Showing posts with label Diplomacy and Protocol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diplomacy and Protocol. Show all posts

Thursday, July 9, 2026

Gilded Age U.S. Diplomacy Gone Awry

The general Chilean attitude was probably best expressed by Eduardo Phillips, chief of the Diplomatic Section of the Ministry of Foreign Relations who, in a letter to a newspaper, described Egan as a person “utterly lacking in all elements of culture and courtesy, and ever-ready to descend to the level of invective and calumny.” — Public domain image of the late 19th C. US Minister to Chile, Patrick Egan. His tenure in diplomacy was highly unpopular and controversial. 


MINISTER EGAN AGAIN. Minister Egan may be relied upon not to permit any opportunity to go unimproved for showing that he is an uncivil person. It is not to be believed for a moment that he received instructions from Washington to remain away from the inauguration of the Chilian President. Secretary Blaine is altogether too well trained and prudent in diplomatic matters to be the author of any such instructions. It must be inferred, therefore, that Mr. Egan followed his own judgment as to what would be proper under the circumstances. And this judgment manifestly shows him to be not only a boorish but a semi-barbarous person. 

The inauguration of President Montt was the concluding event of a revolution which was set on foot to re-establish liberty and order, and we should have given our approval to the proceeding independently of the controversy which exists between this country and the republic of Chili. Granting that Chili is altogether in the wrong in the pending dispute, we can well afford to be magnanimous, not to say civil. Egans course was not merely a breach of diplomatic etiquette it was an infraction of good manners. It is little wonder, therefore, that the representatives of other powers evinced surprise at the policy of our Minister. 

There is a phase of the situation which ought to have had great weight with Minister Egan, if he really entertains a sincere desire to bring about an adjustment of our controversy with Chili. We have heretofore carried on negotiations with the Junta, a provisional and many headed authority. With the inauguration of a rightful President, however, matters will be greatly simplified, authority will become more definite and the means of communication more direct. Everything, therefore, invited Mr. Egan to adopt a policy of conciliation, but inasmuch as that person is a born conspirator he threw the opportunity away and disgraced the country of which, unhappily, he is the representative. — Stockton Daily Mail, 1891


🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, is the Site Editor for Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Thursday, June 23, 2022

Ping-Pong Diplomacy in 1971

American table tennis player, Glen Cowan (bottom left), who caught the ride on the Chinese team’s bus, along with the other U.S. table tennis players in China – on the cover of Time magazine, in April 1971

Ping-Pong Diplomacy

When an American competitor at the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan, missed his team bus back to the hotel, he set off one of the biggest tectonic shifts of diplomacy in world history — and triggered the end of the Cold War.

Jumping on to the Chinese team’s bus instead to catch a ride, one of the Chinese athletes broke strict protocol by handing him a gift of a silk cloth depicting the famous Huangshan Mountains.

When the bus arrived back at the hotel, journalists were astonished to see the two players chatting. Their photographs of this rare meeting of nations dominated news headlines around the world and Mao Zedong, spotting an opportunity, invited the U.S. team to spend a week sightseeing in China.

Capitalising on this new-found good will, President Nixon instigated a visit to Beijing — so began the defusing of the Cold War, and the term Ping-Pong Diplomacy was coined.– Christian Howgill for the Mail Online, June 17, 2022


Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Friday, February 25, 2022

How to Behave With a Royal Duke

The Duke and Duchess of Connaught with Princess Patricia and Prince Arthur– What form of obeisance and address is proper when the Duke of Connaught crosses the line on a friendly visit to a democratic republic constitute questions of supreme importance in high social and diplomatic circles.

PROSPECTS of a visit from a Prince of the Blood Royal disquiet exalted circles in New York and Washington, and these are visibly disturbed in mind and body because they are not quite sure how they should behave in the presence. What form of obeisance and address is proper when the Duke of Connaught crosses the line on a friendly visit to a democratic republic constitute questions of supreme importance in high social and diplomatic circles.

If he comes incognito, that pleasing but transparent fiction involves perplexing exploration of the uncertain field of etiquette. What limits shall society put on its eager homage to a Prince in disguise? What restraint must the polite world impose on the pregnant hinges of the knee? It might even be the less embarrassing were His Royal Highness to come in all the pomp and circumstance attending his exalted station.

Such doubts as these might be sufficiently disturbing, even were they not accentuated by the fear that the duke has been captured by “The Whitelaw Reids.” It is not understood that these are an organized banditti taking bodily possession of a wandering Prince. Quite the contrary. The Reids are a distinguished diplomatic family with eminent social aspirations. But the others are suspicious and fearful lest the Duke be held incommunicado by his supposed captors, with a bodyguard to protect him from the climbers. Altogether the situation is embarrassing and full of doubt.– San Francisco Call, 1912


🍽Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Sunday, December 12, 2021

Etiquette Tip to Latins

 


“The original smoking jacket was, in fact, a robe de chambre, or dressing gown. As international trade grew in the early 1600’s and tobacco became a part of men’s lives, smoking jackets became part of a gentlemanly wardrobe in an effort to protect his clothes. This was a tie when men’s wardrobes weren’t nearly the size that they tend to be today, so protecting one’s sartorial investments carried an even greater importance than it does now.
“At first, it was only appropriate for a man to be seen in a smoking jacket in front of his family, or perhaps in front of his personal butler (as you might imagine, only men of means would wear these).
By the 1800’s, the jacket began to morph from a robe style covering (complete with sash belt, like a modern bathrobe) to a shorter style resembling a dinner jacket. It was around this time that the tradition of retiring into one’s study for a smoke and a port became common. “The rising popularity of Turkish tobacco at the time is directly linked with this phenomenon.As dinner jackets continued to replace the tailcoat for dinner, the smoking jacket too gained popularity. Gentlemen began wearing versions that had different closures (not a sash) so that they could be worn to an actual dinner, not just afterwards. As the 1950’s approached, male celebrities like Frank Sinatra, Cary grant, and Fred Astaire all wore smoking jackets regularly with their black tie attire, and did so outside of the home.” - Bespoke Unit  – Gomez Addams (Raul Julia) in a stylish smoking jacket.
–Image source, Pinterest


Problem in Censorship

WASHINGTON, April 8 — The Children's Bureau of the Department of Labor is trying to figure how to tell Latin-American delegates to a conference early in May to bring “black tie” without runnning afoul of cable censors, the knowledge of social slang of the delegates or the Controller General.

