Afternoon:
10°c
Arm in arm with Ma'am, Michelle has a royal touch
Terry Kirby2 Apr 2009
THE gesture was an unquestionably friendly and reciprocal one, a natural reaction from a woman with a warm and obviously tactile nature.
Yet when Michelle Obama put her arm briefly around the Queen's back at Buckingham Palace yesterday it provoked a minor furore over suggestions that she breached royal etiquette.
Even just touching the Queen has provoked debate in the past. In 1992, Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating was dubbed "The Lizard of Oz" when he touched the Queen's back during a royal tour; his successor John Howard was accused of a similar gesture in 2000, although he denied he actually made contact. This time, however, photographs and film clearly show that the Queen made the gesture first, putting her hand on Mrs Obama's back during an animated conversation in which the two woman discussed their significant height difference.
Mrs Obama reciprocated and the two stood together for a few seconds. The First Lady had demonstrated her tactile side earlier when she hugged the child of a cancer sufferer during a visit to Maggie's Centre at Charing Cross Hospital; when she left, she also embraced the centre manager.
Although American media reports suggested the British were getting flustered over such a breach of protocol by the First Lady, the fuss all seemed to be coming from the other side of the Atlantic. Buckingham Palace said that, contrary to most assumptions, they had no rules on whether it was correct to touch the Queen: "It is the same as whether people want to curtsey or whether they should wait for the Queen to speak to them, we simply say you should do whatever feels appropriate in the situation.''
Charles Kidd of Debrett's agreed: "I think it's a bit of nonsense. It is a perfectly normal human response to put an arm around someone or guide an elbow.''
He said the convention of not touching the monarch probably derived from earlier more formal courts as well as the ancient idea of the "divine right" of kings, in which royals were deemed to have the prerogative on a healing touch.
Reader views (4)
well sir or mrs. every body is people sir. and every needs a hug every now and then sir. mrs ELIZABETH needs a hug too,after all she is a worm and caring person/thats why god put her there/too be a queen/and i am happy that she is the queen.and poor little diana son is the prince in there world there are prince and queen in our world we just have president i wounder why?and mr charles is a prince too.i wish mrs diana was there too but god picks the most pretties flower in the garden and it was mrs diana,she is looking down on her kids and mrs ELIZABITH,AND HER HOUSBAND,SHE LOVED HIM DEARLY MRS MICHELLE IS A WARM AND CARRING PERSON.SHE DIDNT SEE NO HARM,SHE REMEMBERED MR OBAMA GRAND MOTHER AND HOW MUCH SHE LOVED HER AND MISSED HER AND SEEING THE QUEEN AND SHE IS OLD SHE JUST WONTED TO HUG HER,PEOPLE IS NOT HERE FOR EVER.LOVE THEM WHILE THEY ARE HERE NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE PEOPLE IS PEOPLE
- THERESA L.DUPUIS, louisiana;acadia parish;1018 ross st. crowley louisiana 70526, 28/05/2011 14:49
Report abuse
Most Brits write considerably better than you do. (Americans, too.) Did you not read the story? The Queen first put her arm on Michelle Obama's back; Ms. Obama just reciprocated. Your Minister of Protocol needs to have a word with the Queen, I guess--she clearly lacks your fine sense of the appropriate.
- John, Washington, DC, 04/04/2009 01:25
Report abuse
Anne...
You're an idiot.
Life is too short to "detest" anyone, much less someone you've probably never met.
Allen
- Allen, Chicago, IL, 04/04/2009 00:53
Report abuse
I, will be the voice of dissent, I am British born, tho I live in USA. I detest MO, in all she does and says. I won't go into the many reasons why, but the familarity of touching the Queen, has never been accpeted in the past, why now?
The Queen is a Lady of Grace and Poise, I will only presume, she chose to ignore what faux paux that may have been committed. And the Minister of Protocol, more than likely decided that a 'fuss' about this was not in the best interest of the dictates of diplomacy.
- Anne, Annapolis, Md, 02/04/2009 21:02
Report abuse
