the other
hand, we have a powerless figurehead who found even the
ceremonial duties of kingship a challenge. The author
draws strained comparisons between the two men.
Roosevelt overcame major paralysis to live a vigorous life;
the king struggled mightily to conquer a minor speech
impediment. The president worked to pull the country out
of the Depression; the royal one “found it painful to sell off
his hunting dogs” in order to economize during the 1930s.
Equally stark is the contrast between the king’s bland and
idle wife, Queen Elizabeth, and the accomplished Eleanor
Roosevelt.
The king, Swift tells us, was a noted underachiever. Shy,
homely, slow at school, he was described by the American
ambassador to France as “a rather frightened boy” at age
44. He had not been groomed for the crown, which had
passed first to his older brother. But King Edward VIII fell
famously for an American divorcee and had to give up his
love or get off the throne. His abdication paved the way for
Albert, who reigned under the moniker George VI.
It may well be, as Swift contends, that Roosevelt was
“smitten by royalty.” It seems an exaggeration to call him a
“confirmed royalist” or to contend that he simply “played
upon Americans’ anti-aristocratic sentiments” in
formulating his rhetoric and policies. Unlike “Bertie,”
Roosevelt was a complex man.
Certainly the 1939 royal tour, which included a visit to
Washington and a stop at the New York World’s Fair,
amply demonstrated Americans’ curiosity about the royals.
Huge crowds lined the streets to catch a glimpse of their
majesties as they rolled past.
After a few hot days of meeting and greeting the hoards of
Americans who had wangled invitations to this or that
reception, the king and queen were ready for a some R&R.
What better than a weekend in Hyde Park and a swim at
Val-Kill? Some Americans were scandalized by the well-
publicized fact that the Roosevelts would be feeding the
royals frankfurters. “The dignity of our country will be
imperiled,” they worried. Eleanor had to assure readers of
her newspaper column that “there will be plenty of other
food.”
Swift writes fluidly and has a way with an anecdote. When
FDR’s mother refused to pay a plumber’s bill, the man
repossessed a toilet seat and displayed it in his Hyde Park
shop with a sign: “The King and Queen sat here.”
We are entertained with descriptions of “ivory-colored
chiffon moire” outfits and dinners of boned capon, terrapin
and calf’s head soup. The king displays his wit when a
guest in a receiving line drops some coins and his majesty
yells, “Finders Keepers!”
The first evening at Hyde Park, the two heads of state sat
up late talking over world affairs. FDR passed on some
fatherly advise to the younger man and made vague
promises about American support for England. The next
day came a church service and the hot dog roast. Then
the royals were off on the next leg of their tour. By all
accounts everyone had a good time.
But our credulity is strained when Swift asserts that if this
weekend visit and picnic had not taken place, history would
have proceeded in a different direction. The event was
entirely ceremonial -- no substantive negotiations were
carried on. Roosevelt was indeed an Anglophile, but his
sentiment long preceded his meeting with Bertie.
Swift repeats the well-known theory that FDR was
conniving to entangle a reluctant nation in the European
conflict on the British side. But Congress failed to repeal
the Neutrality Act even after the historic meeting, thereby
blocking American involvement even as German bombs
rained on London. As for the vaunted “friendship,” Swift
himself recounts that Roosevelt neglected to answer
pleading personal letters from the king in the summer of
1941. By that time FDR had forged a relationship with
Winston Churchill, who held real power in Britain.
When it comes to “hot dog diplomacy,” can we really
swallow the notion that “the king and queen’s willingness to
eat a cardinal American food would signal the final
acceptance of Americans as equals?” The queen,
presented with her very first hot dog, asked the president,
“How do you eat it?”
“Push it into your mouth,” was his helpful advice, “and
keep pushing until it is gone.” Indeed.
# # #
(Dutchess Magazine, Fall 2004)
Odd that citizens of a country founded on the truth that
“all men are created equal” would display Americans’
fascination with royalty. If the history of the twentieth
century did not put the lie to aristocratic humbug, you
would think the current shining stars who populate British
royalty would disabuse us of the notion of high birth. Not
so.
The Roosevelts and the Royals: Franklin and Eleanor, the
King and Queen of England, and the Friendship That
Changed History (Wiley, $27.95) chronicles an occasion
when royal feet trod on the soil of our very own Dutchess
County. The 1939 trip was in fact the first time a reigning
British monarch had visited the United States.
