that created the conditions that put here today are being sabotaged and eroded by those with good intentions, but often do not think to the consequences of public policy decisions because they have different views on the human person and human dignity. than those who actually structured our government in the first place. ..

>> it's about 45 minutes. [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] finish [no audio] >> the first thing is -- [no audio] [audio difficulty]

>> so this month that franklin roosevelt announced his court-packing plan which is the subject of much of my book, and i'll talk to in a moment. but the clash between roosevelt and hughes at a critical time in american history, i think, is a great story x it's an important -- and it's an important one. also it raises questions that were important 75 years ago and are important today. one being whether life-tenured justices, conservative justices of the supreme court can thwart the popular will. alternatively, whether a popular-elected president can try to bend the court to his political policies. and those are questions and

issues that are with us today as they were 75 years ago. first, let me tell you a little bit about roosevelt and hughes who were remarkable leaders of the 20th century. they had a great deal in common. both were born in new york, both were only children to doting parents. both were ivy league educated. roosevelt went to harvard, and hughes went to brown. both were two-term, reform governors of new york. so that was the, what they have in common. now, they had a good deal that they did not have in common as well.

roosevelt's parents, james and sarah, took franklin to europe on a very luxurious, extended summer tour every summer. they sent him to prep school which was a prep school for rich boys before matriculating mainly to harvard. so he, roosevelt, had a very, very comfortable life. hughes, on the other hand, was the son of an eye tin rat baptist minister who preached in upstate new york, glen falls, and also in new jersey. they were a family of very modest means, and hughes was essentially home taught. partly, that can be somewhat

descent i have. -- deceptive. his apartments were -- parent bees were quite well educated, and they taught charlie as he was called as a boy modern language -- foreign languages and literature and history and math, and he towed the line literally. his mother made him tow a line and schooled him on mathematics. and hughes himself read deeply and widely on his own and, indeed, he only had really one year of formal schooling before he graduated from ps35 in new york city at the age of 12. and he wanted to go to college, but he inquired and realized he couldn't go to nyu until he was 14. so he took a year off, and in the meantime a friend told him about madison college which is now colgate in upstate new york,

in clinton, new york, and at the age of 14 little charlie -- getting taller now -- went to colgate. and made superior grades. became restless and then transferred to brown university where he was electedfy beta phi beta kappa in his junior year and graduated third in his class. so you can see that his trajectory was slightly different from roosevelt. hughes was a prodigy. he had a photographic memory, and as i said, he was a superior student even before he went to school and continued throughout his, his career. on the other hand, franklin roosevelt to talk about the differences and the contrasts was quite an indifferent student at harvard. made, you know, okay grades but

nothing, nothing special. and his great interest was the harvard crimson, the newspaper at harvard. so he, he didn't spend too much time studying, we think, and then he like hughes went off and studied law at columbia law school in new york city. hughes, of course, was at the top of his class, made the highest grade ever recorded on the new york bar, and franklin actually flunked a couple of courses, never finished but did pass the bar, the new york bar. hughes then went on to be a brilliant lawyer in private practice but also made his name as an investigator of corruption and mismanagement in the, in the utilities and insurance fields. and he was a very cool, very tough investigator. one very indignant ceo of an

insurance company when the question got very, very tough said to hughes, sir, we are missionaries serving the public interest. and hughes said that he was looking into what seemed to be exorbitant salaries. he said, yes, but the question still comes back to the salaries of the missionaries. [laughter] and he just kept boring in, and he made such a impression on everybody that it catapulted him into politics. he was elected governor of new york, republican, and reelected. franklin, on the other hand, never really cared for the practice of law. he practiced a short time, never really liked it. he was really waiting or for his main chance and to show his great talent which was in politics. so you can see the contrast between the two of them as they

went through their early careers. their careers began to intersect in 1916x that's when franklin was now assistant secretary of the navy. he's very consciously pattened his -- patterned his career on his distant cousin, theodore roosevelt. roosevelt had been elected to the state legislature, the new york legislature as was franklin, and t.r. had become assistant secretary of the navy as now had f,dr. all that was left was for fdr to become vice president and president because that's what happened to t.r.. teddy roosevelt after serve anything the cabinet as assistant secretary of the navy then went on to become vice president and president of the united states. and in 1916 roosevelt was assistant secretary of the navy.