Most of the delegates will come by airplane and have to be economical of baggage, so they have been asking Washington by cable: “Shall we bring frac, smoking or both?” This means “tails or dinner coats,” but if the bureau replies “smoking sufficient,” it feels that the censors will think it is code and stop the message. If it says “black tie” the Latins won't understand. And if it goes into detail, the Controller General might reject the bill as a needless extravagance.

No one has decided yet how the situation can be met. –The New York Times, 1942


Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Friday, March 19, 2021

U.S. Diplomatic Order of Precedence

“The new British diplomatic representative to the United States, Anthony Merry, and his wife were shocked and insulted when the President received them in worn clothing and slippers. In December 1803 at a formal dinner in the White House, no one offered to escort Mrs. Merry to dinner. In the dining room, Merry and his wife had to scramble for places at the table in competition with the other guests. The Marquis d'Yrujo, the Spanish diplomat, had the same experience. He and Merry agreed that this treatment was an insult to them and to their countries. The two diplomats and their wives sought to retaliate.”


In 1908, the Roosevelt Administration created the first U.S. Order of Precedence as a means of settling a history of embarrassment, confusion, and miscommunication amongst officials invited to events at the White House. As the structure of the federal government evolved, this list has adapted and grown. The President of the United States may make adjustments to the Cabinet, to give certain White House positions the status of Cabinet-rank which then follow the heads of the executive departments.

The U.S. Order of Precedence is used primarily in diplomacy. International rules on precedence were first established at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. By determining that envoys of equal title would be ranked according to the date and hour that they presented their credentials to the government that accredited them for service, the Congress of Vienna solidified a fair and justifiable system for diplomatic relations. These same rules are still used to determine the order of precedence of the Diplomatic Corps in Washington, D.C. Additionally, when on official business in the United States, foreign government officials are afforded the same protocol ranking as their corresponding position in the United States government.

A few basic principles regarding precedence should be noted. First, the host or hostess of a meeting or event always takes the primary position of precedence, regardless of their title or traditional ranking. Second, a person’s relative precedence may increase or decrease depending on the policy or context behind the specific meeting or event, or based on the wishes of the host on any occasion.

The methodology used in ordering officials for this list includes the United States Code; statutory prescription on precedence, including executive orders; well-established and widely- accepted principles, procedures, and traditions throughout the history of the order of precedence; the current structure of the federal government and the executive departments; and finally, recommendations by the Chief of Protocol based on practical treatment of a particular position or positions.

For any questions regarding the U.S. Order of Precedence, please email the Office of the Chief of Protocol at ProtocolHelp@state.gov. — From U.S. Order of Precedence


Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Thursday, November 5, 2020

Etiquette for Awkward State Dinners

White House tables set for the Obama administration’s last State Dinner. His administration’s first State Dinner was memorable for the now divorced, notoriety seeking, party-crashing couple, Tareq and Michaele Salahi. With no invite, they managed to not only skirt Secret Service scrutiny and attend the State Dinner, but get photographed meeting the President, just a few feet away from the Indian Prime Minister. 
— Photo source, Pinterest 



WASHINGTON — President Obama’s first state dinner was memorable for who showed up uninvited. His sixth, a high-glitz affair for the President of France, may be remembered for who was initially invited but did not attend.

Obama opened the White House doors Monday to French President Francois Hollande — but not to his former First Lady, journalist Valerie Trierweiler. Hollande’s first state visit to the U.S. comes after he announced his breakup with Trierweiler amid a swirl of reports
linking him to an actress.

That development threw preparations into confusion. Two days of events culminate in a state dinner on the White House lawn for more than 300 people.

Like any good host, the White House did its best to make Hollande comfortable, dismissing the trouble of crossing Trierweiler off the guest list. Officials would not comment on whether they had tossed out invitations bearing Trierweiler’s name. They would not say who would take her coveted place next to the President at the head table. They released details on the entrees (American), the entertainment (singer Mary J. Blige) and the dessert (whimsical, including orange-zest-dusted cotton candy).

On Monday, the Presidents traveled to Charlottesville, Va., to tour Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello estate, keeping the focus on the storied Franco-American alliance. (Some saw ties to infidelity even there, however: Historians believe Jefferson fathered children out of wedlock with Sally Hemings, a slave.)

For the world of efficient and polite protocol experts, a guest of honor traveling without a companion is nothing compared with the embarrassment of party crashers like the ones who talked their way into Obama’s dinner for the Indian prime minister in 2009.

“This is not difficult to manage,” said Anita McBride, former chief of staff for First Lady Laura Bush, who now heads the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. Sure, the image of the two couples standing in their finest at the North Portico will be a person short, but c’est la vie.

“This is an interesting visit, isn’t it?” said Mary Mel French, chief of protocol during the Clinton administration and author of “United States Protocol: The Guide to Official Diplomatic Etiquette.”

At one time, a head of state bringing a guest who was not a spouse would have caused headaches for the Office of Protocol and the Secret Service, French said. That has changed with the times as more heads of state have remained unhitched. The Secret Service now typically gives companions, married or not, the same level of protection as spouses.

Indeed, though often described as dictated by strict protocol and decades of tradition, state visits are also shaped by the times. Politics, personal whim and predicaments all factor in. Franklin D. Roosevelt scandalized some Americans by staging a picnic with hot dogs for Britain’s King George VI during a state visit in 1939. President George W. Bush hosted many foreign leaders at his ranch in Texas, a reflection of his preference for casual, personal interaction, McBride said.

President Clinton held 23 state dinners, a reflection of his love of a good Washington schmoozefest. By contrast, and perhaps reflecting the differences in their personalities, Tuesday’s state dinner is Obama’s sixth. White House officials say the low count is a result of tighter budgets and sensitivity to tight economic times.

With fewer parties, each becomes more important — a more meaningful gesture of gratitude or praise for an ally the White House wants to spotlight, said one senior administration official, who asked not to be named discussing the White House’s approach to state visits.

In this case, the ceremonials are a sign of appreciation for an ally that has stuck with the Obama administration when others, particularly in Europe, have not.

“Let’s just say that we’ve come a long way from freedom fries and are now working together on multiple continents,” a senior administration official said.

The White House kept a lid on discussion of the French President’s personal life, with a senior official saying the administration is “studiously neutral.”

