Showing posts sorted by date for query Prussia. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Prussia. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, August 12, 2026

Cabriolet

Cabriolet (pronounced kab-ree-uh-ley)

(1) A light, two-wheeled, one-horse carriage with a folding top, capable of seating two persons.  It's from cabriolet the term "cab" (in the sense of taxi) was derived).

(2) An automobile based usually on a two-door coupé but with a folding top.

(3) The equivalent continental term for the (mostly UK) drophead coupé (DHC) or the more generic "convertible".

1766: From the French cabriolet, the construct being the Italian cabriole (horse caper) + -et (the suffix here used in the sense of “smaller version”).  The Italian cabriole was from the Latin capreolus (wild goat), from the primitive Indo-European kápros (buck, he-goat) and related to the Old Norse hafr (he-goat), the Old English hæfr, the Welsh gafr and the Old Irish gabor.  The seemingly strange relationship between the Latin capreolus (roebuck; wild goat) and the eighteenth century horse-drawn carriage is explained by the French cabriole (little caper), the meaning derived from its light movement, from cabrioler (to leap, caper), from the Italian capriolare (to somersault), from the Latin capreolus (roebuck; wild goat), the idea being of something light and agile in movement.  The larger, more upscale version of the lightweight carriages the French named cabriolet, “cab” being the common form in the vernacular, picked up in English and used to this day, "cabbies" being "cab (taxi) drivers".  The –et suffix, indicating diminution or affection, was from Old French -et, and its feminine variant -ette, both derived from the Late Latin -ittus (and the other gender forms -itta, -ittum).  In English use, “cab” was picked up to describe the small carriages for hire in urban use and it was the descendants of these which became “taxicabs” when the French taximètres (automatic meter that records distance and fare) were adopted in the late 1890s, the word from the German Taxameter, from Taxanom, the construct based on Taxe (tax, charge or scale of charges), from the Medieval Latin taxa (tax, charge) + mètre.  Cabriolet is a noun, the noun plural is cabriolets.

1978 Cadillac Eldorado Cabriolet Astroroof.  The "Cabriolet Astroroof" (Option code CF5) added US$1565.00 over the Eldorado's base price of US$12401.00.  "Astroroof" was Cadillac's marketing term for a sunroof with a large, heavily tinted glass sliding panel.

The application of cabriolet to describe convertible cars emerged in the early years of the continental motor industry because of the conceptual similarity to the earlier, light, horse-drawn two-seater carriages but as the years went by, rapidly the industry retreated from the "terminological exactitude" stuck to by the coach-builders of the horse & buggy era.  The "carried over" nomenclature (cabriolet, landau, brougham etc) eventually became mere "model names" and what some styled a "cabriolet", others might call something else although usually "cabriolet" did imply some part of the roof could in some way be removed.  By 1977, GM (General Motors had decided that was a tiresome restriction and offered the "Cadillac Coupe DeVille Cabriolet d’Elegance" the rationale for the "cabriolet" element being the roof looked like it might be able to be lowered.  The structure was however fixed but the model sold well so for more than a decades Cadillac "cabriolets" appeared with solidly attached roofs.  Anyone looking up "cabriolet" in a dictionary may have been baffled but Cadillac owners knew what they wanted.

1979 Cadillac DeVille Custom Phaeton Coupe.  Those looking up "phaeton" may also have been mystified.

The 1977 venture may also have encouraged long model names because that trend persisted into the next century.  So what was used to describe the variations in convertible coachwork became something of the manufacturer's whim (except for the much later targa; Porsche had the foresight to register that as a trademark) and if a car was called a roadster, drophead coupé, phaeton, cabriolet or landau, it was an indication only that the roof could (usually) be removed or folded back.  In Detroit, the industry cheerfully used the historic names just as ways to impart "a certain association with something" and produced both "cabriolets" & "landaus" with fixed roofs and that trickery wasn't confined to the US, it being common practice in pre-war Europe for coupés to appear with non-functional "landau irons"; these were early "faux cabriolets".  One exception to that looseness was Daimler-Benz, the Germans tightly defining the specifications of roadsters and landaulets and, with Teutonic thoroughness, in the mid-twentieth century codified the five variations of Mercedes-Benz cabriolets as Cabriolet A, B, C, D & F (if ever there was a Cabriolet E, the factory’s definition has never surfaced).  With the fixed-roof two door bodies, "Coupé A" and "Coupé B" followed the same model (relating to seating & side windows).

Lindsay Lohan alighting from Porsche 911 Carrera (997) cabriolet, Los Angeles, 2012.

Being a German company, Porsche from its early years used "cabriolet" to describe its soft-top models although the Americans never really embraced the idea, habitually calling the open 356s "convertibles".  Strangely, Volkswagen owners in the US took to the term, "cabriolet" usually preferred for the Karmann-built soft-top Beetles, the cabriolet in 1979 the last of the classic (Type 1, 1938-2003) Beetles sold in the US.  After the targa (a word diligently trade-marked although Triumph in the UK had offered something similar (though more complex) with the "Surrey Top", available on the TR4 (1961-1967) & TR5 (1967-1968 (TR250 in the US market)) models were introduced, there was anyway a reason for Porsche to avoid "convertible" as being "imprecise"; at that point, in the Porsche ecosystem, there were "coupés" & "Targas".  The 1970s were, as a general principle not "convertible-friendly" but as that troubled decade ended, it became obvious the regulatory environment was not going to become as restrictive as had been feared and at the 1981 Frankfurt Motor Show, Porsche showed an AWD (all-wheel-drive) 911 cabriolet concept that was so well-received a 911 Cabriolet the next year was added to the line, the company's first "full convertible" since the last of the 356s (1948-1965).  Just to clarify things, the press were informed there were no "convertibles" in the range, just "coupés", "Targas" and "cabriolets".  Such had been the enthusiasm generated by the 1981 concept-car it was obvious it would enter series-production but, upon release, the company confirmed it would not include the AWD and nor would the body-style be available with a turbocharged engine.  The rationale for that was the rather patronizing" "People who drive cabriolets neither need nor want AWD and 300 HP (horsepower) engines".  Amusingly, in an example of the way that in commerce "the customer is always right", where, regardless of "need", where there's "want" (ie demand), supply tends to follow and both features eventually were made available with the cabriolet body.

Saint John Paul II (1920–2005; pope 1978-2005) in  Ferrari Mondial cabriolet while on a visit to the Ferrari test track, Fiorano, Italy, 4 June 1988.  This is believed to be the fastest ever Popemobile.

The term "cabriolet" has over the decades been applied to convertible Ferraris but a convention seems to have emerged that exclusively it's now used for four seaters (that the factory admits are really 2+2s).  The factory has had 2+2 cabriolets in the line-up for a while, most recently the California (2008-2017), Portofino (2017-2023), Roma (2020-2026) and Amalfi (since 2026) but those used a conventional front-engine layout.  The Mondial (1980-1993) was mid-engined, making the accommodation of four within the cabin quite challenging and critics noted one of the compromises imposed was aesthetic, the body lacking Ferrari's usually lovely, lithe lines, something said also of its 2+2 predecessor, the fixed-roof 208 & 308 GT4 (sold as both a Dino and a Ferrari).  However, the practicality of the Mondial had great appeal and it was at the time one of the the most successful Ferraris ever made.  It was also something of a turning point, much thought having been put into the design, not only to ensure one basic specification could be sold in all markets but also that the cost of ownership would be lower by simplifying the servicing routines.  It was much improved as the years went by and made in four distinct generations but Ferrari have not since attempted another mid-engined 2+2 (the configuration of the Roma & Amalfi sometimes described as "front mid-engine" but such things are not listed with the classic "mid-engined" machines, all of which have the power-plant mounted behind the driver).

The classification of cabriolets by Daimler-Benz

Cabriolet A coachwork: 1937 Mercedes-Benz 540K (left), 1958 Mercedes-Benz 300 SC (centre) & 2017 Mercedes Maybach 6 (right).

A cabriolet with two doors, no rear-quarter window and room for two passengers.  Occasionally, cabriolet As would be built with provision for one additional passenger, seated sideways behind the front seats, an arrangement the factory would late use in the "Pagoda" roadsters (W113, 1963-1971) until outlawed by increasingly stringent US safety regulations.  With Mercedes-Benz, the tradition of the cabriolet A in the big, open two-seat convertible would survive only until the 300 S & 300 SC (W188, 1951-1958) although in 2017, the one-off Mercedes-Maybach 6 Cabriolet was displayed, probably the most extravagantly self-indulgent "big" two-seater seen since the inter-war (1919-1939) years.  That was mitigated somewhat by the electric power-train but series production was never considered.