hughes had been appointed to the court as an associate justice by president william howard taft. and, but he resigned in 1916 to become the republican candidate for president. and he ran against woodrow wilson. ran a dreadful campaign. he was the odds-on favorite, but he ultimately lost california by 4,000 votes and, therefore, the election. he went to bed the night of the election thinking that he had won. franklin roosevelt, who was a big wilson supporter, went to bed thinking that hughes had won. and then the next morning the returns from the midwest and particularly california came in, and it turned out that wilson won the, won the election just barely. roosevelt continued in, as

assistant secretary of the navy, and then in 19 -- and hughes went back to private ration in new york city. roosevelt in 1920 became the vice presidential candidate of the democratic party running with governor james cox of ohio. they got trounced. by calvin coolidge and warren harding of the republican party. and at the same time after harding was elected, he appointed hughes secretary of state. one year later their forcheck ups seem -- fortunes seemed to have one going up and one going down. hughes became an extraordinarily successful secretary of the state. he was, he convened a disarmament conference in washington in 1921, and he negotiated the reduction of the

tonnage of warships of the three major naval powers being the united states, great britain and japan at that time. it was a great triumph for him. roosevelt, on the other hand, in 1921 was paralyzed from the waist down with polio. and what would seem to be a very promising career -- there was talk in 1920 that roosevelt would be the democratic nominee for president in 1924 or 1928 -- but he was paralyzed, and it looked like his career was over. so you have hughes going up and roosevelt going down. but by 1924 roosevelt with that indomitable spirit began to think of a political career yet again. and he was asked to nominate al smith at the democratic

convention at madison square garden in 1924 which he did. he had braces all the way up and down his legs. he went to podium on the arm of his 16-year-old son james and, of course, tried to make it look effortless. it wasn't as he made his way to the podium. but then he gave a great speech talking about the happy warrior taken from a wordsworth poem. and the crowd erupted. they were just deliriously happy, and they were clapping not just for al smith, but certainly for franklin roosevelt as well. and four years later roosevelt was elected governor of new york. and in 1930 he was reelected by a landslide. in 1930 president herbert hoover appointed hughes chief justice of the united states. so you can see they're beginning to come together and, of course,

by 1930 there was great talk of roosevelt as the democratic nominee for president in 1932. so in 1932, of course, he, he campaigned against hoover and beat him very badly. and in 1933, march of 19be 33 franklin roosevelt and charles evans hughes exchanged letters. and franklin roosevelt wanted to know if he could recite the entire oath, not just saying, i do. and in asking hughes if that was okay he remarked that a it was very interesting, he thought that one former new york governor was going to be administering the oath to another new york governor, and they each expressed great respect for each other and looked forward to their association, said hughes, and a common enterprise.

so roosevelt is inaugurated president in 1933. by this time hughes had made a very strong record as a civil rights is and libertarian. he wrote some very important decisions protecting freedom of the press, for example, and freedom of association. but what got him and roosevelt on a collision course was the constitutional challenges to the new deal legislation. larry in 19 -- particularly in 1935 and 1936. the hughes court began to strike down one piece of new deal legislation after another. now, hughes was actually a centrist. he was neither a conservative, nor a liberal. he was a centrist. but he wanted in the worst way to keep the court together and

try to project an image of stability and integrity. so he tried to mask the court when he could. and sometimes he could. for example, the court unanimously struck down the national recovery act administration which was the new deal legislation trying to spur the industrial sector of the, of the economy. but he was not so successful when the court struck down the agricultural adjustment act which was the act that tried to spur the agricultural economy. so sometimes hughes had most of the court with him, and sometimes he didn't. and he sort of went back and forth, and he tried to again project the notion of stability on the part of the court, and his nuanced treatment of the, of the constitutional case went

