Grand

Grand (pronounced grand)

(1) Impressive in size, appearance, or general effect.

(2) Stately, majestic, or dignified.

(3) Highly ambitious or idealistic.

(4) Magnificent or splendid.

(5) Noble or revered.

(6) Highest, or very high, in rank or official dignity.

(7) Main or principal; chief; the most superior.

(8) Of great importance, distinction, or pretension.

(9) Complete or comprehensive (usually as the “grand total”).

(10) Pretending to grandeur, as a result of minor success, good fortune, etc; conceited & haughty (often with a modifier such as “rather grand”, awfully grand” or “insufferably grand”).

(11) First-rate; very good; splendid.

(12) In musical composition, written on a large scale or for a large ensemble (grand fugue, grand opera etc) and technically meaning originally “containing all the parts proper to a given form of composition”.

(13) In music, the slang for the concert grand piano (sometimes as “concert grand”).

(14) In informal use, an amount equal to a thousand pounds or dollars.

(15) In genealogy, a combining (prefix) form used to denote “one generation more remote” (grandfather, grand uncle etc).

1350–1400: From the Middle English graund, grond, grand, graunt & grant, from the Anglo-Norman graunt, from the Old French grant & grand (large, tall; grown-up; great, powerful, important; strict, severe; extensive; numerous), from the Latin grandis (big, great; full, abundant; full-grown (and figuratively “strong, powerful, weighty, severe”, of unknown origin.  Words conveying a similar sense (depending on context includes ambitious, awe-inspiring, dignified, glorious, grandiose, imposing, large, lofty, luxurious, magnificent, marvelous, monumental, noble, princely, regal, royal, exalted, palatial; brilliant, superb opulent, palatial, splendid, stately, sumptuous, main, large, big & august.  Grand is a noun & adjective, grander & grandest are adjectives, grandness is a noun and grandly is an adverb; the noun plural is grands.

In Vulgar Latin it supplanted magnus (although the phrase magnum opus (one’s great work) endured) and continued in the Romanic languages.  The connotations of "noble, sublime, lofty, dignified etc” existed in Latin and later were picked up in English where it gained also the special sense of “imposing” (which tended often to imply “big”.  The meaning “principal, chief, most important” (especially in the hierarchy of titles) dates from the 1560s while the idea of “something of very high or noble quality” is from the early eighteenth century.  As a general term of admiration (in the sense of “magnificent or splendid” it’s documented since 1816 but as a modifier to imply perhaps that but definitely size, it had been in use for centuries: The Grand Jury was an invention of the late fifteenth century, the grand tour was understood as “an expedition around the important places in continental Europe undertaken as part of the education of aristocratic young Englishmen) as early as the 1660s and the grand piano was named in 1797.  In technical use it was adapted for use in medicine as the grand mal (convulsive epilepsy with loss of consciousness), borrowed from the French grand mal (literally “great sickness”) as a point of clinical distinction from the petit mal (literally “small sickness”) (an epileptic event where consciousness was not lost).  The meaning "a thousand dollars" dates from 1915 and was originally US underworld slang, that sum then a lot of money (the cheapest Ford Model T then listed for US$350).

The “Twenty Grand”: 1933 Duesenberg SJ Arlington Torpedo Sedan by Rollston.

Celebrating "A century of Progress" and held between 27 May, 1933-31 October, 1934 in Chicago, Illinois, the Chicago World's Fair was memorable for the stunning array of art deco architecture and being the first US-staged international fair to book a profit.  Indeed, with close to 40 million paying visitors, the event had proved so popular the scheduled closing date of 12 November, 1933 was extended by almost a year.  When the fair opened its gates, the nation still was in the depths of the Great Depression and it was less than three months since Franklin Roosevelt (FDR, 1882–1945, POTUS 1933-1945) in his first Inaugural Address on 4 March 1933 had delivered the words “…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” so, in the circumstances, after three troubled years, the success was a remarkable achievement.  Still, it was far from an ideal time to display luxury goods but despite it all, four of the nation’s most exalted automobile manufacturers showed the finest they could achieve.

The “Twenty Grand”: 1933 Duesenberg SJ Arlington Torpedo Sedan by Rollston. 

Reflecting the interest in what the industry then called “streamlining”, Cadillac showcased their Aerodynamic Coupe, a fine housing for the company’s already famous 452 cubic inch (7.4 litre) V16.  Visually, Packard’s Sport Sedan didn’t have the Cadillac’s radical lines but the coachwork by Dietrich was elegant with some styling elements which others would emulate over the remainder of the decade.  Powered by Packard’s second-generation V12, the press dubbed it “The Car of the Dome” an allusion to the exposition’s Travel and Transportation Building where it sat.  Most startling among the four was Pierce-Arrow’s Silver Arrow, the look of which often is described as “avant-garde” but in many aspects it anticipated the early days of mid-century modernism and was probably an influence on the remarkable Tatras from Czechoslovakia although, with a front-mounted V12, under the striking bodywork, it was in many ways a conventional design.  By far the most familiar in appearance was the Duesenberg Arlington Torpedo Sedan with one-off coachwork by Rollston.  While it lacked the rakish appeal of some of the Duesenberg roadsters or phaetons, of its type it was a fine expression and under the long hood of course sat the supercharged 420 cubic inch (6.9 litre) straight-8; with a 32 valve, DOHC (double overhead camshafts) cylinder head, it was rated at 320 HP and was the industry’s most powerful engine.  Although not officially revealed, rumors circulated the price tag was US$20,000 (equivalent to some US$500,000 in 2026), leading the press to nickname it the “Twenty Grand.”