After a magazine published photos that appeared to link Hollande to French actress Julie Gayet, Trierweiler was hospitalized for a week.

The incident reignited a debate in France on privacy and the role of the press.

Hollande promised to clarify his relationship with Trierweiler before leaving for the U.S. On Jan. 25, he announced he’d be traveling alone.

He has tried to cast his U.S. visit as a reboot. “For President Hollande, it comes at a useful moment for him to show him operating at a world stage,” said Erik Goldstein, a professor of international relations at Boston University who has written about state visits.— Los Angeles Times, 2014


🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Thursday, July 6, 2017

Diplomatic Etiquette Faux Pas

Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between the differing representatives of international states. It is the conducting of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to a full range of topical issues. Reflections upon the personal character of another country's President, Prime Minister or Royals, are not regarded as proper, according to official etiquette.


He Talked Too Much — Broke Diplomatic Etiquette

Washington, April 12.—The various interviews ascribed to Minister Loomis at San Juan have attracted much attention here and the minister probably will be invited to explain some of his utterances if he is not able to enter a broad denial of the accuracy of the interviews. Reflections upon the personal character of the president of Venezuela are not regarded as proper, according to official etiquette, and it is confidently hoped that the minister will be able to repudiate these. Otherwise it will be manifestly impossible for him to return to Venezuela, even in the event that the issues which led to his departure were satisfactorily composed. The prevalent idea is that no matter how these personal questions are settled, it will be a long time before a United States Minister resumes the post at Caracas. — Press Democrat, 1901



Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia 

Monday, August 15, 2016

Etiquette and Defining Protocol

Benjamin Franklin at Versailles – Protocol sets the rules for seating groups of important people at a banquet, or for addressing dignitaries, or even for proper dress at ceremonies in foreign countries. 

Protocol and striped pants gave late- American, President Harry Truman, a "pain in the neck.” Few people in government would disagree with his sentiments, but protocol seems to he needed. Protocol is the code of diplomatic etiquette. It sets the rules for seating groups of important people at a banquet, or for addressing dignitaries, or even for proper dress at ceremonies in foreign countries. 

Protocol has been around for a long time. When Benjamin Franklin arrived at the court of Versailles, wigless and dressed in an old coat, he learned quickly that elegant court uniform was a must if he wanted to make a proper impression for the new "American Republic." – The Desert Sun, 1975



Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia 

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

Empress Brings Etiquette Anxiety

Born of the purple~ The eldest daughter of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, Empress Frederick (as she was known after the death of her husband) was the Queen Consort of Prussia and German Empress Consort. Victoria, above, in an 1867 portrait by Franz Xaver Winterhalter


Empress Frederick Driven Out of Paris

Extremists Raise an Outcry Against Empress

The Franco-German Feud By No Means at an End

Paris, February 25th. — The organization known as the League of Patriots has violently denounced the visit of the Empress Frederick of Germany to the Palace of Versailles on Monday last. The League decided to hold meetings of protest until the Imperial visitor leaves the city.

It is known here that in Berlin it was expected that President Carnot would call upon the Empress Frederick, but after a special Cabinet meeting it was decided that as the Empress Frederick was traveling incognito, the French Government could compromise the matter by sending the Chief of President Carnot's military household, General Brugere, and M. Ribot, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to call upon the ex-Empress. This was accordingly done. 


This question of etiquette was undoubtedly the cause of much anxiety and worry to the members of the French Cabinet, and was made the subject of long and earnest discussions before it was finally concluded. The Government did not dare to risk the verdict of public opinion in case President Carnot called upon the Imperial visitor. 

It is evident that ex-Empress Frederick's visit to St. Cloud and Versailles was ill-advised. The extremists are shouting very loudly, and even moderate papers urge that her stay be not prolonged. The patriotic league under the lead of Deroulede is organizing hostile demonstrations against the Empress. She will probably leave Friday morning. Her visit has hardly increased the chances of a good French exhibit at Berlin in the art exposition. —Daily Alta California, 1891

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Moderator and Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

Question of Presidential Etiquette

Infanta Eulalia, Duchess of Galliera was the youngest daughter and child of Queen Isabella II of Spain and Francis, Duke of Cadiz, sister of King Alfonso XII and aunt of his son King Alfonso XIII. Very unconventional as a Spanish royal, on her visit to the US in 1893, she raised eyebrows by smoking. And rather than have mass in a luxurious Roman Catholic church cathedral, she attended mass in a poor parish. It was also reported that Eulalia even snubbed a social event to "eat sausages" at the Chicago World's Fair, just like a common attendee. According to www.EdwardianPromenade.com, "She later courted more controversy when she tried to divorce her husband, and when she became the official go-between for wealthy, social-climbing Americans and European noble families (the grateful Americans of course showered Eulalia with automobiles or the loaning of yachts)."

It's a Question of Etiquette

and a Matter of Form
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Infanta Situation 
"Bothering the Diplomats" 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shalt President Cleveland Return Eulalia's Visit? 

Now the Momentous Problem

Special to The Morning Call

Washington, May 14, 1893 — lt was learned to-day that the representatives of Spain and the United States have thus far failed to reach a satisfactory understanding regarding the programme of courtesies to be extended between the President and the Infanta Eulalia in the course of her stay in Washington.

According to custom, the Princess, at a convenient period after her arrival, would call upon the President and Mrs. Cleveland at the White House. Whether or not the President should in return call at the Princess's quarters in the hotel is the question, upon the settlement of which depends the future course of the Infanta.

The Spanish representatives, it is understood, insist that a return visit to the Princess is one that is due by courtesy and should be paid. They argue that the Princess is the personal representative of the Queen Regent, and will come to the United States upon the express invitation of Congress. Under these conditions, and these only, they feel that a return visit should be paid. 


If the Infanta were traveling through the country as a tourist merely, they say, she would pay her respects to the President, and no return visit from him would be expected. The Spanish officials are quoted as saying that the courtesy which should obtain among individuals of the same rank, and not etiquette, demands that the visit of the Infanta be reciprocated by the President.

The subject has been very thorougly discussed in Washington and Madrid, and a telegram from the latter capital printed. On Saturday morning, expressing the apprehension that the Infanta's health would not permit her to coutinue on her journey to the United States, is construed here as preparing the way for her return to Spain from Cuba if it should be found necessary to change tho original plan. The situation is embarrassing, and many plans have been made of expedients to relieve it. 