Cabriolet B coachwork: 1970 Mercedes-Benz 280 SE 3.5 (left), 1993 Mercedes-Benz 300 CE (centre) & 2017 Mercedes-AMG S 650 (right).  As the S 650 illustrates, while the use of CAD (computer aided design) and wind tunnels can make shapes more aerodynamically efficient, they doesn't guarantee they'll emerge as more elegant.   

A cabriolet with two doors and room for four or five passengers, fitted with a rear-quarter window for the rear seat.  Other than when interrupted by World War II (1939-1945) and its aftermath, the cabriolet B was long a staple of the Mercedes-Benz line-up but between 1972-1992 there was a hiatus, fears that impending US legislation would outlaw convertible sales in that lucrative market meaning no two door variations were constructed on the new S-Class (W116, 1972-1980) platform and no convertible versions of the successor S-Class coupé (C126, 1981-1990) or the smaller (what would now be called "E-Class") coupé (C123, 1976-1984) were ever offered (although some third party suppliers did offer conversions, Crayford in the UK even sourcing the soft-tops for their C123 cabriolets from 1973 Ford Mustangs in US wrecking yards!).  In those years, the R107 (1971-1989) roadster was the sole convertible available, its sales outside the US sufficient to maintain profitability if the ban eventuated.  As things turned out, the ban never was imposed and the cabriolet B returned in the form of the E-Class A124 (1991-1997).  The "smaller" Cabriolet Bs have since remained available although restricted after 2023 to the even smaller C-Class (A236) and the brief return of a "big" Cabriolet B (the A217 S-Class, 2015-2020) seems an experiment unlikely soon to be repeated.

The feared ban on convertibles in the US is an amusing tale of interest to political scientists and economists.  FMVSS (federal motor vehicle safety standards) 208 (roll-over protection) was published in 1970 and one obvious implication was the banning of “real” convertibles in the US market; while the local manufacturers went to court to challenge some of the provisions in FMVSS 208, they made no attempt to prevent the demise of the convertible, sales of the configuration having fallen to the point the body-style was no longer offered in most lines and even without the intervention of government it’s likely availability would anyway further have been restricted to the odd specialist product.  Indeed, Chevrolet, aware of the coming edict, had in 1968 released the coupe version of the third generation (C3) Corvette as a kind of targa (the so-called “T-top” with removable roof panels), the remaining structure essentially a “roll-bar able to “drive through” FMVSS 208.

Compliant and not with FMVSS 208 as drafted: 1978 Chevrolet Corvette Coupe with T-Top roof (left) and 1978 Chrysler New Yorker, the last of the four-door hardtops (right).

As things turned out, there was a a lobbying effort by the AIA (Automobile Importers of America, a multi-national aggregation representing manufacturers from Europe, the UK and Japan making good profits from convertibles; indeed, some (notably MG) wholly were dependent on convertibles in the US market) to to gain exemptions because for many, even apart from the US-derived profits, it was the volumes achieved there that made viable continuation of the lines in other markets.  In an example of the way government and industry in the US interact (mostly through the mechanism of “campaign financing” with lobbyists as intermediaries), in 1971 the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) granted a “temporary exemption” for convertibles from the rollover parameters, the "subset clause" set originally to expire on 31 August, 1977 (ie, the end of the 1977 model season), a date chosen because by then Detroit’s existing convertible lines were schedule to have reached their EoL (end of life).  The FMVSS 208 standards were otherwise maintained and that was what doomed to four-door hardtops which, lacking a central (B) pillar would have been prohibitively expensive to engineer into compliance.  However, late in 1972, an unexpected ruling from a federal court held FMVSS 208 existed under the provisions of the NTMVSA (National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1966)) and this was found to contain no statutory basis that could extend to the banning of convertibles: As explicitly the judgment stated, the act obligated the agency “to afford such vehicles special consideration.”  Detroit no more expected that than did the NHTSA but while the manufacturers were sanguine about no longer producing convertibles, the regulators were compelled to decide what to do about their regulation and, given Detroit’s attitude, they decided to "kick the can down the road" and simply extend the “temporary” exemption, nominating no end-date.  As does happen in politics, the "temporary" became "indefinite".

By the time the neo-liberal order began to take control in Washington after the election of Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; POTUS 1981-1989), the political zeitgeist shifted to a desire for "less" regulation and the exemption became "permanent", convertibles in the 1980s staging a comeback in the catalogues.  The indefinite extension of the "temporary exemption" of convertibles from FMVSS's roll-over standards created the curious anomaly that Chrysler could in theory have maintained a New Yorker convertible (had one existed) in production while being compelled to drop the four-door hardtop.  Market realities meant no Federal Court judge ever had to sit to resolve that and no manufacturer sought an exemption for the latter.  The last of the C3 (1968-1983) Corvette roadsters was produced in 1975, the style not revived in the line until a C4 (1984-1996) roadster was released in 1986.  Most relieved were the UK and European producers, their little roadsters highly profitable and perennially strong sellers in North America and while the AIA didn't get everything they asked for, they got convertibles and that allowed the life of many roadsters (some with roots in the 1950s) to be extended even into the mid-1990s by which time, in a sense, customers were buying "new vintage cars".        

1980 Mercedes-Benz 500 SLC.

The SLC (C107, 1971-1980) existed only because it was assumed convertible sales in the US would be banned so, with no S-Class, the "big coupé" role was fulfilled by the SLC, concocted by using a LWB (long wheelbase) version of the R107 roadster's platform with a rear seat and (non-pagoda) fixed roof.  Always expensive, the SLC sold well but it had also a career never envisaged when the product-planners were drawing-up the specifications; it was used as a rally car.  The big 450 SLC 5.0 (1977-1980) was one of the more improbable rally cars but it enjoyed success in long-distance events, in winning the Bandama Rally in Côte d'Ivoire an it's a footnote in the sport's history as the only V8-powered car to win a European rally; all 450 SLC 5.0s fitted with an automatic transmission which makes the thing more unusual still.        

Cabriolet C coachwork: 1937 Mercedes-Benz 540K (left), 1950 Jaguar Mark V Drophead Coupé (DHC) (centre) & 2020 Alvis TB60 DHC (continuation) (right).

A cabriolet with two doors and room for four or five passengers with no rear quarter windowMost German manufacturers and virtually all coachbuilders kept the cabriolet C on the books throughout the inter-war period but in the post-war years, it was the British who did most to maintain the tradition, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Daimler, Armstrong Siddeley and Alvis all offering the style and Alvis in 2018 actually re-commenced production of what they called their "continuation" series.  Unlike their latter day use by US manufacturers, the often fitted external "landau irons" genuinely were functional in the raising and lowering of the soft-top.  Thankfully, those "faux landau irons" no longer attract US designers but the motif endures in those building hearses with large expanses of sheet mental rather than glass, the devices to some extent disguising and "breaking up" what would otherwise be just "too much flat surface".  By contrast, on a cabriolet C, the expanse of fabric can lend elegance but one obvious drawback is the restricted visibility, the bulk creating blind-spots rearward, something to bring a wry smile to drivers of 1971 "Sportsroof" Ford Mustangs.

Cabriolet D coachwork: 1961 Mercedes-Benz 300d (left), 1967 Lincoln Continental (centre) & 2006 Mercedes-Benz Concept Ocean Drive (right). 

A cabriolet with four doors and room for four to six passengers.  Common in the 1930s, the four door convertible was rare by the mid 1950s and even Mercedes-Benz removed the 300c (W186, 1951-1957) Cabriolet D from the range when the 300d (W189, 1957-1962) was released in 1958.  However, although demand for such a machine was tiny, it wasn't non-existent and in 1959 it was announced the Cabriolet D would again be available to special order on the basis of POA (price on application), the cost depending on the specification requested; eventually, a further 65 were built.  That was the last of the line however and when "semi-convertible" coachwork was introduced for the 600 (der Grosser; W100, 1963-1981), the term "landaulet" was preferred and these came in two forms: (1) the so-called "short roof" in which the folding mechanism opened only over the rear-most section and (2) the (unofficially dubbed) "presidential", the fabric extending to the central partition (divider).  Other than a one-off on the SWB (short wheelbase) platform, there were 59 600 Landaulets, 12 of them the "presidential" version, two of which remain in the care of Kim Jong-Un (Kim III, b 1982; Supreme Leader of DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)) since 2011) who inherited (along with the rest of the DPRK and its people) from his equally illustrious ancestors.  Apart from the mouth-watering Concept Ocean Drive displayed in 2006, the factory has never hinted such things might return and, apart from truck-like off-road machines, nor has any other manufacturer since the last convertible Lincoln Continental left the line in 1967.  Remembered also for its connection to the limousine in which President John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; POTUS 1961-1963) was assassinated, that association didn't dissuade his successor (Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; VPOTUS 1961-1963 and POTUS 1963-1969) from owning one but even LBJ's presidential imprimatur didn't sufficiently stimulate sales and the four-door convertible coachwork didn't appear for 1968.  They were the last convertibles ever built by Lincoln.

