:rolleyes:
I thought the Snopes article was interesting, but not dispositive. It relies heavily on, “Well maybe the broach just matched the dress.”
In my world, women often choose their garment and accessories for the day simultaneously. I’ve heard rumors that such an assemblage is called an outfit.
Sure, the facts fit a number of theories. But none of the brooch warfare interpretations seem like a stretch to me. Put another way if the Queen did want to make a deniable dig at the President Trump, the brooches she displayed seemed to convey a consistent message.
Here’s a question though: has Buckingham Palace every made plausibly deniable diplomatic statements in the past using royal jewelry? If not, that would add a layer of dubiousness upon the theory.
From a 2016 puff piece: [INDENT] With no actual political power, the Queen and her wardrobe were deployed as a subtle force for forging ties abroad…
“In the modern era, dress in particular has been used by the British monarchy as part of British foreign policy.” …
[Since 1938 the] Queen’s wardrobe became sort of part of the diplomatic planning of the [state] visit and part of the visit itself." [/INDENT] Brackets added. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/queen-fashion-diplomacy-1.3624823
The fact that the Queen’s apparel is subject to diplomatic review suggests to me that stunts like this are less likely, though I won’t say implausible.
Why is Thelma posting false information? Because it was “interesting”? I though this board was supposed to be about fighting ignorance.
Here’s an article from years before Trump’s visit
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.macleans.ca/society/pinning-one-on-the-queens-love-of-brooches/amp/
It posits that the queen has quite a collection of brooches - it’s sort of her thing - so they are routinely full of significance, or at least geared toward the particular occasion.
There’s also a story that the queen was recently trying to have a conversation with a helicopter circling overhead. Apparently, she complained, “They [the helicopters] go round and round and never let you speak. Like Trump.”
There’s also the fact that the Prince and his wife were noticeably absent from any meeting with Donald.
The royals don’t like him, and the queen was likely signaling with her choice of jewelry.
Hell, this is a woman who reportedly signals when she wants to leave by moving her purse. She knows symbolism. And plausible deniability all the same.
(Dear god, I know way too much about this woman).
What did she post that was false? At worst, the intent of the queen is undetermined.
Sifting through mixed evidence is very much what this website is about. As is the encouraging of guidelines for sound inference. Speaking generally, just because a theory upsets you, does not make it false, regardless of how many times you repeat your claims without substantiation.
People post all sorts of shit on messageboards.
Take your posts for example…
She also added “or Obama,” though. (Every time a US president visits there are leaks/rumors about how annoyed she is at the massive security presence, including the helicopters. )
D’Anconia, give it a rest.
This isn’t that hard. As far as I can tell, there are two different ideas being discussed in this thread:
-
The question posed by the Snopes article, which is simply “Did Queen Elizabeth Wear a Brooch Gifted by President Obama While Meeting President Trump?” (emphasis added) That is what the Snopes article declares to be false. Apparently, she was not wearing that brooch on that day. I haven’t seen anyone contradict that.
-
The question posed by the article ThelmaLou linked, which is a different question: “Was the Queen sending coded messages to Donald Trump via her brooches?” As noted in the Snopes article and in this thread, that question is only answerable by the Queen herself. I’m not sure how anyone can insist that that is true or false.
So drop the repeated accusations of posting false information. If you want to comment on your own theories about the veracity of either question, feel free, but otherwise, quit derailing the thread.
And this isn’t the thread or forum for that, either. Thanks.
So the grade-school snitch reported these posts??
FFS. No amount of rolleyes would be adequate.
:rolleyes:
Thank you – indeed it’s two intersecting matters combined/conflated.
I know we are an obsessively nitpicky board, but still, it’s bad enough that we often do the “if ONE thing about the post is shown to be wrong then EVERYHING is wrong” bit, without then going into the accusation that therefore it must mean deliberate bad faith.
If you want to comment further on anything beyond the thread topic, please take it to ATMB (or other appropriate forum, as warranted).
Except in recent years she has been elevated to A-f’in’-dorable, and I cannot see anyone daring to call her out for a choice of a brooch.
**
So you’re saying that no one dares…
…broach the subject?
:flees: