Viceroy

Viceroy (pronounced vahys-roi)

(1) A person appointed to rule a country or province as the deputy of the sovereign and exercising the powers of the sovereign.

(2) A brightly marked American butterfly (Limenitis archippus), closely mimicking the monarch butterfly in coloration but slightly smaller, hence the analogy with a sovereign and their representative.

1515–1525: From the Middle French, the construct being vice- + roy.  Vice was from the Old French vice (deputy), from the Latin vice (in place of), an ablative form of vicis.  In English (and other languages) the vice prefix was used to indicate an office in a subordinate position including air vice-marshal, vice-admiral, vice-captain, vice-chair, vice-chairman, vice-chancellor, vice-consul, vice-director, vice president, vice-president, vice-regent & vice-principal.  Roy was from the Middle English roy & roye, from the Old French roi (king), from the Latin rēgem, accusative of rēx (king) and related to regere (to keep straight, guide, lead, rule), from the primitive Indo-European root reg- (move in a straight line) with derivatives meaning “to direct in a straight line" thus the notion of "to lead, rule".  It was a doublet of loa, rajah, Rex, rex and rich.  The noun plurals was roys.  The wife of a viceroy was a vicereine, the word also used for female viceroys of whom there have been a few.  The American butterfly was named in 1881.  Viceroy and viceroy are nouns and viceregal is a noun and adjective; the noun plural is viceroys.

The noun viceregent (the official administrative deputy of a regent) attracted the attention of critics because it was so frequently confused with vicegerent (the official administrative deputy of a ruler, head of state, or church official).  Despite the perceived grandiosity of vicegerent, gained from association with offices such as the Pope as Vicar of Christ on Earth or the regent of a sovereign state, it’s merely generally descriptive of one person substituting for another and can be as well-applied to the shop assistant minding the store while the grocer has lunch.  The area of regency can be a linguistic tangle because a regent is a particular kind of viceregent and there was a time when viceregent was used instead of the correct vicegerent and was sometimes used pleonastically for regent.  The grammar Nazis never liked this and attributed the frequency of occurrence to the preference of viceregal rather than vicereoyal as the adjective of viceroy.

Under the Raj, under the pith helmets: King George V, Emperor of India with Lord Hardinge, Viceroy of India, Government House, Calcutta 1911.

In the rather haphazard way British rule in India evolved, the office of Governor-General of India was created by the Charter Act of 1833 and in an early example of the public-private partnership (PPP), the post was essentially administrative and was both appointed by and reported to the directors of the East India Company, functioning also as an informal conduit between the company and government.  The system lasted until 1858 when, in reaction to the Indian Mutiny (1857), the parliament passed the Government of India Act, creating the role of Viceroy (wholly assuming the office of Governor General), the new office having both executive and diplomatic authority and reporting (through the newly-established India Office) to the British Crown.  The viceroy was appointed by the sovereign on the advice of the parliament (ie the prime-minister) and it is this structure which is remembered as the British Raj (from the Hindi rāj (state, nation, empire, realm etc), the rule of the British Crown on the subcontinent although the maps of empire which covered the whole region as pink to indicate control were at least a bit misleading.

Viceroy butterfly.

The best-known viceroys were probably those who headed the executive government of India under the Raj although other less conspicuous appointments were also made including to Ireland when the whole island was a constituent part of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801-1922).  As a general principle (and there were exceptions), in British constitutional law, the Dominions and colonies that were held in the name of the parliament of Great Britain were administered by Governors-General while colonies held in the name of the British Crown were governed by viceroys.  Between 1858-1947, there were twenty viceroys of India including some notable names in British politics such as Lord Lansdowne (1888–1894) who introduced the Indian Councils Act and raised the age of consent for girls from ten to twelve, Lord Curzon (1899–1905) who introduced the Indian Universities Act and presided over the partition of Bengal, Lord Hardinge (1910-1916) who was in office during the Mesopotamian Campaign, Lord Irwin (1926–1931) (better known as Lord Halifax) who summoned the first round table conference and Lord Mountbatten (1947), the last Viceroy of India who, reflecting the change in constitutional status upon independence, was between 1947-1948 briefly the new nation's first Governor-General.  He was also the second-last, the office abolished in 1950 when the Republic of India was proclaimed.

Lindsay Lohan’s NFT for Lullaby with viceroy butterflies.

In 2021, it was announced Lindsay Lohan's non-fungible token (NFT) electronic music single Lullaby had sold for 1,000,001 in Tron (TRX) cryptocurrency (US$85,484.09).   Lullaby featured a vocal track over a beat produced by Manuel Riva and was the first NFT by a woman to be sold on #fansForever, a marketplace created for dealing in celebrity NFTs.  The graphics of the NFT Tron had a viceroy butterfly flapping its wings in unison with Ms Lohan’s eyelids to the beat of Lullaby.  Because of the underlying robustness, the blockchain and the NFT concept has an assured future for many purposes but to date the performance of celebrity items as stores of value has been patchy.