Cabriolet F Coachwork: 1939 Mercedes-Benz 770K (W150) (left), 1961 Lincoln Continental (X-100 by Hess & Eisenhardt) (centre) & 1966 Mercedes-Benz 600 Landaulet in four-door, short roof configuration (right, which is not really a cabriolet F). 

A cabriolet with four doors, built on an extended wheelbase, usually for state or formal use with room for six or more passengers.  The rare cabriolet Fs were almost exclusively state or parade vehicles (although as used cars, they've been sometimes imaginatively re-purposed in the secondary market) and are now effectively extinct, driven from the market by security concerns and the lack of appropriate new vehicles upon which they could be based.  Politicians now feel much safer in armored cars, built sometimes on a light-truck chassis and the ones used by US presidents are now essentially "armored cars disguised as traditional (ie 1980s) Cadillac limousines.

1966 Mercedes-Benz 300 SE (W112) Cabriolet.  Lots of chrome on the W112 although, such was the attention to detail, some of the brightwork was polished brass. 

In the collector-car market, the two-door Mercedes-Benz W111 (1961-1971) & W112 (1962-1967) remain coveted and, as is usually the case, it's the convertibles that are most sought, even though the cabriolet lacks the coupé's lovely roofline.  Pedants note that although the W111s & W112s are technically a Coupé B & Cabriolet B in the factory's naming system, they're never referred to as such because no other configuration was offered in the two-door iterations.  The W112 (300 SE) is of interest too because of the moldings around the wheel arches, a feature which seen on some earlier models and the 600 Grosser.  Criticized by some when they appeared on the 600, the additional brightness on the W112 wasn't to everyone's taste (and it was a "delete option" when new) but it clearly had an enduring appeal because for decades, after-market suppliers found a ready market among those with later model Mercedes-Benz, BMWs, Jaguars and some others.  This is not approved by the purists and whether in chrome, stainless steel or anodised plastic (!) it makes no difference: the originality police insist if it wasn't done by the factory, it shouldn't be done.  It was a W112 Coupé (that had failed quality control inspection and was due to be scrapped!) that provided the test bed for the installation of the 600's 6.3 litre (386 cubic inch) V8 in a smaller platform and such was the transformative effect the project was approved for series-production although Daimler-Benz management was not convinced there would be sufficient demand for the "hot-rod" as a coupé or cabriolet and insisted it be released exclusively in four-door form.

Thus was begat the 300 SEL 6.3 (1968-1972) using the W109 platform (1965-1972) and it was for years was a favorite high-speed cruiser on the FRG's (Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany; the old West Germany, 1949-1990) autobahns, drivers then even more than now not troubled by tiresome speed-limits.  It was a great success but there have been some who longed to combine the big V8 with the lovely coachwork of the coupé & cabriolet and a surprising number of these have been built although the standard of the engineering has varied, not all interpolating the 300 SEL 6.3's air suspension.  The finest of the breed were built by Wisconsin-based Karl Middelhauve (1932-2026) and while the term "guru" is these days tossed around entirely too much, truly Karl Middelhauve was "the 600 Guru".     

1971 Mercedes-Benz 280SE 3.5 Coupé (converted to a cabriolet).

This is one really to upset the originality police because: (1) it started life as a coupé before a roofectomy was performed, (2) the chrome (actually anodized plastic) wheel-arch moldings were never available on this model and (3) the Fuchs (Bundt) aluminum wheels have been chromed (and may anyway be reproductions, some of which are cast and not forged, as were the originals).  Such is the price premium a cabriolet will command over a comparable coupé, over the years, many have been tempted to cut but exactly to replicate what the factory did is harder than at first glance it seems.  It's not a matter simply of “removing the roof”, a correctly accomplished conversion demanding: (1) structural reinforcements, (2) a folding roof apparatus and (3) different rear-end body panels.  While from the belt-line down the coupé & cabriolet appear visually identical, the Cabriolet required extensive modifications to the underlying platform to compensate for the removal of the structural rigidity provided by the fixed steel roof.

Structural Reinforcement: (1) The cabriolet used a significantly heavier, thicker floor pan with welded-in boxed side members to prevent body flex and “scuttle (cowl) shake” and for those prepared to do things in a way that don’t exactly emulate the look of what the factory did all those years ago, using modern materials and engineering techniques it is now possible to achieve ever greater rigidity with less additional weight, the attraction being the changes remain hidden unless the car is viewed from below (ie on a hoist) or the carpets are removed for inspection. (2) The Cabriolet's windshield pillars (A-pillars) contain internal steel tubes, both to afford additional rollover protection and support the folding top mechanism, a mechanism heavy by the standards of such things.  (3) While the coupés were built with a structural steel shelf behind the rear seats, in the cabriolets this was replaced with a reinforced partition in which is housed the bulk of the folding roof.  (3) Without the roof’s C-pillar, the size and shape of the rear side windows subtly is different and these feature a unique chromed-frame designed to ensure a tight seal against the heavy weather-stripping of the fabric top (on the coupé the glass seals directly).

The multi-layered soft-top:  The Cabriolet’s folding roof is not (in an engineering sense) complex but the construction was both intricate and labor-intensive.  Almost wholly hand-fitted, the mechanism consisted of a padded outer layer, with a thick insulating bombast of horsehair as a middle layer, finished with a tailored interior headliner.

The Rear Body Panel Modifications: In the lower reaches of the conversion industry, this is the most neglected aspect and the easiest way to identify “a fake” although, unless the real thing is parked side-by-side, most would likely not tell the difference unless their eye is keen: (1) The trunk (boot) lid length is physically shorter on the factory-built cabriolets to accommodate the recessed storage well into which much of the soft-top folds meaning (2) the rear-desk-sheet metal (the panel between the back of the rear seat and the trunk opening) is is unique to the cabriolet, featuring a chrome-trimmed latching area for the soft top's boot.   

Mercedes-Benz 770K (W150; 1938-1943), Cabriolet D (top) and Cabriolet F (bottom).

With a variety of coachwork, all the second generation of the Großers (Grosser (Grand Mercedes)) were built on a chassis with a wheelbase of 3880 mm (152¾ inch).  In some four years, only 88 were built, most of which were allocated to senior figures in the Nazi Party, the Wehrmach (the armed forces) and the German state although a handful were gifted to foreign heads of state.  The 770K will forever be associated with Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) because until the outbreak of war the big Cabriolet F was his preferred parade car and one of the quirks in the factory's nomenclature is that while the body-styles Cabriolet A, B, C & D were defined and well-documented, there was a 770K Cabriolet F, but no Cabriolet E.  The W150 Cabriolet F was among the rarest of the 770Ks with only five made (the distinction the additional rear window in the passenger compartment).  The jump in the factory's designations from "D" to "F" obviously skipped "E" and because that didn't seem the typically precise German way of doing things, there was speculation that another type of open coachwork had been planned (though not necessarily on the 770K chassis) but never built because of the outbreak of war in 1939.  That's not impossible (some records were lost during the war) but the archives for the period have revealed nothing to support the speculation and the sometimes repeated assertion the "Cabriolet F" label was an allusion to "Führer" (the car's most infamous customer) is simply wrong because the designation first was used in the 1920s and was applied to the previous 770 Großer, the W07 (1931-1938).  The factory seems never to have commented on the "missing Cabriolet E" although, despite having a great sense of history, it doesn't much dwell on the company’s relationship with the state and party between 1933-1945.

Wedding ceremony day: Hermann Göring & Emmy Sonnemann, Berliner Dom (Berlin Protestant Cathedral), 11 April, 1935.

Curiously, the wedding car used by Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945 and Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) for his (second) marriage to Emmy Sonnemann (1893-1973) was a Mercedes-Benz 500 K Cabriolet C and the photographs do suggest things were a little cramped once his corpulent form had been wedged into the back seat though his more slender bride looked content.  One of the grand public spectacles the Nazi regime (1933-1945) used as propaganda devices, the wedding received blanket coverage in newspapers and, for the following three days, each movie shown in German cinemas was preceded by a “newsreel” segment of “edited highlights” from the happy day.  That would have been a good “catch-up” for Germans unlucky enough not to have been able to listen to the live radio broadcast of the entire ceremony , carried over a then still novel “national hook-up”.  Adolf Hitler served as best man and, in an experience unfamiliar to both him and the groom, neither were the centre of attention, eyes of the audience and lens of the photographers alike focused on the bride.