The use of the prefix grand- in genealogical compounds is a special case.  The original meaning was “a generation older than” and the earliest known reference is from the early thirteenth century in the Anglo-French graund dame (grandmother) & (later) grandsire (grandfather), etymologists considering the latter possibly modeled on the avunculus magnus (great uncle).  The English grandmother & grandfather formally entered the language in the fifteenth century and the extension of the concept from “a generation older than” to “a generation younger than” was adopted in the Elizabethan era (1558-1603) thus grandson, granddaughter etc.  Grand as a modifier clearly had appeal because in the US, the “Big Canyon” was in 1869 re-named the Grand Canyon.  In the modern era grand has been appended whenever there’s a need economically to convey the idea of a “bigger or more significant” version of something thus such constructions as grand prix, grand slam, grand larceny, grand theft auto, grand unification theory, grand master (a favorite both of chess players and the Freemasons) etc.  While “grand” can be a “loaded word” in that it can be deployed to convey something positive or negative some related forms can be even more variable and often are prone to misuse.  These include “grandeur” ((1) the state of being grand or splendid; magnificence; (2) the state of being noble; (3) largeness; tallness; loftiness (archaic), “grandiose” ((1) Large and impressive, in size, scope or extent; (2) pompous or pretentious; (3) magnificent or spectacular and “grandiloquent” (of an individual, their writing or speech): given to using language in a showy way by using may obscure or long words.

The Grand Jury

Donald Trump in Manhattan Criminal Court, April 2022.

The Manhattan grand jury that indicted Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) on 34 felony counts of "falsification of business records in the first degree" was an example of an institution with origins in twelfth century England although it didn’t generally become known as the “grand jury” until the mid-1400s.  At least some of the charges against Mr Trump related to the accounting associated with “hush-money” payment made in some way to Stormy Daniels (b 1979; the stage name of Stephanie Gregory although Mr Trump prefers “horseface” which seems both ungracious and unfair) and reports at the time offered the prospect of more legal-political drama, the suggestion he'd likely have to face more grand juries hearing more serious matters.  All such possibilities were however put on hold when he again became POTUS. 

A grand jury is a group of citizens (usually between 16-23) who review evidence presented by a prosecutor to determine whether the case made seems sufficiently compelling to bring criminal charges.  A grand jury operates in secret and its proceedings are not open to the public, unlike a trial before a jury (a smaller assembly and classically a dozen although the numbers now vary and once it was sometimes called a petit jury (petit (small), from the Middle English petit, from the Old French petit, from the Late Latin pitittus, a diminutive of pit-).  It is this smaller jury which ultimately will pronounce whether a defendant is guilty or not; all a grand jury does is determine whether a matter proceeds to trial in which case it will issue an indictment, which at law is a formal accusation.  The origins of the grand jury in medieval England, where it was used as a means of investigating and accusing individuals of crimes was to prevent abuses of power by the king and his appointed officers of state although it was very much designed to protect the gentry and aristocracy from the king rather than any attempt to extend legal rights to most of the population.

The grand jury has been retained in the legal systems of only two countries: the US and Liberia.  Many jurisdictions now use a single judge or magistrate in a lower court to conduct a preliminary hearing but the principle is the same: what has to be decided is whether, on the basis of the evidence presented, there’s a reasonable prospect a properly instructed (petit) jury would convict.  In the US, the grand jury has survived because the institution was enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.”  In England, the grand jury was thought a vital protection against arbitrary prosecutions by the government, and it was included in the Bill of Rights (1689) to ensure individuals would not be subject to unjustified criminal charges.  There is an argument that, by virtue of England’s wondrously flexible unwritten constitution, the grand jury hasn't been abolished but they're merely no longer summoned.  It's an interesting theory but few support the notion, the Criminal Justice Act (2003) explicitly transferring the functions to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) and the model of the office of  DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) has been emulated elsewhere in the English-speaking world.  Presumably, a resuscitation would require the DPP to convene a grand jury and (if challenged on grounds of validity) the courts have to concur but as late as 1955 an English court was prepared to hold a court which had for centuries neither sat nor held a hearing remained extant so the arguments would be interesting.

The “Grand Mercedes”: The Grosser tradition

Der Grossers: 1935 Mercedes-Benz 770 K (W07) of Emperor Shōwa (Hirohita, 1901–1989, emperor of Japan 1926-1989 (left)), Duce & Führer in 1939 Mercedes-Benz 770 K (W150) leading a phalanx of Grossers, Munich, 1940 (centre) and comrade Marshal Josip Broz Tito (1892–1980) in 1966 Mercedes-Benz 600 six-door Landaulet (W100), Belgrade, 1967 (right).

Produced in three series (770 K (W07, 1930–1938 & W150, 1939-1945) & 600 (W100, 1963-1981)) the usual translation in English of “Grosser Mercedes” is “Grand Mercedes” and that is close to the German understanding which is something between “great”, “big” and “top-of-the-line”.  In German & Austrian navies (off & on) between 1901-1945, a Großadmiral (Grand Admiral) was the equivalent to the (five star) Admiral of the Fleet (UK) or Fleet Admiral (US); the rank was abolished in 1945 and has never been re-established.  When the 600 was released in 1963, it may have been the last time a single model could be described as "the best car in the world" but, driven to extinction in 1981 by an oil crisis and an array of regulations never envisaged when it was designed, it wasn’t replaced and the factory didn’t return to the idea until a prototype was displayed at the 1997 Tokyo Motor Show.  The specification and engineering was impressive but the appearance was underwhelming, a feeling reinforced when the production version (2002-2013) emerged not as an imposing Grosser Mercedes but a Maybach, a curious choice which seemed to suggest a marque which for a century had been the choice of popes, presidents & potentates was no longer good enough.  Although dynamically a fine car (at the time the best of its type), the Maybach looked something like a big Hyundai and lingered for a slow-selling decade before an unlamented death, suggesting the MBAs (Master of Business Administration) who decided on a re-branding using a name with little resonance except among except automotive & military historians should stick to creating campaigns for washing powder.

Grand, Grand Luxe & Gran

Jaguar 420G publicity material, 1966.

Car manufacturers were attracted to the word because of the connotations (bigger, better, more expensive etc).  When in 1966 Jaguar updated the slow-selling Mark X (1961-1966), it was integrated into what proved a short-lived naming convention, based on the engine displacement.  Under the system, with a capacity of 4.2 litres (258 cubic inch) the thing had to be called 420 but there was a smaller saloon in the range so-named so the bigger Mark X was renamed 420G.  Interestingly, when the 420G was released, any journalist who asked was told “G” stood for “Grand” which is why that appeared in the early reports although the factory seems never officially to have used the word, the text in the brochures reading variously: 420G, 420 G or 420 “G”.  The re-naming did little to encourage sales although the 420G remained in production until 1970 by which time production had dwindled to a trickle, the car rendered instantly a relic when the epoch-making XJ6 (in three generations, 1968-1992) made its debut in 1968.  The use of a "G" is unusual in product names although it has appeared as a part of alphabetical sequences (bras and certain Chryslers for example) but when in 1989 the now defunct software manufacturer Lotus released a version of their 1-2-3 spreadsheet for IBM's new OS/2 operating system, it was called 1-2-3/G, the "G" a nod to the product using OS/2's Presentation Manager (a GUI (Graphical User Interface)).  Lotus 1-2-3 was one of the PC (personal computer) industry's original "killer apps" and along with WordPerfect & dBASE III was the backbone of corporate software in the 1980s but the universe shifted and all are now historic footnotes.  As IBM had for OS/2, Lotus had grand plans for 1-2-3/G but both fell victim to Microsoft's better implemented strategy for global domination.   

