Talk:Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Charlotte, North Carolina

Was Charlotte, North Carolina also named after her? Michael Hardy 00:02, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes. It's even the county seat of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. RickK 00:06, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mulatto Features?

what exactly are they, and which ones did Queen Charlotte supposedly have? [1] [2] Colorfulharp233 18:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Death

Why does her reign as queen consort extend past the date of her death? AdamBiswanger1 20:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

...was the queen consort of George III of the United Kingdom (1738-1820).

The date refers to the reign of George III. --Kvasir 01:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it does not. It refers to the lifespan of George III. He only became king in 1760. john k 02:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

It appears to me that much of the paragraph discussing Charlotte's Moorish ancestry is copied almost word-for-word from the Frontline article. Note especially the passage around the words "quadroons" and "octoroons". I haven't edited it but surely this passage is in violation of copyright. Mangoe 18:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the Frontline article? I can't seem to find it.

I'm in favour of removing that entire paragraph, personally -- it doesn't add much to the page.--Marysunshine 22:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed copyvio content from PBS Frontline.--Marysunshine 21:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added citations as requested in the article regarding her ancestry. BCorr|Брайен 21:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz's ancestry

Through Princess Elizabeth Albertine of Saxe-Hildburghausen, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz is presented as having a distant Black ancestor, because Elizabeth Albertine was descendant of Margarita de Castro e Sousa, and Margarita is presented as being descendant of King Afonso III of Portugal and an African mistress of him (by that meaning Black). This would not be a problem but for the fact that it is not true! Afonso III of Portugal had descendants from Matilda II of Boulogne, Beatrix of Castile, Maria Peres de Enxara and Madragana (Mor Afonso), as well as up to 7 children other from unknown mother(s). The one that is repeatedly refered to as African is Madragana ( called Maior Afonso or Mor Afonso after bearing two children to the King: Martim Afonso Chichorro and Urraca Afonso). She was not African. People abusively assume that because she was the daughther of the Governor of the city of Faro (in the Algarve), then a region dominated by the Moors (who were North Africans, which is quite different from saying just Africans...). The fact is that Afonso III of Portugal captured the city and its governor Aloandro Ben Bekar, not a Moor, but a Mozarab (Iberian Christians living under Muslim domination), gave up his daugther to the King. You might find suprising that a Moorish town (even if the majority of the population was Christian, the political power was Moorish) was governed by a Christian, but you might do well to remember that the Moors always had Christian or Jews in high level positions, and Aloandro Ben Bekar (or Aloandro Ben Bakr) was from an old lineage of Mozarabs who had even taken control of the city away from the Muslims for certain periods in the past (people like Yahia Ben Bakr and Bakr Ben Yahia). So, they were definitively not Africans, not even Moors, but native Iberians! So, Elizabeth Albertine, Princess of Saxe-Hildburghausen, is not descendent of an African woman. Mind you, it would not be a problem if she was! Be she wasn't. If you want to know the direct line of descent here goes:

• King Afonso III of Portugal and Madragana (Mor Afonso) (daugther of Aloandro Ben Bekar) had...
• Martim Afonso Chichorro, who, with Inês Lourenço de Valadares, had...
• Martim Afonso Chichorro II, who, with Aldonça Anes de Briteiros, had...
• Vasco Martins de Sousa Chichorro, who, with Estefânia Garcia, had...
• Afonso Vasques de Sousa, who, with Leonor Lopes de Sousa, had...
• Mécia de Sousa, who, with Fernando de Castro, had...
• Margarita de Castro e Sousa, who, with Jean de Neufchâtel, had...
• Fernando de Neufchatel, who, with Claudia de Vergy, had...
• Antonieta de Neufchatel, who, with Filipe, Count of Salm and Wildrheingrave of Dhaun, had...
• Margarida, Wild-rheingravina of Dhaun, who, with Eberard XII, Count of Erbach , had...
• Georg III, Count of Erbach, who, with Maria de Barby e Mühlingen, had...
• Jorge Alberto I, Count of Erbach, who, with Isabel Doroteia, Countess of Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst , had...
• Jorge Luis I, Count of Erbach, who, with Amália Catarina, Countess of Waldeck-Eisenberg , had...
• Sophia Albertine, Countess of Erbach, who, with Ernst Frederick I, Duke of Saxe-Hildburghausen, had...
• Elizabeth Albertine, Princess of Saxe-Hildburghausen.

Et voilá! If you want to find out more about Elizabeth Albertine ancestors (and there's much more data available!) check her out in this Portuguese genealogical site. Best regards. The Ogre 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for providing some much-needed factual information to this discussion, and to the article. However, the point you make above, "Afonso III of Portugal captured the city and its governor Aloandro Ben Bekar, not a Moor, but a Mozarab (Iberian Christians living under Muslim domination), gave up his daugther to the King" is not sourced in the article. Moreover, you deleted someone else's citation, inserted to support a contrary assertion, on the grounds that it is POV. In fact, although sources have to be reliable, they do not necessarily have to be neutral, so long as their POV is not concealed -- and the relevant citation is openly Afrocentric in focus. Therefore, I am re-inserting that citation, and adding a request for citation to your "Mozareb" comment. I am not doing so because I disagree with your conclusion (I do not believe that the evidence presented so far supports Charlotte's alleged black ancestry through Madragana), but because it simply isn't fair to delete someone else's cite for content with which you disagree, especially while adding an unreferenced allegation of your own. I urge you to add a reliable cite for the Mozareb information (preferably in English), so that this article can be stabilized with sourced, hopefully, accurate information. Lethiere 04:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is now sourced. The Ogre (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Palace denial

There's a scan of a letter from Buckingham Palace here: http://onedroprule.org/about1568.html showing that they deny issuing an "apologia" defending the Queen's position as Head of the Commonwealth. DrKay (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ancestor Counts

"While her 58 closest ancestors (rather than 62, four of her great-great-great-grandparents are counted twice) ..." This sentence does not make sense. One has 32 great-great-great grandparents, not 62, and if the writer really meant great-great-great-great grandparents, there would be 64. Allowing for four duplicates, there are still two left unaccounted. Mapjc 06:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Two parents plus four grandparents plus eight great-grandparents plus sixteen great-great-grandparents plus thirty-two great-great-great-grandparents comes to the sixty-two closest ancestors. Counting great-great-great-grandparents doesn't account for the closest ancestors, everyone before them must be counted as well. Charles 11:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

An easy way to compute it (rather than add) is to note that such a number (including the person) would be of the form "11111..." in binary notation. Such a number is always one less than a power of two. 64 - 1 is 63. Since the person in question is not considered their own ancestor, that reduces it from 63 to 62.64.131.188.104 (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Royal descent

After a long recent discussion of Charlotte's geneology I realized that no notable ancestor had been listed but a 15th century relative of uncertain connection. A woman of no notable descent marrying into the House of Stuart? I searched for a Royal ancestry of her own and found Gustav Vasa to serve as her closest Royal relative. I added a short paragraph explaining the descent.

The addition has been reverted within a number of hours with the apparent concern that it is "irrelevant"? Along with a curious comment on an "African Queen" that I haven't been able to place. So why is listing the notable lineage of a member of Royalty, a Queen consort and ancestor of several monarchs irrelevant?

And as for listing a similar paragraph prooving descent from Gustav Vasa for all of his descentants. You seem to exaggerate. When attempting to add geneological information to an article , I am merely trying to connect the person to the closest ancestor which has his/her own article in the Wikipedia. Further descent can thus be traced by reading on said ancestor. I don't think this to so "irrelevant" or an attempt to turn Wikipedia to a geneological archive listing people with nothing to comment them but their descent.

The only other way to list such information would be to create articles on her parents. Who I doubt would ever grow beyond stub status even if created. Any other ideas on how to inform on geneology other than singling out a 13th century concumbine instead of her relatively close connections. User:Dimadick

Dimadick, I removed the Vasa descent because it was patently bizarre. I suggest that you instead do some research and beef up the info re her parents and why she was chosen to be G3's bride (they were cousins after all, so the choice is not THAT surprising). That's much more interesting and relevant that the Vasa descent, which I'm certain isn't why she was asked to marry the man she did. Mowens35 23:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dimadick, do you mean House of Stuart, or rather House of Hanover?? conventionally we do not say that G3 belonged to house of Stuart, though he descended from it. 217.140.193.123 07:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And, please do not see the ancestry so purely black or white. Charlotte certainly had lots of notable ancestors, close. such as reigning princes of principalities, duchies etc. It was only the lack of any king as close ancestor that makes her relatively non-royal. She certainly was not the close descendant of any commoner, nor of any "lower noble". 217.140.193.123 07:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

The article goes on about Charlotte's relatively non-royal ancestory, and says that she was more of the aristocracy than of royalty. This is not strictly correct, because although her father and his forbears held the title of "Duke" of Mecklienburg-Strelitz, they were RULING dukes, not dukes of the peerage as in the UK. They were thus royalty and not merely of the nobility. The dukes of Mecklienburg-Strelitz were of course nominally under the suzereinty of the Holy Roman Emperor until 1806, but then so was every other German royal, including the Elector of Hanover, who incidentally was Charlotte's husband.

The ancestry of a Royal Consort, excepting her recent ancestry affecting the factors causing her marriage, is not relevant or significant. Her far-distant royal, noble, and common ancestors will not affect the course of history and so are a matter of idle curiosity only. An exception is if her far-distant ancestry results, in her lifetime or perhaps centuries later, in the merging of realms and titles (by the operation of chance elevating cadet lines to senior lines) into the Crown she married. And the only portions of the ancestry of the KING whom she marries that matter are portions that cause him to BE King and portions that might reshape his desdendants' realms. Should this page on Charlotte document who she WAS and how she LIVED or should it try compute a pedigree-based ranking for her?64.131.188.104 (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Every consort of a British monarch between George I (1714-27) and Victoria (1837-1901) came from a similar family, and the record in the 1900's has been downhill from there. Queen Mary plumbed the depths; her father was the product of a morganatic marriage.

Why is Queen Ma(r)y to be held responsible for the circumstances surrounding her parents' marriage? That was her fault?64.131.188.104 (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

I suggest John reads this article since he needs the knowledge: http://www.africawithin.com/moors/moors_and_arabs.htm July 9, 2006

New file File:Queen Charlotte by Benjamin West, PRA.jpg

Recently the file File:Queen Charlotte by Benjamin West, PRA.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Queen Charlotte: Sephardic Jewish Ancestry?