Damenmode der 1930er-Jahre: "Gretchen mag´s mondän!" (1930s Women's Fashion: "Gretchen Likes It Sophisticated!").  Catalogue of the collection of the Münchner Stadtmuseum (Munich’s municipal museum).

General Göring wore a Luftwaffe (German Air Force) uniform in a new grayish-blue fabric chosen for the occasion while the bride was dressed in a heavy white satin gown (cut in the then fashionable “Gretchen fashion”) with wide puffed sleeves ending in tight-fitting cuffs.  The train was relatively short and born not by girls (as was then customary) by boys of the HJ (Hitlerjugend (the Hitler Youth)), possibly a deliberate adoption of a practice then usually restricted to royalty and the aristocracy.  From the cathedral, the motorcade travelled the short distance to the Deutsche Oper Berlin (Berlin Opera House).  As one of the party’s leading WAGs (wives & girlfriends), Frau Göring made a good start in staking her claim to the (unofficial) title First Lady des Reiches (First Lady of the Reich), serving as Hitler's hostess at many state functions.  It was however a keenly contest space and both Anna Elisabeth “Annelies” von Ribbentrop (née Henkell 1896-1973), wife of Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Nazi Foreign Minister 1938-1945) and (especially) Johanna Maria Magdalena "Magda" Goebbels (née Ritschel 1901-1945), wife of Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945; Nazi Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda 1933-1945) sought the honor and both were adept at Masonic-like plotting & scheming.  Frau Göring’s chances of success became doomed after Eva Braun ( 1912–1945) complained to Hitler that she was “mean to her” so the invitations “dried up” something that didn’t much worry her husband because although regarded almost to the end as Zweiter Mann des Reiches (Second Man of the Reich), he was never part of Hitler’s “inner social circle”.  Although the exact nature of their relationship remains contested, being the Führer’s concubine, Eva Braun could of course never be the Reich’s “First Lady” (her very identity was close to a state secret and she was unknown to most of the population) but, in the final hours of her life, she did gain the satisfaction of being made “Frau Hitler” so there was that.  Of course, long before that low-key wedding in the Führerbunker, the course of the war had meant becoming undisputed First Lady des Reiches was no longer the prize it once was, so what Eva Braun gained was something of a withered garland.

Gretchen fashion: Not many women on the high street dressed quite like this but the elements did appear in everyday garments.

“Gretchen fashion” (or “Gretchen-look”) was a term used for a fashion phenomenon much identified with post-Weimar Germany; like many such trends, it was a blend and the components were (1) traditional wholesomeness and (2) international glamourThe first element was a reaction against the perception of Weimar as “decadent” (although that was always overstated and applied only to a tiny, highly visible minority), thus the choice of the name “Gretchen” as something archetypically German and most associated with modest, pure, rural woman (certainly not “rootless cosmopolitans”).  Nazi-era propaganda attempted to “nudge” women towards a makeup-free life focused on “…the three Ks - die Küche, die Kirche, die Kinder (kitchen, church, and children), a phrase that first became popular during the second half of the nineteenth century but many women knew there was a variant with a fourth “K”: Kleider (Clothing) and while the rustic look was adopted, the Gretchen-look emerged as a hybrid that owed as much to Hollywood as Hannover.  Dresses shifted away from the boxy, drop-waist 1920s flapper silhouette and used instead fabrics cut on the diagonal (the bias cut) to elegantly skim curves and flare gently at the hem.  Weimar’s characteristic angularity and androgyny almost vanished (although the hats were too stylish to be forgotten and were carried-over), replaced by a classic hourglass silhouette, high, natural waistlines returning, often emphasized with slender belts or subtle ties with hemlines at mid-calf, tea-length or floor-length depending on the time of day.  A simplicity of line was dominant but delicate ruffles, puff sleeves and inventive (sometimes even asymmetric) necklines decorated with tie-neck bows or fabric flowers could be used to compliment feminine prints featuring romantic florals or polka dots.  Of course, it was also the art deco era and those motifs along with bold stripes often were seen.  Some in the Nazi Party may have aspired to make the country a totalitarian state but frocks proved a tough opponent and, defying their Führer, women still wore red lipstick, plucked their eyebrows into arches and varnished their nails.

Wedding day of Crown Prince Naruhito & Masako Owada san, Rolls-Royce Corniche III Convertible, 9 June, 1993.  The crown prince was notably more svelte than General Göring.

Because a bride (in wedding gown) will need to step through a fairly small gap when exiting (often while being photographed), a two-door cabriolet does seem a strange choice as a wedding car and why one of the big 770K Cabriolet F Open Tourers wasn’t used doesn’t seem anywhere discussed and of the many questions directed at Göring during his week-long cross-examination at the Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946); understandably perhaps, neither prosecution or defense counsel raised the matter so it’s left to speculation.  It may be the bride wanted something “more romantic” and “less masculine” so there would be the connotation of her “marrying the man rather than the state” and while that’s wholly fanciful, it does explain the seemingly inexplicable.  The use of a two-door cabriolet for a “state” wedding proved however not unique, Japanese Crown Prince Naruhito (b 1960, Emperor of Japan since 2019) appearing in a 1990 Rolls-Royce Corniche III Convertible (by then the factory had ceased calling them DHCs (drophead coupé) although in the twenty-first century DHC would get a nostalgic revival) for his wedding in 1993 to Masako Owada san (b 1963).  It was one of only two public appearances for the Corniche, later retired and replaced by a Toyota Century Royal with one-off four door cabriolet coachwork, something that doubtless will please brides in future weddings associated with the Chrysanthemum Throne.  Compared with 1935, there was by 1993 more material for content providers (then serving almost exclusively television and print media) but the crown prince’s wedding was still a major event (the day declared a national holiday) and, with the country having entered the first of its “lost decades”, the spectacle must have been a relief from tales of economic gloom.

How to really make a statement on one's wedding day: 1993 Rolls-Royce Corniche IV in red, on red, on red.

Although in the English-speaking world the traditional color for wedding cars is white (or a close variant such as cream), in Japanese culture both black and white vehicles are used and there are even specialized Hanayome Taxis (Bridal Taxis) in which the left side of the roof mechanically swings upward so ingress & egress can be elegant with no risk of disturbing intricately constructed “big hair”.  Usually, in vivid red, Kotobuki (congratulations; longevity; good fortune) banners appear on the sides of the wedding cars as a warning to other traffic of the vehicle’s “special purpose”.  One Japanese “wedding superstition” enforced with especial strictness is that a bridal car must never shift into reverse gear because “backing-up” symbolizes “returning home” (ie a looming divorce).  One famous mid-twentieth century tradition that has faded is the Yomeiri (Dowry) Truck, most associated with the Nagoya region.  There, the wedding motorcade was a convoy of trucks used to transport the bride's dowry and furniture to her new home, the vehicles wrapped in festive red-and-white Kohaku maku (striped banners).  Most symbolically, on the bed of the last truck was the newlywed’s brand-new car, wrapped in a large, bright red ribbon.  For the crown prince and princess, their traditional Shinto ceremony was conducted at the Kashiko-dokoro (Shrine of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu) within the grounds of the Imperial Palace grounds in Tokyo and while there were no dowry trucks (the palace already fully-furnished with microwave ovens, toasters and such), the Rolls-Royce was one of 46 vehicles in a motorcade stretching slightly beyond a quarter-mile (402 metres).