right past franklin roosevelt. he was just furious. he was furious over every single decision in which the court made up of five -- four ideological conservatives and, basically, three liberals. the liberal wing was led by justice louis brandeis but also bus disbenjamin -- justice benjamin ken doze saw and harlan stone. and hughes and his fellow hoover appointee, justice roberts, were sort of in the middle. but roosevelt won re-election in a landslide in 936, and -- 1936, and he'd been thinking about doing something about this conservative court for a long timement -- time. he thought about a constitutional amendment, he thought about various kinds of statutes that might limit the court and even a court-packing plan. a court-packing plan in which he would appoint additional

justices who would be more sympathetic to the new deal legislation. so in early 1937 on the heels of this very impressive re-election victory roosevelt announced a court-packing plan. it was in february of 1937. 75 years ago. and his plan was he was concerned, he said, that the justices on the court were rather worn down and too old, and they need some new justices who had a little more energy who, of course, he would appoint. and it turned out, and his proposal was he would be able to appoint one justice for every justice over 70 years old. it turned out six of the justices were over 70 years old including chief justice hughes. so nobody was really fooled by

roosevelt and his proposal. everybody saw it for what it was. it was an attempt by him to undercut the conservative court and try to restore the new deal constitutionally. and hughes who, of course, said nothing publicly was furious. and he was asked by the senate judiciary committee if he would write a letter which he did. it was a seven-page letter in which he documented how that court was completely up-to-date. he also said that if there were additional justices, be -- if court came to 15 justices, it would slow down their work because there'd be many -- more conferences and more opinions, and it'd take more time. so he very emphatically rejected

the idea that this court-packing plan was a good idea. and the plan was resoundingly defeated. later roosevelt in grudging admiration for hughes said that he was, he was the best politician in the country. [laughter] he just had to deal with one of the most popular presidents in our history, and he did that. what's interesting is from 1937 to 1940 both roosevelt and hughes continued to lead. they did not cede leadership. roosevelt had been defeated, his court-packing plan had been defeated. hughes was virtually inundated with new appointees. roosevelt appointed five members to the court in less than three years from 1937 to 1940. so hughes was surrounded by new

appointees, all loyal new dealers. and yet hughes himself continued to lead that court. felix frankfurter who had been a confidant of justice stone during the worst part of the destruction of the new deal by the conservative court taught -- thought that hughes, he was just scathing in his criticism of hughes. and once he got on the court, he considered hughes one of the great chief justices of all time, compared him to toscanini and his mastery of constitutional cases. so hughes continued to lead even though he was outnumbered on the court by roosevelt appointees, had great admiration from all of his new colleagues, and he basically ushered in the new constitutional era in which the court began to expand civil rights and liberties which was something he cared dearly about. and they began to defer to

congress in economic and social legislation. roosevelt never gave up. he still, he was still mad over his defeat on the court-packing plan. he was just angry as he could be. he refused to talk to only of the senators who had been instrumental in defeating him. but then he got on with the business of, particularly in '38 and '39, of trying to get aid to the allies and particularly great britain. and it was very difficult because he faced an isolationist congress. and some of those who opposed his giving aid to great britain were some of them who opposed his court-packing plan too. but he and people like burton wheeler of montana. but roosevelt was up to the challenge, and he outmaneuvered them, and he did -- he was able

to get aid to churchill before the u.s. entered world war ii. and i think it wasser terribly important. so hughes then retires from the court in 1941 and, of course, we know that roosevelt continued, was hechted to a fourth term in 19 -- elected to a fourth term in 190 and really with churchill was instrumental, i think, in seeing us toward an allied victory. toward the end of his life he was really very, very sick, but nonetheless he refused to give in, he never let anybody know he was as sick as he was, and then he died in 1945. and it's an interesting, there's a photograph -- the last photograph in my book on fdr and chief justice hughes is of hughes and his wife after the

