The curious, complicated history of Queen Elizabeth’s Apple iPod

“At first look, the new wire photos of Queen Elizabeth were ordinary: just some shots of Her Majesty smiling, shaking hands with a dignitary. But snuck away in the corner was something unordinary. Unusual. An Easter egg. Something that for decades was known to exist but could never be confirmed. Something that once caused a minor political scandal between two of the most powerful countries on earth,” Elise Taylor writes for Vogue. “An iPod. A shiny silver iPod.”

“When Queen Elizabeth does anything — anything! — it’s news. When she rides a train! When she drives! When a pony tries to eat her flowers! (To be fair, that pony’s name is Cruachan IV, and he is damn sassy.) In 2005, the story du jour was that Queen Elizabeth, the crowning symbol of Old Guard England, bought an iPod,” Taylor writes. “And allegedly not just any iPod, but a silver iPod mini. ‘Queen Joins iPod People,’ the New York Post blared.”

“Yet, although various outlets were reporting it, there wasn’t much hard evidence, beyond anonymous sources, that she really had one. Or any evidence at all — Vogue combed through more than 25,000 images of the Queen from 2005 to 2017 and couldn’t find a single one that showed her with the gadget,” Taylor writes. “Until, in 2009, it was maybe-no-more. That was the year President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama visited Queen Elizabeth.”

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

“As is custom, both parties gave each other a gift. The Queen usually gives a framed picture of herself, while diplomats and dignitaries give something thoughtful, some special nod to their relationship. For example, Spain’s King Felipe and Queen Letizia brought a reproduction of a medieval book that belonged to King Phillip II, who in the 16th century married England’s Queen Mary, symbolizing their family’s history. The Obamas gave her an… iPod,” Taylor writes. “The president was fresh off another British gift gaffe with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, after Brown gave him a penholder carved from the wood of an anti-slave ship, and in return, Obama gave him DVD box sets.”

“That didn’t go over well with the British tabloids, which raged it was disrespectful,” Taylor writes. “So some of them jumped on him this time, too. One of their main grievances? The Queen already had an iPod.”

Read more and see the photo of the Queen and her – allegedly – iPod classic in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Whatever.

Back up that keg NOW, interns!

Queen Elizabeth gets Apple iPad; The Princes love it, think she’s really cool – May 9, 2011
Gordon Brown blocked honorary knighthood for Steve Jobs after Jobs declined to speak at Labour Party conference – March 1, 2011
Obama gives Queen Elizabeth another Apple iPod – April 1, 2009
Apple design chief Jonathan Ive collects CBE from Queen Elizabeth – November 17, 2006
Queen Elizabeth gets Apple iPod – June 17, 2005


    1. “As is custom, both parties gave each other a gift. The Queen usually gives a framed picture of herself, while diplomats and dignitaries give something thoughtful, some special nod to their relationship.”

      This strikes me as insinuating that the Queen doesn’t give something thoughtful, only diplomats and dignitaries do.

      Thanks again, have a great weekend.

      1. It is also curiously unfair that the Queen is the most powerful piece on the chessboard, equal to two bishops and a rook — sending menacing waves along rank and file and slant — standing taller than the hobbled, obtuse king — adored by her faithful pawns who run the gantlet for a chance to bring her new life.

        There are varieties of off-topic commentary — the good, the bad, the ugly.. and the bizarre.

          1. The queen, despite her power, is in a way only a pawn in the game, along with all the other pieces, because the focus is on the lame-ass king. What has the king done to deserve the unswerving support of eight pawns amd a brace of rooks, bishops, and knights? Diddly-squat, that’s what. The king is little more than a mcguffin in a plot concerning maximum carnage, to glorify the decisions of would-be geniuses like Robert McNamara.

            1. A queen can be replaced, the king cannot.
              “viva diu rex.”

              PS: Robert Strange McNamara, was, at best, a mere black bishop playing the black squares…the black mamba, a serpent who would slither from the shadows of his netherworld on the long diagonal to pounce upon a dozing white maiden queen.

        1. You do know that the king is the only one that can castle. I don’t know about more powerful, isn’t one king equal to 8 pawns, one queen, two nights, two bishops and a couple of castles?

            1. The king is the only one that can castle. The move is done with the king and the rook pieces, but the moves is called castling, or the castle maneuver.

              Oh and you may want to check your history about the post you made earlier as there are still lots of monarchies on the planet. Your “That was all settled in the War For Independence” may apply to your nation but not for the other nations of the planet that still operate under a monarchy.

