Talk:State funerals in the United States

Location

The way this article is written, it suggests that state funerals in the USA must take place in Washington, DC. I don't think this is quite right, as I seem to recall that Richard Nixon had a state funeral, but it was held in California. Also, any and all states can conduct state funerals, usually with the lying-in-state taking place in the state's capitol building. Former Governor Tom McCall of Oregon lay in state in the Oregon State Capitol, guarded by members of the Oregon State Police. His pallbearers were recruited from the Oregon National Guard, one of whom was a nurse who cared for him during his last illness. He asked her to perform this last service for him, and of course she agreed to. RogerInPDX (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard Nixon most certainly did not have a state funeral. It was of his own wishes that his family respected. Please see the article Death and funeral of Richard Nixon for this clarification. Yoganate79 (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What about the funerals of non-presidential figures in other states. Like the funeral of Queen Liliuokalani in 1917?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to create an article entitled State funerals in the Kingdom of Hawaii. In 1917, the Territory of Hawaii was not a part of the United States of America. It was a territory that had a political relationship much like Guam or Puerto Rico shares with the United States today. In addition, Liliuokalani was the former Head of State of an independent and sovereign nation known as the Kingdom of Hawaii that existed prior to Hawaii's admission into the Union in 1959. The Queen's death received no formal recognition or observance by the federal government.Yoganate79 (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This is just one example. Liliuokalani, Jonah Kuhio, Princess Kaiulani, some politicians from the Republic all had "state funerals" while Hawaii was part of the US and lay in state in the executive building, the former Iolani Palace. Why does it have to be recognize by the federal government to be a state funeral of the United States? I am betting similiar funerals of famed figures have been given state funerals by other state governments, who were actually part of the union not like Hawaii. It makes no sense to only said that the federal government can recognize a state funeral but not a state or territorial government.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

For example Samuel Adams had a state funeral in Boston, not in Washington, DC [1].--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Sen. Robert Byrd lay in state on the Lincoln catafalque, but not in the Capitol rotunda. Ideally someone who knows the history of lying in state in the Senate Chamber should add this category to the article to bring it into sync with the "Lying in state" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBHollingsworth (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Elmer Ellsworth

Please see Talk:Lying in state#Elmer Ellsworth (U.S.) regarding the lying in state and funeral held in the East Room of the White House for Elmer Ellsworth in 1861. Shouldn't there be some mention of Ellsworth in this article? —BarrelProof (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Checked the article on Elmer Ellsworth and what was referenced in that article appears to be unreferenced and not sourced. Just to let you know, and if you read this article, lying in state on the federal level only occurs in the U.S. Capitol rotunda and lying in state can only be authorized by a concurent resolution by both chambers of Congress. Presidents may lie in repose in the East Room at the White House before their remains are taken by procession to the Capitol for the public viewing. But lying in state, no individual, neither a president nor a soldier, has ever lied in state at the White House.Yoganate79 (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that some of the formal terminology and official procedural rules didn't exist yet in 1861. As for the sourcing, it is easy to find sources for this. Here's one from the Smithsonian. It seems clear to me that his should be considered a state funeral of some sort – it was hosted by the president at the White House, and included highly prominent public viewing and was accompanied by substantial publicity. Have there been other funerals and public body visitations held at the White House that are not listed in these articles as "lying in state" or "lying in honor"? —BarrelProof (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The casket as focal point in state funerals.

I would like to suggest the addition a new subsection covering the subject of "official" caskets. Perhaps it could be point 1.4 in the table of contents (the current point 1.4 becoming 1.5 then). The section should contain both some general information (existing or non-existing rules, regulations and traditions concerning the caskets used in state / presidential funerals; persons making the selection of the casket; payment of the casket from the budget; regulations and traditions concerning the use of an open casket for the purpose of lying in state; existence or non-existence of an official "presidential casket"; preference of certain types of caskets; symbolism of "official" caskets; etc.) and more detailed information on particular historical funerals (for example: the fact that two caskets were used in the case of JFK's funeral; or the fact that FDR's casket was just the opposite of what he had wished for himself according to his written instructions; or the choice of a regular "soldier's casket" by President Eisenhower). It is too difficult to appropriately place such informations into the article under the current table of contents.

Profunditer (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Bush Rotunda.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

John Pershing

General John Pershing was not 'One of' the highest ranking officers in the US Military, he was THE highest ranking officer in the US Military. As General of the Armies, he was second only to the President of the United States, and above all other Military personnel, even 5 Star Generals.

