Calumny

Calumny (pronounced kal-uhm-nee)

(1) A false statement, maliciously made, designed to injure the reputation of someone or something; a malicious utterance of false charges or misrepresentation; slander; defamation.

(2) The act of uttering calumnies; defamatory words.

(3) Such a false charge or misrepresentation.

(4) As “oath of calumny”, in historic Scots law, a method for the prevention of calumnious and unnecessary suits, by which both parties at the beginning of a cause swear, either personally or through counsel, that the facts set forth by them are true.

1400–1450: From the late Middle English calumnīe (false accusation, slander; objection raised in bad faith), from the fifteenth century Old French calomnie (slander (that in modern French endures as calomnie), from the Latin calumnia (trickery, subterfuge, misrepresentation, malicious charge), the construct being calumn- (thought originally a participle of calvī (to deceive; to trick) + -ia +-y).  The source of the Latin is murky but there are etymologists who maintain the primitive Indo-European cognates include the Ancient Greek kēlein (to bewitch, cast a spell) the Gothic holon (to slander), the Old Norse hol (praise, flattery), the Old English hol (slander) & holian (to betray) and the Old High German huolen (to deceive).  It’s suspected the whole group is from the same root as call.  The English word is a doublet of challenge.  Calumny is a noun & verb, calumniousness, calumniator & calumniation are nouns, calumniate, calumniated & calumniating are verbs, calumniatory & calumnious are adjectives and calumniously is an adverb; the noun plural is calumnies.

The Latin -ia and the Ancient Greek -ία (-ía) & -εια (-eia) were used to form abstract nouns of feminine gender (countries, diseases, species etc and, occasionally, collections of stuff).  The –y suffix was from the Middle English –y & -i, from the Old English -iġ (-y, -ic), from the Proto-Germanic -īgaz (-y, -ic), from the primitive Indo-European -kos, -ikos, & -iḱos (-y, -ic).  It was cognate with the Scots -ie (-y), the West Frisian -ich (-y), the Dutch -ig (-y), the Low German -ig (-y), the German -ig (-y), the Swedish -ig (-y), the Latin -icus (-y, -ic), the Sanskrit -इक (-ika) and the Ancient Greek -ικός (-ikós); a doublet of -ic.  The –y suffix was added to (1) nouns and adjectives to form adjectives meaning “having the quality of” and (2) verbs to form adjectives meaning "inclined to".  Words such as derogation, vilification, disapprobation obloquy, traducement etc can in meaning tend towards calumny don’t of necessity carry the “legal baggage” associated with fraudulent misrepresentation, defamation and such.  The modern slang “diss” (from Jamaican English or AAVE (African American Vernacular English and probably a short form of “disrespect” rather than “disparage”) can describe statements sounding calumnious typically they’re a traducement rather than something defamatory.  The adjective calumnious (slanderous, using calumny) emerged in the late fifteenth century and was the equivalent of the Latin calumniosus.  The verb calumniate (knowingly utter false charges) was from Latin calumniatus, past participle of calumniari (falsely to accuse) in use since the 1550s.  The noun calumniation (act of calumniating) was first documented in the 1540s and was the noun of action from calumniate.  The rarely-used noun calumniator (one who falsely and knowingly accuses another of anything disgraceful or maliciously propagates false reports) was in use by the 1560s, from Latin calumniator, an agent noun from calumniari.

Calumny is of course a feature of political exchanges but lest anyone suspects the twenty-first century represents a low point in public politeness, press reports of eighteenth & nineteenth century election campaigns are available and after reviewing these, readers can decide on which side of the Atlantic discourse was most calumnious.  The word calumny is now not commonly applied to political insults (thought often well-deserved) but is a part of the legal jargon in jurisdictions in the common law tradition.  In law, the use of “calumny” rests on the notions of “false, fraudulent & malicious” and is heard most often in matters of probate (the process of verifying the legality of a will).  In the administration of probate “fraudulent calumny” describes the act of a beneficiary making false representations to the person making their will (the testator or testatrix) about another person, the outcome of which is: (1) the beneficiary making the false representations inherits to a greater extent or (2) the person the subject of those representations inherits less.  While these outcomes may be similar to instances in which “undue influence” has been exercised upon a testator or testatrix, what makes fraudulent calumny different is that some sort of falsehood must be involved.  In matters of undue influence, the motives of the influencer may not be pure or honorable but the method of persuasion is more subtle and need not involve untruths, something that makes proving undue influence notoriously challenging because the testator or testatrix has made and executed the will of their own volition.  The text-books sometimes use the legal slang of the “drip, drip, drip of a slow poison” to distinguish undue influence from the sudden, lethal dose of fraudulent calumny.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Borrowing from criminal law, the familiar maxim mens rea (from the Latin mēns + reus (literally “guilty mind” and the basis of the precept in English common law: Actus non facit reum nisi mens rea sit (the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty), what a liability for fraudulent calumny hinges on is not that a representation was false but that it was by the calumniator known to be false or they were so reckless as to not to verity the authenticity of what they said.  Probate can however be a tangled web and in the case law there have been instances where conduct clearly was calumnious yet fraudulent calumny was not found because it was proved the disinheritance of the subject of the untrue representations (for wholly unrelated reasons) anyway have happened in accordance with the wishes of the testator or testatrix.  So there can be “other contextual reasons” leading to a will being changed and courts can find their existence wholly excludes the possibility of fraudulent calumny or reduce the strength of the “fraudulent calumny argument”, the latter vaguely along the lines of the “contributory negligence” concept in tort law.  As a category of claim to challenge the validity of a will, fraudulent calumny is in most jurisdictions rare for the practical reason it is so seldom successful; that’s not to say the act is necessarily uncommon, just that it’s hard to prove.  In some cases this can be because there’s a complete lack of evidence.  A malicious falsehood might well be told to someone making out their will that has the direct and immediate effect of them disinheriting the slandered party and making the person telling the untruth the sole beneficiary but, if only two people were ever part of a conversation behind closed doors and one is dead, there likely will be no evidence the untruth was ever uttered and while there may be other grounds upon which the will might be challenged, it usually would not be possible to find fraudulent calumny.

Nor is mere “untruth” or “recklessness” enough to sustain a finding of fraudulent calumny.  Were someone to have made any number of false representations to a testator or testatrix, even if it was found their will was in some way disadvantageous to the slandered party, if there’s compelling evidence the representations had no effect of the decisions of the testator or testatrix, there can be no finding of fraudulent calumny because there exists no casual connection between one act and another.  So it’s limited and intent alone does not create grounds.  Even if it can be proven the falsehoods were intended to cause a will to be changed that “guilty mind” become irrelevant if those statements can be shown to have had no effect.  In that it differs from the application of criminal law where, if one attempts to murder someone but is so inept the target (1) suffers no harm, (2) was unaware an attempt on their life had been made, (3) and in some way benefited from the attempt and (4) the perpetrator suffered some injury in making the attempt, the offence of attempted murder has still been committed and the incompetent assassin may be subject to prosecution.  So, on the path to the fraudulent calumny finishing line there are many hurdles and what a claimant must demonstrate is:

(1) One or more false representations were made.

(2) The representation(s) were made to the testator or testatrix.

(3) The representation(s) went to character or conduct of an existing or potential beneficiary of the will.

(4) The representation(s) were made for the purpose of inducing the testator or testatrix to alter their testamentary dispositions either (4.1) to leave more to the person making the false representation(s) or (4.2) exclude or leave less to the subject of the false representation(s).

(5) The false representation(s) must have been made in the knowledge they were untrue or with recklessness as to their truth

(6) On the balance of probabilities (ie, the common law test in civil matters), it was the false representation(s) that induced the induced the testator or testatrix to change their will.

