 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
Bowing in fact is a breach of protocol. American Presidents don't bow before kings. See Miss Manners...
Miss Manners' guide for the turn-of ... - Google Book Search This is from the web site of the British Monarchy Greeting the Queen "The Queen meets thousands of people each year in the UK and overseas. Before meeting Her Majesty, many people ask how they should behave. The simple answer is that there are no obligatory codes of behaviour - just courtesy.
However, many people wish to observe the traditional forms of greeting. For men this is a neck bow (from the head only) whilst women do a small curtsy. Other people prefer simply to shake hands in the usual way. On presentation to The Queen, the correct formal address is 'Your Majesty' and subsequently 'Ma'am'. " So Obama was showing the optional deference to the Queen . Even that I believe is excessive for the President because it is recognition of the monarch's dominion over the subjects .
Considering the almost causal air they presented to the Queen of England ,I just have to ask......has anyone ever seen the President show such deference before to anyone else (maybe to William Ayers) ? A bow, especially a deep bow like that given Abdullah, is representative of submission. |
||||
|
||||
 Originally Posted by N0help4u
From all reports the Queen had no problem whatsoever with Michelle's gesture. Wouldn't Michelle curtsying to the queen have been just as bad as Obama bowing to the Saudi King? Talk about mountain out of a mole hill stuff. |
||||
|
||||
|
I don't think it makes much difference nowadays. It is a sign of respect though. We have the Queens representative here in Canada in the form of Michelle Jean. As far as I know, Obama really enjoyed talking to her on his visit here, but no one has to bow to Michelle Jean. Why did he bow to the saudi guy. You say because he was recognizing a real King. And what claim to royalty does he have ? Tick |
||||
|
||||
|
President Bush in Saudi Land: Questions to Ask While Holding King Abdullah's Hand
Fred Kaplan of Slate tells us What Bush's meeting with the Saudi ruler really means. NBC's Brian Williams, referenced the hand holding gratuitously 2 years later:
“One final note on Iraq. It comes to us from an Arab summit in Saudi Arabia today where the King of Saudi Arabia criticized what he called America’s ‘illegitimate foreign occupation of Iraq.’ The speech is making headlines because King Abdullah had been a strong ally to President Bush. You may recall this visit by Abdullah to the Bush ranch in Texas and the closeness the two men displayed then. His comments today are the harshest Saudi criticism yet of the war in Iraq.”
... this sends a message throughout the Middle East, and it speaks far louder than the hefty, exorbitant expenditure on propaganda since September 11. It seems the obsession with crude oil prices overwhelmed any other talk about the Arab-Israeli question, about the so-called spread of freedom in the Middle East and more importantly even the so-called war on terrorism and the House of Saud production of fanatical Muslims throughout the world. It was very obvious that all of the vapid speeches that Bush has been making about democracy and reform in the Middle East all are pushed aside in order for those two to get together and for the President to emphasize about what he called one time the permanent friendship between the two governments. Here is somebody, the President of the United States, who made himself totally bogusly a symbol of somebody championing reform and democracy in the Middle East, holding hands, literally in this case, with the head of religious dictatorship, one of the worst violators of human rights throughout the world.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by galveston
I don't think there IS a difference. It's been made up by the right wing media. They're the only ones sniveling about it... The world, on the other hand, seems to love the Obamas... Course, you're the people who think giving back rubs to foreign leaders is the proper thing to do, so you don't have a lot of credibility in how polite society acts. excon |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
We kind of like him up here too; you people 'down there' though put your political dirty laundry out for all to see and I think that defies good manners so don't talk about our credibility being ruptured. I think most of you threw away the book on politically correct so it's a good thing you have a new President with some class and a lovely wife who knows how to dress as well. So you have the best of both worlds right now. They are both doing well on the world stage. I don't think you hear any of us crying fowl about Michelle hugging the Queen instead of bowing; I think that was a lovely gesture and it seems Queen Liz thoroughly enjoyed the gesture. It isn't that she hasn't been 'touched' in 30 years (this is for NoHelp's comment which was crass), she hasn't been handled by a commoner, and never should be. And just so I get something else thrown in, although we have a Queen, we do enjoy her, she doesn't run our country. She is more or less a figurehead now but nonetheless she deserves respect and we give it her. So even if Obama had bowed to her it would have been out of respect, I guess, for her position and age, I mean you all know, she has nothing to do with your country, so what diference could it have made. Hogwash about your President doesn't bow to anyone; they are all just people with blood in their veins and do the same things we do on a daily basis. Tick |
||||
|
||||
|
I think I agree with Twinks on this one. Here is one more small detail that suggests an Obama lean toward Islam. Judge Hamilton wrote: "The injunction orders the Speaker...that the prayers should not use Christ's name or title or any other denominational appeal...If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic 'Allah'...the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others. " David Hamilton was appointed to the District Court bench by Bill Clinton, even though the American Bar Association called him "not qualified". Now Obama has appointed him to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Skell, some of your comments are offensive. (Re: G. Bush) |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Not only did BO bow to the King of Saudi Arabia, MO went on to put her hands on the Queen of England, another MAJOR breach of etiquette. Here are the photos:  Maybe Obama was just bending over and getting ready for... something. Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Flashback to 1994 courtesy of the NY Times:
THE WORLD; The President's Inclination: No, It Wasn't a Bow-Bow
By DOUGLAS JEHL Published: Sunday, June 19, 1994 "IF I see another king, I think I shall bite him," Teddy Roosevelt once growled. Offered that opportunity with the Japanese equivalent last week, Bill Clinton turned out to have had quite something else in mind. It wasn't a bow, exactly. But Mr. Clinton came close. He inclined his head and shoulders forward, he pressed his hands together. It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent President, and the Emperor of Japan. Canadians still bow to England's Queen; so do Australians. Americans shake hands. If not to stand eye-to-eye with royalty, what else were 1776 and all that about? But Mr. Clinton, alas, is not the only one since George Washington who has seemed not quite to know what to make of monarchs. There was that curtsy, during the Reagan years, when Lenore Annenberg, herself the chief of protocol, forgot herself entirely and did a little dip to greet a visiting Prince Charles. That prompted a stern warning from Miss Manners against those who might mock the effort that "was once put into freeing Americans from the necessity of bending their knees." Soon afterward, when Nancy Reagan greeted Queen Elizabeth II behind closed doors, her press secretary acknowledged that Mrs. Reagan had bowed her head but insisted, "It was definitely not a curtsy." With the imperial visit last week, official Washington was clearly determined to show that it knew well what courtesies should be showered on the 175th inheritor of the most formal throne on earth. Guests invited to a white-tie state dinner at the White House (a Clinton Administration first) were instructed to address the Emperor as "Your Majesty," not "Your Highness" or, worse, "King." And in what one Administration aide called "some emperor thing," an Army general was cautioned that he should not address the Emperor Akihito at all as he escorted him to the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery. But the "thou need not bow" commandment from the State Department's protocol office maintained a constancy of more than 200 years. Administration officials scurried to insist that the eager-to-please President had not really done the unthinkable. "It was not a bow-bow, if you know what I mean," said Ambassador Molly Raiser, the chief of protocol. White House officials described Mr. Clinton's tilt as something of an improvisation. Because Emperor Akihito broke with tradition in turn to raise his glass at the state dinner, some even said Mr. Clinton had managed something of a breakthrough. "Presidents don't bow, and Emperors don't toast," one official said. "So this was a little bit like the cultures meeting each other halfway." |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by excon
Tick |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
View more questions Search
|
