mrpink

I've got a query regarding the use of flags at our forthcoming wedding, and wondered if anyone had an opinion on this matter.

My fiancee and I have been thinking of what kind of elements we can incorporate into the service to demonstrate the linking of two people and their respective cultures, and I thought it might be rather symbolic to have two national flags - my Union Jack and her Stars and Stripes - to be tied together at the culmination. All very symbolic! Question is, would this be interpreted as disrespectful to the flag (of either nation)?

I've done some searching and found a load of rules regarding the handling and treatment of such flags and I really don't want to offend and alienate half (or all!) of the guests at the wedding!

Any advice there?

Thanks in advance

Mr Pink
~and SecretGarden
~~Making plans to last a lifetime

RaymanInPA

I've been to weddings where I've seen the US and Italian flags flying together. I don't think it upsets anyone.

Especially since UK is seen as the US's strongest ally.

If you were French however, that would be a different matter.

mrpink

Thanks for the prompt reply!

Yes, *flying* together I can understand, but what about being physically tied together? I've never seen this done for real but I've seen lots of representations of this as web graphics etc so I'm sure the idea is not a new one.

Actually the idea of flying the two flags together outside the church is rather growing on me too..... :-)

Cheers,

Mr Pink
~and SecretGarden
~~two worlds collide!

Pimpbot

I dont think it would be a problem. Infact, I seem to remember an advertisement on the TV for the company Hanson, that ended with two flags being tied together via computer graphics. Was the slogan for that ad something like "A company from over here, thats doing rather well over there"?

We thought about something similar for the wedding invites. But it was too much of a hassle to get them printed, so we just went traditional instead.

Pimpbot

P.S. I think its bad flag etiquette to fly two national flags on one pole if you had that in mind.

Ranjini

Because the French didn't support Dubya's government as far as the war with Iraq? Many Americans didn't either....

Ptarmigan

The flags should be flown at the same height, with the US flag to "its own right" that being the left as you look at the two flags. Many people think that the US flag should always be flown higher than another nations flag but that applies only to states and other non nations flags. See the following cut and paste job:

11. When flags of two or more nations are displayed, they are to be flown from separate staffs of the same height. The flags should be of approximately equal size. International usage forbids the display of the flag of one nation above that of another nation in time of peace.

RaymanInPA

Ranjini - in all honestly I dont agree 100% with the comedian in the Whitehouse either, but one things certain, despite the fact that we found no WMD - I surley trust Bush a hell of a lot more than I trust the other guy (Hussein).



The French dont, thats why I (and many decent-minded American folk) got a BIG problem with them.

Ranjini

As far as the French, there were obviously some wheeler dealer issues going on with Iraq. But I think it has more to do with the regimes involved than the French people themselves. Chirac is a maverick and he is also a politician.....

Patrick

So lets get this straight, the french knew GWB was lying about the WMD and opposed the war (causing amongst other things french fries renamed freedom fries), and the illegal invasion of one country by another.

Yet you (and many decent-minded American folk) think that GWB is OK because he lied to the world and the French are a bunch of bastards because they didn't beleive his lies! They also opposed the illegal invasion of one country by another - the exact same reason Bush Snr went to war with Hussein 13 years earlier!

Just when I think I am going to like you, you do something dumb like this. Bush and his regime are radicals, they have the backing of the american public because of the gaping wound that is 9/11. At this present moment in time he could invade Canada and the public would follow him if he said they where training members of Al Quaida and had WMD. Bush was obviously tired of killing them one by one as governer of Texas and now like starting wars and killing people in there 100's

I don't know who is more dangerous, Hussein or Bush. At least Hussein was only persecuting and killing his own people, Bush seems to be making it a global sport. I wasn't going to reply on the "immigration bill" thread as I thought I would let it lie. Your "lets hates the french because they knew GWB lied" attitude has pissed me off.

Patrick

Note: I am not saying that Hussein did not need to go ("At least Hussein was only persecuting and killing his own people" - was not a "It has nothing to do with me" comment) but I have two problems with the way it was done.

1. Who made GWB judge and executioner of Hussein. If he feels that one dictator has to go why isn't he getting rid of other dictators in African and Asian countries (that have no oil).

2. If there are no WMD or links to Al Quadia what where Bushes actual motives for invading Iraq. He lied in order to invade another country - why, what is his real agenda?

doctor scrumpy

And where were the Yanks in 1939-41 ? They seemed to hide for the first 2yrs 3 mo 4 days of that war !

Oh except for Joe Kennedy who was busy kissing up to Adolf in Berlin of course. How the Yanks have the nerve to complain about the French not wanting to be in the invasion of Iraq is extremely hypocritical. There will be no WMD found until the west plants them there.

doctor scrumpy

1) To acquire the oil reserves of Ira, worth trillions of $$

2) To appease the jewish lobby in the US, creating a pro-US & therefore pro isreal nation

3) To hide the facts he has done to the economy what Clinton did to Lewinsky

4) To avenge his pappy

5) Any combination of the above, with many more reasons too

What is for certain is that the old Xmas tree thief was not doing it for any sense of morality to free the poor oppressed Iraqi people.

nxylas

Xmas tree thief? I've not heard that one.

Ranjini

True Bush in that light appears to be as much a maverick as Chirac. Or worse.

nathan barley

Even if France did have it's fingers in the proverbial Iraqi pie by having illegal contracts with it's government, that's no excuse for changing the name of French products. Where are we; kindergarden?

It was one of the most childish & moronic things I'd ever heard, and for politicians to be doing it was even worse. It sets an awful example to the more 'impressionable' citizens of this country, many of whom have never set foot outside this nation (LOL Amer20034), and now hate those countries that opposed the divine will of Dear Leader, with a passion.