|The Queen meets the American President and First Lady at Windsor Castle, 13 July 2018 (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)|
|The Queen meets the President at Windsor Castle, 13 July 2018 (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)|
of the jewelry discussed here is worn by people in power, and power is inherently political. Even so, I try very hard to make this a place where people can discuss jewelry (and its personal and historical implications) in a civil, friendly way, devoid of the kind of sniping and anger that seems to have infected so many of our conversation spaces.
presenting my own views on the issues here, in a central place, as succinctly as I can, seems like the best option.
|The Queen’s brooches on July 12, July 13, and July 14 (Steve Parsons – WPA Pool/Getty Images, Chris Jackson/Getty Images, Andrew Matthews – WPA Pool/ Getty Images)|
Lord-Lieutenant of Essex on behalf of the Queen. In the evening, the couple attended a black-tie dinner alongside Prime Minister Theresa May at Blenheim Palace. Meanwhile, at Windsor Castle, the Queen held a series of audiences with
religious leaders, meeting with the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Bristol, the Bishop of Carlisle, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. During those audiences, the Queen wore a brooch that she received in May 2011 during the last state visit from an American president: a small floral brooch, made in America in the 1950s, consisting of moss agate and diamonds set in gold. The Queen had previously worn the brooch for the “return dinner” during the May 2011 state visit, a black-tie dinner hosted by President and Mrs. Obama at Winfield House, the London home of the American ambassador.
|The Queen greets the President and the First Lady at Windsor Castle, 13 July 2018 (CHRIS JACKSON/AFP/Getty Images)|
side (which would make sense, as she is Queen of Canada, after all), and she thinks he’s a “snowflake.” One of Julie’s tweets in particular sums it up: “Nice way to get in a dig … without having to say a word.”
these three brooches isn’t in question – it’s the interpretation of what the brooches mean that is a matter of debate.
reign has been geared toward avoiding controversy as much as possible. She is the living embodiment of the state, and in that representative role, she remains studiously neutral.
|The Queen and President Tito toast during a state banquet in Yugoslavia, 20 October 1972 (Central Press/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)|
knighthood in 1994 (an honor that was later rescinded). In 2002, she met with Assad at Buckingham Palace. She welcomed Ceausescu for a state visit in 1978. Historians have written about her personal, private unease with some of these encounters, but each visit was undertaken with the same practiced, diplomatic cool that she has perfected during her reign.
a gift from one of her Commonwealth realms, worn almost a year to the day after it was presented to her. You can develop, as Julie has done, an interpretation of the jewels that sees them as a collective attempt to jab at a political
adversary. But it’s equally possible to view the brooches as separate and unrelated pieces, none of which were intended to insult anyone. Given the Queen’s long example of careful diplomatic behavior, the latter interpretation makes much more sense to me.