Mrs. Obama Hugs Queen of England - question for UK posters

[Broomstick]

It's been all over the news today that Mrs. Obama and Queen Elizabeth II of Britain embraced today.

How big a deal is this in the UK?

From an American viewpoint it was very much in the "friendly gesture" category. Presidents and First Ladies are not normally touched in public by non-family/non-friends, but if they initiate the gesture it's seen as a positive. My understanding is that the British monarch is not to be touched in public because, well, that's how royalty is.

Supposedly, the queen is the one who initiated the contact. Does that change things?

What's the viewpoint of the UK folks here? Other Europeans?

[General Zod]

CNN had a rather nice article explaining it, in case you haven't read it.

(CNN) -- First lady Michelle Obama was expected to make headlines in Europe with her style and flair as she accompanied her husband to the Group of 20 summit, but it was a simple gesture that has set off a media frenzy.

While meeting Britain's Queen Elizabeth II in London on Wednesday, the two women briefly embraced -- not your typical scene at Buckingham Palace.

The British media called it everything from a breach of protocol to an extraordinary show of affection from the queen.

The Times of London proclaimed it a "touching moment," and the palace apparently agreed.

"This was a mutual and spontaneous display of affection and appreciation between the queen and Michelle Obama," a palace spokeswoman said.

CNN's Carol Costello talked about the moment Thursday with Charles Mosley, author of "Blood Royal," on CNN's "American Morning."

CNN: According to our tabloids in the United States, the meeting went really well. What's your take?

Mosley: Absolutely. What is astounding is the picture of the queen with her arm around Michelle Obama and Michelle Obama's hand around the queen, too. But the queen made the first move. This is the most astounding thing because the queen is not known for being touchy-feely. Indeed, her son Prince Charles complained on one occasion that he wasn't given enough affection when he was a child. She's obviously a late developer.
Don't Miss

* Blog: amFIX
* TIME.com: Did the first lady break protocol?

CNN: What's the big deal [about touching the queen]?

Mosley: The big deal is that the queen is normally a sacred person. In monarchies, there's a sacredness that surrounds the sovereign, which is perhaps not known in republics, at least not all the time in the way that it is in a monarchy. She's been on the throne a very, very long time, and she is herself a very dignified person, all the more so because of her relatively short stature.

Video Watch to see if "hugging" the queen broke protocol »

One of the things one saw yesterday was the way [President] Obama and Michelle towered over the queen and indeed Prince Philip.

CNN: By the queen putting her hand on the small of Michelle Obama's back, does that signal friendship? The queen said something to Michelle Obama toward the end of the meeting about keeping in touch.

Mosley: Certainly, keeping in touch is meant quite literally. Yes, it's a very significant gesture; she's not known for this kind of thing.

amFIX: Your thoughts on Michelle Obama and the queen

CNN: Let's talk about the other gesture: the gift of the iPod. Some tabloids are calling it the "i-Dud" in the sense that this wasn't a great present to give the queen. What do you think?

Mosley: Not a bad one at all. The queen is actually quite technologically advanced. She uses e-mail to a much greater extent than most members of the royal family and particularly much more than her son, who is a bit of a technophobe.
advertisement

CNN: [The queen gave the president a silver-framed photograph of herself and her husband.] Was it a recent picture of the queen and Prince Philip at least?

Mosley: That I don't know. If it's the same as she gives everybody, it must be a sort of middle period picture because it would have to cover so many years. On the other hand, it may well be that this gesture of terrific friendship and affection for Michelle Obama was her way of saying, "Sorry, I should have given you something more personal."

[FSTargetDrone]

I was amused when someone on MSNBC or CNN pointed out that Prince Philip is supposed to remain 2 steps behind the Queen when she is meeting people. And he did.

Ah, these royalists.

[Stark]

There's nothing funnier than Americans being all 'omg whut' about the way etiquette works regarding the royal family, given their amazing deference to the president and the protocol surrounding the post. Being nice to old lady = bizarre?!

[FSTargetDrone]

There's nothing funnier than Americans being all 'omg whut' about the way etiquette works regarding the royal family, given their amazing deference to the president and the protocol surrounding the post. Being nice to old lady = bizarre?!

I think the chatter is centered around this idea that She Is Not To Be Touched. It's not so much as not being nice to HRH as it is her being, <shock>, touched.