Additionally, his FOUR STAR ranking was SUPERIOR to 5 Star ranks, because it was the insignia of the General of the Armies, four GOLD stars.

When Pershing was promoted to General of the Armies there was neither any insignia for it, as it was simply a rank on paper, so to speak, as no other US Officer had ever achieved the rank (even Washington did not get promoted to the rank until the 1970s), AND pre-dated the US' adoption of the Star system. Thus Pershing was invited to design his own insignia. His design was four gold stars. He was NOT the equivalent of a 4 Star General however. General of the Armies is the ultimate Rank in the US Military, it ranks above even a 5 Star General of the Army, above all Naval and Air Force ranks as well. It out ranks the Chief of the Army, unless the holder of IS the Chief of Staff, and all other positions within the US Military.

More so, upon the adoption of the Star system, a representative of the Government was asked directly, if, now, these new 5 Star Generals outranked Pershing, and it was made clear at the time they did NOT. In fact, Pershing was still technically enlisted, and simply non-active, and the spokesman pointed this out, meaning that even ahead of General George Marshall, General Dwight Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, Admiral Chester Nimitz or Fleet Admiral William Leahy, John Pershing was technically the ranking officer of the US military during WWII, just as he was during WWI.

This article needs to honor the legacy of one of the only two people to ever achieve the highest rank in the US military, and the ONLY one to both receive it in his lifetime, and whilst still on active duty. The wording in this article fails to adequately make clear Pershing's legacy and his distinction, and WHY he was awarded a State Funeral.

JFK

JFK header photo

Every time I've been posting details about the funeral of JFK that's burned most deeply in America's memory, it's been removed. Although we may have memories of other state funerals in the United States, the one that people have heard the most about IS that of JFK. I try to make evident that Kennedy is the state funeral that's carved most deeply in America's memory. This is a reason why I put a picture from that funeral on the top. Theodore White and others have mentioned in books that it's the state funeral that's burned most deeply in America's memory. There are more books, articles, and pictures about the assassination and funeral of JFK than any other state funeral of a POTUS. -- SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070: I think the comment for the reversion answered this for me. George H. W. Bush is the most recent to lie in state, so it's relevance is more significant in the minds of America "today". While JFK's lying in state is incredibly notable, it's notability is claimed by that encyclopedia article itself. When I think about a reader who will view the page about "state funerals in the United States" today, I think about the most relevant question that reader would ask: "who is the last (most famous) person to lay in state in the U.S" and that photo does the trick. Recency is the most relevant piece at the top of a page like this; just as we would post a photo of the current president at the top of a "List of presidents" page. Also, one last comment as an aside, a photo of JFK's lying in state as the featured image may push the reader to think that (1) the most recent president to lay in state was JFK (an odd thought, but potentially valid) and (2) the article is incomplete and may not summarize all that I think it summarizes. Just my two cents. --Engineerchange (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I do understand. But people have read more about JFK's funeral more than other state funerals in the United States. This is why I favored putting Kennedy lying in state first, then George H. W. Bush, because the assassination of JFK produced the state funeral that's carved most deeply in America's memory. The state funeral there's more mention of is that of JFK; others seem to be forgotten as the death is seared in our memories. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I also believe that in putting the picture of JFK lying in state first before Bush and saying that the assassination produced the state funeral that's carved most deeply in America's memory, people will come to know that it's the funeral of John F. Kennedy that's the most famous state funeral in the United States.

In addition, I'm going to do some restructuring on the sections about presidential state funerals; before JFK and after JFK. People aren't going to remember George H. W. Bush lying in state than Kennedy. Plus, Theodore H. White, other historians, books, articles, and broadcasts mention the funeral of Kennedy more than other presidents. That's why it's better to put a picture of JFK lying in state first, then Bush 41. This is to tell viewers that the assassination produced the state funeral that's carved most deeply in America's memory. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070: I think there's a bit of bias in believing U.S. state funerals are all about Kennedy. In my opinion, recency is paramount. State funerals in the United Kingdom highlights Elizabeth II's funeral, but Princess Diana's is probably more memorable for most people. I can see some value in adding a mention of JFK's state funeral to the lead, alike the UK article's mention of Princess Diana's and others, but I still can't weigh the value of JFK's state funeral as the lead photo over the value of the most recent state funeral of the most prominent U.S. leader (read: president). --Engineerchange (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss specific proposed changes here first, and I agree with Engineerchange about the lead picture. The most recent POTUS to lay in state belongs there. Keep in mind that, while Camelot is seared in the minds of those of us over 60, it is a fading memory in the national consciousness, and just an illusion to some. Drdpw (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. But still, I think that even though Camelot is fading, the funeral of JFK is still going to be carved most deeply in America's memory. ALL Americans know about the assassination and funeral of JFK in one way or another, regardless whether they have memories of it or not. They'll be reading about it in history books and there will be books about the assassination and funeral of JFK on major anniversaries. This is a reason why I believe that the funeral of JFK should be mentioned in the lead. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