Not even Göring matched that scale although, being head of the Luftwaffe, he was able to arrange a fly-past of dozens of fighter aircraft, timed with Teutonic precision to appear over the cathedral just as the couple were walking down the steps to their waiting cabriolet.  The sybaritic Goering gathered titles as enthusiastically as later he would loot Europe of artworks; as well as heading the Luftwaffe, he was Premier of Prussia, Reich Minister of Aviation, general in command of anti-aircraft artillery, general of fliers, Grand Master of the Hunt, Master Forester of Germany, President of Reichstag, chief of the Prussian secret police and Director, State Theatres & Operas (in that capacity he granted Frau Sonnemann the title “State Actress by appointment”) so it wasn’t difficult for him to arrange “stuff for the wedding”.  Hundreds of thousands of Germans (not all of the Berliners) lined the Wilhelmstrasse (Wilhelm Street) and Unter den Linden (best translated as “Boulevard of the Lime Trees”) from the chancellery to the cathedral and seldom can a wedding have seen so men in such a variety of uniforms (at attire then adored by Germans).  Manpower not being a resource-allocation problem for Göring, some 30,000 young men from a variety of Nazi organizations formed a double row in order to keep the streets clear and, with the expected military precision, they stood at attention with right arms raised in the “Hitler salute” as the wedding motorcade passed by.  In a legal sense, the marriage had taken place the day before in a civil ceremony at Berlin City Hall, bride and groom signing the necessary paperwork confirming they were of “pure Aryan stock and free from hereditary disease” (millions of those not either in the ten years to follow being murdered by on Hitler’s orders) so the rituals in the church were essentially ceremonial and performed for the benefit of God rather than the state.  Reich Bishop Ludwig Mueller (1933-1945) officiated, choosing the New Testament’s Book of Revelation for his text (“Be thou faithful unto death and I will give you a crown of life.”):  Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.  Revelations 2:10 (King James Version of the Bible (KJV, 1611)).

The Blue Goose.  The image on the left is from the Búndesarchiv (German Federal Archives) and is stamped "1941", suggesting married life did not cause Göring to suffer weight-loss,

The car most famously associated with Göring was also a Mercedes-Benz convertible (though not a cabriolet): a 1937 540K (W29) Special Roadster.  The earlier 500K Special Roadster came to be called “the brightest glint of a golden age” and while the 540K SR wasn’t quite as rakish as its slightly smaller predecessor, that may have been a good thing because modifications had to be made the 540 to ensure Göring was “able to fit behind the wheel” and even then, things were “tight”.  His 540K SR was nicknamed das Blaue Gans (the Blue Goose) because Göring ordered it his favourite shade of Luftwaffe Blaue (used for the underside of reconnaissance aircraft) and he was sufficiently fond of the hue to have one of his (many) Reichsmarschall uniforms cut in a fabric dyed the same color.

Appointed in 1933 by Hitler to the newly created office of Reichsbischof de Deutsche Evangelische Kirche (Bishop for the Reich of the German Evangelical Church), Mueller, a Lutheran priest and undistinguished theologian had no obvious qualifications for the role other than being a devoted Nazi but for the Führer, that was enough.  In office, Mueller, even by the slight standards of the regime’s minor functionaries, proved singularity inept and far from uniting the German protestant churches as was his designated task, he proved a schismatic influence.  By 1937, it was obvious to Hitler he’d “backed a dud” and increasingly he abandoned his use of carrots in church matters, resorting to the stick “when required” but otherwise becoming indifferent, seemingly resigned to the party’s state of “semi-peaceful” co-existence with the churches.  Typically, despite his conspicuous failure, Mueller wasn’t dismissed but simply ignored, his sycophancy and repeated attempts at ingratiation with the regime proving pointless.  Still, he deserves credit for having been prophetic in his choice of text for Göring’s wedding although whether “Defendant Number One” at the Nuremberg Trial much dwelt on the words during the months he spent in his cell or as he stood to hear the IMT’s (International Military Tribunal) president sentence him to be hanged, isn’t known.  

Saturday, May 23, 2026

Congress

Congress (pronounced kong-gris, kuhn-gres, kuhng-gris or khung-gres)

(1) The national legislative body of the US, a continuous institution consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives (initial capital).

(2) This body as it exists for a period of two years during which it has the same membership (other than replacements by necessity).  By convention, Congresses sequentially are numbered.

(3) A session of this body.

(4) The national legislative body of a nation (used especially in republics and it has been used also of political parties or movements (such as the South African liberation movement the ANC (African National Congress, founded in 1912) and India’s INC (the Indian National Congress, founded in 1885 during the British Raj)).

(5) A formal meeting or assembly of representatives for the discussion, arrangement, or promotion of some matter of common interest (in this context often a synonym of academy, society, convention, council or conference).  Use of congress in this sense is not restricted to governmental or other official bodies, associations, special interest groups and sporting organizations routinely using the term.

(6) The act of coming together; an encounter; meeting.

(7) An association, especially one composed of representatives of various organizations (often used interchangeably with conference, society or association).

(8) Familiar relations; dealings or intercourse.

(9) Sexual intercourse; coitus.

(10) The collective noun for a group of baboons (something which can delight those observing the antics of those in the US Congress).

(11) To assemble together (ie to meet in a congress).

1350–1400 From the Middle English congres & congress (body of attendants, following (the meaning in the fifteenth century extending to “meeting of armed formations” while the sense of “a coming together of people, a meeting of individuals” emerged in the 1520s), from the Latin congressus (both “a friendly meeting” & “a hostile encounter”), past participle of congredi (to meet with; to fight with), an assimilated form, the construct being con- (in the sense of “with, together”), + gradi (to walk, step), from gradus (a step (from the primitive Indo-European root ghredh- (to walk, go)).  The adjective congressional (of or pertaining to a congress) was an adaptation from the Latin congressionem and the most common use now is the sense of “of or pertaining to the US Congress”, dating from 1776.  As something new, in the UK it was initially treated as “a barbarous Americanism” but as early as 1816 it was pointed out in England that the Congress (the highest legislative body in the US) had been formed in defiance of the UK and the nation’s citizens were hardly likely to wait on ascent from London before forming and using the adjectival derivative.  Congress is a noun & verb, congressional & congressive are adjectives and congressionally is an adverb; the noun plural is congresses.

The use of “congress” to describe “sexual intercourse; coitus” dates from the 1580s but, except in historic references or as a deliberate archaism, use tends now to be as a euphemism.  There was however once a handy distinction (heard from pulpits and in legal proceedings) between the naked noun and “marital congress (sexual intercourse as performed by two people enjoying benefit of marriage), the latter quite respectable (if not much discussed), the former not always, especially if adulterous.  The special adjective uncongressed was coined in the science of genetics to describe “unaligned chromosomes”, a phenomenon presumably about as bad as it sounds.  By contrast, a marriage in which “sexual intercourse; coitus” was held not to have transpired was said to be “unconsummated”, something often unfortunate for one or both parties but useful because it was grounds upon which a bishop might declare an otherwise legally marriage annulled.  That had the advantage of creating the legal fiction the ceremony had “never happened” with the couple able to return to church to marry new partners, something historically not always possible for divorcees (although for those rich enough there were sometimes “word-arounds” that could persuade an appropriately compensated bishop).  In centuries gone by, being “married before the eyes of God” was no small thing with important legal and social implications.

Making a fine legal point, one apparently open to interpretation.

Crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; FLOTUS 1993-2001 & US secretary of state 2009-2013, left) watching attentively as her husband Bill Clinton (b 1946; POTUS 1993-2001) assured the nation “I did not have sexual relations with that woman… Miss Lewinsky.” (White House intern Monica Lewinsky (b 1973)), the White House, January 1998.  A trained lawyer and former Arkansas attorney-general, Mr Clinton may have been tempted to say “I did not have congress with that woman… Miss Lewinsky. At least arguably that could have be held to be “truthful” because “congress” generally is understood as coitus (penetrative sexual intercourse) where as “sexual relations” casts a wider net.  Whether such sophistry would have saved him from impeachment seems unlikely and nothing was going to save him from the wrath of crooked Hillary.  Unfortunately, in subsequent legal proceedings, we never got to hear Mr Clinton's deconstruction of “congress” but we did learn what the word “is” means and that his definition of “sexual relations” extended to “giving” oral sex but excluded “receiving” oral sex.  The latter distinction surprised a few but at least now we know.

“Congress grass” is a synonym for “famine weed” (Parthenium hysterophorus), a highly invasive plant noted for its devastating impact on agriculture, food security, and native ecosystems. The undesirable plant gained the name “famine weed” from the way aggressively it would colonize farmland and pastures, replacing nutritious native flora and releasing allelopathic chemicals that severely would stunt the growth of crops and grasses, leading to sharp declines in agricultural yields, famines associated with heavily infested regions.  In India, during the 1950s, the plant came derisively to be damned with the monikerCongress grass” after the accidental introduction of the species by seeds in contaminated US wheat, imported during a national food shortage.  The name references not the US Congress but the INC (Indian National Congress, usually clipped to “the Congress”), in control of the national government that had arranged the importation.  Native to Central America, Parthenium hysterophorus is listed as invasive also in Australia and a number of African nations.