The tale of the Mark X & 420G is emblematic of the missed opportunities and mismanagement which would afflict the British industry during the 1970s & 1980s.  In 1961, the advanced specification of the Mark X (unitary construction, independent rear suspension, four-wheel disc brakes) made it an outstanding platform and had Jaguar fitted an enlarged version of the larger of the two superb V8s they had gained with their purchase in 1960 of Daimler, it would have been an ideal niche competitor in mid-upper reaches of the lucrative US market.  Except for the engine, it needed little change except better ventilation and the installation of a good air-conditioning system, then already perfected by Detroit.  Although the Daimler V8 and Borg-Warner gearbox couldn't have matched the ultimate refinement of what Detroit was building (by then the finest engine-transmission combinations in the world), the English pair certainly had their charms and would have seduced many.

1969 Pontiac Grand Prix SJ 428.  The use of "SJ" was a borrowing from the celebrated Duesenberg SJs (1932-1937) a breed that exerted an influence well beyond the three dozen built.

Pontiac’s memorable 1969 Grand Prix also might have gained some allure from the word.  The term “Grand Prix” still is most associated with top-level motorsport (although it originally was borrowed from Grand Prix de Paris (Big Prize of Paris), a race for thoroughbred horses staged at the Longchamps track) so although Pontiac’s rather large 1962 Grand Prix was far removed from a racing car, it was marketed on the basis of “high performance” so the tag would have made sense given the way labels were applied in the era.  However, big as it was, it got bigger and the second generation (1965-1968) morphed into something truly grand in size if not dynamic qualities.  Style returned when the third generation (1969-1972) was released, the look dominated by the elongated nose that truly was a triumph of fashion over function; although fitted with V8 engines with displacements as large as 455 cubic inches (7.5 litre), the power-plants, while relatively wide, were quite short and under that long hood (bonnet) was a compartment that easily could have housed a V16.  As a piece of packaging efficiency it was an absurdity but undeniably it was a dramatic look and sales spiked.  The 1969-1970 cars remain the most highly regarded of the third generation, the few hundred with the 428 cubic inch (7.0 litre) HO (High Output) V8 coupled with a four-speed manual transmission the most collectable.  From there, although over a further five generations the Grand Prix remained successful enough to remain in the catalogue until 2008, the best years were over and at some point in the 1970s or 1980s (opinions differ), there was little about the by then dreary Grand Prix which seemed at all grand.

Although a bit deluxe, not especially grand: 1980 TF (Mark V) Ford Cortina GL.

During the interwar years (1919-1939) “deluxe” (borrowed from the world of fashion) found to be a good label to apply to a car with bling added and sold for a premium well beyond what the adornments cost; the concept proved so profitable it remains practiced to this day.  Deluxe (sometimes as De luxe) was a commercial adaptation of the French de luxe (of luxury), from the Latin luxus (excess), from the primitive Indo-European lewg- (bend, twist).  The “deluxe” label worked so well it begat “Super Deluxe” & “Grand Luxe” both genuinely coinings of the industry.  Deluxe and Grand Luxe eventually fell from favour as model names for blinged-up creations became more inventive but the initializations L, DL & GL were adopted by some, the latter surviving longest by which time it was understood to signify just something better equipped and thus more expensive; it’s doubtful many made a literal connection to “Grand Luxe”.

1970 Plymouth Barracuda Gran Coupe Convertible in Plum Crazy (FC7).

A linguistic curiosity of the US motor industry in the 1970s was “Gran”, technically a truncation of “grand” but with no connection with “gran” as an affectionate diminutive of “grandmother” or the many uses (as Gran) as a proper noun (surnames, locality names etc).  It was Chrysler’s Plymouth Division that for years championed “Gran” (though Buick used it too) and while the Gran Fury (1980-1989) was the longest serving, more linguistically interesting were the “Gran Coupe” (1970-1971) versions of the third generation (1970-1974) Barracuda and the 1971 Fury III Gran Coupe.  The Barracuda Gran Coupe was a bit of mission creep for the word “coupe” because the model was available as both a two-door hardtop and a convertible (in 1970 only).  That was at the time unusual but not wholly without (a partial) precedent because for generations English manufacturers had referred to their larger convertibles as DHCs (drophead coupé).

1971 Plymouth Fury III Gran Coupe (which was a four-door hardtop).

However, the 1971 Fury III Gran Coupe was in the US a genuine first because it had four doors.  The notion of a “four-door coupé” was not new because in the UK, Rover (a company with a history of adventurism in engineering which belied its staid image) in 1962 released a pillared version of the 3 Litre (P5, 1958-1967) four-door saloon with a lowered roof-line and some different interior fittings; this they named “3 Litre Coupé” which puzzled those who had become used to the designation being applied to two-door machines but etymologically, Rover was correct.  Coupé was from the French coupé, an elliptical form of carosse coupé (cut carriage), past participle of couper (to cut)).  Rover did cut-down the roof of the P5 so that was consistent with the etymology but shamelessly, Plymouth, which in 1970 had offered (an uncut) two door Fury II Gran Coupe, for 1971 introduced (the uncut) Fury III Gran Coupe with four door hardtop bodywork.  So, there are (uncut) four door coupes because Plymouth said so.  The mysterious “Gran” seems to have been used for no reason other than sounding vaguely “European” and therefore imparting a more “upmarket” image than the by then common “Grand”.  It was at the time a trend which saw the adoption of “Brougham”, “Monaco”, “Cordoba”, “Monte Carlo”, “rich Corinthian leather” and such although the brutish “Grand” would make a comeback when Plymouth turned to making people movers (vans with more seats).

