Print
E-mail
Constitution Center Is No Place For Princess Exhibit
By JANE GILVARY, For The Bulletin
What does the Princess of Wales have to teach us about the Constitution? Nothing, really. But The National Constitution Center in historic Philadelphia, the cradle of liberty, thinks that she does.
Why is such a uniquely American museum hosting a three month-long exhibit on Diana, Princess of Wales, a woman who has absolutely no connection to the founding of our nation? That’s right. Diana: A Celebration is a showcase of the Princess of Wales’ distinctly British life and legacy. Can anyone see the hypocrisy of honoring a British Royal at an American museum that is supposed to celebrate and explore our Constitution, its signers, and their history?
Plenty of Americans are ardent devotees of the Royal family. Royal watchers, if you will. Her Majesty the Queen is a timeless icon of British tradition and stateliness in her own right, and Diana’s humanitarian legacy, her quiet beauty, and her buoyancy of spirit during difficult times are admirable traits. Diana’s untimely, gruesome death was certainly tragic too, and Americans grieved with their English cousins across the pond as the House of Windsor mourned her passing and celebrated her life in St. Paul’s cathedral. Forever she’ll be remembered around the world for her endearing personality, polish, and royal radiance. She was England’s rose to be sure.
The Constitution Center, however, was created to celebrate American inimitability, exceptionalism, and achievement based upon the freedoms outlined in our most coveted and unchanging historical text, and to venerate our rule of law. Diana simply doesn’t fit into this historically American equation, and to honor her at what the center calls “the first-ever museum dedicated to the U.S. Constitution” is incongruous with its point and purpose. Our country, shaped by Christian visionaries and thinkers like Benjamin Rush, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry to name a few, is fundamentally different from that of our English pedigree, the Princess of Wales included.
It almost seems as if The Constitution Center decided to disregard the throngs of American women who are smart, successful historical models of the Protestant work ethic like Abigail Adams, Martha Washington, or Dorothy Hancock to name a few--women who actually contributed their vitality, their Christian faith, their perspicacity to the American Revolution and the founding of The United States. Why not an exhibit about them instead? These women toiled behind the scenes, helpers to the evolutionaries who understood the idea of American exceptionalism well before Alexis de Tocqueville introduced it fifty years later. Diana’s royal legacy, a circumstance only of her tumultuous marriage to the heir of England’s throne, hardly measures up to the sacrificial undertakings of the wives of the signers.
Or how about an exhibit that commemorates modern American women who worked tirelessly to interpret and live out our Constitution in their ground-breaking Presidential cabinet positions as Secretaries of State: Madeline Albright and Dr. Condoleezza Rice? These patently American women, representing gender and racial milestones in our country, were ignored in favor of an iconic European, a darling of the liberal media who would surely sell tickets and boost revenue. On its Web site, The Constitution Center even hails Diana: A Celebration as “an international blockbuster.” In show business they call this “selling out” and that’s exactly what the directors of the center did: they compromised the inherently American scope and integrity of the museum by honoring someone who wasn’t American.
A friend from Northeast Philadelphia who recently attended the exhibit explained in conversation that, “It was a good display for any other museum in Philly, but The Constitution Center celebrates American uniqueness and success based on the freedoms given to us in the Constitution.” She also stated that there was nothing in the exhibit that tied it to the U.S. Constitution. Ashley Berke, senior public relations manager at the center, explained in a telephone interview that while there’s no direct link between Diana and the Constitution, the exhibit invites a wider audience that normally wouldn’t visit the museum.
Linda E. Johnson, the chief executive officer and president of the center, brands it on their Web site as “the only institution in America solely dedicated to fostering a greater understanding of our nation’s most cherished document.” Doesn’t the word “solely” mean “exclusively” or “wholly?” The Princess of Wales’ legacy contributes nothing to a greater understanding of the story of “we the people.”
The Diana exhibit sets a troubling precedent for a strictly American-themed museum, opening the door for other foreigners without connections to the Constitution to be honored in the future. By preserving the uniqueness of The Constitution Center now, we might envision future exhibits that showcase the life and legacy of other great American women.
Maybe one day I’ll attend the exhibit President Palin: A Celebration.