The specific sense of congress as “a meeting of delegates, formal meeting of persons having a representational character” was in use by at least the 1670s and in 1775 became the name for the national legislative body of the American states (with an initial upper case) which became the USA, the word chosen from a number of suggestions (legislative assembly, parliament etc).  The three sittings of the “Continental Congress” (representing the 13 American colonies seeking independence from imperial rule) were convened in 1774, 1775-1776 & 1776-1781.  The Congress of the Confederation (formally the United States in Congress Assembled) was the national governing body of the US between March 1781 and March 1789; established by the Articles of Confederation, it served as a transitional government between the Second Continental Congress and the modern US Congress which first sat on 4 March, 1789.

The US Capitol Building where the Congress sits, the House of Representatives housed in the south wing, the Senate in the north.  The original building was completed in 1800 and the final engineering sign-off of the dome structure came in 1867.  The last major structural changes were undertaken in 1962.

The US Congress is the is the legislative branch of the federal government, declared constitutionally “co-equal” with the executive and legislative branches although that’s a philosophical stance rather than a functional description, the Congress uniquely able to pass federal laws (in legal theory the occasionally infamous “Executive Orders” issued by POTUSs as unilateral actions under powers granted by Article II of the Constitution or federal law(s) are valid only to the extent they are constitutional and comply with federal law).  The Congress is divided into two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives both of which are now elected by a popular vote; each state having two senators, the Senate has 100 members while in the House of Representatives there are 435, size of a state’s population determining its allocation.  Within each state, it is the legislature which has the power to determine electoral boundaries and over the years these processes have given rise to a rich vocabulary including “gerrymander”, “re-districting” & “electoral malapportionment”, the the memorable judicial maxim “legislators represent people, not trees and acres” handed down in a judgment by Chief Justice Earl Warren (1891–1974; Chief Justice of the US 1953-1969) in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)).  The way the Democrats and Republicans draw lines on maps to maximize the benefit of their respective parties and disadvantage their opponents has always been entertaining but, because the exercise ultimately is one of math, what will be interesting is (1) how the process will be perfected when optimized by the use of AI (artificial intelligence) and (2) how the courts (ultimately the USSC (US Supreme Court)) will rule on the lawfulness of increasingly exaggerated distortions.

Constitutionally, the formal title for someone holding a seat in the House of Representatives is “Representative” which makes sense but “Congressman”, although originally a term of derision, became common.  “Representative” remains the preferred term in formal writing (certainly official government documents) and when addressing a member, the convention being “Representative Name” although “The Honorable Name” is in certain contexts used.  “Congressman” & “Congresswoman” are however deeply entrenched in US English and seem to be the most popular forms used by the public and much of the media.  The first congresswoman was Jeannette Rankin (1880–1973), a women's rights advocate, in 1916 elected as a Republican in Montana for a single term (she served a second in 1941-1943); she remains the only woman ever elected to Congress from Montana.  The gender-neutral “Congressperson” belongs to the “modern” class of words (which predate the mainstreaming of wokism) including “chairperson”, “salesperson” etc.  It has been accepted by dictionaries and style guides with some media organizations recommending use although it’s said rarely to be heard in oral use.  Representatives are elected for two-year terms and senators for six so in the congressional elections conducted every two years; all 435 seats in the House are contested along with about a third of the Senate.

One who would have been grateful “congressperson” wasn’t in general use in the early 1960s would have been the singer-songwriter Bob Dylan (b 1941) who released The Times They Are a-Changin' as the title-track of his 1964 album, “Come senators, congressmen” appearing as the first line of the third verse and suiting the rhythm of the work in a way “Come senators, congresspersons” wouldn’t have worked.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
The battle outside ragin'
Will soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'

Although The Times They Are a-Changin' now is regarded as a classic Dylan song and one of his standards, while internationally it enjoyed some success as a single, it was never released in that form in the US, included only on the original eponymous album and subsequent compilations.  Like much of Dylan’s work, there were several influences including biblical echos from Mark and Ecclesiastes.

Official portrait of George Santos while he was entitled to be styled “Representative the honorable George Santos”.

The first (openly) LGBTQQIAAOP Republican elected to Congress as a freshman (one's first elected presence there, a use borrowed from universities where it describes first-year students), George Anthony Devolder Santos (b 1988) entered Congress in the 2022 mid-term elections, taking the seat of New York's 3rd congressional district.  Although he seems to have passed untroubled through the Republican Party’s candidate vetting process, after his election a number of media outlets investigated and found his public persona was almost wholly untrue and contained many dubious or blatantly false claims about, inter alia, his mother, personal biography, education, criminal record, work history, financial status, ancestry, ethnicity, sexual orientation & religion.  When confronted, Mr Santos did admit to lying about certain matters, was vague about some and ducked and weaved to avoid discussing others, especially the fraud charges in Brazil he evaded by fleeing the country.  Although a life-long Roman Catholic, Mr Santos on a number of occasions claimed to be Jewish, even fabricating stories about his family suffering losses during the Holocaust.  Later, after the lies were exposed, he told a newspaper “I never claimed to be Jewish.  I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background I said I was ‘Jew-ish.  In the right circumstances, delivered on-stage by a Jewish comedian, it might have been a good punch-line.

George Santos: The Congress's loss was OnlyFans' gain but unfortunately the new career didn't last because of an excessive number of “fan solicitations”.

Following an investigation by the House Ethics Committee and a federal indictment, the House of Representatives in 2023 voted 311–114 to expel Mr Santos, meaning he gained the dubious distinction of being the first member of Congress to have been expelled without having previously been convicted of a crime or having supported the Confederacy (the pro-slavery southern states opposed to the Union forces in the US Civil War (1861-1865)).  In other historic footnotes, he became the sixth member of the House to be expelled and the first Republican.  Subsequently, Mr Santos pled guilty to identity theft & wire fraud and in April 2025 was sentenced to a prison term of 87 months.  However, in October that year, after spending only some three months behind bars, Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) commuted his sentence, cancelling all unpaid fines and restitution, one of the reasons cited being Mr Santos's solid voting record in Congress (100% Republican).  There was a time when such a pardon would have attracted much comment but such has been Mr Trump’s use of his power to issue pardons, few now seem exceptional or even noteworthy.  The power to pardon (inherited from Kings of England who no longer discharge it as a personal right) is unusual in being the only power in the US Constitution not subject to “checks & balances”; it is a personal presidential prerogative.  Noting that, political scientists and legal scholars are looking forward to the pardons announced on the last day of Mr Trump’s term on the basis: “We ain’t seen nothing yet”.  Members of the House of Representatives typically are addressed as "the honorable" in formal use but this is a courtesy title and not a requirement.  It's a matter left to individual members and as far as is known, Mr Santos has not yet indicated whether he wishes people to continue to address him as “the honorable George Santos” but clearly he has a fan base.  In 2024, Mr Santos opened an OnlyFans page (US29.99 per month) but after only a few weeks he was forced to “abandon the platform due to the high volume of fan solicitations”.

Congressman Randy Fine (b 1974; Representative for Florida's 6th congressional district since April 2025) in red MAGA (Make America Great Again) hat (left) and a rooster with a large red coxcomb (the fleshy red pate of a rooster, left).

The long familiar “congressman” actually started as a term of derision before entering mainstream use as a neutral descriptor, a milder form being the later plural noun “congressfolk”.  Because voters (and others) so often find cause to be critical of those in Congress, a rich vocabulary of variants has over the years appeared, “congressfolk” yielding “congressdope” while independently coined terms included “congresscritter” and congressjerk while the offensive, ethnic slur “congresscoon” was a label applied to the first black congressmen (the congressional presence of whom appalled many white gentlemen, including some living north of the Mason-Dixon Line).  To this day, phrases such as “those fuckwits in Congress” or “the stupid Congress” are part of US vernacular English although literary standards have declined since 1780 when one wrote: “Ye coxcomb Congressmen, declaimers keen, Brisk puppets of the Philadelphia scene.”  

Even within the political class the word can be weaponized.  Although in passing over 900 bills the 80th Congress (1947-1949) was hardly inert, it didn’t do everything the administration wanted so, on the campaign trail in 1948, the ever-combative Harry S. Truman (1884–1972; POTUS 1945-1953) dubbed it the “Do Nothing Congress” although the nickname was something of a “tar by association” tactic against his Republican opponent (Thomas E. Dewey (1902-1971) in the presidential election as much as it was against the legislators.  Most of the world fixates on presidential politics because of the drama and the cults of personality but domestically, it’s in the legislatures that lobbyists do their work and that’s where they make “campaign contributions” in exchange for getting the legislation which most benefits the corporations employing them.  The business of America is business” was how former president Calvin Coolidge (1872–1933; POTUS 1923-1929) summed it up.  It’s not wholly dissimilar to the development of the English constitution; it took centuries to evolve but essentially, in exchange for getting the money he needed to fight his wars, the king approved the laws the politicians wished to pass.  In the US, the dynamic relationship is between politicians & corporations, mediated by the lobbyists and between the two sides, there's much interchanging of personnel which is why the system is sometimes described by political scientists as “incestuous”.  The dynamic of the system does of course shift; sometimes those in Congress have dominated the president and sometimes he has dominated them so in that sense Trump 2.0 (Mr Trump's second administration) is just a phase the system is going through.

