| |

No Festivities for the Inauguration of Winston ChurchillCarlo D’Este | February 04, 2009 | one comment | Print | E-mail ![]() January 20, 2009. With his family by his side, Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th president of the United States by Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts Jr. in Washington, D.C. Photo by Air Force Master Sgt. Cecillio Ricardo. When the elation and triumph of a lifetime dream ought to have otherwise prevailed, Winston Churchill was quite possibly the loneliest man in Britain. On January 20, 2009, we inaugurated the forty-fourth president of the United States in a time-honored ceremony filled with an American version of pomp and circumstance that signifies a peaceful transition of the office of president. For a brief moment there is an unusual dignity where even political enemies set aside their differences to witness history. What makes this occasion so special is its ability—at least this year—to bring the American people together. It doesn’t matter what political colors one wears: on this day we are all Americans. The inauguration also signifies our collective commitment to a democratic way of life. That some two million people would brave 20-degree weather to stand for hours just to witness and be part of it says more than words. The swearing-in ceremony at the stroke of noon (slightly late this time) is followed by the ceremonial departure of the outgoing president, who is escorted by the new president to a waiting helicopter outside the east wing of the Capitol. After Marine-1 lifts majestically into the sky it makes the now traditional final flight over the Mall and the White House to provide the former president a final glimpse of the city that he had called home for four or eight years. Music, prayer and poetry are all part of this magnificent event, which is followed by a parade in honor of the new president. Before that, however, there is a ceremonial drive down Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House. In recent inaugurations it has become almost customary for the president and first lady (to the horror of the Secret Service!) to walk at least part way along Pennsylvania Avenue to greet the thousands lining the sidewalks. This year the parade past the reviewing stand erected in front of the White House seemed endlessly long. No wonder: there were some 13,000 participants: from marching bands to riders on horseback, honor guards, Indians in full regalia, the surviving members of the Tuskegee airmen, and motorcycles. That evening the new president attends as many as ten galas around town, doing at least one ceremonial dance at each until the early morning hours. When the day ends at two or three a.m. the following morning it signals the end of yet another peaceful transition of power. As if nothing has occurred, on January 21st it’s suddenly time for business and the work of the presidency. * * * The British all but invented ceremonial pomp. During Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations in 1897, one of the centerpieces of this imposing event was the British Army. When Queen Victoria attended a service of Thanksgiving at St. Paul’s Cathedral, the streets were lined with 50,000 splendidly arrayed troops on horseback to formally salute their sovereign. Even today the daily changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace and the annual Queen’s birthday celebration and parade are colorful events that draw hordes of spectators. However, a change of British government is an entirely different sort of event. Whenever the party holding a majority in the House of Commons wins a general election or a prime minister is replaced (either through resignation or a vote of ‘no confidence’ in Parliament), there follows a time-honored sequence of events. The new PM is summoned to Buckingham Palace where the reigning sovereign formally asks him or her to form a government. The event takes place behind closed doors and is never privy to photographers or the press. There is no swearing in ceremony, no bands, no clergy offering prayers or benedictions, and no speeches broadcast over the BBC, and certainly no cheering crowds. Pages: 1 2 3Tags: Historical Figures, World War II
|
|
|
|
||
What is Armchair General?Armchair General (ACG) and ACG online feature a unique, interactive editorial approach that invites the reader to decide the course of action in challenging historical scenarios, to step into the shoes of a battlefield commander. Leading historians and contributors lend integrity and credibility to this fresh presentation of historical and contemporary events. Armchair General is the INTERACTIVE history magazine where YOU COMMAND and decide the course of action! |
What We Write About
|
Our Other Magazines |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Copyright © 2004-2008 Armchair General L.L.C., All rights reserved. |
||
One Comment to “No Festivities for the Inauguration of Winston Churchill”
An interesting article which touches on many key issues.
Nowadays, the accession of a new Prime Minister following a general election is regularly accompanied by cheering crowds, media appearances and a speech in front of 10 Downing St. However, this is not so much a formal piece of ceremonial, but more a channel in the age of mass media to bring the event to the public. On the other hand, when a leader is ousted by losing the confidence of his or her own party in Parliament, which is what happened to Chamberlain in 1940 and Thatcher in 1990, the same degree of publicity does not follow (after all, there was no election, the people were not consulted) though I seem to recall John Major giving an accession speech when he took over from Mrs T.
This type of leadership change shows the power of party in the British system, and in other parliamentary democracies. Such power is ruled out by the US constitution, designed as it was deliberately to limit government. In the UK a party with a secure parliamentary majority has effective control of executive and legislature and can in theory change anything and everything, including constitutional matters, just on the agreement of the cabinet, comprising 20 or so key ministers.
This system has been called an “elective dictatorship”, and Churchill declared in his memoirs that he did not believe any of the other war leaders, even the dictators, had a more close, effective control of his country’s war effort than Churchill had in the UK.
By Tom Black on Feb 27, 2009 at 9:59 pm