In the matter of Grand Theft Auto (GTA5): Lindsay Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software Inc et al, New York Court of Appeals (No 24, pp1-11, 29 March 2018)

In a case which took an unremarkable four years from filing to reach New York’s highest appellate court, Lindsay Lohan’s suit against the makers (Take-Two, aka Rockstar) of the video game Grand Theft Auto V was dismissed.  In a unanimous ruling in March 2018, six judges of the New York Court of Appeals rejected her invasion of privacy claim which alleged one of the game’s characters was based on her.  The judges found the "actress/singer" in the game merely resembled a “generic young woman” rather than anyone specific.  Unfortunately the judges seemed unacquainted with the concept of the “basic white girl” which might have made the judgment more of a fun read.

Beware of imitations: The real Lindsay Lohan and the GTA 5 ersatz, a mere "generic young woman".

Concurring with the 2016 ruling of the New York County Supreme Court which, on appeal, also found for the game’s makers, the judges, as a point of law, accepted the claim a computer game’s character "could be construed a portrait", which "could constitute an invasion of an individual’s privacy" but, on the facts of the case, the likeness was "not sufficiently strong".  The “…artistic renderings are an indistinct, satirical representation of the style, look and persona of a modern, beach-going young woman... that is not recognizable as the plaintiff" Judge Eugene Fahey (b 1951) wrote in his ruling.  Judge Fahey's words recalled those of Potter Stewart (1915–1985; associate justice of the US Supreme Court 1958-1981) when in Jacobellis v Ohio (378 U.S. 184 (1964) writing of the concept of "obscenity" he wrote: “I shall not today attempt further to define… and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so.  But I know it when I see it…”  Judge Fahey knew a basic white girl when he saw one; he just couldn't name her.  Lindsay Lohan's lawyers did not seek leave to appeal.

The game’s developers may have taken the risk of incurring Lindsay Lohan’s wrath and indignation because they’d been lured into a false sense of security by crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) not filing a writ after a likeness of her appeared on GTA 4’s (2008) Statue Of Happiness which stands on Happiness Island, just off the coast of Liberty City.  The Statue of Happiness was a blatant knock-off of New York’s Statue of Liberty and crooked Hillary became a determined and acerbic critic of Rockstar and the GTA franchise when details of the “Hot Coffee affair” were revealed.  That controversy arose after modders promulgated a code which in GTA: San Andreas’ release (2004) unlocked a hidden “mini-game” which allowed players to control explicit on-screen sex acts.  Men having sex (however defined) with women with whom they don’t enjoy benefit of marriage was a bit of a sore point with crooked Hillary, then a US senator (Democrat-New York), who embarked on a campaign for new regulations be imposed on the industry and the most immediate consequence was the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) launching an investigation, subsequently raising GTA: San Andreas’s rating from “M” (Mature) to “AO” (Adults Only, 18+) until the objectionable content was removed.  For those who wondered if the frankly frightening visage on the GTA 4 statute really was what some suspected, the object’s file name was “stat_hilberty01.wdr”.

Rockstar's Statue Of Happiness in GTA 4 (2008, left) and an official photograph of crooked Hillary Clinton (right). 

Rockstar seeking vengeance was understandable because crooked Hillary’s moral crusade proved tiresome for the company.  Once the ESRB had been nudged into action, crooked Hillary petitioned the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) to (1) find the source of the game's “graphic pornographic and violent content”, (2) determine if it should be slapped with an AO rating and (3) “examine the adequacy of the retailers' rating enforcement policies.”  Not content, she then announced she’d be sponsoring in the Senate a bill for an act to make it a federal crime (with a mandatory US$5,000 fine) to sell to anyone under 18, violent or sexually explicit video games; the FEPA (Family Entertainment Protection Act) was filed on 17 December, 2005 and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, where quietly it was allowed to expire, the fate of many a bill over the years.

While the bill was undergoing a slow strangulation in committee hearings (killing bills one of the great arts in the US political system), the FTC and Rockstar reached a settlement, the commission ruling the company had violated the FTCA (Federal Trade Commission Act (1914)) by failing to disclose the inclusion of “unused, but potentially viewable” explicit content” (that it was enabled by a third party was held to be “not relevant”).  The settlement required Rockstar “clearly and prominently disclose on product packaging and in any promotion or advertisement for electronic games, content relevant to the rating, unless that content had been disclosed sufficiently in prior submissions to the rating authority” with violations punishable by a fine of up to US$11,000.  In the spirit of the now again fashionable Calvin "silent Cal" Coolidge (1872-1933; POTUS 1923-1929) era capitalism, no fine was imposed for the “hot coffee incident”, honor presumably satisfied by the company already having booked a US$24.5 million loss from the product recall earlier mandated.

Director

Director (pronounced dih-rek-ter or dahy-rek-ter)

(1) A person or thing that directs others or other things (Director of Engineering, Director of Sales etc).

(2) In corporate law, one of a group of persons chosen to control or govern the affairs of a company or corporation, usually as a member of a board of directors and sometimes also including executive functions.

(3) The person responsible for the interpretive aspects of a stage, film, or television production; the person who supervises the integration of all the elements, as acting, staging, lighting etc.

(4) In musical or other artistic productions (stage, art galleries, opera etc) one in charge of all artistic (and sometimes administrative) matters (in larger operations the roles sometimes specialized: sound director, script director etc).

(5) The manager or chief executive of certain schools, institutes, government bureaux etc.

(6) In military use, a mechanical or electronic device that continuously calculates firing data for use against an airplane or other moving target, configured usually graphically to display (in real-time) the targets of a weapons system.

(7) In chemistry, the common axis of symmetry of the molecules of a liquid crystal.

(8) In music, a synonym for conductor (US use, now less common).

(9) A counsellor, confessor, or spiritual guide (now less common).