One of these, it is understood, was that the Infanta and her suite be entertained at the White House during her stay, thus obviating altogether the difficulty over the return visit. There is no precedent for the guidance of the officials here, as no one assuming to be the personal representative of a sovereign has ever visited this country.

Havana, May 14 .—The Infanta Eulalia and her husband attended a military review yesterday afternoon and in the evening went. to a ball at the Casino Espagnol: It is reported that she will embark to-morrow for New York. — San Francisco Call, 1893


Etiquette Enthusiast Maura J Graber is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Etiquette Lurks in Closet

Etiquette was the skeleton lurking in the diplomatic closet! 

RED TAPE NEARLY SPOILS BIG SHOW
Lack of Formal Invitations Keeps Few Consuls From Meeting Secretary Knox

Reception to Foreign Consuls by Secretary Knox Marred by Breach of Code

There is a skeleton in the closet of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition company. It made its fearsome presence known yesterday for the first time, when it stalked into the midst of the ceremonies surrounding the visit of Secretary of State Philander C. Knox. By valiant effort on the part of exposition officials and members of the California Development board it was routed yesterday, but it threatens to become a frequent visitor before the gates of the great exposition are finally closed.

The name of this skeleton is Etiquette. Its ways are dark and its habits mysterious. It has bothered around in the open to a certain extent before, but never until yesterday did it threaten to disrupt the best laid plans of the men, who, in the name of San Francisco, are to be hosts to the world in 1915. Yesterday it raised the very deuce.

As Chief of the Department of State, Secretary Knox extended the official invitation of President Taft to the nations of the world to participate in the 1915 celebration. As a matter of courtesy to Secretary Knox, it was decided by those in charge of the arrangements for the latter's visit to San Francisco to invite the foreign consuls in San Francisco to meet the Secretary formally at a reception yesterday afternoon in the rooms of the California Development Board in the Ferry building.

For several days the plans for the entertainment of the Secretary have been given publicity through the newspapers, and one of the features of the program, as published, has been the reception of yesterday afternoon at which he was to be the guest of honor and the foreign consuls were to be presented. Monday afternoon the consular corps met, and it was then that the skeleton Etiquette broke from its closet and took a seat at the consular board. A member of the corps suggested that all foreign consuls should attend the reception in a body. "But have you been formally invited?" interrupted Etiquette. There was dead silence. 

Slowly the gravity of the situation dawned upon the local repreaentativea of the foreign powers. The meeting promptly went into executive session, but Etiquette stayed within. It was a solemn conclave that was held. Would It be proper to attend a reception to the Secretary of State in an official capacity without the most formal sort of a government invitation? Would it not be the safe way for the consuls to remain absent? Would it be better, possibly, to go as individuals and not as officials?

Etiquette moved to the head of the table and sat there chuckling. It was just the forerunner of many similar occasions which are bound to arise in San Francisco before the universal exposition passes into history. Etiquette was causing all sorts of trouble and paving the way for more. The meeting broke up without any definite decision.

Yesterday morning it was learned by the official hosts of Secretary Knox that Etiquette had escaped and run amuck, and there was a scurrying and a hurrying that betokened the utmost activity. All the consuls were telephoned to, and some of them promised to attend —but not ln an official capacity, mind you. The reception was held and the consuls were there—some of them. France. Russia, China. Japan and Argentina were among the nations represented, together with a dozen others, while Great Britain. German. Italy and several others did not answer to the roll call.

One explanation given was that no invitation at all had been extended other than that given through newspaper publication. Another explanation, however, was that Etiquette was entirely responsible. According to this rumor. Etiquette was peeved because a prescribed formula had not been complied with, and this formula was as follows:

First, the consul should have received an Invitation to meet Secretary Knox, whereupon a meeting of the corps should have been held, then a telegram should have been dispatched to the State Department in Washington setting forth the desire of the local foreign representatives to call upon the Secretary; the State Department should then have wired to Secretary Knox in San Francisco asking for an appointment for the consuls; Secretary Knox should have wired back to the State Department setting a time for the reception; the State Department should then have telegraphed the local consular corps of the decision, and the invitation should then have been accepted. This procedure was not followed. 

Some of the consuls said yesterday that it wasn't necessary at all. Others declared that it was overdrawn. Still another was mean enough to intimate that his confreres were putting on the airs of Ambassadors. In any event, Etiquette sat around yesterday afternoon and grinned. The skeleton in the closet. —The San Francisco Call, May 8, 1912


Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Etiquette Between Nations

the Age Old Perplexing Matter
A 19th century French political cartoon, depicting a helpless China being divided among Britain, Germany, Russia, France and Japan.

In England, in these days of leveling down, it is really inspiriting to those who reverence old times to find that there are, excluding the two sister Kingdoms, eighty-nine sorts of men above the level of a burgess. As to etiquette between nations, that has long been a perplexing matter. 

In I504, Pope Julius II composed and promulgated a complete list of seniority for the use of ambassadors in his own chapel, recommending Europe to adopt it everywhere. It commences with the Pope, and ends with the nephews of the Pope and the Legates of Bologna and Ferrara. It includes twenty-six Potentates and Powers. England is placed eighth on the list. But the question was by no means settled even then. Monsieur, brother of Louis XIV, would not allow his second wife, the Princess Palatine, ever to see her family otherwise than incognito. "Ah," said he, "how can I, a Prince of the blood, pay honour to an elector, because he happens to be the uncle of my wife? As for giving a chair to an elector, I really can't." 

For a long time the republics strove in vain to be accorded what were called Royal Honours. It was one of the fine things Cromwell did, that he insisted on the maintenance towards his Republic of the forms of ceremonial which had been observed towards the monarchy which he had suppressed. The rivalries between Ambassadors to obtain superiority over one another were immense. In 1661 the Spanish envoy gained priority of place by attacking the carriage of the French Ambassador in the streets of London, hamstringing his horses, and killing his men. 