In the UK article, it would be Churchill, as that was a state funeral. Diana was a ceremonial funeral. I still believe that the state funeral of JFK MUST be mentioned in the lead, as that's the most famous in the United States. The death of Kennedy is seared in the memory of all Americans. Those who were too young in 1963 have read about it in history books. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Insisting that something "MUST be mentioned in the lead" is neither constructive nor collaborative. That said, it might be apropos to note in the lead that the JFK state funeral was the first in the television age, was covered from start to finish (what we call wall-to-wall coverage today), and was watched by tens of millions. Drdpw (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. We can have that about JFK's. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that we can have that about Kennedy's. But we still need to understand that no matter how many years pass, Kennedy's is going to be the most famous and there are going to be more books, articles, and broadcasts, etc. about it. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that we can have something about the JFK state funeral in the lead being the first in the television age and have a picture of JFK lying in state precede that of Bush, as it's the state funeral that's going to be carved most deeply in America's memory, no matter how many years pass, even though Camelot is a fading memory, as it's going to be documented in one way or another over and over again. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 11:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we can move details about the JFK state funeral being the first in the first in the television age moved from the JFK section to the lead and watched by tens of millions as well as a picture of JFK lying in state precede that of Bush. That state funeral is going to be documented over and over again, regardless how many years pass, as he was assassinated. Theodore H. White said that the state funeral is carved most deeply in America's memory and no matter how many years pass, it's going to be replayed on major anniversaries of the assassination. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

JFK section

Starting a new sub topic here. I think the section on Kennedy has some strange wording; namely "heal the Democratic Party" – the article for the assassination uses the verbiage "smooth over frictions". Nevertheless, I'm not sure we need to discuss too much about why he was where he was, then to simply state that he was there, so perhaps just keeping it as "when on a campaign tour to Dallas, Texas to support the state's Democratic party" is better. I'm not sure, just spitballing. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The only reason I added a random list of world leaders who attended the state funeral is because other sections of the article, there are mentions of world leaders who attended those state funerals. It's been talked about quite often. But just mention the prominent ones like de Gaulle, the King of Belgium, and Selassie. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we should mention some the world leaders that attended the funeral of JFK. Two reasons: first, in other sections, there are mentions of which key world leaders attended which state funeral. Secondly, the world leaders that attended the funeral are also talked about quite often. But we're ONLY going to mention the prominent ones, like de Gaulle, Selassie, King Baudouin of Belgium. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

DeGaulle I can see, but calling Haile Selassie, Baudouin, de Valera, Macapagal, and Lübke prominent world leaders I cannot see. If we must list foreign leaders, what about deGaulle, Pearson and Douglas-Home? Drdpw (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The foreign leaders we should list are de Gaulle, Selassie, Baudouin, de Valera, Macapagal, and Lubke. I want to have de Gaulle and Baudouin as they were also the prominent world leaders at the state funeral of Eisenhower as well. De Gaulle, Baudouin, Selassie were up in the front when walking behind the casket. De Valera was from Ireland and paid tribute to Kennedy's Irish roots. Pearson and Douglas-Home weren't that prominent. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We need to list the key foreign leaders. I don't want to have Pearson and Douglas-Home, as they both weren't that prominent. De Gaulle, Selassie, Baudouin were the prominent ones. De Valera, Macapagal, and Lubke can be listed as well. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not essential that we list the key foreign leaders. Further, Haile Selassie, Baudouin, De Valera, Macapagal, and Lubke were not exactly key or prominent world leaders. I find your stated reasons for wanting them listed un-compelling. There's an entire list article about who attended and a JFK state funeral article that mentions many foreign dignitaries by name (both prominently linked via a hatnote), which means that adding them here is unnecessary. Drdpw (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's just mention that it was the largest gathering of foreign dignitaries at any event in the United States. Can we do that? SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Better mind. Let's just say that more than 200 representatives from over 90 countries attended the funeral. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Excellent; a simple statement that says a lot. Drdpw (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