The above info presents the idea that she came partially from Portuguese royalty. Therefore, what about the possibility of her having Sephardic Jewish ancestry? There were MANY Sephardic Jews in Spain/Portugal (hundreds of thousands of them), but many of them were driven out of the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions (those that did not want to be expelled would face the death penalty, or they could convert to Catholicism and become "New Christians," or "marranos"/"conversos"). However, before they were expelled from both countries (from Spain in 1492; Portugal in 1497) these Jews often intermarried to some extent with the royalty and upper-classes of those countries, and thus lingered on in those countries a bit even after the vast bulk had been expelled. So possibly Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz had some Sephardic Jewish ancestry since she supposedly had some roots in Portuguese royalty? Please note that these Sephardic Jews are different from the Eastern European Ashkenazi Jews. Perhaps her Sephardic Jewish ancestry is what gave her the "mulatto look" with so-called "negroid features" that she was variously described as having. --172.144.52.244 06:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Aloandro Ben Bekar was partially of Sephardic origin, so Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz also had that in her genealogy. Notice however that, contrary to what you said, it was not often that jews "intermarried to some extent with the royalty and upper-classes of those countries, and thus some lingered on in those countries a bit even after the vast bulk had been expelled (many remain even today)". And her Sephardic ancestry was very minute and distant - more then 20 generations removed. That would not provoke any impact at all. Furthermore, since when Sepahrdic Jews have a "mulatto look" with so-called "negroid features"? The Ogre 14:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the ridiculous and completely unsourced statement that all Sephardic Jews, Moors, Arabs, Berbers, etc., were white, or Caucasian. All of these groups contain ethnicities within them who are considered Black African, or who have significant/substantial Black African admixture. I also removed the text that linked "Vandal" to the article on the Vandals, because it is quite clear from the context of the article by Valdes y Codom that he's using it to bolster his argument that Charlotte had Black ancestry. I confess am not familiar with the use of "Vandal" to refer to anything different from the commonly understood meaning -- but, clearly, there must be another.

So, removed is:

Valdes y Cocom goes on to state that, along with descriptions of a "mulatto face", the Queen's features had also been described as Vandalic, as exemplified by a poem written for the occasion of her marriage:

"Descended from the warlike Vandal race,

She still preserves that title in her face." deeceevoice (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, none of those groups contain what you call "Black Africans", they are fairly homogenous. And if you even bothered to read the article on the Vandals that you quoted, your absurd little Afrocentric theory would be in shambles. Koalorka (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it amazing

In modern days when someone, no matter how light they are, has but a bit of black blood they are considered "black" or "negro" although not the best example I will say - Obama president elect of the United States fits this bill.

However with this strange Eurocentric history that is Wikipedia we find the reverse

When you find someone no matter how light or dark as long as the person has white blood they must always be considered white - even though it's obvious that they are of mixed descent.

You can see this double think at work in the African ancestry part of the page when it's called a "theory" which is to make the reader think "Conspiracy" when it is anything but. - It is know that Charlotte was descended from black Portuguese royalty that is not disputed. (er..read the rest of this page, it is very much disputed and no one who has actually researched this even considers that she had a black ancestor though she may have had a N African one centuries before her birth)

This nonsense makes me laugh - Why say in the article that her heritage is negligible because it's almost 5 generations back? - People celebrate St-Patricks day even though their blood is most likely no longer Irish being in America for so long and mixing with who knows what. - You still would say you're Irish, you have Irish in you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.162.14 (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Five generations? What on earth are you talking about? Going back eight generations, the overwhelming majority of her 128 great-great-great-great grandparents were German. Of the rest, I can only find Scandinavian, Dutch, and Polish ancestors - none even from southern Europe, much less Africa. She literally has virtually no non-northern European ancestry. She may be descended from some medieval Portuguese royal's possibly African mistress, but so was virtually every other European royal of the time. Are they all black? The whole thing is just ridiculous. It is, I suppose, possible that Charlotte had a significant amount of African blood due to her mother or grandmother having an affair with somebody Black, but I've never seen any evidence to suggest such a thing. But the idea that she had supposedly "Black" features because one of her ancestors fifteen or twenty generations back may have been African is just ridiculous. john k (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The solution that resolves all issue

Regarding Queen Charlotte's African features, it is said that her mother had a devoted African servant. When Charlotte was born and it was evident that she had many of the servants physical traits (dark skin, frizzy hair, broad nose), the medical explanation given was that while lying in, the Queen's mother had spent an excessive amount of time gazing upon her servant. Thus, the servant's features were imprinted on the unborn child. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cphilips (talk • contribs) 04:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Source? john k (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Languages?

What languages did Charlotte read/write/speak? It would improve the article if her language skills or abilities were included in the article. Also, no mention is made of formal or informal early education. Since no mention is made of language skills or education, one might infer that she possibly spoke some German dialect and some form of broken English. No indication to the contrary.--TGC55 (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Portrait

Mulato features??

Several Portrait of Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

Where...? The Ogre (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are other portraits of Charlotte. I've included two on my website Here: www.riclanders.com

There's also a strange cartoon that shows her and her husband and about five other woman. Her features are draw clearly as a black woman's while everyone else is clearly white.

I find the cartoon astonishing and would include it here if there were instuctions on how to post images somehre.

ricland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricland (talk • contribs) 02:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

To post images: on the left hand side of the page under the search box there is 'toolbox'. Click on upload file. You will want to choose "It is from somewhere else" and in the licensing dropdown select "Author died more than 100 years ago". Be sure to include as much information as possible about where the image came from. William Avery (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mulatto features?" There are none. This whole synthetic debate is based on a false assumption made by a racist hack calling himself a historian. Koalorka (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If THIS is not mulatto, then nothing is

Even without a close up, i'd bet my life that looks like a black woman

I beg to differ. the very first glimpse at her pictures made me think WHY the artist depicted her with typically BLACK features..... I mean, i've heard artists that make the sitter look BETTER than they really are, so why would he defame her, as "black" features were a taboo then, since Britain dabbled in the Slave trade. I think its a slur campaign against the Monarchy by artists sympathetic to the Slaves's cause........but then again why wouldn't these images be suppressed or rejected....?

The whole hulabaloo started over the fact whether Charlotte was black or not. Clearly, her alleged mulatto features and her black ancestry has NO connection. Her mulatto features are surprising, because they are prominent. And as for Madrangana, the supposed Moorish mistress of Alfonso III, the wikipedia definition of a "Moor" is as follows :

"The description Moors has referred to several historic and modern populations of Muslim (and earlier non-Muslim) people of Berber, Black African and Arab descent from North Africa, some of whom came to conquer and occupy the Iberian Peninsula for nearly 800 years. The North Africans termed it Al Andalus, comprising most of what is now Spain and Portugal. Moors are not distinct or self-defined people, but the appellation was applied by medieval and early modern Europeans primarily to Berbers, but also Arabs, and Muslim Iberians and West Africans....from Mali and Niger who had been absorbed into the Almoravid dynasty......... The Andalusian Moors of the late Medieval era inhabited the Iberian Peninsula after the Moorish conquests of the Rashidun and Umayyad Caliphates, and the final Umayyad conquest of Hispania........" Even if the conquering muslims were themselves not "Black", they had Black Slaves, who most often than not were royal mistresses....Infact, having a muslim ancestor in a christian bloodline is taboo enough, given the crusades and the Wars between the Ottomans and the Habsburgs....Anyway, So it's safe to say Charlotte had Black Ancestry, but so do dozen other royals in Europe today. It just goes to say that the British Queen is a universal Queen, and no bloodline is "purely white"....

oh and BTW, Queen Charlotte indeed has royal ancestors......she's descended from John the Fearless, and hence in extension from John the Good, King of France, and from Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor. She also has Cuman Turkic Ancestors, all this through Sybille of Cleves, her great-great-great-great-great grandmother. This would mean she also had ancestors from Asia Minor - Nirvaan (talk) Nghosh 20:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

QUEEN CHARLOTTE/ A SISTA?

The attitudes expressed on this page are discraceful, the pure viseral reaction that queen charlotte is black is surprising in our modern age,I an taste the hate through the page.it is simple enough to do a dna test on charlottes remains if its really that important,if princess charlotte embraces her african heritage, then that should certainly conidered very forward thinking and admirable, (that in fact is the same definition used by the U.S. census beauru uses today) for a woman of that age,many people who u see today and think are "pure black" are not ,i myself have relatives who by appearance alone would definitly be considered caucasian. the "white race is nothing but a variation of the "black race" and this is a fact.whats the big deal what r u afraid of? there are many blacks in my family who look like charlotte,with african and caucasian features it dosent mean anything it dosent mean shes impure,or less royal just because queen victoria was part black,thats a rediculous way of thinking, as for the berbers not being black ,they most certainly were mostly of black african hertage 80% just like all africans,including egyptians,the fact remains that i look more middle eastern than anyone from scandanavia,(when i was deployed in iraq i had more iraqis ask if i was iraqi or kuwati than anything else), always have always will,amd i am black,but like i said if its that important do a dna test on charlotte,lets see if she a sister.

Come on, no one is expressing hatred, really! People are just irritated by what is so clearly an abuse of the known facts. But let me ask you a question - if you discovered that 400 or 500 years before your birth you had a Chinese anscestor would that make you Chinese and would you therefore "embrace your Chinese heritage". Let's keep some perspective please! - JL Jan 2008

There's no proof that *she* even knew this, and the link seems tenuous at best. Sure, keep it on the page, but perhaps omit it from the lead paragraph.

Ignoring and arguing the fact that Queen Charlotte had partial black ancestry is no different then what many westerners have covered up for years. The facts are that black Africans were royal kings and queens before being kidnapped into slavery and westerners made it a point to cover up their heritage and traditions by cutting off the noses of many royal sculptors in places like Egypt, stealing and destroying African artifacts (including books) and stripping us from our religions (forcing us in Christianity) because they did not understand black African beliefs and therefore felt intimidated. I find it disgraceful and disrespectful that many of you would rather agree that Queen Charlotte is any other race (like German, Spanish, etc) then partial black. As if black, is some time of disease of less worth. from JADE in July of 2006

No one is suggesting blackness is an "impurity" - this is inflammatory talk. People are just trying to get as close to the facts as possible - and the fact is this: Any talk of the Queen having a N African ancestor going back centuries before her birth is pure speculation. To pretend otherwise is absurd. We can consider the matter, and perhaps it's true, but to assert she is a "black Briton" on the basis of pure speculation about a long, long distant ancestor is clearly motivated by sheer political correctness. This must obvious to anyone surely?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.32.201 (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is - she descended from a black family in the portugese monarchy - the moors, black moors controlled portugal and spain for at least 500 years - get over it people - the royal family has black blood in it - cry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.208.235.19 (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely rubbish, where do you people come up with these fairy tales? Either way, find a valid source to verify your claim or it remains useless conjecture. Koalorka (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Charlotte had Black African ancestry. That much is clear..." deeceevoice (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC) -- If I didn't know better, from the chorus of "She was black; deal with it!" here, I'd be tempted to think that a certain group of people doesn't understand how Encyclopedias like Wikipedia work. It's not influenced by identity politics, political correctness, popular vote, tautology, or whoever shouts the loudest. The ONLY thing that matters are facts. Is it a fact that one of Charlotte's ancestors was "black"? Absolutely not. If it were, we would have that information, since genealogical pedigree records for the aristocracy were hugely important at the time. And indeed, we have Charlotte's pedigree back more than 15 generations. Not one of them are known to be "black"; if they were, it would've been recorded in contemporary accounts. Charlotte's one supposed "black" ancestor was one Madragana, a mistress of King Alphonso III of Portugal, who lived and died a half-millennium before Charlotte! How do we know that Madragana was black? We don't. All we know is that she's sometimes described as being a "Moor", which is, after all, not the same as "black". She's known to have been the daughter of Aloandro Ben Bekar, who is believed to have been a Sephardic Jew. Sephardim can have black-like features (curly black hair, full lips, prominent foreheads, dark complexions). Regardless, whether Madragana was Moorish or Sephardic, she was 15 generations removed from Charlotte and, even taking into account the inbreeding common amongst European royalty, she could not be more than a fraction of 1% of either ethnicity, given that all of her other forebears are known to have been "white" Europeans. To put it another way, millions Americans who are otherwise exclusively of European ancestry have one Native American ancestor a dozen or more generations ago. Does that make them "Native Americans"? Of course not! President Obama is 50% white. Do people try to claim him as "white", even if they greatly admire him? Of course not! Technically, he isn't even black; he's mulatto or bi-racial. We're no longer living in the days of the "one-drop rule". Finally, please stop starting new sections to debate this topic! Use an existing one to try to make your case, rather than starting 4 or 5 different ones. Bricology (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Gannibal connection

On the subject of Queen Charlotte's supposed "blackness," the claim currently in the article that her mother's biological father may have been Abram Petrovich Gannibal seems rather more plausible than the previous argument that some 13th century ancestor is the cause.