That means it hangs on intent, event, cause and effect, thus the frequency with which lawyers use the phrase “notoriously difficult to prove” when the possibility of fraudulent calumny comes up in conversation; one can prove intent and event and even that the desired effect happened but if the cause was found to be unrelated, there can, as a matter of law, be no fraudulent calumny.  Despite the obstacles, the concept is simple: “The alleged “poisoner” is receiving a greater share of the estate than the claimant believes is (1) fair and (2) in accordance with the deceased’s true wishes and his has been achieved by the poisoner “poisoning” the mind of the testator or testatrix with untruths.”  Although “challenging”, on the basis of the evidence presented, courts can find fraudulent calumny established (although in some cases the judgment has made it difficult to work out “undue influence ended” and “fraudulent calumny began”.  Typically, except for theorists,  that matters little because the outcome is the critical point.  In Edwards v Edwards [2007] EWHC 1119 (Ch), a woman of 86 died some three months after cutting from her will one son & grandson, leaving the remaining son the estate’s sole beneficiary.  The evidence suggested the testatrix had at the time she executed her final will enjoyed full “testamentary capacity” (ie the “being of sound mind” thing) and both understood and approved the document’s contents; the burden to produce “compelling evidence” of undue influence or of fraudulent calumny thus fell upon the claimant seeking to have the new will set-aside in favour of the original executed a decade earlier.

Damn! A Book of Calumny (1918) by Henry Louis “H.L.” Mencken (1880–1956).  Although it was not his fault, Mencken lived too long and even by the 1930s was thought (though not by other curmudgeons) “dated”.  The Mencken of 1918 was however the author at his best, Damn! A Book of Calumny a collection of short, cynical, punchy pieces representative of a certain strain of US thought in the era.

After reviewing the evidence, the judge found the new will had been induced by undue influence and set it aside, restoring the original.  In the summary, the judge listed the principles: (1) There is no presumption of undue influence for testamentary dispositions; the burden lies on the challenger; (2) the facts must be inconsistent with any hypothesis other than undue influence; (3) undue influence may arise through coercion (pressure overbearing the testator’s volition without convincing judgment) or fraud.  He added that “fraudulent calumny” exists where a person “poisons the testator’s mind” against a “natural beneficiary” by dishonest aspersions known to be false or made recklessly as to their truth.  In other words, “fraudulent calumny” may be thought a type of (or element in”) undue influence meaning the latter can be found to exist in the absence of the former but the former is a “flavour of the latter”.  In Edwards v Edwards, the just found both were operative.  Because fraudulent calumny cases are rare, the modern reiteration of principles was helpful.  The judge emphasized that while the relevant standard of proof is the civil balance of probabilities, the evidence must be compelling and the facts inconsistent with any innocent hypothesis.  Although understood as an old legal orthodoxy, the judgment in Edwards v Edwards confirmed fraudulent calumny is a “stand-alone” basis on which a will may be set aside, quite distinct from coercion.

Even in Kremlin the word proved useful.  On 5 March, 1940, comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) had signed an “open-ended death warrant” authorizing Lavrentiy Beria (1899–1953; head of the Soviet secret police 1938-1946) to “apply the supreme penalty, shooting” to Polish POWs (prisoners of war) who refused to accept Soviet authority; consequently almost 22,000 were executed with their the bodies buried in a mass grave in the forest of Katyn.  The corpses were unearthed by the German army in 1943 and Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945; Nazi Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda 1933-1945), instantly alive to the possibility of driving a wedge between the Soviets and its western Allies, arranged a forensic examination through the office of the neutral Swiss Red Cross, their unambiguous findings quickly published by the Germans.  In London, the Polish government-in-exile had long suspected the Soviets were responsible for the missing troops but found their repeated attempts to pursue the matter stonewalled and their protests suppressed.

As a cynical opportunist, comrade Stalin had few peers and not only did he deny his government’s involvement in the mass murder, he accused the “London Poles” (an annoyance to him because he was backing an alternative, “puppet communist government” under his control) of siding with the Nazis, the headline “HITLER’S POLISH COLLABORATORS!” appearing in Pravda on 19 April, 1943; within a week, Moscow had broken off diplomatic relations with the London Poles for failing “to offer a rebuff to the vile Fascist calumny.”  The British and Americans were well-aware of the truth but relations with the Kremlin were in 1943 “tense” because the so-called “second front” (the invasion of Europe from the west) had again been postponed so, not wishing further to antagonize comrade Stalin, on both sides of the Atlantic, blind eye were turned to the telescopes and diplomats inclined to “make a fuss” side-lined or posted somewhere remote.  Not until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 did the new government of Russia admit the truth about the Katyn massacre.

