I’m not making this up. Apparently, wearing themed brooches is something she does.
Maybe you aren’t making this up, but someone is, and it’s been debunked.
Far too subtle a way to broach her subjects.
She’ll have this next time she meets Trump:
So why did Thelma post this thread???
The Queen may not troll Trump with her brooches, but former Watergate prosecutor, Jill Wine-Banks, does. She wore this one last Thursday while sitting as a commentator on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show.
Loved it. 
Next time, she’ll just wear the “Biden 2020” button.
Now you believe Snopes?
I liked it.
I think it’s a stretch for Snopes to call it False. She did wear those three brooches. the history of each one is accurate, and if no-one other than Her Majesty (?) knows why she selected them, neither does Snopes.
And EVERYONE knows how much Trumps loathes anything to do with Obama, so it silly to suggest
Me, too, and it’s soured me on the site. The site is a fact checking site. So why the hell are checking something that isn’t factual and saying “False” to it? The factual aspect is simply whether she wore the brooches and whether they are as described. That portion is true.
Instead, the writer chooses to squeeze a “false” out of “we can’t know for sure what the Queen was thinking.” First off, this is obvious. Second, if something is unknown, then it is “Undetermined,” not “False.”
I expected the normal quality article, with a “What’s True” section mentioning the brooches and their history, and then a “Undetermined” section about what the queen is thinking. Instead, they give the one answer that doesn’t fit, “False.”
Are we sure the site didn’t get taken over? Because I find it hard to believe that snopes himself would allow such a poorly written fact check article on hit site. He’s not the type to go out of his way to defend Trump.
No, it hasn’t. Read the article. It claims false when everything about what is said is shown to be true. The brooches were worn, the history is accurate, and the article provides no evidence that the queen has given any other reason for wearing them. Hence there is no factual debunking any of it.
In fact, I am going to write them about this. This is extremely substandard work for the site.
Well the most compelling “evidence” is the Obama Broach which the article entirely disproved since it’s been in the royal family since before Obama. The other two are such thin connections with absoultly no evidence that I think a statment of false is justified. If someone claimed that president trump was an alien without any evidence we wouldn’t give them the bennefit of the doubt An rating of unverified means that there might be some reason to believe the claim which there isn’t.
Even though it wasn’t true? 
It’s a mistake though, to claim that something unknown is false. False means “we checked and it’s not true”. They couldn’t have checked without calling the Queen; they didn’t call her.
Snopes labeled it “False”, because they were using the same “logic” laid out to them by the conspiracy folks. They just used that logic, combed over all the minutiae and came to the conclusion it was false.
Oh please! Get the steps in chronological order. I heard the story on NPR Saturday morning and thought it was interesting. I came here and posted with a link that described the story I heard. That is the end of MY story. All other comments came afterward, okay? :rolleyes:
We’re debating that. The factual elements are true; the motives behind the brooch choices cannot be verified.
Which brooch?
Oh please, yourself. Why were you interested in fake stories on NPR, and why did you post it here?