That being said, is there any actual evidence of this? Elizabeth Albertine, Charlotte's mother, was born in August 1713, when Gannibal was 17. Would it have been physically possible for Gannibal to impregnate Elizabeth Albertine's mother in December 1712, or thereabouts? Is there any actual evidence that they were lovers? Or is this some kind of lame post hoc justification for the "Charlotte was black" speculation? I want a real source for this - as far as I can tell, the only mention of Gannibal on the web as a possible ancestor of Charlotte derives from wikipedia. john k 18:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen any such evidence from my years of researching European history, and conjecture hardly matters. The "plausibility" is extremely distant, given the scrutiny that royalty was subjected to. If a princess' issue significantly disresembled the prince, it would be the source of -- at the least -- much gossip, and at the worst, a death sentence for an unfaithful wife. Princess Elizabeth (Charlotte's mother) produced ten children. One child who looked unlike the others, who would easily serve as standards for genetic homogeny, would've stood out like the proverbial sore thumb, if fathered by a man from Ethiopia or Eritrea, as Gannibal is said to originate from. With a father with an appearance that could only have been antipodal from that of Princess Elizabeth's genetic stock, such a child would've been impossible to explain away. Lastly, there is an almost insurmountable chasm between two people existing at the same time and the likelihood of them being sexually intimate. All factors considered, I think that this claim should be relegated to that of the most fanciful of conspiracy theories. Bricology (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

African

The assumption that African equals black is nonsense.Also,having a darker complexion than Northern Europeans (such as the Germans)equates being Black? "mulatto like features",even though Queen Charlotte was not a mulatto in any sense (half black half white) I wonder if [Victoria Adams] of The Spice girls is now to be considered "Black" or how about the English super model[Alice Dodd?]

Answer: Well, complexion is not the sole factor that is being considered here. Queen Charlotte appears to be quite fair skinned, on the contrary. Additional physical characteristics, such as hair texture, lip formation and the level of prognathism in an individual come heavily into play in determining whether he/she truly has a "mulatto-like" appearance. Also of note, it is very common nowadays to see white women sporting darker complexions. For whatever reason, fake tans and the like are in. Keep that in mind when referring to modern celebrity figures, such as Dodd or Adams. With that stated, I wouldn't put much stock into a few scant descriptions pertaining to Queen Charlotte's infamous face. Mere words alone don't hold a lot of weight. Only several months back Cruise-haters ludicrously described his newborn daugher Suri as the offspring of an Asian man due to her slightly almond shaped eyes. People will always have their unique observations. In short, obtaining the proper evidence (e.g., DNA samples) regarding the late Queen Charlotte's genealogy is the only way to unlock this mystery in question. Otherwise, it's just speculation.

The Moors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors

The Berber Moors who did the conquest of Iberia (Portugal): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber

Another links with historical paintings of African Moors: The racial fuss surrounding the "Moors" in medieval Europe http://www.angelfire.com/md/8/moors.html

And lastly:

Genealogist,Leo van de Pas

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2004-09/1096208509

His credentials wil be found on his home page: http://www.genealogics.org/index.php

Get over it she was a Black woman. [Nita 2:51am June 23, 2006]

Why don't you "Queen-Charlotte-was-black" crowd formulate an intelligent argument rather than simply ranting and making assertions? You know she wasn't black, you just wish she had been, because you can't deal with history the way it happened so you attempt to mitigate your resentments and anxieties with such absurd claims. Why don't you people "get over it"? --Jugbo 00:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

because she WAS of african descent, see [3]. --Snottily 23:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Then by your "reasoning", President Obama is actually not black, since he's 50% white -- a far higher ethnic percentage than Charlotte's tiny percentage of possible blackness. And add to that list of "white" people Justice Thurgood Marshall, Colin Powell, Tiger Woods, Duke Ellington, Jesse Jackson, Beyonce, and most of the other famous "black" people in America today -- all of whom have more white ancestry than Charlotte had black ancestry. Your double standard -- trying to lay claim to someone like Charlotte who might have had no more than 1% African ancestry, without also giving up everyone who you'd like to call "black" who has more than 1% European ancestry -- simply doesn't pass muster. We're no longer living in the days of the "one-drop rule", and even if we were, there's nothing special about a drop of African blood that privileges it over a drop of European blood. So, Snottily, which is it going to be: are white people with a tiny percentage of black ancestry actually "black" and all black people with a tiny percentage of white ancestry actually "white"? -or are people more sensibly classified by the majority of their ancestry, and those without a majority simply called "mixed"? Use some logic and get back to us. Bricology (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, another assertion! Some people really have contempt for truth and I find that disturbing. Even in Stalin's USSR they would have been embarrassed to come out with this one. The truth is we don't know if she had a N African anscestor (going back centuries!) or not - but let's assume for a moment she did. Does that make her black??? Does a pint of beer with one drop of whisky in it become whisky????? By the same token a black Briton who has a white anscestor going back centuries must be white! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.32.201 (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What of Charlotte's contemporaries who constantly remarked about her "Negroid" features? Charlotte had Black African ancestry. That much is clear. Whether one considers her "Black" or not is another issue; that is a fairly subjective designation. The article doesn't ever state that she was Black, although it is quite clear that had she lived in the American South in the 1950's, she would have been riding in the back of the bus ;). deeceevoice (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if they constantly remarked or not, I have heard of one or two descriptions of her as appearing "mulatto" but not "negroid". Do you have any references for me to read some of these descriptions? But even if they did remark on this perhaps she just happened to have features that had a passing resemblance to stereotypical "negroid" features like Mick Jagger or Victoria Beckham. A passing resemblance to something doesn't necessarily mean anything and is certainly not enough to assert "Charlotte had Black African ancestry. That much is clear". More importantly if you read carefully the above section, no one (who has seriously researched her ancestry) is even suggesting she had a negroid ancester, the speculated "black" ancestor was a North African. As for the subjective designation - well if anyone is seriously going to call someone "black" based on one literally centuries distant ancestor (which she may well have had) the word becomes meaningless. On that basis - if it's true that all people on the planet have black ancestry - we might as well all start calling ourselves black and be done with it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I always thought Prince William has a very obvious 'malocclusion' typical of someone with distant african ancestry as does Princess Anne.Both greatly resemble my quadroon grandparents and cousins in phenotype.Prince William eerily resembles my father in youth who is a quadroon.But as other have pointed out some northern european,finnish and germanic people have that type of prominent maxilla and vague features more typical of african people.Would be very interesting to have either do an autosomal or haplogroup based dna test which would automatically verify if they had any african ancestry.58.178.19.67 (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're using the term "malocclusion" incorrectly. That term simply means that the top and bottom teeth or the top teeth and the jaw don't meet properly, such as with an overbite or underbite. I think the word you want is prognathism. Bricology (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Serious copyright issues

The article is one big copyright infringement. See the marriage section and this book. Scary, really. Surtsicna (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That book was published in 1890, so therefore lifting text from it doesn't infringe on copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.245.3 (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, author died in 1925 so it the work is in public domain. But honestly, the text is too old-fashioned and definitely not neutral enough for an encyclopaedia. A most dreadful storm, the excellent qualities of mind, While she certainly was not a beauty, her countenance was very expressive and showed extreme intelligence. The last two could work as cites, but never as article text. -- Cecil (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Place of birth and nationality

Too vague. WHAT COUNTRY is Schloss Mirow in? Germany? I can only guess because one line says they were raised like under a "simple English country gentleman." Clarity needed! --99.33.31.83 (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Mecklenburg-Strelitz. DrKay (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

More "Racial stuff"

The 'Ancestry' section of this article reads like a refutation of the major racial claims about Charlotte, i.e. that she was a "mulato". I must admit that I have not read all of the Talk page sections about this issue. However, I would like to point out that there is something that is deeply flawed about the article as it stands currently. Specifically, it makes the assumption that everyone who is listed as an ancestor is, in fact, an ancestor. I am struggling with how to put this but: until the days of blood tests and DNA testing, it was impossible to tell whether somebody's father was really their biological father. Therefore all of the effort that has been put into how distant any African ancestry was and how many of Charlotte's ancestors weren't black seems wasted as is not necessarily that reliable or useful.

