Page Six: Meghan is not the first biracial Royal

Who?

This is all largely false. The supposedly black ancestor of Charlotte of Mecklenburg was ten generations removed, and was an ancestor to the majority of European royalty at the time, George III included.

From PBS:

"At least 492 lines of descent can be traced from Queen Charlotte through her triple ancestry from Margarita de Castro y Sousa to Martin Alfonso de Sousa Chichorro, the illegitimate son of King Alfonso of Portugal and his Moorish mistress, Oruana/Madragana. Interestingly enough, in a gene pool that was comparatively miniscule due to royal inbreeding, it was from Martin Alfonso's de Sousa wife, Ines de Valladares, that the British queen inherited most of her African Islamic ancestry."

Guardian: Was this Britain's First Black Queen?

PBS: "On this side of the Atlantic, the slogan: “the Queen of England was a Negro woman” was weaponized by the vice admiral, Sir Alexander Cochrane, in his campaign to persuade enslaved people to defect to the British during the 1812 War. More than 4,000 ultimately did, making it the largest emancipation in the US until the Civil War."

North African does not equal black.

Charlotte had 15 children, 13 of whom survived, so there's African ancestry not just in the Royal family, but in many high-ranking noble families too.

But we're told in the other threads that POC now believe Meghan is 'Black', rather than mixed- race. The Megstans have loudly embraced the 'one-drop rule' beloved of all racists everywhere.

Charlotte looks more African than Meghan does. By a long shot.

Queen Charlotte didn't have access to plastic surgery.

[quote] Lord Mansfield's Black grand-niece, for example, Ms. Lindsay

Miss Lindsey!

Get me my smelling salts!

You fiend!

She wasn't a princess either.

The Madness of King George really missed a trick by casting Helen Mirren as Charlotte. They should have cast Thandee Newton.

Actually I take that back- The Madness of King George should have cast the fabulous Adjoa Ando. She was great as the Prime Minister in Torchwood and is killing it in Bridgerton right now as Lady Danbury. Would make a perfect Queen Charlotte.

[quote] They should have cast Thandee Newton.

Too young.

I was wrong - Adjoa wasn't the PM, she was Harriet Jones's mother in Doctor Who.

The Guardian on Queen Charlotte: "Even her physician, Baron Christian Friedrich Stockmar, reportedly described the elderly queen as "small and crooked, with a true mulatto face".

The Washington Post believes that Queen Charlotte was indeed part African.

R7 Yeah, if memory serves me, I think former Prime Minister, David Cameron, would be related to Charlotte through her son, William IV via one of William's illegitimate daughters.

The Guardian:

"If you google Queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, you'll quickly come across a historian called Mario de Valdes y Cocom. He argues that her features, as seen in royal portraits, were conspicuously African, and contends that they were noted by numerous contemporaries. He claims that the queen, though German, was directly descended from a black branch of the Portuguese royal family, related to Margarita de Castro e Souza, a 15th-century Portuguese noblewoman nine generations removed, whose ancestry she traces from the 13th-century ruler Alfonso III and his lover Madragana, whom Valdes takes to have been a Moor and thus a black African.

It is a great "what if" of history. "If she was black," says the historian Kate Williams, "this raises a lot of important suggestions about not only our royal family but those of most of Europe, considering that Queen Victoria's descendants are spread across most of the royal families of Europe and beyond. If we class Charlotte as black, then ergo Queen Victoria and our entire royal family, [down] to Prince Harry, are also black ... a very interesting concept."

[She wasn't only descended from one black person, but from many of that woman's own descendants. Due to intermarriage within the European royal families, the actual gene pool remained very small and repetitive.]

The more distant the event, the easier it is to make shit up about it. Especially in agenda-driven rags like The Gaudrian. Starting with "whose ancestry she traces from the 13th-century ruler Alfonso III and his lover Madragana, whom Valdes takes to have been a Moor and thus a black African".

Moors were most certainly NOT black African. They were Berbers from the Mahgreb, north Africa. But the Gaudrian never lets accuracy get in the way of agenda.

Charlotte's portrait is evidence in and of itself. It is plainly obvious from that painting that she had strong African ancestry. Her own doctor remarked upon it in his notes on her. Meghan looks like a basic bitch white girl next to Charlotte.