funeral service at the white house. and hughes looks absolutely distraught which suggests to me that he really, despite their clashes, their friction, he had great respect and affection for franklin roosevelt. and i know it's very clear from the documentation that roosevelt did for hughes. so it seems to me that now we move forward just slightly to the 2012, and i'll suggest certain parallels between the two presidents and the court and maybe some differences, and then i'll open it up for questions from you. first, the pair hells -- parallels. well, roosevelt like president obama was a reformed democrat, democratic president. and both of them were willing to challenge the court when they

thought their decisions were wrong. certainly, franklin roosevelt did at some length and over a long period of time. obama showed at his state of the union in 2010 that he was willing to challenge the justices who were sitting right in front of him on the, the campaign finance, the citizens united case. i have no doubt that if this court, the roberts court, strikes down the health care law which, of course, is coming up for argument next month, if they strike it down all or part of it, i think president obama will be critical of them publicly. will he propose a court-packing plan as fdr did? [laughter] i don't think so. obama is a very keen student of american history, and he knows that most historians rate the court-packing plan as one of the

worst things that franklin roosevelt ever did during his tenure as president. what about the comparing the hughes court and the robert court and the two chief justices? well, there are certain parallels. both hughes and roberts were brilliant lawyers before they were appointed to the court, and they were both appointed by republican presidents. but i would suggest to you that there's a difference in their, in their politics and in their constitutional interpretations as well. hughes was a centrist, as i said to you. he was a progressive republican. as governor of new york, he was an internationalist. as secretary of state. and he really wanted to pull the court together, and he was not ideological in his decisions.

chief justice roberts, on the other hand, it seems to me before he came on the court he was a fierce advocate for conservative causes, and on the court he has consistently aligned himself with the conservative, most conservative members of the court on the most polarizing issues such as campaign finance and affirmative action, for example. so i think there are similarities, and there are differences. i do believe that the court will be an issue in the fall presidential campaign because a lot is at stake in terms of the future of the court. whoever's elected in november is probably going to have at least one and maybe more appointments to the court. there's seven -- four members of the court are over 70 years old.

be the next -- if next, during the next term there are at least two appointments, of course, it depends on who they are, there's a good chance that the future direction of the court will be determined. for many years to come. and in no small measure the future of the nation. so there are parallels. there are historical lessons to be learned from my book on fdr and chief justice hughes, but i just think on its own it's a fascinating story of two remarkable leaders of american government in the 20th century. so thank you, and i'll take a few questions if you have them. [applause] any questions? [inaudible conversations] >> here's the mic. they want -- [laughter] >> well, i have two. one would be, um, you had said at the beginning that the

difference in the sociological backgrounds of hughes and roosevelt, and i wonder how that affected their relationship while hughes was on the court. and the other is you talked about the, um, the issue of the supreme court packing, and that's certainly a lesson for barack obama that he doesn't have to deal with. but what are some of the issues from their time together, roosevelt and hughes, that obama should study and learn from, and what might he do to influence the court? >> those are very good questions. the first one in terms of their different backgrounds growing up did it have any effect on their relationship, i don't think so. i mean, roosevelt even though he, as i said, grew up in

splendor in duchess county, he reached out. he had such a capacity to reach out to farmers and blue collar workers with, and there was no pretense on it. he loved talking to people, and he loved people. and i don't think he was at all aware of caste in any way. and hughes, hughes was, i mean, he grew up in certain modern circumstances, so there was a humility to hughes. he was not humble intellectually. he was a really brilliant guy. but i don't think that so far as i know that he also, there was no arrogance in terms of resentment in terms of class. as to what president obama might

learn from studying my book -- >> there you go. [laughter] >> -- on fdr and chief justice hughes, i think, i think he would, he would already know without reading the book that it's -- because it's more toward his temperament which is one of a more prudent, more considered. of i mean, fdr just got angry as hell all the time, and i think obama is much more cerebral and careful. >> [inaudible] >> well, except for the court-packing plan. >> right. >> but i think he would, he could go out, and he could study some of what roosevelt did in terms of questioning publicly whether these were really authentic constitutional decisions or were they decisions