            2. You should try to learn about context. I said “and a couple of castles” which can considered to be old fashioned or informal. A more accurate description would be to have used rooks instead of castles but castling is the correct move.
              You’ll also note that I asked it as a question, I wasn’t making a statement hence any correction and pointing out accuracy is welcome, without the personal attack of course, but I can understand that you are doing your patriotic duty by insulting others. It’s part of your nation’s DNA (Destructive Nuclear Arsenal).

            3. Again botvinnik you cannot refrain from the personal attacks, such a patriot.

              I’m not lying, I can reference it, once again:

              From the macmillian dictionary;
              castle: one of the pieces used in the game of chess

     chess, the rook

              There are others, but the term can be used to describe the rook in chess.

              I’ve asked you once to refrain from ad hominem attacks. I’m asking you again, politely to please refrain from such personal attacks during our exchanges.

            4. ..your Macmillian dictionary is fulla crap and so are you. The corner pieces are called rooks, period. Every chess notation, every chess tournament, every genuine chess player calls them that. You would be laughed out of any tournament if you called them a “castle.” But, you’ve been ridiculed all of your life, so I would imagine you are used to it by now.

              PS: How’s that NATO payment comin’ along? Prime Menstrual Trudy write a check yet?

            5. Thank you for trashing the dictionary references. The and the Cambridge dictionary also include the use of castle to describe the rook in chess but you more likely would refuse to accept that.

              I’ve asked twice for you to refrain from personal insults but you still refuse. I’m asking you a third and final time to please refrain from such insults during our exchanges.

              Insofar as your NATO comment, the agreement date is 2023 for member nations to meet their requirements, so complaining about it at that time would make more sense, rather than now.

            6. But a Staunton rook does look like a castle turret. My own chessmen are Mayan gods and goddesses, carved from onyx.. heavy, so I can bash a gloating opponent when I’ve lost the match.

            7. The rook piece was formerly known as a tower, marquess, rector, and comes. The term castle to describe the rook piece is considered informal. incorrect or old fashioned. During this whole discussion though I never referred to the rook piece as a castle. I was referring to the castle maneuver as any decent chess player would know. I know I can include you in that group.

        1. The founders of your country seized on the chance to recreate what Greece began. 220 years later it sounds like you still haven’t bothered to keep your constitution and government systems up to date. You don’t even acknowledge the many fundamental flaws. Meanwhile other nations retain their heritage including figurehead monarchy while operating their governments with impressive efficiency.

          Hanging Chad
          2 centuries of state condoned racism and sexism burned into the economic model
          Multinational Corporatism
          Gun rights

          All absent, poorly addressed or ambiguous in your sacred constitution.

          I don’t suppose you have ever read and compared other countries’ constitutions to yours. If you did you would understand some improvements are long overdue. Your founding white guys were not single minded and they were not omnipotent gods. They totally underestimated the forces of corruption and profiteering that would make a sham of American democracy. You have consumer convenience, not democracy. And definitely not meritocracy when your president has zero qualifications.

          1. I am not afraid to admit the truth of much of what you say. We have progressed slowly over the last couple of centuries with many fits and starts and backwards slides. But, in many areas, we have progressed. The journey simply has not been completed, and likely never will be.

            I do take exception to your assertion that the founders of our democratic republic “…totally underestimated the forces of corruption and profiteering.” They were greatly concerned about potential corruption and did their best to construct a system that would help to limit its spread – if the people of this country and their representatives do their jobs and remain vigilant and protective of this country. If you have a few minutes, please take a moment to read George Washington’s warning to posterity that he wrote near the end of his second term. It perfectly describes the political pitfalls in which this country finds itself in today – divided, partisan, and manipulated and controlled by the modern equivalent of nobility with power and money.

          2. I should also have noted that some of that ambiguity was intentional , leaving room for evolving interpretation over the centuries to come. Also, the Bill of Rights, As Amendments to the Consitution, are part of the Constitution and do address some of the elements in your list.

            You can hardly blame the people participating in the Constitutional Convention for failing to anticipate some of the political and social challenges of our time. Many of them are driven by technologies which would have been magic in 1787…or 1887. In fact, the Internet was in its infancy in 1987. Please have a bit of compassion for those folks…they did a lot better than anyone could have hoped. I only wish that we could cooperate and compromise half as well today.

            1. Even though he wasn’t a believer. He even dared to edit the Holy Bible, cutting most of the dross and ending up with a thin tome that could have doubled as Franklin’s “Poor Richard’s Almanac” — rich with wisdom and irony, scanty on stentorian dicta.