I must admit that I came across the story of Queen Charlotte in one of those 'intellectually disreputable' Afrocentric books. However, the more that I read about her the more that I come to doubt the claims about her being mixed race. I am, at this point, truly unbiased on the issue. I simply think that some of these statistics need to be reconsidered and perhaps removed.EttaLove (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The 'Claims of African ancestry' section does not deal with the question of Charlotte's ancestry. It deals with a specific hypothesis raised by a specific author. And, sourced, it proves it wrong. The Ogre (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

the credibility of Mario de Valdes

It seems that the main voice behind these claims that Charlotte was "black" or "of African descent" is one Mario de Valdes y Cocom. The entry describes him as a "historian of the African diaspora". Curiously, at the bottoms of two articles written by him on the PBS website, he seems to provide his own by-line: "Written and Researched by Mario de Valdes y Cocom an historian of the African diaspora". Is it a coincidence that the exact same phrase is used in both places? Did Valdes contribute to the Wiki? Did whoever referenced him simply quote his by-line? Or is it more revealing: that Valdes has no other qualifications relevant to the matter? Most academics or experts have something more tangible to refer to themselves as, such as "Professor of History" or "Author". However, I can find no biographical information about Mr. Valdes to suggest that he's anything more than a self-proclaimed "historian". A Google search of his name yields just 6,500 hits. If one minuses-out "Charlotte", the results are far worse: 1,450 hits. Most of the hits lead to AfricaSpeaks.com, an Afrocentrist website. Indeed, the only biographical information I've been able to find on Valdes was this from the WGBH website: "Mario de Valdes y Cocom, an independent scholar in black history, spent years compiling much of the material published. Valdes, a Jesuit-educated Belizean of European, Mayan, and African ancestry..." In what way is an "independent scholar", whose work has apparently never been published anywhere but in this PBS show, considered a "reliable source"? After all, PBS often includes unreliable sources in their shows, to provide debate and to "spice things up". Valdes also claims that blonde TV starlet Heather Locklear is "black" thus: "Locklear's surname means 'hold fast' in the language of the Tuscarora tribes, and she seems to have descended from ancestry which is a mixture of European, Indian, and African." Is this the sort of scholarship that WP entries rely upon? I would argue that unless someone can provide a substantive, compelling argument why we should consider Mr. Valdes a "reliable source" or an "expert", all references to him and his claims in the entry should be stricken. Bricology (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

More Afrocentrist nonsense from Mr. Valdes, this on the PBS page he wrote on Giulia de Medici: "With whatever theological authority she can claim, she reminds her contemporaries that God, in His Ineffable Unknowability, is also Black." (source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/giuliademedici.html ) On the PBS page on "The Image of the Blackamoor in European Heraldry", he writes this about "Prester John", the mythical King who supposedly came from India or elsewhere in the East: "It should be pointed out, furthermore, that, heraldically, since he was the only monarch who could claim the 'Sang Real' or the 'Royal Blood' of Christ because of his descent from Solomon, Prester John was the only individual deemed worthy of the right to bear as arms the image of the Crucifix. Even the earring traditionally worn by the blackamoor is a reference to this sacred privilege." (source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/ssecretum1.html ) I'm sorry, but this is simply claptrap. There is not a respected historian in the world who would make such a claim. Finally, on the PBS page Valdes wrote on Charlotte ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/royalfamily.html ) he states "Finally, it should be noted that the Royal Household itself, at the time of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation, referred to both her Asian and African bloodlines in an apologia it published defending her position as head of the Commonwealth." This is an absolute fabrication. No such "apologia" was ever written or published. I took the trouble of searching through the British national archives for any published apology related to the Queen in 1953; none exist. In short, the deeper I look into the claims of Mr. Valdes, the more clear it becomes that he's an Afrocentrist historical revisionist with an agenda, but without any scholarly credibility. I move that his claims be stricken from this entry. Unless someone can step forward and provide a compelling argument to the contrary within a couple of weeks, I'll prune it out myself. Bricology (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Valdes's claims have been given some coverage in reliable sources, and so it would, I fear, be difficult to justify complete removal from wikipedia. I do, however, think that "historian of the African diaspora" can safely be changed to something more appropriate such as "PBS researcher". The denial of the apologia is in the article, and his claims are balanced by opposing views where possible.

Having said that, I'm not heavily defending its inclusion in this article. Most biographies of her do not mention the claims; they are after all extremely silly. I guess my view at the moment is that I don't mind if it either stays with some minor changes or is split off as a separate article. DrKay (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think spliting it off in a separate article is giving it too much credit. In the present form all of Valdes claims are rebuted by credible sources. May be he should just be presente as an "independent afrocentrist researcher". I'll change that. Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It needs trimming down anyway, since it is the largest section in the article. A sentence or two is the most it warrants. - 90.215.164.38 (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian on the ancestry of Queen Charlotte

Will see what can be added from this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/race-monarchy Seems like the author did his research on our article AS WELL AS summarising his thoughts on the discussions from this talk page. --Kvasir (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem that (he should have said so, if it was the case, though). Adn think The Guardian article adds nothing to this here, except maybe were it says that Valdes is an independet historian etc (meaning he does not belong to an academic institution). What do you think? The Ogre (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the article might be useful in a number of ways. It is certainly far, far better than the Frontline article that's been used in the past. It provides some useful comments from academics who are skeptical of Valdes's claims. Shawe-Taylor's remarks, in particular, seem potentially worth discussing, since Shawe-Taylor appears to be an actual fairly eminent art historian who, as surveyor of the queen's pictures, is presumably one of the best placed people to be familiar with artwork depicting members of the royal family; he's definitely a reliable source. The other two cited sources, Kate Williams and Hugo Vickers, seem a bit less on point. Williams has a D. Phil from Oxford, but it appears to be in eighteenth century literature (her dissertation was on "Richardson and Amatory Fiction" and her academic articles are all basically on literature, not history). She's written a book on nineteenth century royal history, but it seems more like a popular history than a scholarly one; Vickers has also written what appear to be popular histories of 20th century royals, but doesn't seem to have any particular academic qualifications. Not being an academic historian, or being an academic in another field who has written popular books, certainly doesn't disqualify one from being a reliable source on a historical topic. But they're both clearly less relevant than Shawe-Taylor. In addition, Jeffries doesn't really give much in the way of specific quotes from them about their assessment of Valdes' theory; Jeffries notes that both are very skeptical of it, which might be useful, but seems more interested in asking them about the implications of the theory if it is true. Jeffries' vaguer summary of what "Williams and other historians" think about the theory, and why they dismiss it, would be more useful if it actually quoted anybody directly. Nonetheless, the basic argument presented seems more or less sound, and at least provides a source for a counterargument to Valdes that we can now say is not OR. Basically, Jeffries summary of what "Williams and many other historians" think is, more or less, what those of us dubious of the idea have been saying on this talk page for a few years now - there's no clear evidence that Madragana was black, or even African; Charlotte's descent from her was so overwhelmingly distant as to be meaningless. Finally, the discussion of the reaction of the black community in Charlotte, North Carolina, to the idea that the city's namesake might be "black" is interesting and perhaps worth noting in the discussion of the idea. john k (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And of course the Moors were "Black", NOT "Negroid". In earlier times, "Black" meant "Swarthy" or "Mediterranean". So she wouldn't pass some Nazi's idea of being "Aryan", but she wouldn't be a "sista" either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Tittle (talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ehm, she was neither "black" nor "negroid", and I've never heard swarthy=black. (Angar432 (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)).

Dubious

Baron Stockmar wasn't Queen Charlotte's physician, he was the court physician in Coburg. There may be confusion between Queen Charlotte and Princess Charlotte of Wales, who married into the Coburg family. DrKay (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So it seems. Just another error by Mario de Valdes y Cocom. I really can't image why someone who is not even up to level with wikipedia quality standards (sources, fact checking, etc.) is called an historian and given credit by PBS. Will make a note in the article. The Ogre (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Baron Stockmar was never at Buckingham Palace. When Stockmar began his service as the Royal Physician to Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg it was at the Claremont Estate that was given as a wedding present by George IV to his daughter Princess Charlotte and Leopold. The Claremont Estate is also where Princess Charlotte died a few years later of childbirth. If that self proclaimed "historian" hack, Mario de Valdes y Cocom, bothered to actually do some meaningful research on the subject instead of his own personal opinions that led to his dubious claims of Queen Charlotte having some 'black' African ancestor he would have realized that the term 'mulatto' didn't have the same meaning in 18th century England as it does today. According to Spanish Royal Academy the term "mulata" is documented in their diachronic data bank in 1472 and it is used in reference to livestock mules in "Documentacion medieval de la Corte del Justicia de Ganaderos de Zaragoza", when a person was called a "mulata" during that era it didn't necessarily mean one was of 'mixed' black and white ancestry but one was UGLY as a mule. And in fact Stockmar comments several times on Charlotte ugliness in her old age. In the 18th century the term muladí (from mullawadí) is also often used for Iberian Christians who had converted to Islam during the Moorish governance of Iberia in the Middle Ages. This is just more evidence that Mario de Valdes y Cocom doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about, and people at PBS are a bunch of wimps who didn't call him out on his Afrocentric fallacies for fear of being labeled 'racists'. (Angar432 (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC))

Racial summary

Having read the above, I conclude that one of her 32,768 15th generation ancestors wasn't black, and the other 32,767 weren't black either. Why can't the Afrocentrists see that beating dead horses like this just makes them look like intellectually disreputable fanatics? Alex Middleton (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Even assuming you have 32,768 ancestors in the fifteenth generation, many of those ancestors will have had descendants who did not know they were related, and sometime between you and the 15th generation back - say around generation 7 or 8 - some of those relatives will have married. Or gotten pregnant in the park with each other. So we always have fewer than the 2^n ancestors we think we have. In the case of royalty they might even know about those relatives 7 or 8 generations back, but would prefer royal relatives to commoners so it wouldn't bother them. Axel (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

15th century through six lines?

What does "in the 15th century through six lines" mean? RickK 02:39, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It means that there are supposedly six different ancestry lines from Charlotte back to this 15th century ancestress.

As an example, Queen Victoria and Prince Albert shared a grandfather and grandmother. Their children have 2 lines of descent from these 2 ancestors - one through Victoria and one through Albert. 69.42.41.174 (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)HistoryLunatic

Stockmar quote

Some web discussions minutely dissect the quote from Stockmar's memoirs. Usually they use the 1873 English translation: "Small and crooked, with a true Mulatto face". They should really be looking at the original 1872 German edition, which reads "Klein, verwachsen, ein wahres Mulattengesicht". jnestorius^(talk) 12:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Better Photograph of Schloss Mirow

The current photograph of Schloss Mirow shows a front facade with bricked up windows in the side wings and a chain link fence in the courtyard, an obvious sign of some renovation work. The German article on this building has a much better photograph at http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Mirow_Schloss.jpg&filetimestamp=20110908200317 Unfortunately, my Wikipedia experience doesn't include knowing how to make the substitution. --Janko (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Like so [4]. DrKay (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Removing "undue weight" tag from "claims of African ancestry"

Since the tag "undue weight" has been sitting on the article since August 2011 with no one trying to do anything to "resolve the issue", and since I do not think it is undue weight at all, I am taking it off. The source for the statement "However, this is denied by Buckingham Palace" at the end is a now dead link, so I am removing that also.Smeat75 (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, this article is shamefully bad, mostly consisting of passages copied out of Victorian books, with ridiculously old fashioned prose: The King was burdened with ministerial troubles, and his mother, secure in the support of his favourite Lord Bute, was able to exert all the influence and authority which age and knowledge of the world and the position of a parent could give her over a young and inexperienced couple - for instance. Can't somebody get a modern bio of this important royal figure and re -do it?Smeat75 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You'll find this is the case with many articles created early on, which used old encyclopedias in the public domain as their sources. I will have a look at it myself - however, I would agree with the person who placed the "undue weight" tag. At first sight, that section does seem out of proportion with the rest of the article. Deb (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made a start on re-writing this article, have revised " Early life" and "Marriage" so far, removing some of the absurdly antiquated language - she was born in a "modest palace', for instance, hahaha, how can a palace be "modest", and her "life at Mirow was nearly identical to that of the family of a simple English country gentleman" - Victorian ideas and words. I will work on it more over the next few days.Smeat75 (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