The first Napoleon was very tenacious, as it became him to be, in these matters. A curious proof of this occurred in 1805, when all the copies of the Almanach de Gotha, which had just been printed for the year, were seized and sent to Paris, because, by the old habit always adopted in the volume of arranging reigning houses alphabetically, the list began, not with Napoleon, but with the Anhalt duchies; and, animated by the same spirit, England has always maintained what may be called naval ceremonial, as a proof to other Powers of the Jurisdiction over the High Seas which she once pretended to possess. In the time of James I, England insisted that her maritime supremacy should be acknowledged by the instant disappearance of the flags and sails of all other ships, English vessels showing their own opinion of their own importance by offering no kind of greeting in return. 

In our day, the law, as interpreted by Dr. Fhillimore, is that "maritime ceremonials can be claimed as recognitions of sovereignty, when the sea is subject to the sovereign who claims them." This sovereignty, according to a usage which has acquired the force of law, extends to a maritime league three miles from low water-mark, and within that distance it is laid down that salutes are not optional but necessary. The limit of three miles was originally chosen because it was supposed to represent the range that a cannon ball could cover.
     
“Emperor Sultan Mahmud, son of the Sultan Moustapha, always victorious...”
Forms and formularies are even more puzzling than questions of ceremonial. The French diplomatic manual alone contains four hundred and sixteen separate types and models. Few of us know the exact signification and minute differences of bulls, brief and protocol, of capitulations and concessions, of exequations and concordats, of prescripts and pragmatic sanctions, of golden bulls and placitum regiums, of verbal notes and memoires and revet sails, of Firmans (a royal mandate or decree issued by a sovereign in certain historical Islamic states) and Hatti-Sherifs (an irrevocable Turkish decree countersigned by the Sultan). It is more instructive to learn that a congress has the power of deciding and concluding, while a conference can only discuss and prepare. 

As a choice specimen of florid formulary we quote The Frenell Treaty in IJ.Kt Willi Turkey. The document is headed by a star, and then begins:—
“The Emperor Sultan Mahmud, son of the Sultan Moustapha, always victorious. "This is what is ordered by this glorious and imperial sign, conqueror of the world, this noble and sublime mark, the efficacity of which proceeds from the divine assistance. 
“I, who by the excellence of the infinite favours of the Most High, and by the eminence of the miracles filled with benediction of the chief of the prophets (to whom be the most ample salutations), am the Sultan of the glorious Sultans; the Emperor of the powerful Emperors; the distributor of crowns to the Chosroes who are seated upon thrones; the shade of God upon earth; the servitor of the two illustrious and noble towns of Mecca and Medina, august and sacred places, where all Mussulmans offer up their prayers; the protector and master of Holy Jerusalem; the sovereign of the three great towns of Constantinople, Adrianople, and Brusa, as also of Damascus, the odour of Paradise; of Tripoli in Syria; of Egypt, the rarity of the century, renowned for its delights; of all Arabia; of Africa; of Barca, . . . and eight other cities; particularly of Bagdad, capital of the Caliphs; of Erzeroum the delicious," . . . and eleven other places; "of the isles of Morea, Candia, Cyprus, Chio, and Rhodes; of Barbary and Ethiopia; of the war fortresses ofAlgiers, Tripoli, and Tunis; of the isles and shores of the White and the Black Sea; of the country of Natolia and the kingdoms of Roumelia; of all Kurdistan and Greece; of Turcomania, Tartary, Circassia, Cabarta, and Georgia; of the noble tribes of Tartars, and of all the hordes which depend thereon; of Caffa and other surrounding districts; of all Bosnia and its dependencies; of the fortress of Belgrade, place of war; of Servia, and also of the fortresses or castles which are there; of the countries of Albania; of all Walachia and Moldavia, and of the forts and battlements which are in those provinces; possessor, finally, of a vast number of towns and fortresses, the names of which it is unnecessary to enumerate and boast of here; I, who am the Emperor, the asylum of justice, and the king, of kings, the centre of victory, the Sultan son of Sultans, the Emperor Mahmoud, son of Sultan Moustapha, son of Sultan Muhammed; I, who, by my power, origin of felicity, am ornamented with the title of Emperor of the two Earths, and, to fill up the glory of my Caliphat, am made illustrious by the title of Emperor of the two Seas.” 
There ends the description of the Turkish monarch: the document then turns westward, and begins to designate the King of France, who is catalogued as follows: "The glory of the great princes of the faith of Jesus; the highest of the great and the magnificent of the religion of the Messiah; the arbitrator and the mediator of the affairs of Christian nations; clothed with the true marks of honour and of dignity; full of grandeur, of glory, and of majesty; the Emperor of France and of the other vast kingdoms which belong thereto; our most magnificent, most honoured, sincere, and ancient friend, Louis XV, to whom may God accord all success and happiness, having sent to our august Court, which is the seat of the Caliphat"—(here we revert to Turkey)—“a letter containing evidences of the most perfect sincerity, and of the most particular affection, candour, and straightforwardness; and the said letter being destined to our Sublime Porte offelicity, which, by the infinite goodness of the incontestably majestic Supreme Being, is the asylum of the most magnificent Sultans, and of the most respectable Emperors; the model of Christian Seigneurs, able, prudent, esteemed, and honoured minister, Louis, Marquis de Villeneuve, his Councillor of State and his Ambassador to our Porte of felicity (may the end thereof be filled up with joy), has demanded the permission to present and hand in the aforesaid letter, which has been granted to him by our imperial consent, conformably to the ancient usage of our Court; and consequently, the said ambassador having been admitted before our imperial throne, surrounded with light and glory, he has given in the aforesaid letter, and has been witness of our Majesty in participating in our power ind imperial grace; and then the translation of its loving meaning has been presented, according to the ancient custom of the Ottomans, atthe foot of our sublime throne, by the channel of the most honourable El Hadji Mehemmed Pacha, our first Minister; the absolute interpreter of our ordinances; the ornament of the world; the preserver of good order amongst peoples; the ordainer of the grades of our empire; the instrument of the glory of our crown; the road of the grace of royal majesty; the very virtuous Grand Vizier; very venerable and fortunate minister, lieutenant-general, whose power and prosperity may God cause to triumph and to endure.”
Then begins the treaty, which goes on through eightyfive articles, and finishes with these words: “On the part of our imperial Majesty I engage myself, under our most sacred and most inviolable august oath, both lor our sacred imperial person and for our august successors, as well as for our imperial viziers, our honoured pachas, and, generally, all our illustrious servitors who have the honour and the felicity to be in our slavery, that nothing shall ever be permitted contrary to the present articles.” 
Not quite so gorgeous, but very flowery, nevertheless, is the verbiage of The Persian Formula of Treaty. The heading of the treaty of 1814 between England and the Shah is: “Praise be to God, the all-perfect and all-sufficient. These happy leaves are a nosegay plucked from the thornless garden of concord, and tied by the hands of the plenipotentiaries of the two great States in the form of a definitive treaty, in which the articles of friendship and amity are blended.” In another place a firman is spoken of as being “equal to a decree of fate,” which is a somewhat strong simile. 
The Persian style does not grow modern, it keeps up its local colour; for even as late as the year 1855, in the treaty then made with France, we find the following designations: “In the name of the clement and merciful God. His High Majesty, the Emperor Napoleon, whose elevation is like that of the planet Saturn; to whom the sun serves as a standard; the luminous star of the firmament of crowned heads; the sun of the heaven of royalty; the ornament of the diadem; the splendour of standards, im. perial ensigns; the illustrious and liberal monarch ;—and his majesty elevated like the planet Saturn; the sovereign to whom the sun serves as a standard; whose splendour and mag. nificence are like those of the heavens; the sublime sovereign; the monarch whose armies are as numerous as the stars; whose greatness recalls that of Djemschid; whose magnificence equals that of Darius, heir of the crown and throne of the Keyanians, the sublime and absolute Emperor of all Persia.” It will be observed that whereas the compliments paid to himself by the Sultan are mainly moral and territorial, the forms of self-adoration adopted by the Shah are astronomical and historical. It would be curious to follow up this difference to its roots, and to seek out the peculiarities of national character which lead a Turk to talk of his dominions and his virtues, and a Persian to quote his ancestors and the solar system.