Will Kate and William change Charlotte’s name now??

For all we know, r24, they NAMED Charlotte after Queen Charlotte.

All Prince William and Kate needs to do is adopt a black baby and the younger generation will be at their side.

poor harry, i give them 3 yrs fore he divorce her.

Not just Queen Charlotte, but also her predecessor Queen Phillipa of Hainault, which was an area ruled by Moors.

"“The lady whom we saw has not uncomely hair, betwixt blue-black and brown. Her head is cleaned shaped; her forehead high and broad, and standing somewhat forward. Her face narrows between the eyes, and the lower part of her face is still more narrow and slender than the forehead. Her eyes are dark. Her nose is fairly smooth and even, save that is somewhat broad at the tip and flattened, yet it is no snub nose. Her nostrils are also broad, her mouth fairly wide. Her lips somewhat full and especially the lower lip…all her limbs are well set and unmaimed, and nought is amiss so far as a man may see. Moreover, she is brown of skin all over, and much like her father, and in all things she is pleasant enough, as it seems to us.”

[quote]Charlotte's portrait is evidence in and of itself. It is plainly obvious from that painting that she had strong African ancestry

A painting is not a photograph, but rather an interpretation by the artist of his subject. Charlotte could well have a variety of cranio-facial anomalies due to disease or inbreeding, which have been erroneously interpreted.

Harry will stay with her until she doesn't want him anymore, r27. He is clearly devoted to her.

She, on the other hand.....

We don't just have the paintings, r29. We have Charlotte's own personal doctor's written record that she was "mulatto". We have the British army in America stating that a British Queen was black as part of their campaign to get slaves to defect to the British side in the War of 1812.

The painting just confirms what has been written and said about Charlotte through the ages.

Maybe Queen Charlotte's mother fucked a mulatto servent when concieving her, because Charlotte's brothers and sisters where white-white.

R31 "Mulatto" has a variety of meanings. Charlotte may have Berber ancestry many generations back. What she wasn't is Black African, as is being erroneously suggested.

Charlotte's elder sister.

Charlotte's eldest brother.

Charlotte's second brother.

He was quite handsome

Charlotte's third brother.

Charlotte's fourth and youngest brother.

He was also handsome.

All white-white-white.

[quote] fucked a mulatto servent when concieving her,

R32 Like you fucked spelling servAnt, concEIving

"Mulatto" had only one meaning at the time the doctor used it to describe Charlotte.

But probably just wishful thinking for those who want to make the RF's ancestry hip and current. ALL her children where white-white-white.

Noirguides: England's First Black Queen

Maybe Elisabeth Albertina stepped out on Charles Louis Frederick with a handsome Moorish stud late in the game, after all, Charlotte was 'their' eighth and looks nothing like her siblings.

And speaking of interpretation , R4 and R43 were painted by the same artist using the same subject, yet look decidedly different.

The picture at r43 looks like a mixed race woman and so does the one at r4, r45.

[quote] Charlotte's portrait is evidence in and of itself.

Wow.

Just, wow.

Charlotte was descended from the African branch of the Portuguese royal family SIX times over.

"Six different lines can be traced from Princess Sophie Charlotte back to Margarita de Castro y Sousa. She married George III of England on September 8, 1761, at the Chapel Royal in St James’s Palace, London, at the age of 17 years of age becoming the Queen of England and Ireland."

R41 Mulatto meant someone whose pigmentation was darker than white. You assume it is synonymous with African.

R46 The issue is interpretation, not whether or not Charlotte was of mixed race. You assume due to agenda. And then there's reality . . .

Charlotte was clearly mixed-race. Her own doctor said so.

R50 That's not the issue. The issue is your assumption based on agenda. IF she was "mixed race", she had Berber ancestry many generations back.

Mulatto: noun

a person of mixed white and black ancestry, especially a person with one white and one black parent.

Derivation: From the Portuguese and Spanish words 'Mulato'

Black is an overgeneralization. You again assume "African" per agenda.

Berbers were and are considered Black. They are not.

There were even black people in England during the Tudor period. One became an official palace trumpeter for Henry VIII.

R53 Both you and the Gaudrian have an agenda. Agenda is not reality.