So I have extensively revised the article removing the antiquated language from Victorian sources and cut back the discussion of Charlotte's possible African ancestry to a more reasonable length. It had an irrelevant poem about Vandals in it that did not need to be there and a disputed statement about an "apologia" which I removed.Smeat75 (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Racial stuff

What a shame, here we are at the start of the 21st century...and look at some of these messages. Given the great degree of intermarriage among European royalty, and the countless mistresses of various kings throughout European history, it is far from unreasonable that people fooled around with courtiers of partial non-white ancestry. Since powerful noblemen who had liasons with non-European (typically black) had the capital to ensure that their offspring would benefit from their connections to and membership within aristocracies (by the 18th century of an international and readily-intermarrying quality) (and they need not be courtiers; African slavery was known in Europe certainly by the 18th century, and I'm sure that quite men slept around with their slaves; Thomas Jefferson was no exception), then it isn't an outlandish assumption that some of these aristocrats had non-white ancestry. Get over it, Europe has never been "purely" white, and the royal families are not exempt from the tendency of humans to readily breed with the taboo "Other." By the way, one cannot look at a person and judge his or her alleged racial ancestry, so looking at portraits is really beside the point (see the entry below mine). Kemet 9 Dec 2005

The whole "Queen Charlotte was black" thing is total garbage. Look at Queen Charlotte's great-great-great-great-great grandparents: [5]):

They are, without exception, German, Danish, Swedish, Polish, or Dutch. There is no obvious connection from that list of even how she would be related to the Portuguese royal family. Any descendancy she would have from this supposed possibly black woman would have to be shared with the entirety of Europe's royals. john k 23:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is precisely the kind of thing historians would love to cover up. I guess it's just unphantomable that the British monarchy has African ancestry, isn't it. Look at the PBS site in the link provided in the article and plenty others. --Kvasir 03:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kvasir wrote "I guess it's just unphantomable (sic) that the British monarchy has African ancestry..." If by "unphantomable" you mean "nonsense", then yes, it is. Please feel free to enlighten us with properly sourced information about these "African ancestors" of the British monarchy. Until then, I'll be holding my breath. Bricology (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I suppose it's possible that she was the illegitimate love child of the Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and a black man. Or something. But, so far as I am aware, there is no evidence to support this. In her acknowledged ancestry, there is no obvious African connection that she would not share with just about every other European royalty. It's perfectly possible that all European royalty has a slight amount of black ancestry. But there is no particular evidence that this comes from Charlotte, save her alleged "mulatto" features. john k 05:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is actually quite certain that all European royalty has a slight amount of black ancestry. The studies on Most Recent Common Ancestor show that everyone has some ancestry in all parts of the planet. No need to cover up. Royals are as black as all the others. 217.140.193.123 09:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

217.140.193.123 wrote "It is actually quite certain that all European royalty has a slight amount of black ancestry". It never fails to amuse me how some people will blithely claim "it is actually quite certain" about something that is anything but "certain". All they have to do is to actually cite a reliable source, but this they never bother to do. "Royals are as black as all the others." So, in your opinion, the Windsors, who are as fair-skinned as it is imaginable to be, with blue eyes and (often) fair hair are "black"? Then I would say that the vast majority of Americans who are mostly African, but have at least one distant white ancestor, should more accurately be described as "white"; certainly President Obama should be called "white", since he's at least 50% caucasian. You can't have it both ways. Bricology (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The frontline commentary, BTW, is utterly unconvincing. Charlotte shares her descent from Margarita de Castro y Susa, who may not even have been black, with large numbers of European royalty who did not have black features. Furthermore, I am not convinced that this oft-repeated story is even true. Looking at the very comprehensive pedigree for Charlotte at genealogics, one has to go back a dozen generations just to get to a Portuguese infanta. Looking at that Portuguese infanta's ancestry going back 8 generations, I see no signs of "Margarita de Castro e Sousa." Describing the Sousas as "the black branch of the Portuguese royal family" seems even more dubious. So, if true, this supposed evidence is unconvincing, and it doesn't even seem to be true. john k 05:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I've found out more. Margarita de Castro did exist, and Charlotte (along with pretty much all of the rest of the Protestant European nobility, including such noted mulattoes as George III) was descended from her in multiple ways. However, Margarita de Castro herself was not "black." She was distantly descended from an African mistress of the medieval King Alfonso III of Portugal. All of the intervening marriages seem to have been to proper Portuguese. So, yes, Queen Charlotte (and George III) had multiple descents from the African mistress of the 13th century King Alfonso III of Portugal. We don't even know if she was black! To speculate that whatever "African" appearance Queen Charlotte may have had was due to this very distant descent, when most of her ancestors were Germans, is highly dubious. john k 05:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The research did not say she was a love child of the Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and a black man. The reseach says her ancestry came from Portugal and the African connection was shown as early as the 15th century, THREE centuries before her birth. Nevermind the racially motivated "negroid" appearance that had sparekd the researches. There had been independent researches done on this, what more evidence do you need? DNA? Why can't the researches regarding the Queen's ancestory even be mentioned? Obviously there had been reasons significant enough for the academic community to pay attention to the matter. Besides, an African ancestry doesn't mean she's "black". Another article I've found points to Moorish origin.

Personally it means nothing to me whether she is considered black or not, but the fact is, the researches did occurred and they were about the Queen, no doubt about that. I don't see why this can't even be part of the article. The current Queen acknowledged her African ancestory during her own coronation. If she's not afraid to say it, why are you? --Kvasir 06:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, the connection to Portugal is in the 15th century. The connection to Africa is through that Portuguese connection, in the 13th century. Most protestant royalty in Europe are descended from this same Portuguese connection, including George III. Why is this information more relevant to Charlotte's article than it is to George III's, or to that of Goethe's patron, Karl August of Saxe-Weimar, who were also descendants of Margarida. The basic issue is that this fact is of no particular relevance to Charlotte's article. The only reason it is mentioned is because there have been claims that Charlotte is "black." And this descendancy was dug up to prove it. But the fact that Charlotte can claim three descents from Margarida (not six, as the article claims), is pointless. According to a thread on alt.talk.royalty on the subject, she can claim about a hundred descents from Margarida's near contemporary, Christian I of Denmark. Why is any of this relevant? If you want to create an article on Margarida de Castro, and the fact that through her a great percentage of northern European royalty derive an African descent, that's fine. But it's utterly irrelevant to Charlotte's article, just as it would be irrelevant to George III's and to Karl August of Weimar's. john k 22:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John, NOBODY IS SAYING SHE WAS BLACK. Read that carefully again, okay? NOBODY ... IS ... SAYING ... QUEEN ... CHARLOTTE ... WAS ... BLACK. You don't have the information in front of you, all the scholar's research, just parts of it online, so why are you so inclined to dismiss it out of hand? However ... A, it is fact that her ancestry has become of interest to scholars of the African diaspora in recent years. B, those studies have been given large play in the media, at least in America. C, her features were commented on during her life. D even one of her leading biographers noted this. Why is this a problem for you? It's just background, deep background. You seem like you're taking this so personally. The paragraph has been written in a very tightly focussed, very careful use of language. Leave it alone. Mowens35 21:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the basis for the research was true, she was the one used to show African connection. Yes, other noble and royal houses of Europe could have the same African ancestry, so what? Would you have a problem dealing with that if it was true? The fact of the matter is, Charlotte was singled out in significant number of works. --Kvasir 02:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be mentioned, but we certainly shouldn't report falsely on it. We need to give the context for it. Basically, the fact is this: there's a few vague references, and some pictures, which make Queen Charlotte look like she might have some African blood. This caused people to look into her genealogy. They discovered that, like most of the rest of northern European royalty, she descends from a 15th century Portuguese lady named Margarita de Castro. This Portuguese lady descends in the maternal side from an illegitimate son of the 13th century King of Portugal Affonso III. The mother of this bastard apparently was of African origin. But was probably Arab or Berber - that is, not Subsaharan African. I don't see why this is a significant fact about Charlotte. Why shouldn't we add the same thing to George III, to Karl August of Weimar, to Christian IX of Denmark, and so on and so forth, if it's so notable? Christian IX of Denmark was the black king of Denmark! Goethe's patron, a negro! This is all silliness, and hasn't the slightest significance. If we are to deal with this we should perhaps mention that some people have suggested black blood for Queen Charlotte, but that genealogical research can only show a very slight amount of African blood which may not be black and which she shares with the rest of European royalty - that is to say, genealogical research actually debunks the idea that she was black, rather than strengthening it. john k 02:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, her apparent African (note that i've never specified Subsaharan or North African except when quoting other's works) ancestry debunks the infamous One-Drop Theory that had ruled America and European nations for centuries. Whether her ancestors were considered black, mixed or Moorish is unimportant. It is the notion that she and her decendants may have NON-EUROPEAN blood that policy makers and historians alike up in arms over, the POV typical of history written by those in charge, namely Europeans. This is truly the double standard that is at work here. I guess the One-Drop Theory doesn't apply when it comes to royalty who has a very remote non-European ancestry can be easily and should be disregarded; yet it is the perfect basis to segregate visible minority when it comes convenient. If they would apply the One Drop Theory to its strictest sense of the word just like you have, YES we'd have a black King of Demark. And you wouldn't have given this example if you didn't find this notion of a black Danish monarchy ridiculous and unacceptable. History had shown us that if Hitler were to apply his own racial policy to himself, he would be on his way to Auschwitz. The fact that he could impose his policies was that he had the power to. This shows the labels of black and white are totally decided upon by society, not by lineage. The difference between the Portugese/British royal houses and the rest of those in Europe is that the Portuguese and the British had acknowledged an African connection. Portugal used the African lineage to justify colonial expansion into Africa, and QEII claimed, during her coronation, the lineage as her basis for the monarchy to rule over the Commonwealth. Whether this was done solely to justify their means or not is not the point of this discussion. But the fact that they have admitted it makes it all the more official. The rest of them are possibly just hiding in their little closets.

