Well, someone in the state department ........ed up this time, didn't they explain to this goofy .......... that you never ever ever touch the queen under any circumstances except to shake her hand and only then if she extends her hand first, wtf...
Printable View
Well, someone in the state department ........ed up this time, didn't they explain to this goofy .......... that you never ever ever touch the queen under any circumstances except to shake her hand and only then if she extends her hand first, wtf...
Online sources indicate that the queen initiated contact and apparently did not have a negative reaction to the reciprocated contact. Considering also that the first lady is not a subject of the queen, and that she has a status somewhat equivalent to a queen consort, this might not actually be such a breach of protocol as some people might make it out to be.
And I thought it funny that the DVDs they gave to the Prime Minister were in the wrong format. Whoops!
I watched the video of the incident. While the official position may be that the contact was mutual, it is obvious from the video and the queens body language that it was not mutual, expected, or acceptable. I think the queen handled it very diplomatically, and isn't willing to make it a major international incident, but made her thoughts on the matter clear in the statement 'Now we have met, keep in touch'. i.e. 'this meeting was a political necessity, but in the future communications should take place through official channels'.Quote:
Originally Posted by laserlight
She would have likely said this in any case.Quote:
'Now we have met, keep in touch'. i.e. 'this meeting was a political necessity, but in the future communications should take place through official channels'.
Rather than inflating the importance of political sponges it is time to realize that this would not be a problem except in Britain's Imperial Century.
Damn these posh whiners... Even if some freak touched her bewbs it shouldn't be anything more against any other female's rights! Even tho she's the Queen doesn't mean she has more human rights! She might have more political rights and whatnot, but not being touched?
If I slapped the Queen, I would have gotten a harder sentence than if I slapped any other human? Not that you get a sentence for slapping regular peeps...
And I don't understand why Queens and Kings still exist! We have moved from the medieval! >.>
Well slapping the queen is definitely a stronger statement than slapping Joe the Plumber. She's a symbol, after all. However I do agree that freaking out about a hug is kinda stupid. My grandparents are very colonial-british kind of people. Very pleasant - but they saw me hug my Mom after getting back from a trip and their response was a cross between disgust and confusion.
I get the whole "etiquette" thing for British subjects and the queen, but the first lady's etiquette is to give people a hug. Why should one have so much more importance than the other?
American arrogance at its finest. If another country chooses to keep a queen or king it is not your place to tell them how to rule themselves. How about if the queen put american flag decorated toilet paper in the palace. Its not illegal, free speech and all, but it would be extremely rude. What the first lady did was just that, extremely rude. And if she had slapped the queen, I'm sure she would be spending a few years in Scotland yard for assault. As it is, the first lady needs to either conform to protocol or stay home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akkernight
The point is that it is an alleged breach of protocol at the highest level. The part that I am not certain about is concerning whether the queen really did initiate contact. I feel that if she did, then considering that the first lady's own status, it would be fair for the first lady to reciprocate contact even if a subject would normally be forbidden to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by sean
No, she would not, due to diplomatic immunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
Based on the complete overreaction in this thread I hope, when you rule a country, the slightest breaches in protocol are considered acts of war. You will make many friends and live in interesting times.
Diplomatic immunity only covers misdemeanors, not felonies. And I think it would be difficult to argue it beig agaisnt protocol, when a violation fo protocol is what instigated the charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by laserlight
First: I find it VERY interesting that none of the UK web-news has any mention (except for a brief notice in BBC on "Paper reviews" where it reports on one of the tabloid papers) of this "breach of protocol". My synical mind says "Is it perhaps made into a story in the US for political reasons?"
Second: It is unlikely that the first lady would spend any time at Scotland Yard - certainly not years, as Scotland Yard is the "home" of the national crime investigation unit, not a prison as such (they have holding cells for investigation purposes, but not for incarceration based on a crime).
And slapping the Queen, slapping me or anyone else would have the same consequences from a LEGAL perspective. [Ignoring diplomatic immunity etc]. There is no special laws regarding any assault and the Queen (ok, so maybe there would be slight differences in which judge you get, and how much red-tape is being used up to perform the buerocratich process, dotting every i and crossing every t to ensure that legally it is done to perfection, but certainly the Queen or a member of the Royal family is not especially mentioned in any modern version of Criminal Law in the United Kingdom - all are equal in the eyes of the Law).