[quote] [R46] The issue is interpretation, not whether or not Charlotte was of mixed race. You assume due to agenda. And then there's reality . . .

So there is research based on renderings and genealogy. Versus a few contrarian Klan grannies at Datalounge. Which is 'reality'?

The doctor's notes and the portraits are facts, r55.

I know you don't want Queen Charlotte to have been mixed-race because of your own agenda, but she was.

Deal with it.

And those "Black people" in England during Henry VIII's time? Berber? African?

Doctor's notes and portraits are INTERPRETATIONS, not facts.

IF Charlotte was mixed race, she was Berber. NOT African.

Deal with it.

[quote] know you don't want Queen Charlotte to have been mixed-race

Now go back and READ R22. My assertion had nothing to do with whether or not Charlotte was mixed race, but the erroneous assertion that she was part Black African. She wasn't. But neither the Gaudrian nor you let agenda get in the way of FACT.

My god, they’re one step away from saying that some of the royals’ best friends are black.

Everything you see, hear, touch and smell, every day, all day, is an "interpretation" that your brain is making about what you are witnessing.

Interpretation is what every history book is based upon.

In no way does the idea that Charlotte was factually described as "Mulatto" by her doctor, and was painted as mixed race by her favorite court painter render her African ancestry as 'irrelevant'. Instead, it makes her ancestry that much more important, because it lends corroboration to the fact that she was not just mixed race, but observedly so.

I love (not) how everone here is ignoring the fact that ALL of Charlotte's siblings were very white.

R62 AND there's no way that repeating ad nauseum the ignorant assertion that she was Black African makes it real, accurate, or true. It simply makes it yet another erroneous assertion due to agenda.

What's your agenda, r64?

Or are you going to claim you don't one?

Go on, claim you have no agenda, r64. Do it.

R65 My sole purpose is to correct the Gaudrian's woefully ignorant claim that "Moor" was Black African. It was NOT. It was Berber. Your agenda-driven ignorance is no different to the Gaudrian's.

And with that R65, I'm off. Try to post less stupidity next time. Ta!

If pale Meghan Markle is "black" then Charlotte is certainly black by the same standard.

[quote]But we're told in the other threads that POC now believe Meghan is 'Black', rather than mixed- race. The Megstans have loudly embraced the 'one-drop rule' beloved of all racists everywhere.

If someone is half black, half white and identifies as black, that's fine. That's not "the one drop rule." But you were probably bitching about Obama "not really being black" too, weren't you?

No idea if Meghan Markle identifies as black but the articles I looked up indicated she identified as biracial years ago.

The "one drop rule" gets applied in a variety of ways; sometimes, it's this racist notion (as in the article linked) that someone who had an African ancestor 10 generations ago is a "Negro," and sometimes it's the "she doesn't look black, she can't have any black blood in her" notion, which the Meghan haters love to drag out. Heck, I just saw a clip of Sharon Osbourne doing it, too, "she's not black, well, she doesn't LOOK black."

It's this obsession over the percentage of blackness someone has that's the problem.

This obsession over how black she is, how much black blood is there, how black she looks, that's just racist as fuck, especially since the only reason people like you bring it up is because you're trying to prove she never dealt with racism.

Meghan identified as "Caucasian" on her call-sheet, r69.

The agenda comes from people who think they're making some kind of point by saying "Queen Charlotte was biracial FIRST."

The problem is, there's no point in saying that. Who cares? It doesn't matter one way or another. It has no bearing on what is going on today.

I don't even know what to tell people who think "hundreds of years ago there was a royal who had a Negro ancestor 10 generations back; therefore, the BRF can't be racist" is a legitimate argument. That's just pathetic.

[quote]We have the British army in America stating that a British Queen was black as part of their campaign to get slaves to defect to the British side in the War of 1812.

Sweetheart, darling, honeybunches, that's [italic] propaganda. [/italic] Surely we haven't fallen so far that we're using 200-year-old propaganda as evidence of anything?

Black twitter: "How is Meghan Markle black? I don't understand"

For a week, the Meghan haters have been asking, "Why are black Americans so obsessed with defending Meghan just because she's black?"

Today, it's "see, even black Americans don't think she's black."