The reformed Lindsay Lohan.  Congress hasn't much mended its ways.

Others have found inventive ways to color their critique of the Congress.  In March 2011, delivering an address to the annual Washington Conference of the Institute of International Bankers, Richard W. Fisher (b 1949; president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank (the “Dallas Fed”) 2005-2015), spent some time discussing the fiscal policy (ie the dynamics of government spending vs revenue (taxation and such)) of the US Congress, his concern that for long-term investment to be secured, investors must have …confidence in the long-term prospects of where they invest.  In my judgment, it will be hard to secure that needed comfort until Congress makes clear it will refrain from the errant fiscal ways of the past, changes the way it taxes and spends and regulates, and places the nation demonstrably, and unalterably, on a path of fiscal rectitude.  To illustrate his point in an immediately accessible way, Mr Fisher added that the country had “…suffered for too long from ‘Lindsay Lohan’ Congresses.  Like Ms. Lohan, the American Congress is a beautiful creation, blessed with enormous talent. But it has been waylaid by addiction—in the case of the Congress to spending and debt—and by a proclivity for shoplifting—in the case of the Congress to pocketing for their immediate gratification the economic future of our children and grandchildren and our grandchildren’s children.  It may have been a bit of a “mean boy” way of putting it but doubtlessly his point was well understood by his audience, Ms Lohan then in her “troubled starlet” phase.  However, while Ms Lohan became an admirably reformed creature, the US Congress (which alone has the authority to authorize every dollar raised, borrowed and spent by the federal government) remains something of a fabulous beast, the national debt now some US$38 trillion and growing.

Senator Rebecca Ann Felton (1835–1930, left) and Senator Mitch McConnell (b 1942; US senator (Republican-Kentucky) since 1985; leader of the Senate Republican Conference 2007-2025, right).  The spooky resemblance between Senator Fulton (who in 1922 served for one day as a senator (Democratic-Georgia), appointed as a political manoeuvre) and Senator McConnell has led some to suggest he might be her reincarnated.  Some not so acquainted with history assumed the photograph of Senator Felton was Mitch McConnell in drag.

Members of the Senate, regardless of gender, are styled as “Senator” even though the Senate is a part of the Congress.  Although it has become common to describe the Senate and House respectively as “upper house” and “lower house” (reflecting the UK practice of so-describing the House of Lords and House of Commons), many political scientists claim that’s misleading and the two houses should be regarded as co-equal wings of the congress, each fulfilling a distinct function but not in a hierarchical structure.  They’re correct in asserting the use sits awkwardly with later constitutional development but the terminology is, in the US context, ancient, dating from at least the first federal Congress in 1789 when the Senate routinely was described as the “upper” chamber and the House the “lower”, simply reflecting the British parliamentary vocabulary with with those involved were familiar.

Federal Hall, New York City, circa 1950.

The framers of the US constitution did not use the terms “upper” and “lower”, something in keeping with spirit of an age that was the not exactly egalitarian but it certainly reflected their deliberately (if imperfectly) democratic, anti-aristocratic intentions.  The conceptual analogy can however be pursued, the Senate being smaller, the members granted longer terms with election originally being indirect by state legislatures while the house was directly elected (although the franchise was far from one of universal suffrage).  However, whatever the constitutional niceties, that arrangement did neatly map onto the bicameral model familiar in the UK and Europe where upper and lower chambers often were seen although surveys of early American political writing seems to hint there might have been some reluctance to use the traditional “upper” & “lower”, the Senate instead referred to as a “more select” or “more elevated” body; while many in the US political class were elitist, there was a reluctance to make that explicit.  That in 1789 members of the two houses first sat with senators assembling in a room on the first floor while representatives convened downstairs is a charming anecdote but is regarded by historians as a piece of architectural determinism, the downstairs room in New York’s Federal Hall being large enough for all the representatives, the less multitudinous senators able to fit upstairs.  Still, although the use “upper” & “lower” was already deeply embedded in the Anglo-American constitutional lexicon before Congress first met in the upstairs-downstairs arrangement, some did note the coincidence and it’s not impossible use of the terminology at least briefly was reinforced.  The room-allocation certainly didn’t create the use.

However, by the early nineteenth century, “upper house” and “lower house” routinely appeared as neutral descriptive terms in newspapers, parliamentary manuals, and political commentary, used of the Congress as well as state legislatures.  Modern political scientists have analysed the texts and concluded the use was merely of convenience as verbal shorthand because the terms were so well understood; it was in no way an attempt to “put meaning into the words of the constitution”.  Although there were obvious structural similarities with the UK parliament, the social and political history was different but while the powers of the House of Lords greatly were curtailed by the Parliament Acts (1911 & 1949), the US Senate became one of democracy’s more powerful “second chambers” in that it has a power of veto over executive appointments (judges, ambassadors, members of the cabinet etc) and no POTUS may have a treaty with a foreign entity ratified without the concurrence of the Senate.  Along with the Australian Senate (routinely and uncontroversially styled as an “upper house”) which has the power to force governments from office, the US Senate is one of the democratic world’s more powerful, the term in the jargon of political science being “strong bicameralism.”

Kim Jong-Un (Kim III, b 1982; Supreme Leader of DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)) since 2011) leads the bowing ceremony before the portraits of Kim Il-Sung (Kim I, 1912–1994; Great Leader of DPRK, 1948-1994, left) and Kim Jong-Il (Kim II, 1941-2011; Dear Leader of DPRK, 1994-2011, right), 9th Congress of the WPK (Workers' Party of Korea), April 25 House of Culture, Pyongyang, 19-25 February 2026.  Unanimously, delegates paid tribute to the Supreme Leader and declared it the “best congress ever”.

In political use, although a “party congress” and “party caucus” both involve the party’s members meeting together, they are almost always different institutions.  By convention, a party congress is a large formal gathering of the membership or selected delegates.  These tend in scope to be national or regional and concerned with matters such as policy platforms, leadership and the endorsement of candidates although in recent decades they have become carefully managed (and scripted), set-piece events designed to demonstrate (or, for public purposes, to emulate) unity.  Held periodically and being now highly structured, they fulfil a ceremonial as well as practical purpose although functionally, most are now wholly unnecessary; dating from a time before modern communications when the only way for things to be “thrashed out” was for members to assemble to debate and vote, most “decisions” announced at party congresses have been worked out well in advance with the debates and announcements just “window-dressing” and a type of “brand identity”.  Most are now far removed from the origin in European, socialist or communist traditions but in authoritarian systems like those in the PRC (People’s Republic of China) or DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)), the visual choreography is tighter even than that imposed by political machines in the West.

A party caucus inherently is a smaller gathering because almost always it’s restricted to elected or appointed members within a legislature or other (sometimes nominally) deliberative body.  The exact practice differs between (and sometimes even within) countries but, as a general principle, in parliamentary systems a caucus describes all elected legislators from one party meeting privately to discuss matters such as strategy, leadership coordination, or internal discipline.  The terms “party congress” and “party room” are thus usually interchangeable although there are instances where “caucus” has for historic reasons become so associated with one party that others avoid the label.  An obvious example is the ALP (Australian Labor Party (or as some prefer, Agitprop, Lies & Propaganda)) where use of “caucus” is entrenched so other parties tend to use “party meeting”, “party room” etc.  Similarly, in the US, while the congressional Democrats collectively are a “caucus” (sharing the noun with baboons which seems a nice touch), the Republicans are a “conference”.  Membership can be “loose”, the self-described “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders (b 1941; senior US senator (Independent, Vermont) since 2007) having long “caucused with the Democrats”.  In the US, “caucus” was adopted for certain versions of “primary contests” in which candidates are selected (in other places the process might be called “pre-selection”).

Joe Biden (b 1942; VPOTUS 2009-2017 & POTUS 2021-2025) and his wife, Dr Jill Biden (b 1951) at a campaign stop during the Iowa Caucuses, Council Bluffs, Iowa, 30 November, 2019.