Titles are of a very remote antiquity in the case of royal persons. Luckily for archaeologists, it was because Darius persisted in calling himself King of Kings that we had a key to the cuneiform writing, of which Grotefence availed himself when he unlocked to mankind the treasures contained in the arrowheaded records of Egypt and the East. There is some interesting matter in the history, as here given, of modern Decoration.
Den Kongelige Norske St. Olavs Orden ~ (Sanct Olafs Orden is the old Norwegian name) is a Norwegian order of chivalry instituted by King Oscar I of Norway and Sweden in August of 1847, as a distinctly Norwegian order.
Of the great chivalric institutions of to-day, the Garter and the Seraphim are the oldest: they are twins, for both saw the light in 1344; both occupy the highest place in European reverence; and if the Garter is admitted on the Continent to be the more glorious of the two, it is not because, as Selden urged, " it exceeds in majesty, honour, and fame, all chivalrous Orders in the world," but, in reality, because England is a bigger and a stronger country than Sweden, and because what belongs to the former inspires, consequently, more awe abroad than the latter is competent to provoke. Next to these patriarchs follows the Annunciada, another most illustrious fraternity, with two legends for its origin; it dates from 1362. 

The Golden Fleece comes fourth: it was set up in Bruges in 1429 by Philip III of Burgundy; but it passed to Spain with the provinces of Flanders, and was transferred again to Austria in 1713 by the Emperor Charles VI, when he acquired the Low Countries. Spain, however, would not consent to lose it; and, after much wrangling, it was tacitly agreed that it should become the joint property of both the Spanish and Imperial Governments. 

The Elephant claims to have come into existence in 1159, when a Danish Crusader having slain an elephant single-handed with his sword, Canute VI is said to have established this very noble Order in memory of that remarkable event. But this story is not admitted by the annalists of chivalry; they allow the Order to date only from 1478. St. Andrew of Russia and the Black Eagle are very modem: the former was established in 1698 by Peter the Great; and the latter in 1701, to commemorate the coronation of the first King of Prussia. St. Stephen of Austria is still more recent; it was set up by Maria Theresa in 1764.

But though these eight majestic Orders are alone included in the first class, there are, as was said just now, several other knighthoods whose antiquity is as great and whose merit is almost as real as theirs. Though we group the latter here with the great mass of Orders of every kind, some of them deserve a special mention. St. Hubert of Bavaria, which dates from 1444; the extinct "Ordres du Roi," in France, St. Michael, St. Louis, and the St. Esprit; the Danebrog of Denmark, with its legend of a flag which fell miraculously from heaven in 1219, in the middle of a fierce battle which it helped the Danes to win; the Spanish Order of Montesa and the Christ of Portugal, which two replaced the Temple when it was extinguished in the Peninsula in 1315; the White Eagle, established in 1325 in Poland, but now absorbed by Russia; our own Bath ;—all these are examples of Orders of this class which possess or have possessed much dignity, and there are several others like them. And, subsidiarily, there are the purely military decorations, such as St. George of Russia, the Iron Cross, and our Victoria Cross, which have a merit and a value of a special kind, and must not be confounded with the mass of ribbons which constitute the third category.

This third category includes, at the present moment, about one hundred-thirty Orders. The number fluctuates; for, though it is increased almost every year by the creation of new institutions, it is diminished, from time to time, by the absorption of independent states, and by the consequent suppression of the Orders belonging to those states. These two conflicting causes make it somewhat difficult to ascertain the exact number of orders in existence on any given day. 

The books which have been published on the subject (and there are a good many of them, copied from each other, in all the languages of Europe) are all far behind the times; the only list which can be admitted as probably correct is the one furnished by the "Almanach de Gotha" for 1875; and even that one will doubtless become inexact before the year is out. It shows that on last New Year's day, forty-three countries possessed Orders: of these countries thirty-three are in Europe; four in America (Brazil, Honduras, Venezuela, and Hawaii); five in Asia (Siam, Birmah. Persia, Cambodge, and China); and 1 in Africa (Tunis.) These forty-three countries dispose altogether of one hundred-forty three Orders of the three classes, not including medals of any kind, or commemorative crosses. 

Furthermore, the states which have been recently suppressed (Naples, Hanover", Hesse-Cassel, Mexico, Modena, Nassau, Parma, and Tuscany) possessed three others, all of which are at present in abeyance (a state of temporary disuse or suspension), and ought not to be worn by those who hold them. And it must be remembered that the one hundred forty-three Orders now in force, represent very little more than half the total of all the orders which have existed; for, without including any of the mythical or legendary brotherhoods, the special books present catalogues which, though they vary somewhat between themselves, reach a general total of about two hundred-seventy Orders, of which about one hundred twenty-five have become extinct. 