Grabbing whatever tweet you can find from someone with a black person in their avatar and using it to bolster your agenda is kind of sad.

It's a fact, r71.

You interpret it as propaganda, which does not actually MAKE it propaganda.

More black twitter

"The Queen of England was a Negro woman” as described in your own link was war propaganda. There's no "opinion" or "interpretation" here, it's the very definition of propaganda.

Or, I guess it would be, were it true. It didn't happen. Yes, slaves were recruited by the British to fight against America, but that slogan doesn't come from the Admiral you quoted. This alleged slogan used during war doesn't show up in even a SINGLE history book, only on that PBS website and no other.

Per Alan Taylor's 2013 book The Internal Enemy, what YOU'RE passing off as a slogan was actually a complaint from an American slaveowner.

[quote]Another Georgian implausibly reported that the British assured female slaves “that the Queen of England was a Negro Woman” and that British gentlemen preferred “Negro Women as wives,”

That's all I can get to on Google, but this person has tweeted some of the same quote from the same book. Taylor thinks the slaveowner complaining about this propaganda is actually lying, he calls the whole thing "implausible."

Here's a 1996 history book that quotes the slaveowner George Baillie as saying his slaves had been told the Queen was a "Negro woman." If the link doesn't work, it's on page 107.

The only source we have for "the British bragging that their Queen was a Negro" is a cranky slaveowner angry that the British were trying to lure his slaves away from him to a kind of freedom. It doesn't seem to have been supported by any other evidence and other historians have called his claim "implausible."

So... you know, you might want to stop using this as any kind of proof of anything. Not even sure what you thought this wartime slogan from over 200 years ago proved, but it isn't even a slogan at all.

The bitter slaveowner's comments merely corroborate the fact that Cochrane said it. Which he did, to thousands of American slaves. Apparently 4000 of them joined the British as a result of his campaign.

A slaveowner bitching in his journal does not corroborate anything at all.

If it was a slogan, we'd have proof, remnants of posters and others mentioning the slogan being used, not just one paraphrased comment in a diary of someone who made claims that can't be verified.

Yes, Cochrane recruited enslaved black Americans, I said that already. The British however did NOT use "the Queen of England is a Negro" as a slogan.

The fact that Queen Charlotte was mixed race does not mean that her descendants in the BRF is not racist.

Lots of mixed-race people are racist, after all.

Oprah: Bridgerton's Queen Charlotte was a real person and may have been Britain's first Black queen

There was a poem written for Charlotte's wedding to George III alludes to Charlotte's African ancestry, and Queen Elizabeth herself has referred to her "Asian and African" ancestry:

"Perhaps the most literary of these allusions to her African appearance, however, can be found in the poem penned to her on the occasion of her wedding to George III and the coronation celebration that followed a fortnight later.

Descended from the warlike Vandal race,

She still preserves that title in her face.

Tho' shone their triumphs o'er Numidia's plain,

And Alusian fields their name retain;

They but subdued the southern world with arms,

She conquers still with her triumphant charms,

O! born for rule, - to whose victorious brow

The greatest monarch of the north must bow.

The reference to King George as king of “the north” is an allusion to Charlotte as queen of the south, which in biblical terms is the black Queen of Sheba and, by inference, her husband King Solomon.

Finally, it should be noted that in 1956, three years after Queen Elizabeth II's coronation, the Crown referred to both her Asian and African bloodlines, the latter through Zaida, the wife of Alfonso VI of Castille, in an apologia defending her position as head of the British Commonwealth and “mother of a quarter of the population of the world.” Entitled “Blood Royal,” it is by Sir Rupert Iain Kay Moncreiffe, and Don Pottinger.

Who yo' Dahdee ?

Meanwhile, everyone seems to have overlooked a genuinely nonwhite recent member of the family, Gary Lewis, the Maori man who married Lady Davina Windsor, daughter of the Duke of Gloucester, the Queen's first cousin.

Unfortunately, they divorced a couple of years ago.

Lewis was easily the most beautiful human to marry in. In the wedding photos Lady Davina is looking up at him with so mucj6beat in her eyes it was comical.

Not that I blame her. I'd have gladly married him.