The Calumny of Apelles

Apelles of Kos was one of the most renowned painters in Ancient Greece during the fourth century BC.  The work (remembered as the Calumny of Apelles) that was reputedly his greatest masterpiece was lost but a vivid description by the Syrian-born Greek writer Lucian of Samosata (circa 125–circa 187) survived and a number of artists subsequently have interpreted the text and rendered versions in their own style.  Quite how reliable was Lucian’s ekphrasis (from the Ancient Greek ἔκφρασις (ékphrasis) (literally “I describe” and in modern use understood to mean “a detailed description”) can’t be known but that he was what would now be called a “social commentator” noted for his satires rather than an art critic has made some scholars of Antiquity caution the “description” might contain the odd embellishment or “slant”.  Despite that, it’s the only extant critique of the painting so that’s what artists have had to work with.  Appelles painted his Calumny as a “revenge work” after a rival wrongfully accused him of committing an act of treason against the Egyptian king.

La Calumnia de Apeles, (Calumny of Apelles, circa 1503), engraving in black on ivory laid paper by Girolamo Mocetto (circa 1470-circa 1534) after Andrea Mantegna (1431-1506).

Mocetto based his engraving of a drawing by Mantegna and versions by other artists also exist.  The theme of calumny (false accusation) obviously is a thread running through many societies (certainly in Italy during the dying days of the late Middle Ages) so the attraction to artists is not surprising.  Ever since one stone-age man (or woman) copied another’s cave-painting and claimed the work as original, artists have been accusing each-other of this and that, some claims calumniatory, some more measured.  For historians of art, the print is interesting because it’s a “work in progress”, the shading not yet added to the basilica’s dome.  Mocetto remained true to Lucian’s words but relocated the allegory’s scene to Venice’s Campo Santi Giovanni e Paolo, Andrea del Verrocchio’s (circa 1435–1488) equestrian monument to Bartolomeo Colleoni (1400–1475) standing in the background.  Attended by Ignorance and Suspicion, Midas with his donkey’s ears extends his hand to Calumny while she stands at some distance.  Calumny is the most beautiful woman of her age but is riddled with malignant passions, her fury and wrath symbolized by the blazing torch she holds in one hand, the other dragging by the hair the blameless young man she has slandered; he reaches his hand to the heavens, calling on the gods to bear witness to his innocence.  Calumny is attended to by Envy, pale and wasted away by lingering illness, while following her are Fraud & Conspiracy.  Dressed in tattered black is the mournful Repentance, tears in her eyes as in shame she glances at Truth slowly approaching.

La Calumnia de Apeles (Calumny of Apelles, circa 1497), tempera on panel by Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi (Sandro Botticelli) (circa 1445-1510).

Botticelli’s Calumny is the most famous of the genre and also was true to the spirit of Lucian’s ekphrasis, the figures personifications of vice & virtue, or the powerful & powerless (the king and victim).  From left to right, they represent (1) Truth, nude and pointing upwards to Heaven, (2) Repentance, in black (3) Perfidy (Conspiracy), in red and yellow, over the innocent half-naked (4) victim on the floor being pulled forward by the hair by (5) Calumny (Slander), in white and blue and holding a flaming torch, (6) Fraud (behind), tending to Calumny's hair, (7) Rancour (Envy), a bearded and hooded man in black, holding his hand towards (8) the king's eyes to obscure his view.  On the throne, the king has the donkey's ears of King Midas, while (9) Ignorance on his right and (10) Suspicion to his left grasp the ears as they whisper into them.  The king extends his hand towards Calumny, but his gaze is averted.  Historians say it’s at least possible Botticelli had in mind some unfortunate slandered chap (perhaps himself) but some years after he finished the work, the Florentine authorities received an anonymous letter, accusing the artist of “keeping a boy” and practicing homosexuality.  There’s no record of any prosecution being initiated and the consensus is the accusation was likely motivated by envy, vengeance or other of the vices Apelles of Kos depicted, all those years ago.  So it was a calumnious letter but not necessarily an untruth, Botticelli’s proclivities a matter of historic record.  The pattern remains current; when politicians sometimes complain a prosecution of them is “politically motivated”, that may well be true but doesn’t mean they’re not as guilty as sin of that with which they’ve been charged.

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 window.  Most 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 glamour.  The 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.