1470-1480: The construct was direct(us) + -or.  A borrowing in the sense of “a guide” from the Anglo French directour & the French directeur the agent noun from the Latin dirigere (set straight, arrange; give a particular direction to) and its source, the Late Latin directorem, from the Latin dīrectus, the perfect passive participle of dīrigō (straighten, direct), the construct being dis- (asunder, in pieces, apart, in two) + regō (to direct, to guide, keep straight; make straight; rule), from the primitive Indo-European root reg (move in a straight line).  The -or suffix was from the Middle English -our, from the Old French -eor, from the Latin -ātor and reinforced by the Old French -or and its source, the Latin -tor & -tōrem.  It was used to create an agent noun, often from a verb, indicating a person or object (often machines or parts of them) that do the verb or part of speech with which they are formed.  In electrical engineering it has the specific use of being appended to the names of members of classes of components, especially those that have an extensive property name of the same root suffixed with -ance (eg to convey the sense that resistors possess resistance and inductors possess inductance).  The alternative spelling directour became rare in the late eighteenth century and is long obsolete.  Director, directorate & directorship are nouns, directing is a verb, directed is a verb & adjective, directorial is an adjective and directorially is an adverb; the noun plural is directors.  The feminine forms of the noun (directress & directrix) were always rare and are now thought extinct (and by some probably proscribed).

Lindsay Lohan with Spanish fashion designer Estrella Arch (b 1974), on the catwalk, Emanuel Ungaro's Spring-Summer show, Paris, October 2009.  Ms Lohan was employed as a creative director at the House, founded in 1965 by French fashion designer Emanuel Ungaro (1933–2019).

The noun director (corporate sense of “one of a number of persons having authority to manage the affairs of a company” was known as early as the 1630s; the theatrical sense of “the leader of a company of performers” dates from 1911 and it was from here the use was picked up by those in charge of the artistic or technical aspects of movie-making.  The noun directorship (condition or office of a director) has been in use since the 1720s, the adjective directorial known since 1770.  The noun directorate was used first in 1834 of “a body of directors” and may immediately have be used individually of the “office of a director” but this was certainly first documented in 1837.  Director is a word defined both by its history of use (film director, director of football etc) and law (company director) so although titles like supervisor, head, manager, leader, administrator, chief, boss etc certainly implies “one who directs”, they’re traditionally not used as direct synonyms because “director” is a “loaded word”.  It’s also modified as needed (art director, managing director, sub-director etc).

1967 Imperial Crown Coupe with "Mobile Director Package"; note the rearward facing front passenger seat.  

Although the brand had since the 1920s been used for some of Chrysler's more expensive lines, between 1955-1975, the corporation re-created Imperial as a separate, stand-alone division (albeit with some intra-corporate sharing of engines, transmissions and certain other components), the way Ford positioned Lincoln (GM's (General Motors) Cadillac then still with unique engines although much else was shared).  In the early years, the approach yielded some success (most notably with the dramatic 1957 models) but the separation didn’t survive the troubled decade of the 1970s (by which time the platform and body-shells were shared with the other divisions and much of the earlier distinctiveness had been surrendered); a couple of subsequent, half-heated, revivals proved abortive.

Bowing to economic reality, the Imperial in 1967-1968 had switched from the separate frame used since 1955 to the unitary construction of the full-sized ranges offered by other divisions but maintained a certain degree of difference by virtue of a unique body, albeit one with dimensions slightly reduced (not seen by all as a virtue at a time when things were again trending larger).  While styled with an elegance derived from its simplicity of line, the Imperial continued to not quite match the timeless modernity of the Lincoln or the indefinable but incomparable allure of the Cadillac and although sales did improve in 1967, volumes were only ever a fraction of its two competitors.  The basic engineering though was sound, the TorqueFlite 727 transmission as responsive and robust as any (although it didn’t quite slur as effortlessly between ratios as the Cadillac’s TH400 Turbo-Hydramatic 400) while the 440 cubic inch (7.2 litre) V8 was a notch better, something the others wouldn’t match until 1968.  Significantly, reviewers at the time often were prepared to acknowledge the Imperial was the more capable road car although, given it operated in a market where quietness and isolation from the environment were afforded more of a premium than handling prowess, among potential buyers, any perception of real-world advantage probably was marginal.

The more stylish if less roadable opposition: 1967 Cadillac Coupe DeVille (left) & 1967 Lincoln Continental Coupe (right).

In those years however, the Imperial did offer something truly unique.  The “Mobile Director Package” was available exclusively on the Imperial Crown Coupe and reflected (within the limits of what the available technology would then permit) what Chrysler thought a company director would most value in an automobile being used as a kind of “office on the move”, including (1) an extendable walnut-topped table (secured to the floor by a stainless-steel stanchion) able to be unfolded over the rear seats, (2) a Tensor high-intensity lamp with a gooseneck mount enabling the light to be directed anywhere in the cabin and, most intriguingly (3) a front passenger seat mounted on swivelling base enabling it to rotate 180°, the apparatus permitting someone comfortably to use the table and interact with those in the rear.  Conveniently, in a sign of the times, the car was supplied with four cigarette lighters and the lamp could be plugged into whichever was closest to need.  The package was available only for those two seasons and in its first years cost US$597.40 (some US$6,000 adjusted for 2026 values) but only 81 buyers ticked the option box and even reducing the price the next season to US$317.60 did little to stimulate demand; only 70 ordered as a dismal swansong.  Even if the threat of new safety regulations hadn’t been looming, it’s doubtful the Mobile Director Package would have appeared on the option list for 1969 when the new “fuselage” Imperials debuted.

Imperial's advertising always emphasised the "business" aspect of the package but the corporation also circulated a photograph of the table supporting a (presumably magnetic) chessboard and another with silver compote holding a shiny red apple and a bunch of grapes, dangling seductively.  The latter may have been to suggest the utility of the package when stopping for a picnic with one's secretary; at an advertising agency, once someone suggested using the motif of "forbidden fruit", nobody would have been able to resist.

The advertising copy at the time claimed the package was “designed for the busy executive who must continue his work while he travels”, serving also as “an informal conference lounge”.  The Imperial was a big car (previous generations had been larger still) though “lounge” was a bit of a stretch but “truth in advertising” laws were then not quite as onerous as they would become.  More accurate were the engineering details, the table able to “pivot to any of four different positions, supported by a sturdy chrome-plated pillar and in the forward position, it can convert into a padded armrest between the two front seats while extended, it opens out to twice its original size with a lever on the table swivel support to permit adjustments to the height”.  It was noted “a special tool is used for removing the table and storing it in the trunk” the unstated implication presumably that in deference to the secretary’s finger-nails, that would be a task for one’s chauffeur.  The US$597.40 the option listed at in 1967 needs to be compared with the others available and only the most elaborate of the two AC (air conditioning) systems was more expensive.