In the US, caucuses are now less common and the party machines would be delighted were they wholly to go extinct because, unlike primaries which are conducted at locations which are easily managed, caucuses are from the “horse & buggy” era and are geographically spread, often taking places in people’s houses.  For candidates, it can be a logistical nightmare but so culturally entrenched are the famous “Iowa Caucuses” which “kick off” the four-yearly cycle of presidential elections that whatever happens elsewhere, Iowa won’t be for turning.  In the US, there are also “sub-set caucuses” such as the “Congressional Black Caucus” and, upon formation in 1971, it was envisaged as a “non-party” gathering at which Democrats, Republicans and others could assemble to discuss matters of especial interest to the African-American community.  Remarkably, from time to time, Republicans have attended meetings.  The proliferation of caucuses within the Democratic Party has increased and there are caucuses labelled as “Jewish”, “Progressive”, “Muslim”, “women’s”, “African American”, “Education”, “Hispanic”, “Veterans”, “LGBTQ+”, “Pride”, “Stonewall”, Asian American & Pacific Islander”, “Native” and “Senior”; there may be more because the modern Democratic Party is a fissiparous beast.  

Watercolor of a Viennese ball.  So frequent were the balls at the Congress of Vienna, the Prince de Ligne famously observed “Le Congrès dance beaucoup, mais il ne marche pas” (Congress dances much, but it doesn't walk).

There are many aspects to the relationship between the US and PRC and following the May 2026 meeting in Beijing between Xi Jinping (b 1953; General Secretary of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and paramount leader of the PRC since 2012) and Donald Trump, analysts covered most of them.  There was much on trade, tariffs, military actions (calling events such as invasions “wars” has become unfashionable) in the Middle East or Ukraine, AI (artificial intelligence), oil, the renegade province of Taiwan and more.  What was however most striking about President Xi’s narrative was his observation the PRC and US had much more to gain from “cooperation” than “conflict”.  What Mr Xi seemed to be suggesting was different from earlier concepts which had at times characterized the relationship between the US and the Soviet Union; he wasn’t advocating a revival of “peaceful co-existence” or “détente” but something like a genuine, if unofficial, partnership based on mutual interest.  Although it’s speculative, it seems likely President Xi admires the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) when the ruling elites met over some nine months to construct a post-Napoleonic Europe divided between the great powers, a structure in which (1) the ruling class would be spared another unpleasantness like the French Revolution (1789) and (2) a perpetual balance of power would be maintained, ensuring peace.  That in the two centuries since, the Congress has attached much criticism, largely for imposing a stultifying air of reaction on the continent, does not render the structure irrational nor detract from the rationale and some historians have come to regard the congress more fondly; while it’s not true the consequence was a exactly century of peace in Europe, it created a framework which meant a goodly number of decades notably less blood-soaked than what came before and certainly what followed after 1914.

In geopolitics, for authoritarian leaders to suggest “cooperation” with those more liberal is not new.  Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) in 1940, not best pleased at being at war with the British (the nation he regarded still as Germany’s natural ally), offered London what to many in the British establishment seemed a tempting deal, given the army had just been forced into an hasty and ignominious retreat from the beaches of Dunkirk.  As Hitler imagined the globe under his new order in which the German Empire would extend from the English Channel to the Urals, one feature which fitted in nicely was the British Empire and in return for offering his obviously potent military to assist in its defence, all he wanted from the British was an end to hostilities and “non-interference” in a Europe now under German occupation or hegemony.  The British had their own reasons for rejecting that kind offer but, after the tide of the war had turned, they heard something similar (and possibly about as sincere) from comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953).  At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, the British and Americans first heard comrade Stalin’s idea that the ideal arrangement for the upcoming post-war world was that the Soviets wouldn’t interfere in the way the countries in the Western sphere of influence were handled and in return he expected no interference in the Soviet sphere (basically those nations unfortunate enough to end up behind what came to be called the Iron Curtain).

Deals being done: The Congress of Vienna (1819), engraving by Jean-Baptiste Isabey (1767–1855).

However, the circumstances of 2026 differ greatly from the world of 1815 and what could be achieved at the Congress of Vienna by Lord Castlereagh (1769–1822; UK foreign secretary 1812-1822) and Prince Klemens von Metternich (1773-1859; Foreign Minister of the Austrian Empire 1809-1848 & Chancellor 1821-1848) was a function of what was unique about that time and place.  The so-called Concert System (known also as the Vienna System in a nod to the epoch-making congress) in which the spheres of influence of Europe’s five great powers (Austria, France, Prussia, Russia and the UK) were effectively formalized with mechanisms created to resolve disputes by means other than armed conflict, while a model which could be mapped onto the geopolitical map of 2026 is of course an implausible resurrection because things are different.  Still, Mr Xi is a diligent student of history and is aware how much more productive can be great-power cooperation than conflict, outcome of the latter sometimes as bad for the “winners” as the “losers”.  What he’ll have noticed is Donald Trump genuinely is unique among post-war presidents in that he avowedly has no interest in “spreading democracy” around the globe, content if other countries, whatever their political arrangements buy US goods and services; he cares not at all whether or not they buy the US Constitution.

As Mr Xi could have told him, that’s a sensible position to take because a system which suits one national culture may wholly be incompatible with others and what’s remarkable is not that the US, debatably for the first time since the 1920s, now has a “pragmatic president” but that it took so long for them to get one.  What most distinguished US foreign policy since 1945 was the way it was affected by the much-discussed national characteristic of “exceptionalism”, a collective confidence that proved an asset in a venture like sending men to walk on the moon but in foreign policy has on occasions led the Americans astray.  Essentially, the problem is the idealistic American belief that every problem can be overcome (exemplified by the Pentagon’s standard doctrine of “overwhelming force”) whereas less ambitious realists understand some problems are insoluble and need just endlessly to be “managed”, witness the way the British for so long ran the Raj with a relative handful of troops and administrators.

Horse trading at the Yalta Conference, February 1945, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR, 1882–1945, POTUS 1933-1945, left), comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953, centre) and Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955, right).

The cartoon was by Ernest Howard "E.H." Shepard (1879–1976) and appeared in Punch some days after the conference communiqués were published.  In the UK it was titled The Pellmell of the European Puzzle but, in many other markets, that was changed to The European Hotch-Potch because “pell-mell” was thought obscure.  Pellmell (also as pell-mell) traditionally was used in the sense of “hasty and uncontrolled” so it was at least half-right to apply the term to what was done at Yalta.  Pellmell was from the French pêle-mêle, from the Old French pesle-mesle, reputedly a rhyme based on the stem of mesler (to mix, meddle).  Unlike the Congress of Vienna which absorbed some nine leisurely months between September 1814-June 1815, the Yalta Conference was done in little more than a week but although there were many dinners, there were no balls and no dancing.  So intractable was the position of comrade Stalin on matters of consequence to him, had it lasted nine months it's doubtful the outcomes would greatly have differed.   

President Xi (left) and President Trump (right).  While structuralists might disagree, behaviorists would likely find more similarities than differences.     

While something like a “Congress of Singapore” with global or even extensive regional ambitions would be overreach, it’s not difficult to imagine Mr Xi and Mr Trump at a table demonstrating the “art of the deal(s)”, each sacrificing the odd pawn to secure an uncontested rook or knight (or even a bishop).  The pawns of course might object to being “shuffled around” but as Mr Xi would explain to them: “twas ever thus” and their people will much prefer the fruits of an increasing co-prosperity to abstractions like democracy and the chimera of free speech.  Mr Trump’s background was in the world of corporations and deals rather than politics (as he once admitted, he “bought” politicians as required and was impressed by how cheap they were) so he can relate to someone like Mr Xi who functions as the CEO of a corporate state, more than he can presidents or prime ministers juggling the competing interests upon which they depend.  Like Mr Trump who wants as little as possible to do with the internal affairs of America’s customers (ie other countries), Mr Xi has no wish to waste effort or resources in the pointless business of attempting to impose Beijing’s way of running the PRC on others; good relations and mutually beneficial trade ties being more sensible objectives.  In Mr Xi and Mr Trump, not since a couple of horse-traders like comrade Stalin and Winston Churchill were running their operations have two great powers been headed by a pair as suited to “doing deals”.  While problems like Kashmir and Palestine will need “endless management”, in other places there is scope for a couple of realists to “cooperate” and because Mr Trump (mostly) has purged the US system of tiresome idealists, for the first time in living memory, at least slight progress may be possible.  As at Yalta, in achieving "adjustments" there might be victims but when deals are done, someone always has to pay the price.