1936 Rolls-Royce Phantom III (7.7 litre (447 cubic inch) V12; chassis 3AZ47, engine Z24B, body 8594 in style 6419) by Hooper, built for the Marquess of Linlithgow (1887-1952) who served as Viceroy of India (1936-1944), seen in its original configuration with a chauffeur (left) and as re-bodied during 1952-1953 (right).  In the centre is a British plumed helmet, circa 1920, this one with a skull in gilt metal, mounted with unusually elaborate gilt ornamentation including helmet-plate (itself mounted with a white metal hobnail star bearing gilt Royal Arms), ornate gilt chins-scales with claw ends and an untypically extravagant white swan's feather plume, notably longer than regulation length.  It was used by the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at Arms, a body formed in 1539 and staffed by former army officers as the “nearest guard” to the sovereign. The helmet is based on the “Albert” pattern for Household Cavalry, a style in use for some 150 years.

Viceroys of India were always rather exalted creatures, their status reflecting India’s allure as the glittering prize of the empire and upon recall to London, were usually raised to (or in) the peerage as marquesses while a retiring prime-minister might expect at most an earldom, one notch down.  Their special needs (and some were quite needy) in office also had to be accommodated, an example of which is Lord Linlithgow’s 1937 Rolls-Royce Phantom III, built with a capacity for seven passengers (although no luggage which was always carried separately).  The coachwork by Hooper was most unusual, the engine’s side-panels being 1½ inches taller than standard, a variation required to somewhat balance the very tall passenger compartment, the dimensions of which were dictated by the viceroy’s height of 6’ 7” (2.0 m), the plumed hats of his role elongating things further.  Such high-roof-lines were not uncommon on state limousines and have been seen on Mercedes-Benz built for the Holy See and the Daimlers & Rolls-Royces in the British Royal Mews.  Delivered in dark blue with orange picking out lines and coronets on the rear doors, the interior was trimmed in dark blue leather with two sets of loose beige covers, the woodwork in solid figured walnut rather than veneer.  Signed-off 21 July 1936 and shipped to Bombay (now Mubai) on the SS Bhutan on 24 July, Hooper’s invoice to the India Office listed the price of the chassis at Stg£1405, the coachwork at Stg£725 and a total cost of Stg£2130.

After the Raj, the car passed into private hands and in 1952 was returned to the Hooper works in Westminster for re-modeling, the most obvious aspects of which were the lowering of the roof-line and a re-finishing in grey.  The high cowl (scuttle) and hood (bonnet) line were however retained so the re-configuration actually replaced one discontinuity with another but the changes certainly made it an interesting period piece and its now one of three Phantom IIIs in the collection assembled by Pranlal Bhogilal (1937-2011), displayed in his Auto World Vintage Car Museum in Kathwada, on the outskirts of Ahmedabad.

Vernacular

Vernacular (pronounced vuh-nak- yuh-ler (U) or ver-nak-yuh-ler (Non-U))

(1) In linguistics, the dialect of the native or indigenous people as opposed to that of those (in Western terms) the literary or learned; the native speech or language of a place; the language of a people or a national language.

(2) In literature, expressed or written in the native language of a place, as literary works.

(3) Using, of or related to such language.

(4) Plain, everyday speech or dialect, including colloquialisms, as opposed to standard, literary, liturgical, or scientific idiom.

(5) In architecture, a style of architecture exemplifying the commonest techniques, decorative features, and materials of a particular historical period, region, or group of people.

(6) Noting or pertaining to the common name for a plant or animal, as distinguished from its Latin scientific name.

(7) The language or vocabulary peculiar to a class or profession.

(8) Any medium or mode of expression that reflects popular taste or indigenous styles.

(9) In linguistic anthropology, language lacking standardization or a written form.

1599: From the Latin vernāculus (household, domestic, indigenous, of or pertaining to home-born slaves), a diminutive of verna (a native; a home-born slave (slave born in the master's household)) although etymologists note the lack of evidence to support this derivation, verna of Etruscan origin. Now used in English almost always in the sense of Latin vernacula vocabula, in reference to language, the noun sense “native speech or language of a place” dating from 1706.  In technical use, linguistic anthropologists use neo-vernacular and unvernacular while in medicine, epidemiologists distinguish vernacular diseases (restricted to a defined group) from those induced by external influences.  There are also variations within the vernacular, concepts like “street vernacular” or “mountain vernacular” used to differentiate sub-sets of native languages, based on geography or some demographic; in this the idea is similar to expressions like jargon, argot, dialect or slang.  Vernacular is a noun & adjective, vernacularism & vernacularist are nouns and vernacularly is an adverb; the noun plural is vernaculars.

Cannabis (known also as marijuana) is a psychoactive drug from the cannabis plant (Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis).  In the vernacular it's "weed" or any one of literally hundreds of other terms.

Vernacular and other Latin

In the intricate world of linguistics, there are many types of Latin, many of them technical differentiations between the historic later variations (Medieval Latin; New Latin, Enlightenment Latin) from what is (a little misleadingly) called Classical Latin (or just “Latin”) but there was also a Latin vernacular referred to as vulgar Latin, one of many forks:

Vulgar Latin (also as popular Latin or colloquial Latin) was the spectrum of non-formal registers of Latin spoken from the Late Roman Republic onward and the what over centuries evolved into a number of Romance languages.  It was the common speech of the ancient Romans, which is distinguished from standard literary Latin and is the ancestor of the Romance languages.