Further more, this whole business of Charlotte's non-European lineage should be mentioned here in this article because it is the very researches dealt into Charlotte's genealogy that formed the basis of the current British royal house's claim of African lineage, as well as contemporary politics such as the abolition of slavery. I don't have a problem about this lineage not mentioned for most other European royal houses because it was, in fact, insignificant with respect to their country's historic context. --Kvasir 07:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Hitler did not have a Jewish grandfather. That's a myth. I'd add that German/Austrian one-quarter Jews who did not practice their religion were, in fact, not murdered, for the most part. Why should I take someone seriously who repeats that hoary old nonsense? Who believes in the one drop theory at this point, anyway? Every single European monarch today, as a descendant of Queen Victoria, is also descended from Margarida de Castro, and thus from Affonso III's possibly-African mistress. As to whether, say, the Danes have "admitted" their minuscule African ancestry, I have no idea - but the whole discussion is absurd. A study of the genealogy of these people is most remarkable because of how *little* of their ancestry is non-European. These people were incredibly inbred, and very little of their ancestry can be traced to anywhere but Europe. As to "black" and "white" being determined by society rather than lineage, sure. But there are other theories on this than the "one drop" theory. The Portuguese certainly never subscribed to this theory, nor did the Spanish - they had elaborate varieties of racial difference devised. I'm not certain about northern European societies, but I do know that a German with as little Jewish blood as Charlotte had "African" blood would have faced no trouble at all from the Nazis. Finally, again, the fact that Elizabeeth acknowledged African ancestry has little to do with Charlotte - she has the same African ancestry through George III, and through Christian IX of Denmark, and probably from various other sources as well. john k 21:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned One Drop Theory was because of your example of a black Danish King. You wouldn't have mentioned it if you didn't apply the theory in order to arrive to the label "black". Again, I have never said Charlotte was black, nor did I say Hitler was part-Jewish. I used him as an example because Hitler didn't know the identity of his paternal grandfather and as such, under his own racial policies, he could not have established himself as a German. --Kvasir 22:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

His paternal grandfather was Johann Hiedler - this was legally recognized. At any rate, the people whose work you are advancing have referred to Charlotte as a "black" queen of England, that is all I was saying. 23:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And who's up in arms over anything? No historians or, god forbid, policy-makers, who, so far as I am aware, have little interest in the ancestry of Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, have disputed the fact that you can trace descents of Charlotte to the possibly-African mistress of Affonso III of Portugal. What is under dispute is whether this fact is of any significance at all, and whether there is any reason to attach this fact to especially to Charlotte, when it could just as easily be attached to George III, or Christian IX of Denmark, or Karl August of Weimar, or whoever. john k 21:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll add that this particular line of ancestry was not exposed by original research into Charlotte, so far as I am aware. The genealogy of Europe's royalty has been very extensively researched, and almost certainly this particular line of descent was fully known by genealogists long before anyone became interested in whether or not Charlotte was black. And, once again, if the ancestry is, in fact, non-black North African (as is overwhelmingly likely), this is all the less interesting - North Africans were not normally considered racially distinct from Europeans - certainly not in the Iberian peninsula, which was full of Moors and Jews. All of the southern European royalties almost certainly have some small amount of Jewish/Moorish descent through Ferdinand of Aragon. john k 21:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John, NOBODY IS SAYING SHE WAS BLACK. Read that carefully again, okay? NOBODY ... IS ... SAYING ... QUEEN ... CHARLOTTE ... WAS ... BLACK. I actually wrote about this research for the New York Times and spent a lot of time working on its verification from a wide number of scholars, not one of whom was skeptical. You don't have the information in front of you, all the scholar's research, just parts of it online, so why are you so inclined to dismiss it out of hand? However ... A, it is fact that her ancestry has become of interest to scholars of the African diaspora in recent years. B, those studies have been given large play in the media, at least in America. C, her supposedly "negroid" features were commented on during her life. D even one of her leading biographers noted this. Why is this a problem for you? It's just background, deep background. You seem like you're taking this so personally. The paragraph has been written in a very tightly focussed, very careful use of language, leaving the research open to interpretation. Leave it alone. Also, as you will note, your own initial argument of "garbage" re the research has been tempered over the last few days to the point of you're saying that maybe it should be noted. Mowens35 21:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, many people are saying she was black. Scroll on down this very page and notice how many Afrocentrists do that very thing. Google "Queen Charlotte" and "black OR african", and you'll get over 4 million hits, including such top-scorers as "Black Queen of England; Queen Charlotte and her Contributions to Britain" on rastafarian.net. There's an entire Afrocentrist industry out there that commandeers famous European (and even Japanese!) historical figures and claims that they were actually black. Queen Charlotte is just one example. Bricology (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with it being mentioned. I have a problem with it being mentioned in a misleading manner, as, for instance, the Frontline article does. It has probably been mentioned enough as to deserve a place in the article. But there's no reason to treat it as though it is a particularly sensible claim. Margarida de Castro was not "apparently mixed-race," (and she certainly was not a member of "the black branch of the Portuguese royal house" as Frontline says) so far as I am aware - she was a Portuguese noblewoman who had a negligible amount of (apparently Moorish) African blood dating back a couple of centuries. The argument that Charlotte's descent from her has any connection to the claim that she looked "mulatto" is utterly specious - whether or not Charlotte looked mulatto, it is incredibly unlikely that this has anything to do with her very distant descent from a thirteenth century moorish woman, which she shared with numerous people who nobody has every said looked like mulattoes. Were even her brothers, sisters, or parents ever described as looking mulatto? Has anybody even bothered to see? My basic problem with this is that it's always presented as though this (genuine) genealogical descent actually bears some relation to the fact that people said Charlotte looked mulatto. It simply does not - there is absolutely no connection between these two (true) facts, and the main reason that people have juxtaposed these two things is to suggest that the contemporary observations have been proven correct by "scientific" research into Charlotte's genealogy. john k 21:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John, it's mentioned, it's mentioned properly in the article, with pros and cons. We can do nothing more. On the subject of Charlotte's siblings, I do not know, but if you're interested, I could scan a circa 1875 photograph of a family distantly connected to me. The husband was mixed race: white, Indian, and black, but looked rather like Abraham Lincoln. His wife was entirely white, pure Blythe Danner in appearance, though more careworn. Their grown sons all look largely black. Two of the daughters do as well, while two other daughters are very white in appearance. All the women married mixed-race men. The two grandchildren pictured -- who are cocktail of Indian, white, and black, in varying complexities -- look like the Sherwin-Williams Dutch boy. They both slipped into white society when grown and successfully so. Whether their own children and grandchildren remained blonde types is unknown. Mowens35 21:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wasn't denying that this kind of thing can happen. i was just noting that nobody seems to say anything one way or the other about her close relatives, and that the whole thing seems to be cherry-picking. It's also rather anglocentric - it's not as though Charlotte came out of a wild area where we know nothing of her other family members, and yet there seems to be no interest in whether she looked like a typical member of the family, or not. At any rate, I have no particular problem with some mention of this. I do think that it's pretty disproportionate at this point. john k 23:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's anglocentric. All we've got to go on are English observers of her. Her siblings, on the other hand, we know nothing about, largely, because they didn't become queens or rulers of one of the most important countries on the planet. And if they were written about, we'd be hardpressed to find to books on a local library shelf to back it up, unless some Wiki's got borrowing privileges at the Mecklenburg County Library in Germany. Or somebody's willing to track down paintings of all her family (go right ahead if you'd like and we can change the article accordingly). As for disproportionate, that is why I moved the block of text to the end of the entry. It broke the rhythm and took up too much space at the beginning of the article. I think it is appropriately placed. Mowens35 23:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If someone were serious about researching Charlotte's ancestry, it is certainly not difficult to find out about her family. Obviously, it is not as easy as finding stuff about Charlotte, but one would guess that there are records in Strelitz and elsewhere about the family, and that a diligent researcher could discover quite a lot. Portraits almost certainly exist, as well - her brother was, after all, a major prince of the Holy Roman Empire. This is not an issue with contributors to wiki, but an issue about the seriousness of these people (not on wiki) who are supposedly researching Charlotte's ancestry. I agree that the bit is better placed at the bottom. john k 23:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is apparent that racist sentiments seem to find there way into the simplist of arguments.. Queen charlotte wasnt the only African queen in british history. There have been at least two others. Her ancestry goes back to portugal(pre dark age spain), which before the roman empire conquered it was inhabited by African Moslems with the interest of trade and education. whether or not she was a "black" is unknown. but a poem was written for her coronation that higly suggest her ethnicity:

Descended from the warlike Vandal race,

She still preserves that title in her face.

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

And 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.

This may be referring to African Moslems or maybe even further back to her african warrior roots(haha). speculation encourages research and investigation thus furthering the learningn experience. Alot of thigns have been covered up by those who want to "hide" the truth about our world. All life orginates from Africa. There have been three "black" popes, three "black" roman emperors, "black" saints, knights, peers, etc. stan 10:17, 13 Sept 2005

Or, it may be referring to the Vandals, a Germanic tribe which was believed at the time to have originated from the Mecklenburg area, and to have later conquered Africa. Now, it's possible that the poet was playing around with the fact that, by many accounts, Charlotte looked kind of black, and were making a joke based on the Vandal connection to north Africa. But the Vandals did not look Black. They were a German tribe, and presumably were blond and fair. So there is no reason to assume that this is what is meant at all, unless one is already looking for it. And, I will repeat - the Vandals were believed in the 18th century to have originated in northern Germany, around the Baltic Sea (i.e., exactly where Charlotte was from). I would add that African Muslims did not live in Portugal before the Roman Empire, what with Islam not existing until after the fall of the Roman Empire. Beyond this, I have addressed all these points before. I have strong objections to pretending that anybody who is a native of Africa, and not of European descent, is "black." This simply is not true of north Africans, who, whatever the origins of Homo sapiens in Africa, are more closely related to Europeans than they are to Subsaharan Africans. So there have been no black popes, and no black Roman emperors. There have of course been black saints, knights, and peers (Valerie Amos is the last, for instance). I have even stronger objections to the idea that any kind of Black origins have been demonstrated for Charlotte that are beyond those held by every other European of her time. A couple of descents from a single 13th century woman who was probably a Moor is not a demonstration that somebody is Black. If this is what makes Charlotte black, then every European monarch is black. Presumably, every white person in the world is black by this standard. The basic fact is that the only thing the "Queen Charlotte was black" advocates have dug up is a) a tenuous descent from someone who was probably a north African, which she shares with the rest of royal Europe; and b) some vague resemblances found in her portrait to supposedly Black features, and a few contemporary writings which are claimed dubiously to allude to her supposed blackness. This is simply not good enough in the fact of a well known family tree which deos not include any black people in it. john k 19:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

To Kemet: the possibility that Charlotte was descended from an 18th century mulatto is not sufficient to claim that she was. Possibility does not equate with probability, and the claim that she had black ancestry regards a 13th century ancestor, as has been repeated throughout this section. Telling people to "get over it" doesn't encourage them to do so, and an assumption, as you put it, is exactly what your hypothesis is (i.e. not a proven fact). If Charlotte had a black ancestor, then she had a black ancestor (and she did, as all humans on the planet do), and this doesn't change the fact that Charlotte was white, despite the alleged "African" who was probably a Moor (i.e. not black), if she really is the ancestor of Charlotte. The denial that Charlotte was "black" is not based on the notion that Europeans are "purely white", but on the assertion that the claim that she was descended from a 13th century "African" mistress is dubious, and that even if this notion were true, and that this woman was "black", that Charlotte still couldn't be called "black" because none of her recent ancestors or close relatives were. Why is the challenge to nonsensical Afrocentric history a shame? The true shame is that some black scholars must disparage Europe and it's traditions with accusations of universal racism. To "Stan", no pope or Roman emperor was black, as this would be quite significant, and not easily missed or forgotten or "covered up" (the last possibility being strongly discredited by the fact that the partial black ancestry of such notables as Alexander Pushkin, George Bridgetower and Joseph Boulogne have not been "covered up"). There were African popes and emperors, but they were non-black Africans from the north. Mediterranean Africans are racially and ethnically identical to West Asians and Europeans. The history of black people in Europe is minor, and is exaggerated by some scholars. --Jugbo