Edit: This reminds a bit of the scene in The Queen when the Blairs are met by some functionary or other who instruct them on what exactly they are to do when they meet the Queen for the first time.

Edit the Second: Also over here, it's practically nothing but how well Michelle Obama is being regarded by, well, most of the UK, apparently. Everything from her fashion sense to her interaction with some school girls. It's all quite positive.

[Big Phil]

More amusing is the wild eyed screeching at Faux News over Obama's gift of an iPod.

[JointStrikeFighter]

There's nothing funnier than Americans being all 'omg whut' about the way etiquette works regarding the royal family, given their amazing deference to the president and the protocol surrounding the post. Being nice to old lady = bizarre?!

Flag touch ground = ZOMFG BURY THAT SHIT!FULL MILITARY HONOURS!

[FSTargetDrone]

Flag touch ground = ZOMFG BURY THAT SHIT!FULL MILITARY HONOURS!

Not quite. Burning is one method for disposal of a flag that has become no longer "suitable" for display:

Flag Disposal

Claim: An American flag should be burned if it has been allowed to touch the ground.

Status: False.

Origins: One of the signs of creeping old fogeyism is finding out how many of the irrefutable truths we learned as youths turned out to be false. Today's being Flag Day reminds me of yet another cardinal rule I assimilated as a child which I later discovered was wrong: that if an American flag is allowed to touch the ground, it should be burned.

The rules we observe with respect to our flag are laid out in the U.S. Code. (These codes specify how the flag should be displayed, but they do not establish any legal penalties for those who violate them.) The notion that the U.S. flag should burned after touching the ground is a long-held misconception based upon a conflation of two different parts of the flag code.

Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Code ("Respect for flag") states in paragraph (b) that:

The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.

And in paragraph (k) it states:

The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

The fallacy about burning a ground-touched flag arises from the mistaken beliefs that a flag that has been allowed to touch the ground is no longer "suitable for display" and must therefore be destroyed, and that the only proper form of disposal for a flag is to burn it. These beliefs reflect a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the flag code.

Although the flag should never be allowed to touch anything beneath it (including the ground), it is not automatically rendered unfit for display should this situation occur. The proper course of action in such a case is simply to adjust the flag, or the item(s) below it, so that they are no longer touching. Even if the flag has become soiled from contact with the ground (or something else) to the extent that it is no longer suitable for display, it need not be disposed of — it is perfectly permissible to wash or dry clean a dirty flag in order to render it fit for display again. The flag need be destroyed only when it has become irreparably unsuitable for display due to circumstances such as fading, tattering, tearing, staining, partial burning, mutilation, or defacement.

Also, burning is not the only acceptable method of disposing of a flag, just the preferred one. The intent of the code specifying a "dignified way" of disposal is to prevent a no-longer-usable flag from ending up in an undignified setting, such as being dumped into a trash can amidst a bunch of rotting garbage or thrown atop a junk heap. Destroying the flag by burning it ensures that the flag will not end up in such surroundings. Many civic associations (e.g., Boy Scouts, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion) will accept non-serviceable flags for proper disposal.

Last updated: 14 December 2007

Is Flag-worship a bit crazy in the US? You betcha. But not that crazy.

[Stark]

I think the chatter is centered around this idea that She Is Not To Be Touched. It's not so much as not being nice to HRH as it is her being, <shock>, touched.

What? People are talking about how they appeared quite physically intimate quickly. As a public figure, it's pretty obvious the Queen doesn't generally warm to people very fast. The idea that protocol for how to meet major figures is somehow unique to the royal family is so bogus it doesn't merit a response.

[Broomstick]

More amusing is the wild eyed screeching at Faux News over Obama's gift of an iPod.

More specifically, the gift of an iPod pre-loaded with pictures from one of the queen's prior visits to America, sort of a high-tech photo album.

I am not amused by the hyperventilating over the fact the queen is 80+ and receiving an iPod. Old people can use computers and electronics, too, and supposedly the queen is technologically literate, uses e-mail, etc. so really, it doesn't strike me as that bizarre.

[Thanas]

She also watches Dr. Who DVDs, FWIW.

[salm]

What's the viewpoint of the UK folks here? Other Europeans?

Not sure if "other Europeans" have a viewpoint here since we tend to not care abaout the British queen. Besides middle aged housewives with feel-good-weight and tendencies to watch telenovelas of course.

[Zac Naloen]

I keep hearing contradicting stories, did the queen initiate or Michelle? Either way, the fact the queen reciprocated pretty much makes it okay.

Michelle Obama is not one of the queens subjects, and on the international stage is equal to say prince phillip as far as heads of state go.

In the end, it's no where near the deal it was when the Oz prime minister did it, for the reason above.

[FSTargetDrone]

What? People are talking about how they appeared quite physically intimate quickly. As a public figure, it's pretty obvious the Queen doesn't generally warm to people very fast. The idea that protocol for how to meet major figures is somehow unique to the royal family is so bogus it doesn't merit a response.

I agree. It's just that we have heard over here in the States things like, "First Lady's Faux Pas?" coming from various royal watchers in the UK. I certainly don't have a problem with the Queen hugging someone or vice-versa.

In addition, this isn't exactly like Merkel's apparent uncomfortable reaction when Bush gave her that brief neck "massage" a year or 3 back.

I am not amused by the hyperventilating over the fact the queen is 80+ and receiving an iPod. Old people can use computers and electronics, too, and supposedly the queen is technologically literate, uses e-mail, etc. so really, it doesn't strike me as that bizarre.

Yeah, what was she supposed to do, limit it to a box of fine chocolates or a nice crystal decorative dish? I think people who dislike the Obamas would have criticized any gift she gave the Queen.

[Adrian Laguna]

Didn't the King of Saudi Arabia hold hands with George Bush? From what I recall, the King and President were walking together through a park or something, and since Abdullah is in his 80s he got tired, so being a gentleman George offered him some support. A photograph was taken of the event, there was some infantile snickering about it, and that was that.

[Omeros]

It's been all over the news today that Mrs. Obama and Queen Elizabeth II of Britain embraced today... [snip]

It seems to be being mainly treated as an indication of how friendly and personable Michelle Obama is, breaking through the crusty formality of Royal protocol and so on. Coverage has generally been favourable, if not necessarily ecstatic.

For example, the Times said

When Michelle Obama put her arm round the Queen at Buckingham Palace, some of the more excitable elements of the media - particularly the Americans - suggested she may have been guilty of a breach of protocol.

They missed the real story, however. What was far more interesting was that the Queen put her arm round the First Lady.

It is less than 20 years ago that the Australian Prime Minister was branded “the Lizard of Oz” for committing the supposedly heinous crime of putting his hand on the Queen’s back during an official tour of Australia.

Now the Queen is not just putting up with physical gestures of affection from a woman she has only just met, but is reciprocating with one of her own.

The footage does not make it clear who made the first move. But given the Queen’s track record - she is not a woman known for doing warm, at least not in public - the fact that Mrs Obama is American, and that the President spent most of the first part of the day putting his arm round Gordon Brown, it can safely be assumed that it was the First Lady who took the initiative.

A breach of protocol? Hardly. Buckingham Palace was very relaxed today about the incident, and attitudes there have changed significantly since the days of Mr Keating and his lese-majesty. And no, they don’t issue instructions to people about not touching the Queen.

“This was a mutual and spontaneous display of affection and appreciation between The Queen and Michelle Obama,” said a Palace spokeswoman.

While the Telegraph said:

The First Lady had only met the Queen for the first time earlier on Wednesday as she joined her husband Barack Obama to exchange gifts with the royals.

However, within hours the 45-year-old appeared to have struck up a close friendship with the Queen and even embraced her before leaving an evening function for world leaders.

There's more media coverage, obviously, but the tone is mostly fairly positive. Nobody is keeling over in horror that the Queen is human after all.

[FSTargetDrone]

Didn't the King of Saudi Arabia hold hands with George Bush? From what I recall, the King and President were walking together through a park or something, and since Abdullah is in his 80s he got tired, so being a gentleman George offered him some support. A photograph was taken of the event, there was some infantile snickering about it, and that was that.

In some parts of the Middle East, it is customary for adult men to hold hands as a sign of friendship. If Abdullah had taken hold of Bush's arm for physical support or aid in walking (see FDR and his sons, etc. for a famous example), that incident might not have been nearly as slightly controversial as it was at the time in the US.