Dog Latin (also as bog Latin (ie “toilet humor”)): Bad, erroneous pseudo-Latin, often amusing constructions designed to resemble the appearance and especially the sound of Latin, many of which were coined by students in English schools & universities.  The “joke names” used in Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) (Sillius Soddus, Biggus Dickus & Nortius Maximus) are examples of dog Latin.

Pig Latin: A type of wordplay in which (English) words are altered by moving the leading phonetic of a word to the end and appending -ay, except when the word begins with a vowel, in which case "-way" is suffixed with no leading phonetic change.

Apothecary's Latin: Latin as it was supposed spoken by a barbarian, reflecting the (probably not wholly unjustified) prejudices of the educated at the pretentions of tradesmen and shopkeepers.

Legal Latin: Latin phrases or terms used as a shorthand encapsulation of legal doctrines, rules, precepts and concepts).

Medical Latin: This evolved into a (more or less) standardized list of medical abbreviations, based on the Latin originals and used as a specific technical shorthand.

Barracks Latin: (pseudo Latin on the lines of dog Latin but usually with some military flavor, often noted for a tendency to vulgarity).

Ecclesiastical Latin: (also as Church Latin or Liturgical Latin), a fork of Latin developed in late Antiquity to suit the particular discussions of Christianity and still used in Christian liturgy, theology, and church administration (events in 2013 confirming that papal resignations are written and delivered in ecclesiastical Latin).  Technically, it’s a fork of Classical Latin but includes words from Vulgar & Medieval Latin as well as from Greek and Hebrew, sometimes re-purposed with meanings specific to Christianity (and sometimes just the Church of Rome).

The idea of the difference is best remembered in the example of the Vulgate Bible, the Latin translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek made by Saint Jerome (circa 345-420), the details of his interpretations (which tended to favor the role of the institutional church rather than the personal relationship between Christ and individual Christian) for centuries the source of squabble schism.  Vulgate was from the Latin vulgāta, feminine singular of vulgātus (broadcast, published, having been made known among the people; made common; prostituted, having been made common), perfect passive participle of vulgō (broadcast, make known).  When after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965), it was decided to permit the celebration of the mass in local languages rather than ecclesiastical Latin, such use was said to be “in the vernacular”.

Under the Raj: three marquises, three viceroys; Lords Lytton (left), Rippon (centre) and Lansdowne (right).  Upon leaving office, UK prime-ministers were usually granted an earldom but viceroys of India were created Marquises, a notch higher in the peerage.

Under the Raj, there were many vernacular languages; indeed, never did the colonial administrators determine just how many existed, all the fascinated dons giving up after counting hundreds and finding yet more existed.  One difficulty this did present was that it was hard to monitor (and if need be censor) all the criticism which might appear in non-English language publications and, because at the core of the British Empire was racism, violence and rapacious theft of other peoples’ lands and wealth, criticism was not uncommon.  In an attempt to suppress these undercurrents of dissatisfaction, the viceroy (Lord Lytton, 1831–1891; Viceroy of India 1876-1880) imposed the Vernacular Press Act (1878), modelled on earlier Irish legislation, the origins of the word in the Latin verna (a slave born in the master's household) not lost on Western-educated Indians.  Not content with mere suppression, Lord Lytton also created an operation to feed to the press what he wanted printed, using bribery where required.  Fake news was soon a part of these feeds and some historians have suggested the act probably stimulated more resentment than it contained.  In 1881, Lytton’s successor (Lord Rippon, 1827–1909; Viceroy of India 1880-1884) withdrew the act but the damage was done.  The legislative reforms of the viceroys of India varied in intent and consequence.  Lord Lansdowne (1845–1927; Viceroy of India 1888-1894) enacted the Age of Consent Act (1891), raising the age of consent for sexual intercourse for girls (married or unmarried), from ten to twelve, any violation an offence of statutory rape.  Those who like to defend what they claim was the civilizing mission of empire sometimes like to cite this but seem never to dwell on the marriage age for girls in England being twelve as late as 1929.

Consecutive

Consecutive (pronounced kuhn-sek-yuh-tiv)

(1) Following one another in uninterrupted succession or order; successive without interruption.

(2) Marked or characterized by logical sequence (such as chronological, alphabetical or numerical sequence).

(3) In grammar & linguistics, as “consecutive clause”, a linguistic form that implies or describes an event that follows temporally from another (expressing consequence or result).

(4) In musical composition, a sequence of notes or chords which results from repeated shifts in pitch of the same interval (an alternative term for “parallel”).