Jane Gilvary is a freelance writer and a student in the graduate Writing Studies Program at St. Joseph’s University.
Why is such a uniquely American museum hosting a three month-long exhibit on Diana, Princess of Wales, a woman who has absolutely no connection to the founding of our nation? That’s right. Diana: A Celebration is a showcase of the Princess of Wales’ distinctly British life and legacy. Can anyone see the hypocrisy of honoring a British Royal at an American museum that is supposed to celebrate and explore our Constitution, its signers, and their history?
Plenty of Americans are ardent devotees of the Royal family. Royal watchers, if you will. Her Majesty the Queen is a timeless icon of British tradition and stateliness in her own right, and Diana’s humanitarian legacy, her quiet beauty, and her buoyancy of spirit during difficult times are admirable traits. Diana’s untimely, gruesome death was certainly tragic too, and Americans grieved with their English cousins across the pond as the House of Windsor mourned her passing and celebrated her life in St. Paul’s cathedral. Forever she’ll be remembered around the world for her endearing personality, polish, and royal radiance. She was England’s rose to be sure.
The Constitution Center, however, was created to celebrate American inimitability, exceptionalism, and achievement based upon the freedoms outlined in our most coveted and unchanging historical text, and to venerate our rule of law. Diana simply doesn’t fit into this historically American equation, and to honor her at what the center calls “the first-ever museum dedicated to the U.S. Constitution” is incongruous with its point and purpose. Our country, shaped by Christian visionaries and thinkers like Benjamin Rush, Samuel Adams, and Patrick Henry to name a few, is fundamentally different from that of our English pedigree, the Princess of Wales included.
It almost seems as if The Constitution Center decided to disregard the throngs of American women who are smart, successful historical models of the Protestant work ethic like Abigail Adams, Martha Washington, or Dorothy Hancock to name a few--women who actually contributed their vitality, their Christian faith, their perspicacity to the American Revolution and the founding of The United States. Why not an exhibit about them instead? These women toiled behind the scenes, helpers to the evolutionaries who understood the idea of American exceptionalism well before Alexis de Tocqueville introduced it fifty years later. Diana’s royal legacy, a circumstance only of her tumultuous marriage to the heir of England’s throne, hardly measures up to the sacrificial undertakings of the wives of the signers.
Or how about an exhibit that commemorates modern American women who worked tirelessly to interpret and live out our Constitution in their ground-breaking Presidential cabinet positions as Secretaries of State: Madeline Albright and Dr. Condoleezza Rice? These patently American women, representing gender and racial milestones in our country, were ignored in favor of an iconic European, a darling of the liberal media who would surely sell tickets and boost revenue. On its Web site, The Constitution Center even hails Diana: A Celebration as “an international blockbuster.” In show business they call this “selling out” and that’s exactly what the directors of the center did: they compromised the inherently American scope and integrity of the museum by honoring someone who wasn’t American.
A friend from Northeast Philadelphia who recently attended the exhibit explained in conversation that, “It was a good display for any other museum in Philly, but The Constitution Center celebrates American uniqueness and success based on the freedoms given to us in the Constitution.” She also stated that there was nothing in the exhibit that tied it to the U.S. Constitution. Ashley Berke, senior public relations manager at the center, explained in a telephone interview that while there’s no direct link between Diana and the Constitution, the exhibit invites a wider audience that normally wouldn’t visit the museum.
Linda E. Johnson, the chief executive officer and president of the center, brands it on their Web site as “the only institution in America solely dedicated to fostering a greater understanding of our nation’s most cherished document.” Doesn’t the word “solely” mean “exclusively” or “wholly?” The Princess of Wales’ legacy contributes nothing to a greater understanding of the story of “we the people.”
The Diana exhibit sets a troubling precedent for a strictly American-themed museum, opening the door for other foreigners without connections to the Constitution to be honored in the future. By preserving the uniqueness of The Constitution Center now, we might envision future exhibits that showcase the life and legacy of other great American women.
Maybe one day I’ll attend the exhibit President Palin: A Celebration.
Jane Gilvary is a freelance writer and a student in the graduate Writing Studies Program at St. Joseph’s University.
 |
 |
|
| Peace At Any Price? | Pa. Headed For A Fiscal ‘Perfect Storm’ |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