[andrewgpaul]

I think the newspapers care more than those that read them, to be honest.

Does Her Maj have a reputation for being unfriendly or just reserved? I mean, she always seems to get on well with the flag-wavers she speaks to on official visits.

Off-topic; who coined "First Lady"? It's awfully aristocratic for a republic, isn't it? If Hillary had won, would Bill have been the "First Lord"?

[Superman]

There's nothing funnier than Americans being all 'omg whut' about the way etiquette works regarding the royal family, given their amazing deference to the president and the protocol surrounding the post. Being nice to old lady = bizarre?!

I agree. I've always been amazed by this. Personally, I'd just as soon flick a booger on damn the queen if I wouldn't get arrested or something for it. What's really pathetic is when the royals have come to our country and Americans do that etiquette shit. We Americans recognize no queen, damnit!

Anyone ever see how the Prime Minister even has to walk away from her backwards? Yeah, I know. She's his queen too, but still...

[FSTargetDrone]

I agree. I've always been amazed by this. Personally, I'd just as soon flick a booger on damn the queen if I wouldn't get arrested or something for it. What's really pathetic is when the royals have come to our country and Americans do that etiquette shit. We Americans recognize no queen, damnit!

Anyone ever see how the Prime Minister even has to walk away from her backwards? Yeah, I know. She's his queen too, but still...

US citizens are not required to bow before the Queen (or any regent/royalty, as far as I know). When you see it happen with Americans these days, it's pretty much their idea of being polite or respectful. As I understand it, even British subjects are not required to bow or curtsey. I think one is merely expected to extend his or her hand and let the Queen take it for a polite shake, nothing more. Perhaps some British poster can clarify.

If I were to meet the queen or other royalty, I certainly would not bow, but I would shake his or her hand if offered. That's it. Nothing more or less than I would do with anyone else I meet.

Superman, check out the movie The Queen if you want to see a funny bit with PM Blair and his wife meeting the Queen. It's actually a pretty good movie on its own.

[Tanasinn]

I think the newspapers care more than those that read them, to be honest.

Does Her Maj have a reputation for being unfriendly or just reserved? I mean, she always seems to get on well with the flag-wavers she speaks to on official visits.

Off-topic; who coined "First Lady"? It's awfully aristocratic for a republic, isn't it? If Hillary had won, would Bill have been the "First Lord"?

Realistically? Probably the "first man." Lady has contexts besides indicating nobility.

[Superman]

US citizens are not required to bow before the Queen (or any regent/royalty, as far as I know)

One would assume that because what exactly are they going to do if we don't? Deport the American tourists who don't show the proper respect at Buckingham Palace?

[Sephirius]

US citizens are not required to bow before the Queen (or any regent/royalty, as far as I know)

One would assume that because what exactly are they going to do if we don't? Deport the American tourists who don't show the proper respect at Buckingham Palace?

fund it!

[Superman]

US citizens are not required to bow before the Queen (or any regent/royalty, as far as I know)

One would assume that because what exactly are they going to do if we don't? Deport the American tourists who don't show the proper respect at Buckingham Palace?

fund it!

Or instead of deportation, maybe a mandatory sentencing to a reeducation camp where the offenders are forced to do things like stay awake for days on end, watch British propaganda films (like Mr Bean), and get lessons on how to behave "properly..." Oh, and the Benny Hill theme would play on a loop over a loudspeaker for the length of the sentence.

Seph, were you referring to the UK having some kind of royal proclamation or document in British law that officially exempts us Americans from having to bow and walk backwards crap? And if such a document were to actually exist, I wonder what kind of situation gave rise for the need to create it. I bet it would have been very Monty Pythonesque.

Or is the exemption sort of an unspoken agreement our two countries share? I'm going to get to the bottom of this...

[salm]

In some parts of the Middle East, it is customary for adult men to hold hands as a sign of friendship. If Abdullah had taken hold of Bush's arm for physical support or aid in walking (see FDR and his sons, etc. for a famous example), that incident might not have been nearly as slightly controversial as it was at the time in the US.

Indeed. I´ve done this when traveling in muslim countries a couple of times and it feels pretty awkward in the beginning. However, Bush isn´t doing it right. He´s holding Sauds hand with his left hand which is a big nono in countries like that because they use their left hands to wipe thier asses. Normally both guy hold each others right hands.