Clearly, you missed my point, and I will not paraphrase what is patently clear in what I wrote. Some advice: READ before you respond, and don't extrapolate authors' opinions from your faulty understandings. Re-read what preceded my entry, and what I wrote. Kemet

I see on the history page that my above formerly insensitive post has caused a stir, and I apologize for the lapse in maturity (especially to Kemet for the name-calling). However, do not ever delete another person's words. If they are rude and inflammatory, then address the issue by posting yourself, rather than deleting it and pretending it never happened (or go directly to the offender). To erase another's comments is to lie about what has happened, even though it is recorded on the history page. Suppression of free speech is worse than any bias. --Jugbo 18:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've rewritten the lead section of this article to include other biographical attributes. I moved the section at the top that talks at length about her race (which is totally new material to me, but very interesting nonetheless) just to maintain proportion. It would also be great if we could get some sources on how important this was during her life, such as those caricatures or any literary references, so we can reevaluate this if need be. Was she aware of this ancestry? Stuff like that. --Marysunshine 21:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another Black question

There is undue weight on the idea that she was not black. The article puts undue weight on 18th century lore, which was not exactly well-known for it's fantastic race relations. The fact that some scholars agree with this, does not mean other scholars of our time disagree. For example: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/royalfamily.html described more than one contemporary as placing her with African features. You describe two and then debunk them as abolitionists, but there were others who were not also did too... Also the PBS article accuses of other painters of downplaying. But as we don't have a picture of her ancestor in question, the question of racism given the attitudes of the time might prejudice the 18th century guy.... so disproven in the 18th century kinda seems odd... also, I have to note that the people cited as "disproving it" were kinda white (and all Portuguese)... and uhh... wouldn't they have political interest in disproving it, especially with the whole Moors were in Spain bit and the "cleansing" of the records (which affected Portugal too)...

Mario de Valdes y Cocom actually makes a case that she *was* of African descent. And her African features were *not* downplayed. Just that other artists were afraid to paint her with mulatto features. It's a misrepresentation of what was written... and uhhh... kinda comes off wrong and definitely POV when the sources are manipulated to make a point. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hitsuji Kinno wrote "There is undue weight on the idea that she was not black". Sorry, but you have that exactly backwards. The idea that she was black is unsubstantiated at best and most likely, a complete fabrication. Remember: the onus is on the claimant to provide objective evidence to support their claim, it is NOT on the skeptic to disprove it. "The article puts undue weight on 18th century lore, which was not exactly well-known for it's fantastic race relations" -- and you prefer to shift that weight to 13th century lore, when her supposed black ancestor lived? "For example: (she is) described (by) more than one contemporary as placing her with African features." Descriptions are one source of information about appearances, but there are two sources that are far more compelling: there were dozens of portraits of her, painted from life, that depict her as a fair-skinned, fair-haired, blue eyed -- in short, European -- and we also have many portraits of her children, all of whom could not look any more purely Caucasian. "Mario de Valdes y Cocom actually makes a case that she *was* of African descent." Mr. Valdes is utterly non-authoritative. He has no academic credentials, no publication history, no peer review, nothing. "Just that other artists were afraid to paint her with mulatto features." It's really impressive that you are able to get into the minds of all of those portrait painters and know what they were thinking! Do you perform at children's parties and do card tricks too? Bricology (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but people of mixed descent can look more one way or the other as well (look up passing), the idea that it is purely 50-50 is a notion that needs to be revised. A child of someone black can turn out with straight hair and white skin. Especially as third gen. If contemporaries and her doctors who had an eye witness account say she was mulatto, then it's up to the skeptic to prove it wrong. And I would also consider things like erasure, white washing of history, and the fact that genetics isn't perfect. Also, the fact that the majority of your sources cited are white and men... so I wouldn't put onus on people with clear bias. You keep saying that it's consistently wrong, but then discount PBS as a source, who vet their sources. You need to eliminate those biases before you say that it is proven. If you cannot do that, then it's not proven, and then it is unfair weight.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hitsuji Kinno wrote "Sorry, but people of mixed descent can look more one way or the other as well (look up passing), the idea that it is purely 50-50 is a notion that needs to be revised." We're not talking about someone who is "mixed" or 50-50; we're talking about at most 99.9994% ethnically European and .0006% "black". If you're insisting upon using the term "mixed" -- much less "black", as you did above -- to refer to someone who has at most .0006% heritable genetic material from a different ethnicity, that would include almost every person on earth. (look up one-drop rule) "Especially as third gen." Again, we're not talking about "third gen.", now are we? We're talking about sixteenth-generation. You're being disingenuous. "If contemporaries and her doctors who had an eye witness account say she was mulatto, then it's up to the skeptic to prove it wrong." /laughs/ Sorry, but no sale. There are "contemporaries" who claimed that Jesus rose from the dead, and the Roman historian Suetonius swore that he saw Caesar Augustus' spirit ascending to heaven from his funeral pyre. Neither of those sources are even remotely credible in representing facts. Next, you're absolutely wrong when you claim that Charlotte's doctor said that she was mulatto; that's Afrocentrist nonsense. The doctor they claim was Baron Stockmar (1787-1763), who was the physician to Princess Charlotte of Wales, the daughter of George IV, not the wife of George III. Also, these "contemporaries" you claim support the assertion that she was mulatto, come from the Frontline article, which reads "It was the director of the Burney Project (Fanny Burney, the prolific 19th century British diarist, had been secretary to the Queen), Dr. Joyce Hemlow, who obtained from Olwen Hedly, the most recent biographer of the Queen Charlotte (1975), at least half a dozen quotes by her contemporaries regarding her negroid features." Sorry, but I don't consider a third-hand claim of an anonymous "half-dozen quotes by her contemporaries" to be even remotely compelling. Finally, you claim that I "discount PBS as a source, who vet their sources." Clearly, this they did not do. I defy you to show me any evidence that their source -- a self-appointed "scholar" and "independent researcher" who has no academic credentials, zero peer-review, no publications of note, and who provided NO sources for his claims -- is a reliable source. We already know that he was mistaken about his primary "expert witness" -- a doctor who had just finished medical school at about the time that Queen Charlotte died of old age! Bricology (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Mario de Valdes y Cocom

The article cites the opinions of "independent researcher" Mario de Valdes y Cocom, who is the main source of claims that Charlotte had African ancestry. The ONLY source I can find for this claim is the Frontline article. I have not been able to find a bio or CV on Mr. Valdes, nor does he seem to have been published in any scholarly or peer reviewed publications, nor does he seem to have any academic credentials. I don't think that Wikipedia should be providing Mr. Valdes with credibility he does not deserve by calling him a "researcher". Frontline describes him as an "independent scholar", although it makes no mention of what kind of "scholar" he is. If all that is required to be considered a "researcher" or a "scholar" is to independently do research or attend school, then every university student would have equal claim to be a "scholar and independent researcher". In short: if Mr. Valdes hasn't earned the title "researcher", he should not be called such here.
Also, It's a minor point, but I could not find even one other example of anyone using the surname "Valdes de Cocom". I suspect that his birth name was just plain "Mario Valdes" and he's added the nobiliary particle "de", and appended his mother's maiden name ("Cocom"). This sort of pretense is fairly common amongst certain groups, like non-noble Germans (such as Erich von Stroheim) inserting a "von" before their surname, or non-noble Scots (like Robert Gayre) adding an "of (placename)" after their surname. If true, it may shed light on Valdes' credibility. Bricology (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Second part is speculation and does not belong in a wikipedia discussion per the rule Wikipedia is not a forum and it can come off as defamation, especially since you lack proof. Frontline is an independent and reliable source who vet their sources and verify them. You'd have to turn over Frontline as a reliable source. You can't get in with nothing--they double check. In addition you claim it's the only source, despite the painter, the doctor (who was not claimed to be an abolitionist in any form) and other contemporaries making similar claims (including championing her for the abolitionist movement). and the other side being all white men from the 18th century who did not know who her mother was by their own admission, but took GUESSES. Contemporaries have more weight than later scholars who have a stake in wanting to erase the past, especially of questionable attitudes towards race. There would be better weight if the person was black and said she was not, which is how Mario came into the picture. Someone misread the original article and claimed that the article said Mario said she was white. I corrected it to what it really said. Which was that Mario thought she was Mulatto. You have to really, really question that attitude. So apparently Mario is good enough to include when the article says she's white (which is wrong), not good enough when she's said to be mulatto. Leave it. If it's a question, it belongs in the article. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hitsuji Kinno wrote "Second part is speculation..." Yeah, no kidding; that's why I prefaced it with "I suspect that..." "...And does not belong in a wikipedia discussion per the rule". "The rule"? What "rule"? There's no rule on WP against speculation in the Talk section. "Wikipedia is not a forum..." Do you know what "talk" means? This is a Talk page. It is a forum, for discussing the subject and its article. "...it can come off as defamation..." Nope. It's only defamation if it's untrue. If I'm wrong, and Mr. Valdes feels defamed, he is welcome to sue me. "Frontline is an independent and reliable source who vet their sources and verify them." That's a classic appeal-to-authority fallacy. I've demonstrated that they did NOT do due diligence or they would've known that the person whose opinion they hosted is NOT an expert. You are confusing two very different things. "Frontline" is a credible source, but not everything they say (or allow others to say) is necessarily factual. The credibility of an author or contributor is not guaranteed by the forum through which they present their views. For example: in 2003, the New York Times, the Washington Post and every other major newspaper in America reviewed the book "A Million Tiny Pieces", categorizing it as a memoir, i.e., nonfiction. In 2006, it was discovered to have been a work of fiction; the author had made it all up. The NY Times is certainly a "reliable source", but their sources, in this case, were not reliable. That same year, Pat Tillman was likewise reported in every media source in the US as having been killed in Afghanistan by insurgents. It wasn't until many months later that the story was changed to reflect reality: he had been killed by "friendly fire". So there is a profound difference between a reputable source and facts. While "Frontline" may generally be considered a reputable source, Mr. Valdes is not. Here's the dead giveaway: reputable "researchers" include citations to sources. Mr. Valdes did not. A man with NO academic credentials, with NO publications, with NO peer review and with NO professional qualifications, who demonstrably writes rubbish (e.g., the fact that he conflates the physician of Queen Charlotte with that of Princess Charlotte), is NOT a credible source. Just because someone is quoted in the media does NOT make them an expert or a credible source (cf. Fred A. Leuchter, who was widely quoted as an "expert" on gas chambers in WWII Nazi concentration camps in the media and even testified as an expert witness in trials before it came to light that he was NOT an expert). "In addition you claim it's the only source, despite the painter, the doctor (who was not claimed to be an abolitionist in any form) and other contemporaries making similar claims (including championing her for the abolitionist movement)." You're STILL harping on "the doctor"? *sigh* Here you go: a point-by-point refutation of the claims that Mario Valdes makes on the Frontline page that is the source for all of this nonsense ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/royalfamily.html )