1605-1615: From the sixteenth century French consécutif, from the Medieval Latin cōnsecūtīvus, from the Latin cōnsecūtus (follow up; having followed), from consequī (to pursue) & cōnsequor (to travel).  The construct was consecut(ion) + -ive.  Consecution dates from the early fifteenth century and by the 1530s was used in the sense of “proceeding in argument from one proposition to another in logical sequence”.  It was from the Middle English consecucioun (attainment), from the Latin consecutionem (nominative consecution), noun of action from the past-participle stem of consequi (to follow after), from an assimilated form of com (in the sense of “with, together”) + sequi (to follow (from the primitive Indo-European root sekw- (to follow).  The meaning “any succession or sequence” emerged by the 1650s.  The Latin cōnsecūtiō (to follow after) was from the past participle of cōnsequor (to follow, result, reach).  The –ive suffix was from the Anglo-Norman -if (feminine -ive), from the Latin -ivus.  Until the fourteenth century, all Middle English loanwords from the Anglo-Norman ended in -if (actif, natif, sensitif, pensif etc) and, under the influence of literary Neolatin, both languages introduced the form -ive.  Those forms that have not been replaced were subsequently changed to end in -y (hasty, from hastif, jolly, from jolif etc).  The antonyms are inconsecutive & unconsecutive but (except in some specialized fields of mathematics) “non-sequential” usually conveys the same meaning.  Like the Latin suffix -io (genitive -ionis), the Latin suffix -ivus is appended to the perfect passive participle to form an adjective of action.  Consecutive is a noun & adjective, consecutiveness is a noun and consecutively is an adverb; the noun plural is consecutives.

In sport, the most celebrated consecutive sequence seems to be things in three and that appears to first to have been institutionalized in cricket where for a bowler to take three wickets with three consecutive deliveries in the same match was first described in 1879 as a “hat trick”.  Because of the rules of cricket, there could be even days between these deliveries because a bowler might take a wicket with the last ball he delivered in the first innings and the first two he sent down in the second.  A hat trick however can happen only within a match; two in one match and one in another, even if consecutive, doesn’t count.  Why the rare feat came to be called “hat trick” isn’t certain, the alternative explanations being (1) an allusion to the magician’s popular stage trick of “pulling three rabbits out of the hat” (there had earlier also been a different trick involving three actions and a hat) or (2) the practice of awarding the successful bowler a hat as a prize; hats in the nineteenth century were an almost essential part of the male wardrobe and thus a welcome gift.  The “hat trick” terminology extended to other sports including rugby (a player scoring three tries in a match), football (soccer) & ice hockey (a player scoring three goals in a match) and motor racing (a driver securing pole position, setting the fastest lap time and winning a race).  It has become common in sport (and even politics (a kind of sport)) to use “hat trick” of anything in an uninterrupted sequence of three (winning championships, winning against the same opponent over three seasons etc) although “threepeat” (the construct being three + (re)peat) has become popular and to mark winning three long-established premium events (not always in the same season) there are “triple crowns).  Rugby’s triple crown is awarded to whichever of the “home countries” (England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales) wins all three matches that season; US Horse racing’s triple crown events are the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes and the Belmont Stakes.

Graham Hill (1929–1975) in BRM P57 with the famous (but fragile) open-stack exhausts, Monaco Grand Prix, 3 June 1962.  Hill is the only driver to have claimed motor-racing's classic Triple Crown.

The term is widely used in motorsport but the classic version is the earliest and consists of the Indianapolis 500, the 24 Hours of Le Mans and the Formula One (F1) World Drivers' Championship (only one driver ever winning all three) and there’s never been any requirement of “consecutiveness”; indeed, now that F1 drivers now rarely appear in other series while contracted, it’s less to happen.

Donald Trump, a third term and the Twenty-second Amendment

Steve Bannon (left) and Donald Trump (right).

Although the MAGA (Make America Great Again) team studiously avoided raising the matter during the 2024 presidential election campaign, while Donald Trump (b 1946; US president (POTUS) 2017-2021 and since 2025) was president elect awaiting inauguration, Steve Bannon (b 1957 and a most prominent MAGA operative) suggested there’s a legal theory (that term may be generous) which could be relevant in allowing him to run again in 2028, by-passing the “two-term limit” in the US Constitution.  Speaking on December 15 at the annual gala dinner of New York’s Young Republican Club’s (the breeding ground of the state’s right-wing fanatics), Mr Bannon tantalized the guests by saying “…maybe we do it again in 28?”, his notion of the possibility a third Trump term based on advice received from Mike Davis (1978, a lawyer who describes himself as Mr Trump’s “viceroy” and was spoken of in some circles as a potential contender for attorney general in a Trump administration).  Although the Twenty-second Amendment to the constitution states: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”, Mr Davis had noted it was at least arguable this applied only to “consecutive” terms so as Mr Bannon confirmed, there was hope.  Warming to the topic, Mr Bannon went on to say :“Donald John Trump is going to raise his hand on the King James Bible and take the oath of office, his third victory and his second term.” (the MAGA orthodoxy being he really “won” the 2020 election which was “stolen” from him by the corrupt “deep state”.