^*so much heat in her eyes

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

I know Diana apparently met him after Harry's birth but wow does he look like Harry's doppelganger.

[quote]The fact that Queen Charlotte was mixed race does not mean that her descendants in the BRF is not racist.

This is very true, but the loons are really trying the whole "Charlotte was a mulatto; therefore, no one in the BRF is racist" thing.

They'll eventually fall asleep in their chairs with their phones in their hands, wake up, and go back to "Meghan doesn't look black; therefore, no one in the BRF is racist" thing.

I think you'll find, r89, that r81's post does not say what you seem to think it says.

[quote]” Born in 1774, Sophia Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz was a direct descendant of Margarita de Castro Souza”

She was born in 1744, not 1774.

Good catch, r91.

But did she descend through six separate lines from an African grandparent or not? I think that is the key question here.

R92 - Thanks for the Shout Out, but I’ve found that “scholars” who are sloppy in small matters also tend to be sloppy in important ones as well.

She’s not royal.

And she never will be.

r6 This!

R90, it says the same thing I've been saying: that a mixed-race ancestor in the BRF does not guarantee that the current royals are not racist.

R96, you are right. It’s like “I have black friends”.

I love how threatened, rather than overjoyed, that the Megstan racists are at the news of there being a mixed-race Queen Charlotte.

It says EVERYTHING.

r98 I love how black people around the world identifies with a woman who doesn't look black.

How odd that both the OP and the posters who agree with her all have the same problem with keeping their tenses straight.

Also odd that the OP refers to her own posts in the third person, pretending like someone else wrote them.

Oh well, I'm sure it's nothing.

No, poor, dim, r96. It says that the mixed-race Royals are as likely to be as racist as any other mixed race persons.

Yikes! So Oprah eliminated Prince Charles so its deff Prince William!

Pressed, racist at r100, are we?

Good fucking LORD! I doubt the main reason for the Brits dislike of this woman is because she is part black. Of corse there will always be people who are racist. It’s impossible to be rid of that. Let’s be honest, though. She is a whiny Hollywood brat. That’s likely the reason she is unliked by England. She is an outsider because she is American. Wallis Simpson received a chilly reception as well! She was looked upon as the American cunt who stole their King! Meghan and Harry are being fucking MARYS!!

Part of the issues is that this long distant ancestor may not even have been black. Most North Africans were no more black then than they are now - the average Moroccan or Tunisian is no more black, as normally understood, than I am. 'Moorish' was a very loose pre-modern term that could mean any number of things, and could perfectly well include people we would see as completely Caucasian but who were, for example, the descendants of Islamic converts. Queen Charlotte's physiognomy, as represented by some artists, proves literally nothing, genetically speaking.

If Meghan Markle is "black", then the North Africans, who are generally blacker than Meghan Markle is, are "black" too.

North Africans are black

[quote]This is all largely false. The supposedly black ancestor of Charlotte of Mecklenburg was ten generations removed, and was an ancestor to the majority of European royalty at the time, George III included.

Not false at all. In US eyes anyway because most Americans, black and white, adhere to the ridiculous "one-drop" rule whenever it comes to black ancestry. Queen Charlotte was a white woman with distant black ancestors. Only American historians obsessed with race and keeping everything "pure" have a problem with it, attempting to minimize or outright deny.

Gary Lewis, Maori ex-husband of Lady Davia Windsor. Scroll down for the look on Lady Davina's face looking up at him, and small wonder.

r107 This is not the typical North African. I bet you have never been there.

Meghan Markle is not Royal.

Since people here think royal status is transitive, that would make the BRF black.

Many North Africans are what Americans refer to as "light-skinned black." I lived in Southern Spain for three years, and some of their Moroccan immigrant population were of that color and mixed phenotype. I saw the same situation with many of the North African population living in France.

Was Queen Charlotte a descendant of that type of North African? Seems possible.

"She called Markle’s recent interview with Winfrey “the cynical ploy on behalf of a greedy woman. I think Meghan Markle is … a very destructive and divisive operator who is reckless about the damage she does as long as she achieves her objectives, which are fame and fortune,” said Campbell."

Lady Colin, no prisoners, Campbell from OP's link.

Charlotte was not “biracial.”

There is no “one drop rule” in America, Wing Chow Ho.