But, though these figures show the quantities in which Orders have disappeared, other figures indicate that they sprout up again even faster than they fade; for when we analyse the composition of the one hundred forty-three existing Orders, we find that ninety-one of them have been created during the 19th century, that twenty-three were made in the 18th century, and that only twenty-nine of them are anterior to the year 1700. Most ot the old religious and strictly noble confraternities have vanished out of sight; but they have been replaced by modern institutions more in harmony with the spirit of the age. 

And when we look still closer into the subject, and examine the geographical distribution of all these Orders, we naturally find that, as the rush for them is everywhere the same, the development of their number has been everywhere alike, with one exception. That exception, strangely, is in France— in frivolous, vainglorious France—the very place where we should least expect to find it. While sturdy cross-despising England owns seven Orders, Sweden six, Russia eight, Bavaria thirteen, Austria nine, Prussia eleven, Spain ten, Portugal seven, Italy five, Wurtemberg four (the Kingdom of Württemberg was a state in Germany that existed from 1806 to 1918, located in the area that is now Baden-Württemberg), and little Denmark two, France, alone of the real nations, has but one. Proportionately to their population, their power, or their pride, all other European states have gone on multiplying their ribbons; France contents herself with the single Cross of Honour. 

And while most other countries have created special decorations for women (out of the one hundred-forty-three there are thirteen for ladies only, and four others to which they are promiscuously admitted, making seventeen in all, or twelve per cent, of the entire number), France has declined to participate in that pretty court and ballroom form of chivalry: in the rare cases in which women have been considered worthy of it, they have been specially admitted into “the Legion,” whose cross is at this moment worn by Rosa Bonheur the painter, and Sceur Rosalie the nun. –By Frederic Marshall, Author of “French Home Life,” 1873




Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Court Etiquette and Diplomacy in France During the Crimean War

Purportedly representing the interests of the Greek Orthodox Church, Russia sought to serve as the protectorate of the Christian Holy Places lying within Turkish territory. The general opinion in Europe at that time, was that Czar Nicholas I used Turkey’s refusal to grant Russia this privilege, as a pretext to carry out his true desire - namely to destroy the Ottoman Empire. This depiction of Czar Nicholas I puts him as a devil within a religious setting. Note his cloven hoof in place of a left foot. A satirical John Leech cartoon, from "Punch" January 28, 1854

Diplomacy and the Te Deum


Diplomacy is a curious study. The etiquette which governs a diplomatic corps a first-class Court like that of France, would make a book if published, as big as Chesterfield or Jefferson's manual, and would require as many commentaries as Blackstone has furnished the lawyers, or Adams the Clergy. One half of the time of a diplomat is consumed on points of Court etiquette, a quarter on the social department of his legation, and the other quarter on the business proper of his office. And yet there is no published law of etiquette to guide the Minister through the labyrinth of curious customs, compacts, decrees, prohibitions and traditions, which make up the law of Court etiquette. It is all traditionary, and when a doubtful case arises, the whole corps resort to the oldest member, the doyen or dean, whose acknowledged right it is to settle the point in dispute. The contests which often take place within the body of the corps, on minor points of etiquette, must be amusing to those even who are engaged in them. 

Recently, the American Minister at the court of France was invited to attend a Te Deum at Notre Dame in honor of the fall of Sebastopol, and he went. My predecessor, of the TIMES, and our colleague of the Tribune, characterized the act of Mr. Mason as improper and unnecessary; while the journals which have just arrived from the United States, condemned the act in the strongest terms. But it so happens that this is one of those very cases which enter into the labyrinthine field of difficulties referred to above and while I believe that Mr. Mason might've avoided attendance on that occasion, the reasons which guided him ought to be known. 

A Minister is sent abroad to preserve peace, not to provoke war. The first line of his instructions from his government is, to cultivate at all times friendly relations with the Government to which he is accredited. It is a well understood rule at all Courts that an invitation from a Sovereign to the diplomatic corps to be present at any ceremony are which he (the Sovereign) intends to go, is paramount to an order to that effect, and cannot be disobeyed without a good reason. Nothing but absence or ill-health are considered valid excuses. This is one of the most ancient rules which prevail at Courts, and ought to be modified or abolished; but it remains in activity, and it is to be supposed that the American Minister has received no orders to disobey it. 

The American Minister in this instance regarded the invitation as he would an invitation to attend the Emperor's fête, or an official ball, or any other of the Court shows, where the diplomatic corps are always invited, and which could not by any possibility be made to compromise the neutrality of those who attended. He believed that he could only be compromised by remaining away from the Te Deum, for then an explanation would be required, and an explanation in the present state of affairs would've been an embarrassing document to write. Staying away would have committed him, while going there was a mere formality, a civility (in the estimate which Court etiquette puts upon it) which committed nobody. If the American Minister had written a note to the French Minister, saying that he declined to attend the Te Deum, because he did not wish to compromise his neutrality, he would undoubtedly have received for answer, "Sir, we do not consider that your attendance upon the ceremony will compromise your neutrality in the least; we offer you a seat with the diplomatic corps, as is usual on all occasions where His Majesty attends any public ceremonies as a civility; the French Government has no special need of your presence on the occasion, and cares little to whom you give your sympathy in the present war." And then the American minister would've stood in a really compromised position.
              
The Emperor Napoleon leaving the Tuileries on the morning of the Te Deum
The great body of the diplomatic corps went to the Te Deum, and evidently viewed it as a civility which for them was without political signification; but, knowing the feeling which existed in the United States in regard to the war and the difficulty which generally exists in understanding the exigencies of Court etiquette, in a country where the people know little and care less about it, the American Minister and his Secretary, and down to his last attaché, if necessary, should've been taken suddenly and individually on the day in question with an uncontrollable migraine. That is a diplomatic dodge of the most orthodox kind; it is been approved by whole centuries of exercise and is eminently worthy of the absurd system of etiquette in which it finds its origin. It is the system which needs censure more then the act; it is the Minister who has been compromised more than the country.