That's good. Can we mention that it was the largest gathering of foreign statesmen in the United States or leave it with that saying just more than 200 representatives from over 90 countries attended the funeral. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The first statement reads like trivia. The second statement is stronger to me because it provides a lot of information in a concise manner. --Engineerchange (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Let's leave it with either more than 200 representatives from over 90 countries attended the funeral or the funeral was attended by 220 representatives from 92 countries. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

To address the trivial feel of the first sentence and to better focus the paragraph on the event, I have modified the paragraph to read: Kennedy's funeral service was held on Monday, November 25, at St. Matthew's Cathedral. The Requiem Mass was led by Cardinal Richard Cushing. About 1,200 guests, including representatives from over 90 countries, attended. After the service, Kennedy was buried at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. Drdpw (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll add the sources and make the changes to the appropriate pages. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

We are now finished with the JFK section about the wording. I hope everybody is OK with the discussions and the wording as we wanted it. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The only reason I mentioned the key foreign leaders was because World Book Encyclopedia mentioned them in their article about JFK when talking about the funeral. Now, it's not here and in the article about the dignitaries. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we can have details about the funeral of JFK being the first in the television age, covered from start to finish in the lead paragraph, rather in the JFK section, as it's the state funeral that's burned most deeply in America's memory. No matter how many years pass, the assassination is going to be mentioned in the history books, on television, and in newspapers and the funeral is going to be replayed over and over again, mentioned in history books, television, and in newspapers.

I even talked about it in the talk page as well. Theodore H. White and other historians and journalists have mentioned that the funeral will be replayed over and over again as long as film exists and people are interested in telling the story of America. I also think that we can have a picture of JFK lying in state precede that of Bush 41 lying in state for the same reasons. People are not going to hear about the Bush 41 funeral more than JFK's.SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 00:15 17 October 2022 (UTC)

One article lead picture. A high quantity color photo from the most state funeral is the best photographic introduction to the article and best represents the focus of the article. Also, no reason to highlight in the lead section that the JFK funeral was the first U.S. state funeral in the television age, as that is not a key component of this article. Perhaps in the article about his funeral, but not here. Drdpw (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Drdpw that the main photo for the article should still only be the photo of George H. W. Bush's funeral. As an aside, the pageviews the last 30 days for the George H. W. Bush funeral article are at just over 10,000 and the pageviews the last 30 days for the JFK funeral article are 11,700. xtools statistics should never be used to rank or affect decisions on articles, as far as I know, but I just want to point out that Bush's article does get read – and the activity is not "significantly" different than JFK's (at least in the last month). It's recency makes it fairly relevant to the average user. --Engineerchange (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we can end the discussion here. It's just that the JFK funeral is documented more than other presidents is the main reason for this discussion. Plus generations will be reading about and seeing pictures from the assassination and funeral in history books. There will be more books and articles, television broadcasts, etc. about the assassination and funeral of JFK. Theodore H. White is right in saying that because it was the first to happen in the television age, generations will be reading and watching about the assassination and funeral over and over as long as film exists. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep, if you are simply going to repeat the same points over and over again, then there is nothing much more to be said here. Drdpw (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I was only saying all of this from observations and from past experiences. But let's end it and say that all the edits and information are APPROVED. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I want to keep the wording in the JFK section intact as in the other pages, particularly State funeral of John F. Kennedy. Please don't make any changes to it. I believe readers will get an intro to it. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 16:14 21 October 2022 (UTC)

That is not how it works; in fact, it the opposite. We build and reshape this article by consensus. The section is accurate, concise objective and informative as is IMO. Drdpw (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Section is APPROVED and the words are APPROVED. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You apparently still do not understand – you do not have the power or authority to approve (or reject either) anything here. Drdpw (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I just had to make one minor edit; Kennedy's body was returned to Washington on the afternoon of November 22, not early November 23. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I believe news accounts at the time differentiated between the return to Andrews AFB, in Maryland, late afternoon November 22, and the arrival at the White House, in Washington D.C., from Bethesda Naval hospital, also in Maryland, in the pre-dawn hours on November 23. Drdpw (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That's correct. Kennedy's body was returned to Washington at Andrews Air Force Base late afternoon November 22 and from there, went to Bethesda Naval Hospital. It arrived at the White House from Bethesda in the pre-dawn hours on November 23. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I used the books The Torch is Passed by the Associated Press, Four Days by UPI and American Heritage to verify the information. Also The Making of the President, 1964 by Theodore H. White. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)