On April 1, President Obama will meet with Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace; he will be in London for the G20 summit, which will begin the next day.  Britain currently holds the rotating presidency of the G20.  In addition to the U.S., the G20 meeting will also be attended by countries including Japan, China, France, Germany, Russia, India and South Africa.  Whatever else comes out of the meeting, the photo of Queen Elizabeth and President Obama might well become iconic.

Could she be the last queen of England?  Could he be the first president of the world?  Let’s consider the prospects:

Queen Elizabeth As The Last Queen Of England. Entirely possible.  It’s questionable whether Prince Charles ever ascends to the thrown at all.  But if not, we can assume that one of his sons will.  Given their age, a monarchy of 40 years wouldn’t be out of the question.  Will England really have its monarchy in 2050 or so?  Will the British people, buckling from the economic crisis, be willing to underwrite the expenses of the monarchy as a priority over more jobs and better funded schools, etc.?  So where does that put the chances of another Queen of England?  Pretty slim, I think.  So, I do not think it is outlandish to say the current Queen of England will be the last.

President Obama As The First President Of The World? Far-fetched, of course, but the actual G20 meeting and the way Obama presents himself to the people of England and all the world may move the needle in the direction of possibility.  Here’s my thinking.

The people of the middle/working class of the world are angry.  They feel they are bearing the major burden of the economic crisis.  They assign blame for the crisis to inept governments and/or governments with wrong priorities, as well as bankers, investors, certain large corporations and others who got wealthy during the boom years.  They feel that those whom they blame flaunted their wealth at the same time they exploited the middle/working class who (they believe, whether factually correct or not) paid an unfair share of taxes, earned too-low wages, and generally were dismissed.  Regardless of topical local issues, around the world these people have one major goal:  to get their government to infuse money into the economy that would serve their needs as a priority over the needs of those they blame, including saving their jobs, giving them raises, and bringing down their costs.  Further, if their government doesn’t have the money to do all that, borrow it.

When I look around the world, I see only one current leader saying the same thing as those people who are voicing their anger either by taking to the streets (as they have throughout Europe but not so much in the U.S., at least yet) or by expressing themselves through phone calls, emails, blogs, and other communications and social network channels (as in the U.S. when voters’ fury over the AIG bonuses forced Congress to pass a notably irrational tax bill in a notably irrational rush).  That’s Obama.

He has been a master at feeling and responding to the mood of the middle/working class, which is the core of his constituency.  “I don’t want to quell anger,” he said when the AIG bonus issue started getting hot.  ”I think people are right to be angry.”  I think that it’s also important that he immediately added:  ”What I want us to do, though, is channel our anger in a constructive way.”  Nevertheless, look around the world and find a leader who is evidencing the same empathy to the middle/working class – someone who is saying he shares their anger as opposed to saying their anger should be quieted.  This will become even clearer at the G20 meeting, when Obama is urging more government action as other leaders dig in their heels under the logic “we can’t do anymore.”

Will a global community of upset people coalesce to voice their dissatisfaction with governments that either don’t act or are blamed for not acting fast or deeply enough while the middle/working class suffers?  For a community to coalesce, they have to come together around something – something more than just anger.  In response to the economic crisis following WWI in Europe, Hitler rallied people around the concepts of Nazism.  In the U.S. in the 60’s, anger over racism coalesced into the primarily non-violent but unrelenting protests led by Martin Luther King.  What will coalesce people now?  Perhaps we can expect proposals for trade embargoes, or anti-immigration policies, racism, or strong-arm governmental action to keep protests subdued.  But maybe a new political philosophy will emerge.  Maybe a new political philosophy is emerging right now.

What might that new political philosophy look like?  Maybe it would move away from capitalism while trying to retain elements of it, or at least enough elements to feel like some form of capitalism.  It might cater to the quality of life of the middle/working class as a priority over the creation and growth of wealth by an upper class.  And it would probably be authored by a political leader who uses the word “us” when relating to the middle/working class and may call practices of the upper class as “the height of irresponsibility” and “shameful.”

Now let’s do the math.  A growing protest movement of the middle/working class around the world + a new political philosophy that caters to those people being implemented in the world’s most powerful and emulated nation + a charismatic leader who bridges geography and races + an ability (and infrastructure) to communicate directly to those people dramatically, frequently, and with a compelling presentation that can be tailored as determined by the information contained in a growing database = a global political leader.

Far-fetched?  Sure.  Impossible?  Nope.  Save the photos coming from the meeting of Queen Elizabeth and President Obama on April 1, 2009.  It may become historic by chronicling the meeting of the last queen of England with the first president of the world.