--
Mats
No, at Michelle Obama's level, it should cover everything. I suppose that the US government could waive the diplomatic immunity, but that seems rather unlikely to me. If US government wanted to convict her instead of waiving immunity, her husband could always pardon her, heh.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
Well, abachler, if you're right about the queen's reaction, maybe they didn't mess up. Maybe they did it intentionally just to mess with her. If that's what she thinks about hugging the first lady, that's what I would do!Quote:
someone in the state department ........ed up this time
>> I watched the video of the incident.
Where did you see video? I haven't paid that much attention (this really is not a big deal), but I've only seen photos.
First. I'm not American, so it cannot be Amercian arrogance xP I just want to say this, 'cause I don't want to have anything to do with giving Americans a worse reputation...
Second. Getting much power just 'cause you were born is unfair, retarded and uncontrollable! Where I live, we're under the Danish crown or whatever, but I must say, most of us hate the Queen xP
Now just because I was born I'm allowed to say, all your bases are belong to me! ... ?
You've gotta earn your rights and power and all that, not just get it! Pathetic -.-
True - and furthermore, I'd say it's more ignorance, if anything. Established protocols are there, yes, but isn't it arrogant to think you're so holy you can't be greeted in the way people feel comfortable unless you deem them 'worthy'.Quote:
it cannot be Amercian arrogance
According to Legal Aspects of Diplomatic Immunity and Privileges , which would be representative of the majority of countries as immunity is handled by treaty and convention, a Diplomatic Agent (which the POTUS would be) may not be arrested. Since the wife of POTUS would be a "Recognized Family Member" she has the same protection as the POTUS.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
And protocol gaffes are generally ignored between long time allies. From the brief video I saw I didn't see anything to indicate that the queen was offended by it.
Not possible to arrest the president -.- the ....... has a freaking license to kill! D:
Probably thinking he's James Bond or something, but ok, presidents aren't as bad, since they actually have to do some work to get to their seat! So I ain't gonna say anything against them xP
But the Royal Family needs to be kicked out their royal castles and get a job the regular way!
wait, I actually thought twice... Maybe the Royal Family was born into demise(?), since there's no way I'd survive living with them D: having all that publicity, power and not being able to live like a free human being... I think they should just leave the medieval and come to the modern world -.-
>> You've gotta earn your rights and power and all that, not just get it!
Says who?
You're going to inherit your parent's property. The queen simply inherited ownership of her property (country and it's subjects) from her distant parents.
Besides, modern royalty is far different from ancient royalty.
> From the brief video I saw I didn't see anything to indicate that the queen was offended by it.
Maybe she was lonely, after not letting anyone touch her in so many years.
But seriously, how stupid can you get -- don't touch the Queen. End of story. It's almost like she did it on purpose... the commonwealth vs America would not be pretty, for either side.
I like the way these people put it...
Michelle Obama hugs Queen - breaks royal protocol! | csmonitor.com
How do any of you know it was not some planned staged event to boost the popularity of the current U.S. administration?
Anyone in higher government knows how to act around the queen or around other foreign diplomats. However the queen isn't really a diplomat as much as a symbol but everyone in government knows how they should treat foreign dignitaries.
I'm not so sure that it either was planned, not a big deal until the U.S media got a hold of it, or a definite breach of protocol that offended the queen.
Either way the U.S and the U.K. have much more bigger fish to fry than a mere breach of protocol.
I see many Americans breach their own protocol when they do not hold their hand over their heart during the national anthem and/or act as if it isn't playing and go about their business. Since most of my family is military that is a definite no-no. Thousands of men died and gave their own blood for the flag so the very least you could do is honor their sacrifice by respecting what it stands for. However if a foreign person just simply does not know better I am far more forgiving of that than the thousands of Americans at sporting events that could care less about our own flag and outright disrespect it.