Imperial option list, 1967.

1967 Imperial Crown Coupe with Mobile Director Package.  Note seatbelt mounting point.

The publicity material associated with the Mobile Director Package did suggest the rearward-facing seat would likely be occupied by a director’s secretary and, as one might imagine, the configuration did preclude her (in 1967, secretaries almost always were women) using a seatbelt but she would always have been in arm’s reach of at least one cigarette lighter so there was that.  The (male) end of the front seatbelts sat on the sill panel, adjacent to the seat’s squab (back), a placement dictated by the need not to restrict access to the rear-compartment and that worked well for the standard coupe but, obviously, rendered the belt useless when the seat was rotated.  While Chrysler can be criticized for not providing rearward-facing secretaries with what’s now regarded as an essential safety feature, the rest of the US industry and legislatures (federal & state) were in 1967 little less cavalier.  While some state registration authorities had during the decade mandated the provision of seatbelts for front-seat passengers, no US jurisdiction then compelled their use.

The familiar modern three-point (lap & sash) seatbelt evolved in the late 1950s with much input from US designers but it was Swedish manufacturers that first made them universal (Scandinavia being often dark and icy, drivers sharing the roads with large elk).  The modern seatbelt design (conceptually unchanged to this day) is credited to Swedish mechanical engineer Nils Bohlin (1920–2002) who was employed by Volvo, the company making them a standard fitting in 1959, following the example of Saab that had added them the previous year.  During the 1960s, US states gradually imposed a requirement they be fitted until federal law mandated they be installed in all passenger vehicles produced after 1 January, 1968.  The laws requiring people actually to use the things proved more difficult to implement but other countries quickly made both fitment and use compulsory, initially only for those seated in the front but eventually this extended to all passengers.  Although examples existed early in the twentieth century (fitted often by those with experience in aviation) rudimentary seatbelts first appeared in US production cars during the 1950s but the manufacturers must have thought the public indifferent because their few gestures were tentative such as in 1956 when Ford had offered (as an extra-cost option) a bundle of safety features called the “Lifeguard Design” package that included:

(1) Padded dashboards (to reduce head injuries).

(2) Recessed steering wheel hub (to minimize chest injuries).

(3) Seat belts (front lap belts only)

(4) Stronger door latches (preventing doors flying open in a crash)

(5) Shatter-resistant rear-view mirror (reducing injuries caused by from broken glass).

In Western popular culture and advertising, there have been many friendly bears, including this one happily buckled-up with a “Ford seat belt. One third stronger than required for airliners.”

The standard features included (1) the Safety-Swivel Rear View Mirror, (2) the Deep-Center Steering Wheel with recessed post and bend-away spokes and (3) Double-Grip Door Latches with interlocking striker plate overlaps.  Optional at additional cost were (4) Seat Belts (single kit, front or rear, color-keyed, nylon-rayon with quick one-handed adjust/release aluminium buckle) (US$5).  There were also "bundles" (always popular in Detroit), “Safety Package A” consisting of a Padded Instrument Panel & Padded Sun Visors (US$18) while “Safety Package B” added to that Front-Seat Lap Seat Belts (US$27).  On the 1956 Thunderbird (with a significantly different interior design) the options were (1) the Lifeguard Padded Instrument Panel (US$22.65), (2) Lifeguard Padded Sun Visors (US$9) and (3) Lifeguard Seat Belts (US$14).

Years later, internal documents would be discovered revealing conflicts within the corporation, the marketing department opposed to any mention of "safety features" because that reminded potential customers of car crashes; they would prefer they focus on new colors, higher power outputs, sleek new lines and such.  So, with not much done to promote the “Lifeguard Design”, public demand was subdued and soon the option quietly was deleted.  At the time, apart from improving the quality of roads (resulting in higher average speeds with obvious implications) the government had done little about either safety or vehicle emissions but both the rising highway death toll and the worsening air quality in cities was attracting attention, meaning things would change, decades of legislation soon to unfold.  The first decisive step came as a provision in FMVSS 208 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208) requiring all passenger cars manufactured from 1 January, 1968 onward be equipped with seatbelts at the designated seating positions though this was a federal manufacturing requirement, not a law requiring motorists to buckle up, something not imposed until 1984 when New York made their use mandatory, other states following the lead.

FMVSS emerged from the US NHSB (National Highway Safety Bureau (that in 1970 became the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) under the newly created DOT (Department of Transportation), established by an act of Congress on 15 October, 1966 and beginning operation on 1 April, 1967).  That alphabet soup of activity in a field previously little explored by government came in the wake of the publication of Ralph Nader’s (b 1934) book Unsafe at any Speed (1965) documenting the flaws in the design and construction of US automobiles and industry’s indifference to the consequences.  Regulation ever since has been a growing industry, something emblematic of a theme in Western political culture since the end of World War II (1939-1945): The erosion of personal freedom in exchange for perceived (or dictated) benefits (in the case of the FMVSS, safer cars; other agencies gave us cleaner air).  All of this is fought out in various fora (legislatures, the streets, social media, Fox News etc); sometimes the state giveth, sometimes the state taketh away.

The profound recent shift in this mechanism is not the process but the participants: As “big tech” became dominant, that collective gave much to consumers who benefited from what appeared substantially to be “free” while surrendering much that was once by philosophers and political scientists thought precious but which clearly is regarded by many as an abstraction, the loss of which is a price worth paying for TikTok, Instagram, generative AI (artificial intelligence) and such.  In that, big tech’s model is essentially the same as that of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and that seems to have worked well so we should imagine, as the twenty-first century unfolds, we’ll get “more of the same”.  In political theory, what the social contract theorists at big tech are doing is right because we all have clicked on the boxes agreeing to their 30-plus pages of terms and conditions and have certified we have read and understood every clause.  The political process handling this societal overlay is neither static nor lineal; structurally it follows much the same pattern as earlier contests between power and individuals: As governments react to pressure groups by seeking to curb the worst of the consequences, fixes, work-arounds and obfuscations will interact with a flow of money into the coffers of governments, parties (and, now and again, pockets) in a way that will permit most of what big tech plans to do while giving the appearance things are being done to stop them doing at least some of what many people think they should stop doing.  To anyone who remembers the maneuvers and compromises that for more than a decade would flow around the best-laid plans of the NHTSA, it will all be familiar.

1968 Imperial Crown Coupe with Mobile Director Package.  The seatbelt (lap only) was now attached directly to the frame.

Imperial’s designers were compelled by the law to be more imaginative than most.  For the swivelling front seat in the 1968 cars, the seatbelt mounting points were integrated directly into the steel frame of the seat base itself, rather than the vehicle's floor pan.  To achieve the necessary strength, (using techniques borrowed from the seats in airliners), the engineers had both inboard and outboard lap-belt ends bolt directly to reinforced anchor points on the lower structural framing of the seat.  This made seat, mechanism and belts wholly self-contained (a la a military aircraft’s ejector-seat!) and permitted the 180^o swivel effect, belts rotating seamlessly with passenger.  Chrysler did however obtain from the authorities a partial-exemption.  While FMVSS 208 required front-seat shoulder belts, that would have been difficult to implement for the swivelling seat (not impossible because ejector-seats have frame-mounted shoulder-belts) so the restraint system was limited to the two-point lap-belt (admittedly an improvement over what she'd been provided in 1967: nothing).  Secretaries on the move presumably were grateful but the safety feature didn’t see sales improve, despite the slashing of the price.

1966 Chrysler 300X show car.

In 1966, the “swivelling seat thing” must have been exerting a powerful influence in Chrysler’s design offices because also shown that year was the 300X, based on a 300 Convertible (and despite the appended letter, a vehicle not in the tradition of the just-retired “letter series” 300s (1955-1965), the “X” believed a reference to eXperimental) and although mechanically unchanged, the cockpit was packed with “futuristic” ideas, some of which did eventually enter mainstream use (although the swivelling front seat remained one of history’s unwanted orphans).  Rather than a conventional steering wheel, the driver used handgrips and the “steering unit” included button controls for lights, wipers, turn signals, and door locks, enabling use of all functions with a finger or thumb, all the while keeping a both hands on the mechanism.  Door handles were replaced by a keypunch card used also for the ignition while a truck-lid mounted TV camera and monitor on the dashboard replaced the rear-view mirrors.  Rear-seat passengers (and the front-occupant when “swivelled”) were able to enjoy watching a small television, mounted on a bracket allowing it to be stowed away when not in use. Construction of the 300X was out-sourced to the prolific customizer and fabricator Roger Winfield (1927–2025) whose creations became well-known from their appearances in film and television including Blade Runner (1982) and Get Smart (1965-1970).  The 1965 Sunbeam “Tiger” be built for Get Smart was actually a visually almost identical Sunbeam Alpine, chosen because its compactfour-cylinder engine left sufficient under-hood space for the “special accessories” (including a retractable machine-gun) whereas the Tiger’s Ford V8 filled the space to the brim.  To solve the “aural deficit”, the distinctive burble of a Tiger’s V8 was added during the editing process.

1969 Ford Aurora II Concept Car.

The most obvious thing that might puzzle those first seeing the Mobile Director Package is why it was available only in a two-door model when four-door coachwork would seem to make the configuration more obviously functional.  Had Imperial in 1967 sold several thousand of the things it’s at least possible Chrysler would for 1968 (or even mid-way through 1967) had extended availability but that would have been a more demanding process than it may appear, the existing swivelling mechanism unable to be used.  The difficulty was the four-door models (both sedan and hardtop) had respectively a full or partial B-pillar, the latter ending at the belt-line where the greenhouse begins, the structure required to provide a secure anchor point for the rear door's hinges.  The coupes used doors longer than front units on the four-door models, meaning the B-pillar sat further forward than the trailing-edge of the coupe’s door; there was thus a sufficient aperture for the seat to rotate when the coupe’s door was open but the gap would have been too narrow on the four-door cars.  So to offer the package in the four-door body it would have been a matter either of re-designing the doors or the swivelling seat and while the former would have been an expensive exercise (prohibitively so if the only justification was to accommodate a low-volume option), the seat and its base could have been re-engineered but after finding only 81 buyers in 1967 and 70 the next season, investment would have been hard to justify.

1960 Facel Vega Excellence EX1 (left) and 1959 Lancia Appia Series III (right).  Facel Vega produced France's finest cars of the post-war era but while undeniably glamourous, the flaws in the design of the Excellence's door-latches were never resolved and by the time the factory was shuttered in 1964, total Excellence production stood at 148 EX1s (Series One; 1958-1961) & 8 EX2s (Series Two; 1961-1964).  Lancia perfected pillar-free body engineering, using doors with sturdy window frames, permitting latch points at both sill and roof, the configuration offered on a number of sedans including the Ardea (1939-1953), Aurelia (1950-1958) & Appia (1953-1963).  The locking mechanism was intricate but the engineering was simple and proved reliable.  It's sad the company's later attachment to FWD (front wheel drive) ultimately doomed Lancia because in every other aspect of engineering, few others were as adept at producing such fine small-displacement vehicles.

1969 Ford Aurora II Concept Car.

Ford's 1969 Aurora II Concept Car gave an indication of quite what what would have been required to make the Mobile Director Package conveniently functional on the platform of what was then the standard "full-size" four-door US automobile.  The "wrap-around" rear seat was an idea borrowed from the Ford Thunderbird, contemporary reviewers praising the visual impact but noting that as something for humans to sit on it was less comfortable than a conventional design; in the Aurora it probably worked better and certainly lent the cabin the desired "lounge-room" vibe.  The problem of providing (1) space for the seat to swivel and (2) allowing elegant ingress & egress was of course afforded by the the four doors (in "suicide" configuration) and elimination of the B-pillar.  That combination provided unprecedented ease of accessibility but its doubtful it could successfully have been implemented in series-production.  The French concern had earlier tried the approach with their Excellence model but, despite retaining a vestigial hump where a B-pillar would have attached to the sill, the company never solved the problem of the door-locking apparatus "springing open" while the car was in motion, usually when the mechanism was subject to lateral forces such as when cornering.  Because these forces could be exerted at high-speed, having doors suddenly "flying open" was an obvious safety concern.  Lancia in the 1950s solved the problem of doing without a fixed central pillar buy using doors with conventional, full-height frames, thereby enabling locking mechanisms to be fitted top & bottom.  Curiously, the Aurora was based on the LTD Country Squire that came only with fully-framed doors so Lancia's approach could have been adopted but there's no indication Ford ever contemplated series-production, the "concept car" created just to generate interest on the show circuit.