Author Will Swift is an expert on things royal -- he’s written
for Majesty magazine and founded the Royalty Bookshop
in New York. His premise is that the king’s visit, which
culminated in a famous Hyde Park weenie roast, cemented
Anglo-American relations on the eve of war in Europe and
“changed history.” His case for the significance of the
event, though, is paper thin, and we are left with a volume
of gossip that many readers will find a royal bore.
The book stumbles with its very title, which invites the
comparison of the American president and the British
monarch. On the one hand, we have a towering figure of
world history who guided his nation through its worst
economic crisis, reordered its social compact, and set
strategy during the cataclysm of World War II. On the other
hand, we have a powerless figurehead who found even the
ceremonial duties of kingship a challenge. The author
draws strained comparisons between the two men.
Roosevelt overcame major paralysis to live a vigorous life;
the king struggled mightily to conquer a minor speech
impediment. The president worked to pull the country out
of the Depression; the royal one “found it painful to sell off
his hunting dogs” in order to economize during the 1930s.
Equally stark is the contrast between the king’s bland and
idle wife, Queen Elizabeth, and the accomplished Eleanor
Roosevelt.
The king, Swift tells us, was a noted underachiever. Shy,
homely, slow at school, he was described by the American
ambassador to France as “a rather frightened boy” at age
44. He had not been groomed for the crown, which had
passed first to his older brother. But King Edward VIII fell
famously for an American divorcee and had to give up his
love or get off the throne. His abdication paved the way for
Albert, who reigned under the moniker George VI.
It may well be, as Swift contends, that Roosevelt was
“smitten by royalty.” It seems an exaggeration to call him a
“confirmed royalist” or to contend that he simply “played
upon Americans’ anti-aristocratic sentiments” in
formulating his rhetoric and policies. Unlike “Bertie,”
Roosevelt was a complex man.
Certainly the 1939 royal tour, which included a visit to
Washington and a stop at the New York World’s Fair,
amply demonstrated Americans’ curiosity about the royals.
Huge crowds lined the streets to catch a glimpse of their
majesties as they rolled past.
After a few hot days of meeting and greeting the hoards of
Americans who had wangled invitations to this or that
reception, the king and queen were ready for a some R&R.
What better than a weekend in Hyde Park and a swim at
Val-Kill? Some Americans were scandalized by the well-
publicized fact that the Roosevelts would be feeding the
royals frankfurters. “The dignity of our country will be
imperiled,” they worried. Eleanor had to assure readers of
her newspaper column that “there will be plenty of other
food.”
Swift writes fluidly and has a way with an anecdote. When
FDR’s mother refused to pay a plumber’s bill, the man
repossessed a toilet seat and displayed it in his Hyde Park
shop with a sign: “The King and Queen sat here.”
We are entertained with descriptions of “ivory-colored
chiffon moire” outfits and dinners of boned capon, terrapin
and calf’s head soup. The king displays his wit when a
guest in a receiving line drops some coins and his majesty
yells, “Finders Keepers!”
The first evening at Hyde Park, the two heads of state sat
up late talking over world affairs. FDR passed on some
fatherly advise to the younger man and made vague
promises about American support for England. The next
day came a church service and the hot dog roast. Then
the royals were off on the next leg of their tour. By all
accounts everyone had a good time.
But our credulity is strained when Swift asserts that if this
weekend visit and picnic had not taken place, history would
have proceeded in a different direction. The event was
entirely ceremonial -- no substantive negotiations were
carried on. Roosevelt was indeed an Anglophile, but his
sentiment long preceded his meeting with Bertie.
Swift repeats the well-known theory that FDR was
conniving to entangle a reluctant nation in the European
conflict on the British side. But Congress failed to repeal
the Neutrality Act even after the historic meeting, thereby
blocking American involvement even as German bombs
rained on London. As for the vaunted “friendship,” Swift
himself recounts that Roosevelt neglected to answer
pleading personal letters from the king in the summer of
1941. By that time FDR had forged a relationship with
Winston Churchill, who held real power in Britain.
When it comes to “hot dog diplomacy,” can we really
swallow the notion that “the king and queen’s willingness to
eat a cardinal American food would signal the final
acceptance of Americans as equals?” The queen,
presented with her very first hot dog, asked the president,
“How do you eat it?”
“Push it into your mouth,” was his helpful advice, “and
keep pushing until it is gone.” Indeed.
# # #