rendered by ideological conservatives who really just were interested in conservative results? and this was, of course, roosevelt's view. and i suspect it may be president obama's view from time to time too, so he could look strategically to how to get that point across. yes, back there. wait for the microphone, please. [inaudible conversations] >> somebody has to bring it to them. >> yes. >> who brought the cases against the new deal? >> well, it would not surprise you, it's who brought the health care case against the president? generally, people who are critics of the statute who may be politically opposed to the administration in power. that certainly was so during the new deal. there were a number, there were a number of cases brought by those, some of whom had been

very active in the republican party against this new deal legislation. not entirely, but many of the cases were brought by those who were critical of the, of the new deal. >> [inaudible] >> can you repeat it? what particular statutes were struck down. well, as i said, one was a national recovery administration which was the major statute, the national industrial recovery act -- >> [inaudible] >> no. and that was a very broad-based statute to try to deal with industrial covering. the agricultural adjustment act was a second one, that was an act which tried to deal with the recovery in the agricultural sector. and there were a number of others well that went up and down the spectrum of new deal

legislation. yes. >> i'm curious what you think of a plan, fs it it was talked abot in the a recent issue of the new yorker and was suggested by, of all people, rick perry, about possible term limits on the court. both specifics of that plan and just generally whether you think that would provide a greater balance. >> i read that. well, it's interesting. i don't think it's going anywhere. i think, um, i think even with the court-packing plan, the fdr court-packing plan, it was very clear that though, again, as i told you, roosevelt was reelected in a landslide in 1936, and yet the american people were not very keen on messing with the institution of the supreme court of the united states in terms of tenure or appointments.

and i think that would be even more so today. i think, i think american voters as a whole like their supreme court. they revere the supreme court. they don't -- they don't agree with all the decisions, but they, they respect the institution. as it is. >> what was the age difference between the two? >> roosevelt and hughes? quite a lot. they were -- hughes was born in 1862, and roosevelt was born in 880, so it was almost an 8 18-year difference. hughes, by the way, was a progressive republican. his father was a great admirer of abraham lincoln, and when lincoln was assassinated, he came home, and hughes remembered this. and he remembered that his father said to his mother, he said if you had been killed, i

wouldn't have felt any worse worse than i do today. i mean, nothing -- no reflection -- >> their marriage. >> didn't hurt their marriage. they were a very happily married couple. >> hi. >> yes. >> a little broader, and it's kind of a follow up, but it's about the supreme court in general. i mean, on one side they seem like a stepchild, and different presidents want to get rid of them like jefferson. of on the other side, they seem to be all-powerful, almost like a monarchy. where do you take this from? i mean, do you think they should be elected? do you think they should have term limits? >> ono. i sort of like -- now, you remember, i taught constitutional law for many, many be years. this is my bread and butter, so i don't want to do too much to the court. [laughter] but i think overall it's important that there be a stability to the court. i don't think they should be elected. i think they should have that

kind of security and even when there's great controversy over the court as there was in the '30s and as there is today and there probably will continue to be, more often than not the court goes about its business in a very professional way. and the system itself has a way of working itself out. for example, the court struck down many new deal statutes, but within five years roosevelt had appointed a number of justices, and most of the later legislation, the economic legislation was upheld as constitutional. so it goes in cycles. >> jim, i've always been interested in the presidential decision, the executive decision in 1941 to remove thousands of japanese-americans from their homes, many of whom were citizens from their homes on the

west coast and put in what were, essentially, concentration camps. >> when yes. >> i don't know if charles hughes was still the chief justice at that time, but i wonder in your research if you had come across any of the reasoning behind your liberal president such as roosevelt allowing that to happen? >> well, roosevelt, roosevelt issued an executive order which, essentially, allowed the displacement of these japanese-americans on the west coast, um, and it was a terrible dig. decision. on his part. but it was stained, that decision was stainedded by the u.s. supreme court. now, hughes was no longer on the court. but some of roosevelt's appointees, great liberals -- hugo black, william o. douglas, felix frankfurter -- all were in