            2. You are misinformed…
              I have owned a copy of The Jefferson Bible for forty years, Jefferson himself noted in the preface it was merely an exercise in distilling Christ’s teachings down to pure philosophy, which TJ called the “most sublime ever written.”

              “Even though he wasn’t a believer.”
              Wrong…Jefferson mentions God four times in the Declaration of Independence. His most noted quote:
              “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

            3. I knew you’d say that. Jefferson mentions God because God is a great influence on his constituents. Every single politician since Jefferson does that. Does that make them believers? Not really.

              The real issue is the idea that belief in God propelled this nation to greatness. “In God We Trust” emblazons that notion. God is a requisite imprimatur on any political takeover, going back thousands of years. Godlike pronouncements quieted the plebians. Unfortunately, godlike qualities did not often manifest. It was almost always a trick.

              That being said, Jefferson, and Franklin, were heroes. They were all the more heroic for knowing God was on nobody’s side, that they were on their own. That mentality requires far more courage than a crazed jihadist with moral certainty and clutching a bomb.

            4. I don’t have a position. I have a belief that Jefferson understood that God motivated virtually everyone at the forge or the tiller or the plow. As an admirer of Rousseau, he was respectful of the thinking of those men and women. His own religious and philosophical views, informed by a vast library not available to commoners, were radical (as might be expected of a free-thinker) but his ideas about government were pragmatic.

        2. Fair enough, botty. But I contend that celebrity and money have become the monarchy and nobility of the U.S. Would Trump have won without access to many millions of his own money and notoriety from The Apprentice? I seriously doubt it. And Trump’s money (and resources of many wealthy people) have their basis in “serendipitous circumstances of lineage,” as you call them, botty.

          Did we actually “choose” our leader in the last presidential election? That is currently subject to a great deal of debate given foreign interference and subversive, partisan media elements in this country peddling opinion as fact and trashing fact as fiction.

          As I did not want either candidate in the past presidential election, I personally had very little choice.

          1. I have arrived at the realisation that Trump has been so unusually obsessed with his electoral legitimacy — insisting that he won the presidency “soundly, and fair and square”, despite alleged manipulation by foreign states, opportunistic hackers, hostile media, liberal fear-mongers, and dead people inflating the popular vote — and continued to attack Hillary at every opportunity — because he could not bear to be beaten by a woman. When he’s been beaten before, he bought their silence and made them go away, and thought of that as a victory. He couldn’t do that with Hillary.

            I have seen this sort of ingrained misogyny before — so has every woman — but rarely at such a high level, and so brazen.

            I admit it is interesting to observe someone who makes no excuses, but simply changes his story, or his mind, when things go awry — someone who is not held captive to a universal understanding of truth, justice, and the American way, but can creatively redefine them. Truly, Trump is an artist with the electoral mind his palette.

            1. Are we at a standoff, or have you somehow won? I think you won a long time ago because I find myself defending your miscreant ways on this forum to nothing but derision. When I wonder why, my girlfriends roll their eyes, and say “men don’t ask for help, dear. If you give it anyway, they’re practically insulted. The most you can expect is they’ll demand fewer pancakes at breakfast.”

            2. There is no stand-off, you’re a normal female. Normal females are attracted to intelligent alpha males. But as all of us alpha males know…
              “The female is the deadlier of the species.”
              – Kipling


  1. You can tell it’s a #FakeNews outlet when they leave out the most important detail of Obama’s iPod gaffe: it was loaded with Obama’s speeches. Yes, the narcissist-in-chief gave Queen Elizabeth an iPod that was all about himself.

    And this was two months after Obama removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. Obama was already trying to erase American history so he could start rewriting it in his divisive, hate-America-first way.

  2. When Gordon Brown gave Obama the pen holder made from a piece of a historic anti-slave ship, it was felt to be a unique and appropriate gift.

    The box set of classic American movies gifted in return were particularly inappropriate as they were encoded for region 1, which meant that they could not be played on British DVD players.

            1. OK I think I understand. But Trump is a deal maker, and could, overnight, become a globalist himself.. he’s not a classic isolationist by any means, and is unapologetic about his own international businesses. Could his convenient political rhetoric be misleading us about his allegiance?

            2. I want to take you at your word. But he’s as boisterous, and as unpredictable, as you. He is leaving not just me but the whole world breathless. If North Korea sends a nuke our way, I’m toast, but you’re comparatively safe in the midwest.

              I should of stayed in Roswell. (sic)

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.