So for the first lady to breach protocol it comes down to whether she knew the right thing to do (which she does), made a mistake (most likely), or just didn't care (highly improbable).
what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
Yes, it IS unfair. And life IS unfair.Quote:
Getting much power just 'cause you were born is unfair
Are you not born with more influence than those in poor third world countries?
I'm completely baffled to see you guys talking three pages long about an irrelevant incident between the wife of some president and an old lady having more titles than political power. Write love letters to strangers instead. I'm sure the queen will get over it.
Replace every occurrence of "Americans" with "Nazis" and read it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
Your Defender of the Faith,
Philip
I agree with Bubba on the anthem thing, in fact, being a veteren myself I play Reveille each morning, which does tend to annoy my neighbors.
Yarin, also getting huge stuff from your parents is pathetic! -.-
If my parents gave me something, I'd throw it right out the window... Unless it was candy of some kind
Also, it might not be LIKE the ancient royal family, still it's from the ancient and EXTREMELY unneeded in the modern world... Look at England! They aren't helping the world in any way! Well maybe some ways, but if you look at America, they don't have these royal families like we were in the medieval, and they give us Hollywood action, technology stuff, NVIDIA :O! and so on, Japan doesn't eather have this crap, they give us cheap stuff, let the not so rich be able to get stuff too, and give ATI which has good Anti-Aliasing and is pretty cheap for it's performance...
These royal families are slowing the world down! D:
They have an emperor, though by law he is emperor by the will of the people rather than by sovereign right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akkernight
I just remembered aQuote:
They have an emperor, though by law he is emperor by the will of the people rather than by sovereign right.
scene from Monty Python and Holy grail
;)
In countries without royalty or very similar concept, there is usually a president, who is more or less powerful, and choosen by election, or there is a dictator not choosen by the people at all. The cost of a president is pretty much level with a royal family - it may even be more if you count elections and such. And dictator is not what I want, and I doubt it saves any money on average...
It's not that it MUST be this way, but sometimes traditions and keeping things stable will help things too.
--
Mats
The queen ostensibly has no real political power in GB anymore. She does however have significant influence with people in the commonwealth and is well respected around the world. So to say she has no power isn't entirely accurate either. The queen is the corporeal manifestation of the commonwealth. An offence against the queen is more than an offence against her personage, it is an offence against the entire commonwealth. Just as an offence against the president is more than an offence on a single individual.
Akkernight,
>> If my parents gave me something, I'd throw it right out the window
Then you must be unrealistically content (or very young). I'm happy for you.
But inheriting something is by no means 'pathetic' - no matter how big it is. You say that you must earn power and possessions, but obviously, we inheritance proving you wrong. Please explain as to why you disagree.
I agree that most 'royal families' do weigh down countries. But I also view celebrity presidents as 'royal families'. :D
Well so do most of the danes, i can tell you that.Quote:
Where I live, we're under the Danish crown or whatever, but I must say, most of us hate the Queen xP
I do however not agree with Yarins comment about 'royal families weighing countries down', in what way would a royal family weigh a country down? Economically? Hardly!
>> I do however not agree with Yarins comment about 'royal families weighing countries down', in what way would a royal family weigh a country down? Economically? Hardly!
No, I wasn't meaning economically. In fact, I recognize that the wealthy are a vital component to an economy. I was referring to the fact that 'modern' royalty is kind of unnecessary. What does royalty really benefit anymore?
Comparing Americans holding their hands over their heart during a national anthem to Nazis is just downright disrespectful. Get a clue.Quote:
Replace every occurrence of "Americans" with "Nazis" and read it again.
I am young, and the reasons I'd throw it out is out of topic, and really a dreary(testing my english here, is this right? For a negative thing) affair xP
Still, I do not heritage(?) is good for you, and when it involves other people it shouldn't exist! Like, if you inherit a car, no one really cares, except for envy... If you inherit a city, people do care... Still, the queen hasn't inherited a city, that's not what I'm saying... Infact I have no idea what control the Royal Family has, but I do no they are unneeded...
Well, who else would cut the ribbons and smash the champagne bottles?....Quote:
Originally Posted by Yarin
No really, not being necessary surely doesn't equal weighing your country down?