the majority in, basically, sustaining the constitutionality of those presidential or those executive orders. why? because they were patriots, and they thought it was important. if military told them that there was a danger on the west coast for sabotage from japanese-americans, they were inclined to defer to the military on that. terrible decision. the care mat sue was a terrible decision during world war ii. this was after hughes was no longer chief justice. but generally speaking the court tends to downgrade civil rights and liberties in times of war, and certainly that was so during world war ii because the national security becomes the number one issue, i think. yeah.

>> [inaudible] was that case ever heard? was there ever a case brought? >> yes, yes. the karamatsu case was heard, and it was decided in 1943. >> italians were also interred. >> yes, but the great challenge and the great displacement were not of italian and german-americans, but of japanese-americans, and that's where the court rendered their, several decisions. but one of them was the most important, i think, was the karamatsu decision in which they basically gave the military and the executive the liberty to deprive japanese-americans of their liberty. >> i didn't realize it went to the supreme court. >> yeah. yes. back there. >> returning to the similarities between the past and the

present, are there similarities in the constitutional arguments of hughes and striking down new deal legislation that will be press kennels -- precedents that will be referred to by the roberts court, for example, in terms of the scope of executive power or the size of government? >> yes. one of the arguments for many of the decisions of the hughes court is the issue is whether congress has exceed bed its -- exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce. so whether it could do regulations that went across straight lines -- very broad-based regulations. well, that's going to be one of the arguments in the health care bill that comes up for argument next month. and the question is whether, whether, whether congress has exceeded its authority under the commerce clause. and there are precedents, i think most of the precedents cut

toward congress. that is that i think most of the precedents certainly in the late 1930s, some of which chief justice hughes wrote, gave congress more leeway to regulate interstate commerce. finish and that became pretty much the modern commerce clause doctrine for the next 60 years. but we don't know about this court. this is a very polarized court, and there are certainly precedents the other way also. so it'll be very, very interesting to see that. what happens. well, thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. >> is there a nonfiction author or book you'd like to see featured on booktv? send us an e-mail at

booktv@cspan.org. or tweet us at twitter.com/booktv. >> several years ago when the queen was at one of her yearly garden parties at buckingham palace making her way through a crowd of nearly 9,000 people and greeting a selection of guests, she was asking such standard questions as, have you come far? when one woman looked at her and said what do you do? [laughter] several days later at a friend's birthday party, the queen described the exchange and confessed, i had no idea what to say. it was the first time in all the years of meeting people that anybody had ever asked her that question. [laughter] well, my job in writing "elizabeth, the queen "was not only to explain what she does, but to tell what she's really like and to take the reader as close as possible to elizabeth, the human being; the wife, the

mother and the friend as well as the highly respected leader. today i'm going to talk first about what it was like to write about queen elizabeth and, second, i'd like to share with you some of the many surprising discoveries that i made about the queen because she is the best known woman in the world. people feel as if they know her. but the real woman is very different from the woman in velvet and ermine. s this is my sixth biography, all of them about larger-than-life characters that barbara mentioned, but there is no one like the queen. and she lives in her very own remarkable world. while other heads of state have come and gone, elizabeth is the longest-serving leader in the world spanning the 20th and 21st centuries. she is the 40th monarch in the thousand-year history of the

british monarchy reigning over the united kingdom of england, wales, scotland and northern ireland along with 15 realms and 14 overseas territories. she is the second monarch to celebrate a diamond jubilee marking 60 years on the thrown which is a milestone that she will reach on february 6th. the only other was her great, great grandmother, queen victoria, whose celebration was 115 years ago in 1897 when she was 78 years old. if elizabeth, who will soon turn 86, is still on the throne in september 2015, she will surpass victoria's reign of nearly 64 years. between the two of them, victoria and elizabeth have been on the throne for 124 of the last 174 years and have