From "Affairs in France 
The American Minister and the Te Deum
Political, Literary and Miscellaneous Gossip 
Special Correspondence of the New York Daily Times" 
 Paris, Thursday, November 1, 1855

Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J. Graber, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia

Monday, May 12, 2014

Etiquette: The Dish on White House State Dinners

December 12, 1874: The first visiting head of state to attend a State Dinner at the White House was King David Kalakaua of the Kingdom of Hawaii, hosted by Ulysses S. Grant. 
Early 19th century dinners honoring the President's Cabinet, Congress, or other dignitaries were called 'State Dinners' even though they lacked official foreign representation. Under such conditions, large receptions and dinners were a rare occurrence. Washington D.C. society was a collection of widely separated, isolated villages, and at times almost inaccessible.
 June 8, 1939: Seating arrangements for the State Dinner for George VI of the United Kingdom, hosted by President and Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt...  Months of meticulous planning go into a State Dinner. The guest of honor’s country, culture, and favored preferences are thoroughly researched. The First Lady often chooses the décor and entertainment to highlight a certain aspect of American culture. Together, these considerations are translated into invitations, menus, guest lists, and entertainment. The results can be a form of diplomatic dialogue between the host and guest cultures.
As the times changed, so did the nation’s capital. A series of State Dinners were soon held every winter social season to honor Congress, the Supreme Court, and members of the Diplomatic Corps.
Extravagant floral arrangements and lights decorate the East Room of the White House for the state dinner given by President Theodore Roosevelt in honor of Prince Henry of Prussia in 1902.
In the late 19th century’s Gilded Age, the term ‘State Dinner’ had become synonymous with a dinner hosted by the President honoring a foreign head of state. The first visiting head of state to attend a State Dinner at the White House was King David Kalakaua of theKingdom of Hawaii, hosted by Ulysses S. Grant on December 12, 1874. According to Barry H. Landau’s book “The President’s Table,” there were just 36 guests but “as many as 29 courses,” all of them French, which was de rigueur at the time.
The Dish on White House China
Mrs. Benjamin Harrison, an accomplished china painter, designed her own official White House china in 1889 and, what's more, initiated the first continuous White House collection -- by now, what with breakage and pilferage, a fascinating assemblage of remnants.
In 1840, gold table settings became Presidential campaign issue. Helping William Henry Harrison, a simple frontiersman, grab the Presidency from Martin Van Buren. When Benjamin Harrison, his grandson, won the Presidency later, his wife, Caroline Harrison, wanted new White House china that would be “symbolic and meaningful to Americans.” The First Lady, an artist herself, placed the Coat of Arms of the United States in the center of the plates, and designed a goldenrod and corn motif etched in gold around a wide band of blue. The corn represents Mrs. Harrison’s home state of Indiana. Forty-four stars, one for each state at the time, make up the inner border. Mrs. Harrison directed a large-scale remodeling effort of the White House, adding a china closet to display all past Presidential china services. Caroline Harrison was not able to use the china she had ordered, as she died before it was delivered. The china arrived in December 1892.
Over the last 40 or so years, of the First Ladies who tried to supply full services for the usual 120 guest state dinners, very few have succeeded (Betty Ford doesn't count; she was in residence to briefly). Lady Bird Johnson contributed a 220 place wildflower service designed by Tiffany and company, produced by the American from Castleton, and paid for by Jane and Engelhard, the Far Hills, New Jersey, philanthropist.

Lady Bird Johnson is also known as "the first lady of wildflowers" in Texas. Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson held over State Dinners along with weddings for both their daughters while in the White House
Pat Nixon was ready to give Lenox the go ahead for a service Clement Conger helped design but suddenly cancelled; a few days later Nixon resigned.  Rosalynn Carter made do with pieces from this service and that, intending to produce a set of Carter china later. There was no later; she overestimated Jimmy's re-electability. 
Turning the tables for a moment, this photo captures Richard Nixon at a State Dinner in China:  Mr. Nixon and First Lady Pat Nixon gave more State Dinners than any other first couple. “I believe I produced 76,” social secretary Lucy Winchester Breathitt, told Vanity Fair. Nixon was particular about where people sat at his State Dinners. Concerning Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, he noted in a memo: “Henry should not always be put next to the most glamorous woman present.  It’s starting to cause unfavorable talk that serves no useful purpose.”
By the time Nancy Reagan became First Lady, the most complete service, Lady Bird's, was down to 90 settings.  The handsome red and 24 karat gold-rimmed Lenox china -- designed by Nancy Reagan and Ted Graber with the Presidential seal should be around for awhile, even with occasional breakage; the 4,391 pieces include 220 place settings, 19 pieces per place.
Ronald and Nancy Reagan hosted 59 State Dinners in the two Presidential terms they spent in the White House.  Reagan loved to entertain, and preferred to serve California wines.
During the George W. Bush administration, 320 more formals sets sets of china were added for White House State Dinners (and 75 informal sets of china for the private quarters of the White House) though George and Laura Bush held very few State Dinners during their two terms-- only eleven in total.
George W. Bush White House state china in gold rim with a green basket-weave pattern and a historically-inspired gold eagle, manufactured by Lenox.
Dinner for 140
The White House “China Room” in 1918

The ground floor China Room is where the White House collection of china is kept. Even the earliest presidents received government funds to purchase state china. However, by a special clause in the appropriation bills, "decayed furnishings" could be sold and the proceeds used to buy replacements. Such "furnishings" included state china, and during the 19th century the cupboards were frequently swept clean and the contents carted off to auction. The money could then be used to order a new china service that better suited the president and his family.

Even into the 20th century, White House china was often given away if it was chipped or broken. Later, Congress passed a law that required that all presidential china be kept or destroyed. When new dessert plates for the Johnson administration turned out badly, the White House staff smashed it against a basement wall painted with caricatures of the president's assistants.

Today, nearly all presidents are represented in the china collection one way or another. And full services suitable for state dinners exist for the B Harrison, Wilson, FD Roosevelt, Truman, L Johnson, Reagan, and Clinton sets, although the older sets are much smaller than the newer ones and cannot be used for the largest events. Replacement pieces are occasionally ordered for these, as pieces become chipped or broken.

Wilson — 120 settings
FD Roosevelt — 120 settings
Truman — 120 settings
L Johnson — 216 settings
Reagan — 220 settings
Clinton — 300 settings
Bush — 320 setting formal set, 75 setting informal set

Above from the White House Museum.Org



🍽️Etiquette Enthusiast, Maura J Graber of The RSVP Institute of Etiquette, is the Site Editor for the Etiquipedia© Etiquette Encyclopedia