Legal scholars in the US have dismissed the idea the simple, unambiguous phrase in the amendment could be interpreted in the way Mr Bannon & Mr Davis have suggested.  In the common law world, the classic case in the matter of how words in acts or statutes should be understood by courts is Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers (1891) AC 107, a bills of exchange case, decided by the House of Lords, then the UK’s final court of appeal.  Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers was a landmark case in the laws relating to negotiable instruments but of interest here is the way the Law Lords addressed significant principles regarding the interpretation of words in statutes, the conclusion being the primary goal of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intention of Parliament as expressed in the statute and that intention must be derived from the language of the statute, interpreted in its natural and ordinary sense, unless the context or subject matter indicates otherwise.  What the judgment did was clarify that a statute may deliberately depart from or modify the common law and courts should not assume a statute is merely a restatement of common law principles unless the statute's language makes this clear.  The leading opinion was written by Lord Herschell (Farrer Herschell, 1837–1899; Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain 1886 & 1892-1895) who held that if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, it should be interpreted as it stands, without assuming it is subject to implicit common law principles; only if the language is ambiguous may courts look elsewhere for context and guidance.

So the guiding principle for courts is the words of a statute should be understood with what might be called their “plain, simple meaning” unless they’re not clear and unambiguous.  While the US Supreme Court recently has demonstrated it does not regard itself as bound even its own precedents and certainly not those of a now extinct UK court, few believe even the five most imaginative of the nine judges could somehow construe a constitutional amendment created for the explicit purpose of limiting presidents to two terms could be read down to the extent of “…more than twice…” being devalued to “…more than twice in a row…”.  Still, it was a juicy chunk of bleeding raw meat for Mr Bannon to toss to his ravenous audience.

The ratification numbers: Ultimately, the legislatures of 41 of the then 48 states ratified the amendment with only Massachusetts and Oklahoma choosing to reject.  

What the Twenty-second amendment did was limit the number of times someone could be elected president.  Proposed on 21 March 1947, the ratification process wasn’t completed until 27 February 1951, a time span of time span: 3 years, 343 days which is longer than all but one of the other 26, only the Twenty-seventh (delaying laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives) took longer, a remarkable 202 years, 223 days elapsing between the proposal on 25 September 1789 and the conclusion on 7 May 1992; by contrast, the speediest was the Twenty-sixth which lowered the voting age to 18, its journey absorbed only 100 days between 23 March-1 July 1971.  While not too much should be read into it, it’s of interest the Eighteenth (prohibiting the manufacturing or sale of alcoholic drinks within the US) required 1 year, 29 days (18 December 1917-16 January 1919) whereas the Twenty-first (repealing the Eighteenth) was done in 288 days (little more than half the time); proposed on 20 February 1933, the process was completed on 5 December the same year.

The path to the Twenty-second amendment began when George Washington (1732–1799; first POTUS, 1789-1797) choose not to seek a third term, his reasons including (1) a commitment to republican principles which required the presidency not be perceived as a life-long or vaguely monarchical position, (2) the importance of a peaceful transition of power to demonstrate the presidency was a temporary public service, not a permanent entitlement and (3) a desire not to see any excessive concentration of power in one individual or office.  Historians have noted Washington’s decision not to seek a third term was a deliberate effort to establish a tradition of limited presidential tenure, reflecting his belief this would safeguard the republic from tyranny and ensure no individual indefinitely could dominate government.

AI (Artificial Intelligence) generated image by Stable Diffusion of Lindsay Lohan and Donald Trump enjoying a coffee in Trump Tower's coffee chop. 

For more than a century, what Washington did (or declined to do) was regarded as a constitutional convention and no president sought more than two terms.  Theodore Roosevelt (TR, 1858–1919; POTUS 1901-1909), celebrating his re-election in 1904 appeared to be moved by the moment when, unprompted, he announced: “Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for or accept another nomination” and he stuck to the pledge, arranging for William Howard Taft (1857–1930; POTUS 1909-1913 & chief justice of the SCOTUS (US Supreme Court) 1921-1930) to be his successor, confident he’d continue to pursue a progressive programme.  Taft however proved disappointingly conservative and Roosevelt decided in 1912 to seek a third term.  To critics who quoted at him his earlier pledge, he explained that “…when a man at breakfast declines the third cup of coffee his wife has offered, it doesn’t mean he’ll never in his life have another cup.”  Throughout the 1912 campaign, comedians could get an easy laugh out of the line: “Have another cup of coffee”? and to those who objected to his violating Washington’s convention, he replied that what he was doing was “constitutional” which of course it was.

Puck magazine in 1908 (left) and 1912 (right) wasn't about to let Theodore Roosevelt forget what he'd promised in 1904.  The cartoon on the left was an example of accismus (an expression of feigned uninterest in something one actually desires).  Accismus was from the Latin accismus, from Ancient Greek ακκισμός (akkismós) (prudery).  Puck Magazine (1876-1918) was a weekly publication which combined humor with news & political satire; in its use of cartoons and caricatures it was something in the style of today's New Yorker but without quite the same tone of seriousness.