symbolized britain far longer than the four men who were king between their reigns. elizabeth is always surrounded by people. but being queen makes her a solitary and singular figure. it is crucial for her to deep a delicate balance at all times. if she seems too mysterious and distant, she loses her bond with her subjects. but if she seems too much like everyone else, she loses her mystique. she doesn't carry a passport, she doesn't have a driver's license, although one of her cousins told me that she drives like a bat out of hell on the roads of her country estates. she can't vote, she can't appear as a witness in court, and she can't change her face -- faith from anglican to roman catholic. and because of her hereditary position, everyone around her -- including her closest friends

and family -- bows and curtsies when they greet her and when they say good-bye to her. although she was trained by strict nannies who prevented her from being spoiled, she was also trained from childhood to expect this deference. a friend of mine told he about the time when -- told me about the time when then-princess elizabeth came to visit his family castle in scotland, and he playfully threw her onto a sofa. his father, the 12th earl, took him by the article, punched him in the stomach and said don't you ever do that to royalty. the princess didn't mind, my friend told me, but that was the structure in which she was brought up. so how does a biographer, particularly an american, penetrate the royal bubble? especially when the queen has had a policy for the past 60 years of not granting interviews? actually, it really wasn't too different from the way i've

approached my other books which was to turn to those who knew her best for insights and information. i am a long-time anglo file, and i've visited britain frequently over the past three decades and have made a lot of friends, some of whom helped me when i was reporting my book on princess diana in the late 1990s. when i started researching the queen's life, i went back to a group of key sources who agreed to help me again and to introduce me to more people who knew the royal family. they also served as my advocates in getting cooperation from buckingham palace. my book on diana had been fair to the royal family and particularly to charles, so the senior staff at the palace briefed the queen, and they gave me the green light. as a result, i had access to her inner circle of close friend and

advisers. while the queen has disciplined herself to keep her views and emotions under wraps in public, those close to her shared with me some of her fascinating opinions and feelings, what worried her most about prince charles when his marriage to diana was falling apart, for example. what would happen if she became physically or mentally incapacitated and even some politically-sensitive opinions including one hot button issue that she discussed with an american ambassador. her friends explained the secrets of her serenity and her courage, and they sized her up sometimes in unusually perceptive ways. monty roberts, the california horse whisperer, who is one of her most unlikely friends told me that when the queen gave him good advice, she showed an incredible ability to read

intention just like a horse does. with the assistance of the palace, i was also able to watch the queen and prince phillip in many different settings; at the garter parade at windsor castle, while presenting honors at buckingham palace, investitures, and at one of her annual garden parties at the palace. for that i received a permized ini have -- personalized invitation on white parisboard 'em bossed with gold and the queen's crown and cipher announcing that the lord chamberlain had been commanded by her majesty to invite me. [laughter] everybody got that. watching the queen at that forwarden party make her way -- garden party make her way along a line of people, i was struck by her measured pace. her lord chamberlain later told me that she moves slowly to absorb everything that's going on and to take as much in as she

can. i also marveled at her mastery of brief but focused conversations and her sturdy stance, a technique that she once explained to the wife of one of her foreign secretaries by lifting her evening gown above her ankle and saying one plants one's feet apart like this, always keep them parallel, make sure your weight is evenly distributed, and that's all there is to it. [laughter] as i observed the queen over the course of a year, i accumulated impressions that helped me understand how she carries out her role and how earnestly she does her job, with great discipline and concentration in every situation. she is not just a figurehead. and she has an impressive range of duties. every day except christmas and easter or she spends several

