IT is interesting to reflect that whereas the British social structure
has been re-arranging itself ever since the Norman Conquest, the
Americans were getting organised only two generations after immigration
control on Staten Island. The grandfather of the Kennedy clan ran a
saloon. The first Astor was a fur dealer who came from Walldorf, in
Germany. The first Guggenheim was a tailor. John D. Rockefeller grew up
on a farm, as did Henry Ford, and the 16-year-old Cornelius Vanderbilt
built his fortune on a little ferry. Nevertheless, they were soon vying
with each other for status. Whether or not one was a member of New
York's magic ''Four Hundred'' -- a list compiled by Ward McAllister, New
York's social leader -- depended entirely on whether one was on the
elite invitation list to balls in ''the'' Mrs Astor's Fifth Avenue
mansion. In those days, being asked to sit next to Mrs Astor on her
throne, a divan on a red silk dais, was the equivalent of meeting the
Queen. Even among the Four Hundred, wives who were ignored often went
home weeping.
Memories of that era were recalled this week with reports that some of
Hollywood's leading stars are boycotting President Clinton's
inauguration because they have not been invited to the ''best''
Washington parties, despite being his supporters. The new President is
taking pains to invite as many ''ordinary''
people as he can, like nurses and fac
tory workers he met on the campaign trail.
In her own day, Mrs Astor stayed regal to the end. She was certainly
not like some US hostesses, who were known to wrap cigars and bread
rolls in $100 bills. If she left early from Box No. 7 at the
Metropolitan Opera, the cast found themselves singing to an empty house.
But she, too, had a strict invitation list. At her final triumph, a
banquet to honour Prince Louis of Battenberg, the Vanderbilts were not
present. She still regarded them as ''trade''.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article