Roosevelt didn’t win the Republican nomination because the party bosses stitched thing up for Taft so he ran instead as a third-party candidate, splitting the GOP vote and thereby delivering the White House to the Democrats but he gained more than a quarter of the vote, out-polling Taft and remains the most successful third-party candidate ever so there was that.  His distant cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR, 1882–1945, POTUS 1933-1945) was the one to prove the convention could be ignored and he gained not only a third term in 1940 but also a fourth in 1944.  FDR was not only a Democrat but also a most subversive one and when Lord Halifax (Edward Wood, 1881–1959; British Ambassador to the United States 1940-1946) arrived in Washington DC to serve as ambassador, he was surprised when one of a group of Republican senators with whom he was having dinner opened proceedings with: “Before you speak, Mr Ambassador, I want you to know that everyone in this room regards Mr Roosevelt as a bigger dictator than Hitler or Mussolini.  We believe he is taking this country to hell as quickly as he can.”  As a sentiment, it sounds very much like the discourse of the 2024 campaign.

"The Trump Dynasty has begun" four term coffee mugs (currently unavailable) created for the 2020 presidential campaign. 

The Republicans truly were appalled by Roosevelt’s third and fourth terms and as soon as they gained control of both houses of Congress began the process of adding an amendment to the constitution which would codify in that document the two-term limit Washington has sought to establish as a convention.  It took longer than usual but the process was completed in 1951 when the became part of the constitution and were Mr Trump to want to run again in 2028, it would have to be repealed, no easy task because such a thing requires not only the concurrence of two thirds of both the House of Representatives & Senate but also three quarters of the legislatures of the 50 states.  In other countries where presidential term limits have appeared tiresome to those who have no intention of leaving office the “work-arounds” are usually easier and Mr Trump may cast the odd envious eye overseas.  In Moscow, Mr Putin (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) solved the problem by deciding he and his prime-minister temporarily should swap jobs (though not authority) while he arranged a referendum to effect the necessary changes to the Russian Constitution.  The point about referendums in Russia was explained by comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) who observed: “it matters not who votes, what matters is who gets to count the votes.”  Barring accidents or the visitation of the angel of death, Mr Putin is now set to remain as president until at least the mid-2030s.  

Some mutual matters of interest: Donald Trump (left) and Vladimir Putin (right).

There have been many African presidents who have "arranged" for constitutional term limits to be "revised" but the most elegant in the handling of this was Pierre Nkurunziza (1964–2020; president of Burundi 2005-2020) who simply ignored the tiresome clause and announced he would be standing for a third term, tidying up loose ends by having Burundi's Constitutional Court declare the president was acting in accordance with the law.  It would seem the principle of statutory interpretation in Bank of England v Vagliano Brothers wasn't brought before the court (formerly part of the empire of Imperial Germany and later a Belgian-administered territory under a League of Nations mandate, Burundi follows the civil law tradition rather than the common law inheritance from the old British Empire) and shortly before the verdict was handed down, one judge fled into exile, claiming the government had applied "pressure" on the court to deliver a ruling favorable to the president.

For most of the republic's existence, holders of the office of VPOTUS (vice-president of the US) tended to be obscure figures noted only if they turned out to be crooks like Spiro Agnew (1918–1996; VPOTUS 1969-1973) or assumed the presidency in one circumstance or another and during the nineteenth century there was a joke about two brothers: “One ran off to sea and the other became vice-president; neither were ever heard from again.”  That was of course an exaggeration but it reflected the general view of the office which has few formal duties and can only ever be as powerful or influential as a president allows although the incumbent is “a heartbeat from the presidency”.  John Nance Garner III (1868–1967, VPOTUS 1933-1941), a reasonable judge of these things, once told Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; VPOTUS 1961-1963 & POTUS 1963-1969) being VPOTUS was “not worth a bucket of warm piss” (which in polite company usually is sanitized as “...bucket of warm spit”).  In the US, a number of VPOTUSs have become POTUS and some have worked out well although of late the record has not been encouraging, the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961, POTUS 1969-1974) and Joe Biden (b 1942; VPOTUS 2008-2017, POTUS 2021-2025) 1963-1968, all ending badly, in despair, disgrace and decrepitude respectively.

Still, in the post-war years, the VPOTUS has often assumed a higher profile or been judged to be more influential, the latter certainly true of Dick Cheney (b 1941; VPOTUS 2001-2009) and some have even been given specific responsibilities such as LBJ’s role as titular head of the space program (which worked out well) or Kamala Harris (b 1964; VPOTUS 2021-2025) co-ordinating the response to difficulties on the southern border (a role in which either she failed or never attempted depending on the source).  So wonderfully unpredictable is Donald Trump that quite what form the Vance VPOTUSship will assume is guesswork but conspiracy theorists already are speculating part of MAGA forward-planning is to have Mr Vance elected POTUS in 2028, simply as part of a work-around in a constitutional jigsaw puzzle.

The conspiracy revolves around the words in Section 1 of the Twenty-second Amendment: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice” and even the most optimistic MAGA lawyers concede not even Brett Kavanaugh (b 1965; associate justice of the SCOTUS since 2018) or Clarence Thomas (b 1948; associate justice of SCOTUS since 1991) could construct an interpretation which would allow Mr Trump to be elected for a third term.  The constitution is however silent on whether any person may serve a third (or fourth, or fifth!) term so that makes possible the following sequence:

(1) In the 2028 election J.D.Vance is elected POTUS and somebody else (matters not who) is elected VPOTUS.

(2) J.D. Vance and somebody else (matters not who) are sworn into office as POTUS & VPOTUS respectively.