hours reading those government boxes that barbara just described. they are delivered, they are red leather boxes that can only be opened by four keys. she reads them in the morning and at night and even on weekends. one of her close friends told me about the time during one of the queen's visits when she was desk-bound all morning. must you, ma'am, her friend asked? the queen replied, if i missed once, i might never catch up again. mary soams, who is the youngest daughter of the queen's first prime minister, winston churchill, told me that when elizabeth was a young 25-year-old queen, her father had been impressed by her attentiveness that she always paid attention to whatever she was doing. it's hard to imagine the amount of information that the queen has accumplaited over -- accumulated over six decades,

and she has used it in exercising her right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn when she meets with government officials as well as senior military officers, clergymen, diplomats and judges who come to her for confidential, private audiences. as he once said, the fact that there's nobody else there gives them a feeling they can say what they like. the most important of these encounters have been the weekly audiences with her 12 prime ministers. consider the trajectory from churchill, who was born in the 19th century and served in the army of her great, great grandmother, queen victoria, to david cameron, her current prime minister, who was born three years after her youngest child, prince edward. she actually glimpsed the first of her -- for the first time her future 12th prime minister when

he appeared at age 8 in the school production of to do of to do hall with edward -- toad of toad hall with edward. probably her most fascinating relationship was with margaret thatcher, and in the course of my reporting i gained some great insights into how that relationship worked and some of which contradicted the common view. the queen does not have executive power, but she does have unique influence. in her role as head of state, she represents the government officially at home and abroad, but she also serves as head of nation which means that she connects with people to reward their achievements and remain in touch with their concerns. two decades past the normal retirement age she still does something like 400 engagements a year. traveling around the united kingdom to cities as well as tiny hamlets.

charles poll who served as private secretary to both john major and margaret thatcher told me that the queen knows every inch of this country in a way no one else does. she spends so much time meeting people that she has an understanding of what other people's lives are like. she understands what the normal human condition is. she's also spent an extraordinary amount of time honoring citizens and members of the military for exemplary service. in 60 years she has conferred more than 400,000 honors and awards and given them in person over 600 times. people need pats on the back sometimes, she has said. it's a very dingy world otherwise. traveling with the queen was particularly valuable, especially the overseas royal tour i took to bermuda and trinidad. she was 83 years old at the time, and her program called for

long days of meeting and greeting. her stamina was impressive. matched only by 88-year-old prince phillip. whenever they go off on a trip together like that, the lord chamberlain always accompanies them to the airport, and phillip turns around and waves at him and says, mind the shop. [laughter] i got a real sense of how much in sync phillip and elizabeth are with an expert choreography sort of like fred astaire and ginger rogers. i also saw aspects of him that contradict his caricature of brashness and insensitivity. he always watches the queen intently to see whether she needs any assistance. i once saw him bring a little child over to greet her. he often spots people in the crowd who can't see very well, and he'll walk them out to give them a better vantage point. when the queen needs a boost, he's also there with a humorous

aside such as don't be so sad, sausage. [laughter] on the last night in trinidad, i also witnessed at close range what i had heard about from several people, but the queen doesn't perspire. even in the hottest temperatures. the british high commissioner was hosting a garden party in his hilltop home on such a steamy evening that everyone, including me, was dripping from the heat. but after an hour of lively conversations with some 65 guests, the queen walked past me very close by x there was absolutely -- and there was absolutely no moisture on her face. one of her coiz sins who traveled in the tropics with her explained to me in her own inimmitt bl way that the queen's skin does not run water. [laughter] and that while it may look good, it does make her uncomfortable. i saw further evidence of this a year later on a july day at

ground zero in manhattan when the temperature hit 103 degrees. and one of the women, the queen spoke to said to me afterwards, we were all pouring sweat, but she didn't have a bead on her. that must be what it's like to be a royal. during these trips i was able to see the buckingham palace machinery on the road. to get to know the senior officials and to get a feel for the atmosphere around the queen and the way her household has changed from the early days when it was run entirely by aristocratic men. as i stood in the lobby of her hotel in trinidad, her master of the household pointed toward a half dozen footmen, one of whom was a woman, all dressed in navy blue suits. see sam over there, he said, he has a master's degree in paleontology. it was a far cry from the