Over at one of the Daily Telegraph blogs, Gerald Warner has written a piece in reaction to the spouses of G20 leaders meeting in London at the same time as the G20 summit. Although I don't quite agree with everything Mr Warner says (for example the marginal cost of Mrs Obama occupying a seat on her husband's USAF flight or Mrs Rudd's seat on an RAAF jet is virtually nothing), he's got a point. I left a comment there which I will basically reproduce here as a post of my own. My comment there (and this post) really takes issue with the tendency to bestow quasi-aristocratic titles on the spouse of a constitutional office holder such as calling the U.S. President's wife "first lady" and the tendency of other countries (including the French who refer to Mrs Sarko as "la Première Dame") to ape them in their aristocratic ways. Anyway, here 'tis:
-------------------------------
Yet another American fad we unquestioningly adopt -- the need to come up with an office and a ridiculous title for the spouse of a president or prime minister.
Does anyone else see the irony in a so-called Republic such as the United States treating the wife of its President as a de facto queen consort? In a republic like the U.S. there shouldn't be anything such as a "first lady" for the simple reason that there is no "first" or "last" in that kind of society. There are just constitutional offices occupied by equals. Mrs Obama's husband happens to occupy an important constitutional office; but he does so as primus inter pares and his occupancy of that office doesn't change her status or role one iota. Simply put, the president's spouse has no constitutional role. So let's stop pretending s/he does as the monarch's spouse does in a monarchy.
The President's wife is not crowned queen consort at the time of the President's inauguration. And yet that's what people and the press turn her into. No, she is Mrs Obama, wife of a U.S. citizen who happens to occupy the constitutional office of President of the U.S. Her husband's occupancy of the office of president does not have any effect on her. She is still Mrs Obama -- not Queen Michelle.
And these views have nothing to do with the fact that most of the presidential and prime-ministerial spouses happen to be women. If Mrs Obama were president then I would be saying exactly the same thing about Mr Obama. His wife's election to the presidency would have no effect on him and he would still be Mr Obama and not the "first dude" or whatever other quasi-monarchical title you want to come up with.
As far as I'm concerned these WAGs and HABs can be seen and heard in public as much as any other person as long as we don't start treating them as if they occupy a special office by virtue of the fact that they are married to someone who does. But they really shouldn't be travelling around the world at public expense behaving as if they are queen consort or prince consort.
If I as an employee of a corporation need to travel abroad on a business trip should I expect my employer to pay to fly my wife out when she is not an employee of the company with a legitimate business need to make the trip? Of course not. But she is perfectly free to fly out at her (or my) own expense. By all means, take a trip to London at the same time that your HAB or WAG is there on business. But don't expect to be flown out or put up at the company's expense, turn up at business meetings or be treated any differently from the millions of other HABs and WAGs in London. You're not there representing the company, just coincidentally present at the same time as your own HAB or WAG is there on official business. And so it should be for presidential and prime-ministerial WAGs and HABs.
Does anyone else see the irony in a so-called Republic such as the United States treating the wife of its President as a de facto queen consort? In a republic like the U.S. there shouldn't be anything such as a "first lady" for the simple reason that there is no "first" or "last" in that kind of society. There are just constitutional offices occupied by equals. Mrs Obama's husband happens to occupy an important constitutional office; but he does so as primus inter pares and his occupancy of that office doesn't change her status or role one iota. Simply put, the president's spouse has no constitutional role. So let's stop pretending s/he does as the monarch's spouse does in a monarchy.
The President's wife is not crowned queen consort at the time of the President's inauguration. And yet that's what people and the press turn her into. No, she is Mrs Obama, wife of a U.S. citizen who happens to occupy the constitutional office of President of the U.S. Her husband's occupancy of the office of president does not have any effect on her. She is still Mrs Obama -- not Queen Michelle.
And these views have nothing to do with the fact that most of the presidential and prime-ministerial spouses happen to be women. If Mrs Obama were president then I would be saying exactly the same thing about Mr Obama. His wife's election to the presidency would have no effect on him and he would still be Mr Obama and not the "first dude" or whatever other quasi-monarchical title you want to come up with.
As far as I'm concerned these WAGs and HABs can be seen and heard in public as much as any other person as long as we don't start treating them as if they occupy a special office by virtue of the fact that they are married to someone who does. But they really shouldn't be travelling around the world at public expense behaving as if they are queen consort or prince consort.
If I as an employee of a corporation need to travel abroad on a business trip should I expect my employer to pay to fly my wife out when she is not an employee of the company with a legitimate business need to make the trip? Of course not. But she is perfectly free to fly out at her (or my) own expense. By all means, take a trip to London at the same time that your HAB or WAG is there on business. But don't expect to be flown out or put up at the company's expense, turn up at business meetings or be treated any differently from the millions of other HABs and WAGs in London. You're not there representing the company, just coincidentally present at the same time as your own HAB or WAG is there on official business. And so it should be for presidential and prime-ministerial WAGs and HABs.
0 comments:
Post a Comment