(3) Somebody else (matters not who) resigns as VPOTUS.

(4) J.D. Vance appoints Donald Trump as VPOTUS who is duly sworn-in.

(5) J.D. Vance resigns as POTUS and, as the constitution dictates. Donald Trump becomes POTUS and is duly sworn-in.

(6) Donald Trump appoints J.D.Vance as VPOTUS.

Whatever the politics, constitutionally, there is nothing controversial about those six steps because it replicates what happened between 1968 when Nixon & Agnew were elected POTUS & VPOTUS and 1974 when the offices were held respectively by Gerald Ford (1913–2006; VPOTUS 1973-1974 & POTUS 1974-1977) & Nelson Rockefeller (1908–1979; VPOTUS 1974-1977), neither of the latter pair having been elected.  Of course, in January 2029 somebody else (matters not who) would be a “left-over” but he (it seems a reasonable assumption somebody else (matters not who) will be male) can, depending on this and that, be appointed something like Secretary of Agriculture or a to sinecure such as an ambassadorship to a nice (non-shithole) country with a pleasant climate and a majority white population. 

Bilateral

Bilateral (pronounced bahy-lat-er-uhl)

(1) Pertaining to, involving, or affecting two or both sides, factions, parties, or the like.

(2) Located on opposite sides of an axis; two-sided, especially when of equal size, value etc.

(3) In anatomy and biology, pertaining to the right and left sides of a structure (especially in the region furthest from the median plane).

(4) In contract law, binding the parties to reciprocal obligations.

(5) In anthropology, relating to descent through both maternal and paternal lineage.

(6) In the British education system, a course combining academic and technical components.

(7) In physics, acting or placed at right angles to a line of motion or strain.

(8) In phonetics and phonology, of a consonant (especially the English clear l), pertaining to sounds generated by partially blocking the egress of the airstream with the tip of the tongue touching the alveolar ridge, leaving space on one or both sides of the occlusion for air passage.

1775: The construct is bi + lateral.  Bi-, in the sense of the word-forming element (two, having two, twice, double, doubly, twofold, once every two etc) is from the from Latin bis (twice) or bīnus (double), from the Old Latin which was cognate with the Sanskrit dvi-, the Ancient Greek di- & dis-, the Old English twi- and the German zwei- (twice, double), all from the primitive Indo-European PIE root dwo- (two), ultimate source also of the Modern English duo.  Bilateral is a noun & adjective, bilateralist, bilateralization, bilaterality & bilateralism are nouns and bilaterally is an adverb; the noun plural is bilaterals.

It may have been in use before but was certainly nativized during the sixteenth century.  The occasionally bin- before vowels was a form which originated in French, not Latin although it’s suggested this may have been influenced by the Latin bini (twofold), the familiar example being “binary”.  In computing, it’s most associated with zero-one distinction in the sense of off-on and in chemistry, it denotes two parts or equivalents of the substance referred to although there are rules and conventions of use to avoid confusion with stuff named using the Greek prefix di- such as carbon dioxide (CO₂).  In general use, words built with bi- prefix can cause confusion.  While biennial (every two years) seems well understood, other constructs probably due to rarity remain, ambiguous: fortnightly is preferable to biweekly and using “every two months” or “twice a month” as required removes all doubt.

Lateral was first adopted as verb in the 1640s from the fourteenth century Old French lateral, directly from Latin laterālis (belonging to the side), a derivation of latus (genitive lateris) (the side, flank of humans or animals, lateral surface) of uncertain origin.  As a noun, the precise definition "situated on either side of the median vertical longitudinal plane of the body" is from 1722.   Equilateral (all sides equal) was first used in mathematics in the 1560s, a borrowing from the Latin aequilateralis, aequi- being the suffix- meaning “equal”; contra-lateral (occurring on the opposite side) is from 1871; the adjective ipsilateral (on the same side of the body), bolting on the Latin ipse- suffix (self) dates from 1907; the use in US football to describe a lateral pass seems to have appeared in print first in 1934.  Multilateral and trilateral seem to have been seventeenth century inventions from geometry, the more familiar modern applications in international diplomacy not noted until 1802.

Conventions of use

Although one would have to be imaginative, with the Latin, there’s little limit to the compound words one could construct to describe the number of sides of a thing.  The words, being as unique as whole numbers, would also be infinite.  Whether many would be linguistically useful is doubtful; sextilateral may mislead and ūndēquadrāgintālateral (thirty nine sided) seems a complicated solution to a simple problem.

