There isn't a direct connection. Look for connections between the two people forming the comm and you'll always miss the interpretation. The very idea of symbol comms is that they don't spell out what is being done nor connect the people, plausible deniability is paramount.

The people who know the context of these would not find them confusing to interpret, they know the inside story and take their context from that. They know the history of the comms in place. And they're meant to be weird- some of the most outrageously stupid comms have been used for events of importance. Just another way of laughing at us.

Bess is just an example of nickname like Betty is a nickname of Elizabeth.

Elizabeth I is associated with snow white skin. She is always depicted with white clownish make up caked on. It's a famous association.

It's how the comm is set up.

Elizabeth II is then compared to her and how they are so alike. Now you're setting up the association.

The people involved in a plot to install their chosen puppet on the British Throne did not want to openly talk about it. If your message gets intercepted it could spell doom. What they're discussing is treason. You develop comms to talk about the illegal stuff while maintaining plausible deniability.

Instead of talking about wanting to ensure that Princess Elizabeth becomes Queen you give her a code name. You can't send a message saying "Elizabeth's code name is Snow White". If your code is broken or that message is found then you've been caught in an act of treason. Instead you time things in a way to create the association without it being too obvious.

Comms are very hard for normies. Heck, even most anons couldn't figure out Q comms. Even anons get stumped by them.

Q tried to send the comm "Babies on Floor, hands in mouth" and it took an anon forever to realize the comm was for "Syria".

I made a post on it. Q posted a picture of a palm tree and asked what is it. Anons struggled to realize "plant" and that plant has the double meaning of a "spy".

Q said "plants need water" (Spies need info). Q said "learn our comms", but there are still many anons who struggle with the idea. Comms are very hard because it requires abstract thinking to make the connection.

You need to create a way to talk about something clandestine (classified or dangerous to openly discuss) without it being obvious what you are doing. That is the nature of the comm.

For example, say you want to discuss a plot to assassinate a US president like JFK, you can talk through comms. Openly discussing that plot in public is dangerous. You need to keep plausible deniability.

Why do you think the released emails from Tony Podesta talked about "pizza"? Even though they HRC's emails got exposed they could deny stuff because they had talked in code. They talked about "pizza" instead of kids.

That's why they denied, denied, denied on Pizzagate.

Normies look and go, "So what? They're talking about REALLY expensive pizza. Seems like a nothingburger to me."

Do you see how they get away with their crimes by using comms? If you can't understand their comms you won't recognize their crimes.

"However in 1953 they needed a new comm for Queen Elizabeth." For what reason and what evidence for that?

"Elizabeth II's father and predecessor, George VI died in his sleep at the family estate Sandringham on February 6, 1952.

Where are the date fags at? Will we be seeing a new pope and Queen?
The date's will be significant.