1967 Imperial Crown Convertible (with subsequently added Mobile Director package).

Imperial over two seasons might have managed to sell only 151 of the Mobile Director packages but one owner of a 1967 Crown Convertible was so smitten they cannibalized a coupe to create a unique (if wholly fake) "convertible Mobile Director".  Exactly emulating what the factory did would not have been as simple as it may appear because the floor under the passengers swivelling seat needed to be strengthened with additional bracing and a "baffle" was welded to the transmission tunnel where the table's stainless-steel stanchion was attached (off-set to the driver's side to avoid the drive-shaft).  Although apparently as significantly pointless as the original, it's a novelty that would attract interest at events like "cars & coffee" and may even be more functional in that it would seem an ideal place comfortably to sit and enjoy one's picnic while watching something like polo (on the model of the way the Country Life set re-purpose the tailgates on their Range Rovers).  That said, had the factory in 1967-1968 made the package available on the convertible, almost certainly it would have been just as unsuccessful as the coupe. 

Stewart-Warner's desk-based DataFax (circa 1958).  The process of miniaturization in electronics was by 1966 still embryonic but enough shrinkage had been attained to make a fax fit in Imperial's show car.  Unlike fax machines, the pencil skirt never goes out of style.

The specification of Chrysler's package as it appeared in showrooms for the 1967 season was actually modest compared with the “Mobile Executive” car the corporation sent around the show circuit a year earlier; that Imperial had been fitted with a telephone, Dictaphone, writing table, fax machine, reading lamp and stereophonic sound system; a typewriter and portable television also used in many displays although neither were "fitted".  Also a Crown Coupe, the 1966 show car was much more ambitious, anticipating advances in mobile communications that would emerge over the next quarter-century.  At the time, car phones were available (the first service in the US offered in certain cities in 1946) but they were expensive and the nature of the bandwidth, combined with a lack of data compression, meant the range was limited as was capacity, only several dozen calls able simultaneously to be sustained.  In the 1966 car, there had even been the novelty of a Stewart-Warner Datafax, able to send or receive a US Letter-sized (slightly smaller than A4) page of text in six minutes.  That sounds unimpressive in the 2020s (or compared even with the 14.4 kbit/s for Group 3 FaxStream services of the 1990s) but the appropriate comparison is with the contemporary alternatives (driving, walking, a courier, or using the US Mail) and six minutes would have been a considerable advance.  While more expensive than a stamp and envelope, for the target market the costs would anyway have been a legitimate business expense and thus "a deductible".  As it was, the tempting equipment awaited improvements in infrastructure such as the analogue networks of the 1980s and later cellular roll-outs, these technologies contributing to an extent of use delivering economies of scale that eventually would make possible the smartphone.

The 1966 car that toured the show circuit demonstrated the concept which, in simplified form, would the next year appear on the option list but things like telephones and fax machines anticipated the future by many years (although fax machines in cars (Audi and Toyota among the handful to offer them) never became a thing).  The Dictaphone did however make the list as one of Chrysler's RPOs (regular production options) in the early 1970s and the take-up rate was surprisingly high although the fad quickly passed, dealers reporting the customers saying the hardware worked well but they "never used them".  In the collector community, a surviving Dictaphone in something like a Plymouth 'Cuda is a minor attraction; while not increasing value as would something like and original Hemi V8, it is a legitimate "period piece".

Glovebox-mounted fax machine in 1995 Toyota Celsior (the JDM (Japanese Domestic Market) Lexus LS).

The problem with the scaled-down Datafax was even had it been possible to produce the things at a manageable cost, in 1966 the solid-state electronics that would have made the thing reliable when subject to constant vibration and jolts were still years away (Chrysler’s Bendix “Electrojector” fuel injection in 1958 had fewer moving parts and that didn’t end well).  However, even if reliability could have been "engineered in", there is no guarantee demand would have existed whatever the price-point.  In the 1990s, despite it being installed with Toyota’s typical neatness and attention to detail, there were few buyers for the "fax machine in the glovebox" and if the notion was going to catch on anywhere, it would have been in that nation of early adopters.  While there were many features in the 1966 300X truly that were "ahead of their time", the Mobile Direct Package was a genuine cul-de-sac, at least as implemented in a conventionally sized car (and certainly a two-door coupe).  In 1966, rearward-facing seats had for some years been seen in the "vis-à-vis" arrangement used in some LWB (long wheelbase) limousines and as child-seats in the rear-most compartments of station wagons but those seats had been either fixed or folding and although the Ford Aurora II presumably dazzled a few impressionable souls, the industry showed little inclination to follow Chrysler's swivelling lead.

2021 "Maybach-Look" Mercedes-Benz Metris.  The passenger compartment is a similar configuration as the 1966-1967 Imperials (two forward facing seats, two rearward ("fold-away" rather than swivelling)) and there were folding tables as well as features unimaginable in the 1960s (seat massage, starlight-pattern headliner, flatscreen TV, internet connectivity, touchscreen infotainment system and a Burmester sound system with subwoofers).  Unfortunately, a fax machine wasn't part of the build but by 2021, they were close to extinct even in bricks & mortar offices.   

Flawed though Chrysler's implementation in 1966-1967 may have been, in the twenty-first century, production-line economics made it possible to realise the concept's implications, "big-box" vans able to be outfitted as genuinely functional mobile offices from which communication can be maintained with just about any part of the planet.  Of course, based on the same body used by plumbers, Amazon delivery drivers and such, the Metris doesn't have quite the gravitas of the Mercedes-Benz 600 Grossers of old (it's debatable whether the faux "Maybach-Look" stuff makes things better or worse) but there's more interior space and room for a big-screen TV so it's all a matter of what one wants from life.  Noting that, some operations have fitted-out interiors as offices or luxury transports which eschewing the exterior bling, some (often wisely) preferring to travel as inconspicuously as possible.