Unilateral             One-sided
Bilateral               Two-sided
Trilateral              Three-sided
Quadrilateral        Four-sided
Quintilateral         Five-sided
Sextilateral          Six-sided
Septilateral          Seven-sided
Octolateral           Eight-sided
Novilateral           Nine-sided
Decilateral           Ten-sided
Centilateral          Hundred-sided
Millelateral           Thousand-sided

The modern convention appears to be to stop at trilateral and thereafter, when describing gatherings of four or more, adopt multilateral or phrases like four-power or six-party.  Trilateral seem still manageable, adopted not only by governmental entities but also by the Trilateral Commission (founded in 1973 with members from Japan, the US, and Europe), a remarkably indiscrete right-wing think-tank.  However, in the organically pragmatic evolution of English, there it tends to stop, quadrilateral now most associated with Euclidean plane geometry (there are seven quadrilateral polygons) and used almost exclusively in that discipline and other strains of mathematics.  Outside of mathematics, it was only in the formal language of diplomacy that quadrilateral was used with any frequency.  The agreement of 15 July 1840, (negotiated between Lord Palmerston (1784-1865; variously UK prime-minister or foreign secretary on several occasions 1830-1865) and Nicholas I (1796–1855; Tsar of Russia 1825-1855) to tidy up things in the Mediterranean) between Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia was formalised as a quadrilateral treaty but the word fell from favour with quadruple alliance preferred for a later European arrangement.

Bilateral diplomacy: Lindsay Lohan meeting with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (b 1954; prime-minister or president of the Republic of Türkiye since 2003), Ankara, 27 January 2017.

Although many of the wonks in the foreign policy establishment like to dream of a world in which everything is settled by multi-lateral discussions, in the world of the realists, it's understood the core of conflicts (which are the central dynamic of international relations) are bilateral.  Accordingly, most efforts are devoted to bilateral discussions.  In the business of predictions, it's also the relationships between two states which absorbs most of the thoughts of pundits and the long-term projections of those in the field can make interesting reading, decades later.  In 1988, Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) published 1999: Victory Without War, which with no false modesty he suggested was "...a how-to guide in foreign police for whomever was elected president in November 1988".  Given that, it's not surprising one passage has attracted recent comment: "...in the twenty-first century the Sino-US relationship will be one of the most important, and one of the most mutually beneficial, bilateral relationships in the world."  Things do appear to have worked out differently but there is a school of thought that the leadership of Xi Jinping (b 1953; general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and paramount leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC) since 2013) is an aberration and that his replacement is likely to be one who pursues a more cooperative foreign and economic policy because that is more likely to be in China's long-term (ie a century ahead) interest.

A quadrilateral meeting to discuss German war guilt reparations and allied debts accumulated during World War I (1914-1918): Raymond Poincaré (1860–1934; President of France 1913-1920, left), Andrew Bonar Law (1858–1923; Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 1922-1923. centre-left), Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & Prime-Minister of Italy 1922-1943, centre right) and Georges Theunis (1873–1966; Prime Minister of Belgium 1921-1925 & 1934-1935, right), 10 Downing Street, London, December 1922.

This was an obscure photograph which until the twenty-first century had appeared only in some specialist history texts but as the internet achieved critical mass memes became a thing and Mussolini’s eyes were a gift for the meme-makers, most captions suggesting the duce may have had a sudden premonition of his own unfortunate end although others offered: “I feel naked without a moustache”, “I think I have imposter syndrome”, “Oh God, I just pooped my pants”, “One of these men may be a Freemason but I don't know which” and “I wonder if they can tell I'm on drugs”.  However, although not noted as a mystic, he may also have sensed impending death “sitteth at the right hand”, Andrew Bonar Law then having only months to live.

Serving as the UK prime minister for seven months between October 1922 and May 1923, it’s ironic Andrew Bonar Law is now remembered only because of the memorable title of his biography (The Unknown Prime Minister. The Life and Times of Andrew Bonar Law, 1858–1923 (1955)) by Tory historian Robert Norman (Baron Blake, 1916–2003), something borrowed from a chance remark at Law’s funeral by Henry Asquith (1852–1928; UK prime minister 1908-1916): “We’re burying the unknown prime minister next to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.”  Law deserves more than that footnote because that he even achieved the office was emblematic of both a changing country and a changing party.  He was preferred over Lord Curzon (1859–1925), a glittering former foreign secretary and Viceroy of India; never again would seriously it be contemplated a prime-minister might sit in the House of Lords.  Unexpectedly diagnosed with an inoperable throat cancer, Law resigned and within six months was dead.      

Rare too is the more recent diplomatic creation, the pentalateral (five-power) treaty of which there appear to have been but two.  One was signed on 23 December 1950 between the United States, France, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.  It didn’t end well.  The other pentalateral treaty was sealed in Tehran during October 2007 between Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan, the littoral countries of the Caspian Sea and was a mechanism to avoid squabbles while carving up resources.  Some assemblies are better described in other ways.  When the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the UK & the US) plus Germany formed a now defunct standing committee to deal with issues raised by Iran’s nuclear programme, although a sextilateral, it was instead dubbed P5+1 although in Brussels, the eurocrats preferred E3+3.

The chief negotiators of the six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program, left to right: Sergey Razov (b 1953; Russia), Christopher Hill (b 1952; United States), Kenichirō Sasae (b 1951; Japan), Wu Dawei (b 1946; China), (Chun Yung-woo, b 1952; South Korea), Kim Kye-gwan (b 1943; North Korea).  Those learning English will find the conventional tool of surface analysis produces a misleading meaning if they deconstruct the elements of "sextilateral".  Here, a spokesman for six men briefs the media about their sextilateral, Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, Beijing, China, 23 December 2006.