It's not Americans holding their hands over their heart during a national anthem that is disturbing me. I consider this kind of behavior to be merely ridiculous. What I didn't like about your post was the following part:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba
First of all, "what it stands for" might as well be seen as wars of aggression to support the national military complex (an economic necessity for the US), to fight communism (which is even more cruel) or to ensure the supply of cheap oil (which is plain greedy). For me, it's hard to find anything that deserves respect here. Second, I'm tired of this constant babble about "the flag". Maybe the US flag bears a meaning to US citizens, but it's completely out of my comprehension how you can assume that everyone else in the world must share these emotions towards an arbitrary piece of cloth. There's no need to be forgiving either: maybe foreigners just don't give a ........, and the same might even apply to some of your fellow countrymen. Who cares?Quote:
Thousands of men died and gave their own blood for the flag so the very least you could do is honor their sacrifice by respecting what it stands for. However if a foreign person just simply does not know better I am far more forgiving of that than the thousands of Americans at sporting events that could care less about our own flag and outright disrespect it.
My intention was not to compare the US propaganda with the Nazi propaganda (although I wouldn't hesitate to do so. And before you object: tell me the difference). I just wanted to show you that by replacing the subject of your discourse, you'll end up with a message that you surely don't want to spread. You ask from others what you're not willing to give.
Greets,
Philip
Yes, loyalty, tradition, these are obviously rediculous concepts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snafuist
Wow, ths is just an incredibly naive and simplistic view. Ensuring the supply of oil is pure greed eh? Well then ensuring the supply of food is just greed too, and if you say that they are different they are not. Petroleum is a critical component in teh production of artificial fertilizers, which are used to increase crop production. Since the US is a net exporter fo food, perhaps you woudl like to convince the countries that we sell our excess food to that they should go hungry so that saudi kings can get $500 a barrel.Quote:
First of all, "what it stands for" might as well be seen as wars of aggression to support the national military complex (an economic necessity for the US), to fight communism (which is even more cruel) or to ensure the supply of cheap oil (which is plain greedy). For me, it's hard to find anything that deserves respect here. Second, I'm tired of this constant babble about "the flag". Maybe the US flag bears a meaning to US citizens, but it's completely out of my comprehension how you can assume that everyone else in the world must share these emotions towards an arbitrary piece of cloth. There's no need to be forgiving either: maybe foreigners just don't give a ........, and the same might even apply to some of your fellow countrymen. Who cares?
My intention was not to compare the US propaganda with the Nazi propaganda (although I wouldn't hesitate to do so. And before you object: tell me the difference). I just wanted to show you that by replacing the subject of your discourse, you'll end up with a message that you surely don't want to spread. You ask from others what you're not willing to give.
Greets,
Philip
Please don't feed the trolls.Quote:
Wow, ths is just an incredibly naive and simplistic view. Ensuring the supply of oil is pure greed eh? Well then ensuring the supply of food is just greed too, and if you say that they are different they are not. Petroleum is a critical component in teh production of artificial fertilizers, which are used to increase crop production. Since the US is a net exporter fo food, perhaps you woudl like to convince the countries that we sell our excess food to that they should go hungry so that saudi kings can get $500 a barrel.
I don't think the anthem is being used as well or as respected as it could be. I blame playing it at every single sporting event, watering down the meaning. There is a difference between that overdone rendition and this one on 9/12.
I disagree, I think the probem is that most people just don't take pride in their nationality anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteflags
To me, my nationality isn't a sense of pride. I was the result of a universal dice game and pretty much exist by chance. I didn't win a pre-natal rice to be born into my country of choice.
I don't think abachler means pride in the sense that you just assume your country is the best. I think "taking pride in your nationality" means supporting the community in which you live. People these days seem to default to hating their government. And while that distrust may be justified, people have lost a lot of gratitude and respect for their communities.
The nation doesn't matter, if you're not a complete assh*** I can get along with you. I don't need pride to like certain individuals.
Let me sum that up: she didn't invade a country on bogus claims, she didn't create a camp to torture and illegally detain people without trial, she didn't refuse to sign a treaty to save the planet, instead she used an international gesture of friendship on one of your allies. Way to goof up, really. Get Bush back before your public image as arrogant ****s is shattered by this stupid friendliness ;)