• "They (the black community) have pointed out the physiological traits that so obviously identify the ethnic strain of the young woman..." Except that they're anything but "obvious", as can be seen in the vast majority of portraits of Charlotte. She sat for dozens of them, and by the greatest painters of the day. Does she look "mulatto" in them? Nope. Take a look at this one by Johann Zoffany. Or this one by the same artist. Or this one by Henry Robert Morland. Or this one by Nathaniel Dance-Holland]. Or this one by Joshua Reynolds. Or this one by William Beechey. Do you see any "Negroid characteristics", as Valdes claims? Nope. She's a bit homely (too wide of a mouth, too prominent of eyes), but she has a delicate and narrow nose, blue eyes, pale skin, straight, fair hair, etc. -- all of which are recessive genetic traits. In fact, the main portrait that is cited to show her with supposedly black features was painted by the studio of Allan Ramsay, and not by the artist himself. In other words, it's unlikely she actually sat for the portrait, as she did for the others I've cited above. Studio portraits were often painted by assistants to the artist, under his supervision. Furthermore, many portraits exist of Charlotte's parents and grandparents, and not one of them looks even remotely mulatto. Nor do any of Charlotte's children, all of whom were copiously painted.

Valdes quotes a poem written by one "S. Bowdin" on the occasion of Charlotte's coronation. But not surprisingly, he quotes very selectively, and apparently, only to name-check "Numidia". To wit: "Descended from the warlike Vandal race / She still preserves that title in her face. / Tho' shone their triumphs o'er Numidia's plain, And and Alusian fields their name retain..." Who were the Vandals? -Africans? Hardly. They were an East Germanic tribe. And the poet is saying that the Vandals "triumph(ed) over Numidia's plain", which the Vandals did, when they conquered North Africa in 439CE. In what way does this poem support the claim that Charlotte was Numidian? It doesn't in any way. Indeed, it supports the opposite view -- that she looked Germanic, like the Germans who triumphed over the Africans.

Valdes claims "Because of its 'scientific' source, the most valuable of Dr. Hedley's references would, probably, be the one published in the autobiography of the Queen's personal physician, Baron Stockmar, where he described her as having '...a true mulatto face'." Again, Valdes demonstrates his lack of scholarship. Baron Stockmar (1787-1863), as his Wiki clearly states, "became the personal physician of Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in 1816 at the time of Leopold's marriage to Princess Charlotte of the United Kingdom, the only child of King George IV." Do you get it yet? Valdes has conflated two different Charlottes: Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1744-1818), wife of George III, and Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796-1817), her granddaughter. Stockmar was never physician to Queen Charlotte. Queen Charlotte had seven physicians, all of them listed here; obviously, Stockmar is not amongst them. Indeed, Stockmar finished medical school in 1810, opened a military hospital in Coburg (Germany) in 1812, and became physician-in-ordinary to Prince Leopold I of Belgium in 1816. Considering Queen Charlotte died in 1818 and Princess Charlotte (Leopold's wife) in 1817, it is absurd to claim that Stockmar was physician to either one!

Valdes closes with this rather startling claim: "Finally, it should be noted that the Royal Household itself, at the time of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation, referred to both her Asian and African bloodlines in an apologia it published defending her position as head of the Commonwealth." This is utter bullshit. There is no such "apologia". I defy you or anyone else to produce it.. That shouldn't be difficult; it was just 50 years ago, and everything printed then is readily available on-line. Valdes didn't cite his source for the simple reason that there is none.

In summation: Valdes is wrong about the appearance of Charlotte in the vast majority of portraits painted from life by court painters, and he chooses to privilege one portrait that came from a studio over the others, which were painted from life. Valdes misquotes a poem which actually disproves rather than supports his claims. Valdes confuses the physicians of two different royal women named Charlotte. Valdes is either misinformed about this so-called "apologia", or he's outright lying about it; it doesn't exist. And throughout it all, he never provides any reliable sources for his claims. Anyone who doesn't recognize by now that Valdes is an unreliable source is incapable of grasping reality. Bricology (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's been more than two months since I posted the complete refutation of the claims of Mario Valdes which comprise the only source for the assertions in the section "Claims of African ancestry". Since no reliable source has been provided to substantiate his claims, I'm going to remove the entire section. Bricology (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The contention that Charlotte was of sub-Saharan ancestry did not originate with Valdes, yet the article now treats the allegation as if it were his alone, proceeding to rebut the allegation by defaming him (and declaring that anyone who has a different opinion "is incapable of grasping reality"). Yet I first looked Charlotte up in an encyclopedia decades ago because I had heard this very assertion. That contention may be erroneous, but it is significant because it is so oft-repeated and taken seriously -- look at the history of this talk page. So it deserves to be addressed in the article. Yet coverage of the issue consisting of the dismissal of Valdes' interpretations neither debunks the claim nor preserves Wikipedia from original research (what reliable source do we quote stating that Valdes or Stockmar "mixed-up" Charlotte of Wales and Charlotte of Mecklenburg? Or that the "mulatto" portrait of Charlotte Mecklenburg was probably done by assistants for whom she did not personally pose?) Seems to me likely that the persistence of the rumor is due to people looking at the portrait and drawing obvious, if undocumentable, conclusions. We need not rebut that, merely show that the portrait is atypical of Charlotte's portraits, and that the speculated "Portuguese/Moorish" source of her facial features is extremely remote (that doesn't exclude the possibility of a sub-Saharan paternity of course, but since that would have resulted from a clandestine tryst on the part of Charlotte's mother, documentation of it might never come to light, and so should not be speculated upon). More than that is over-kill and likely to elicit the suspicion of "attempted cover-up" which this talk page shows will erupt when rebuttals included in the article become as far-fetched as the "Black Charlotte" claim itself. FactStraight (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

FactStraight wrote "The contention that Charlotte was of sub-Saharan ancestry did not originate with Valdes...I first looked Charlotte up in an encyclopedia decades ago because I had heard this very assertion". Are you claiming that the encyclopedia verified this? Or simply that you "heard this very assertion"? If it's the latter, it's nothing more than rumor and WP isn't a forum for rumors. If it's the former, the onus is on you (or other WP editors) to supply such support, properly sourced. Thus far, none has been offered. Frankly, I very much doubt it's the case; encyclopedias are not given to speculation about ancestry, especially given the thoroughness of S-CM-S' pedigree. As I've often pointed out, Valdes' claims are not only the most often cited in Afrocentrist texts, they are also entirely unsourced. Legitimate researchers and historians cite sources. Valdes doesn't offer even one; he just makes assertion after assertion. He has no credentials, no publication history, no teaching position, nothing. Ultimately, the onus for supporting claims rests upon those making those claims; it's not upon those who are skeptical of them to disprove them. If Valdes had supplied sources for his claims, we would having a different conversation here. But he hasn't, and even the vague sources that he has suggested (diaries, poems, etc.) can be shown to be patently false (cf. "Numidia's plain").

You seem to be repeating the same arguments you initially layed out rather than addressing the ones I'm raising. Neither this article nor Wikipedia should be focused on debunking Valdes, which is what the arguments here seem to take as their objective (and it's unsurprising that "Afrocentrists" would be more, not less, suspicious of a denial which centers on whether they have the academic "credibility" to call for their concerns to be taken seriously à la the Sally Hemings case, deemed unfounded rumour from 1801 to 1998). Nor do I acquire some special burden of proof here because I mention having heard this rumor independently of Valdes -- that is simply an indication that your assumption that Valdes originated the rumor may not be accurate (and yet it may -- I don't know). Regardless, Valdes is not the only source of the allegation and our interest in the matter revolves around whatever about this woman may be historically notable -- including significant rumours about her ancestry that turn out to be untrue or unresolved (e.g., Kaspar Hauser, the Dunkelgrafen or the Naundorff pretender) If it is alleged or speculated in reputable publications when this queen is mentioned that she, inexplicably, had sub-Saharan ancestry, that makes it notable enough to address in this article if relevant reliable sources can be found. I specifically suggested above a way of addressing this instance, which, I thought, was consistent with the outcome you seek, yet I find myself in argument with you here. Why? FactStraight (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"That contention may be erroneous, but it is significant because it is so oft-repeated and taken seriously -- look at the history of this talk page. So it deserves to be addressed in the article." Sorry, but that's not the way WP works; just because a claim is made and "oft-repeated and taken seriously", it does not automagically become encyclopedic. This man has written a book claiming that George Washington was homosexual, and the phrase "George Washington was a homosexual" has 228,000 hits on Google. Does that somehow mean that on Washington's WP article, there should be a section titled "Washington's alleged homosexuality"? Hardly!

That is exactly what an encyclopaedia does: address and clarify what is known about a subject and what may have been believed to be known which has since been confirmed, debunked or remains a mystery. If and when enough interest in George Washington's possible homosexuality is expressed that reliable articles discuss the controversy sufficiently to prompt editors here to write about it, the article will appropriately mention the issue -- whether or not sufficient evidence is available to resolve the question. This talk page documents the degree to which Queen Caroline's potential black ancestry has evoked curiosity, comment, research and discussions about the appropriate way to address the issue herein. That said, we may still simply not have enough reliably-sourced info to say any more about it than that uncorroborated speculation has occurred -- which is perfectly fine. FactStraight (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"What reliable source do we quote stating that Valdes or Stockmar 'mixed-up' Charlotte of Wales and Charlotte of Mecklenburg?" There's a huge body of reliable, published documentation that proves who Queen Charlotte's physicians were. She had seven physicians and all of them are listed here. Stockmar is conspicuously not amongst them. There's also a considerable body of evidence as to who Stockmar was the physician to, including the husband of Princess Charlotte. There is no overlap of those two, and not one reputable source backs up the assertion that Stockmar was ever physician to Queen Charlotte.Encyclopedia Britannica states thus unequivocally. The fact that Stockmar was just 30 years old when Queen Charlotte died should've raised some suspicions about the claim's credibility.

"...Or that the 'mulatto' portrait of Charlotte Mecklenburg was probably done by assistants for whom she did not personally pose?" Because the portrait that is typically referenced is the one at the top of this article and WP itself lists it as "Studio of Allan Ramsay". It hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in London. Their website catalogs it as "Studio of Allan Ramsay". Here's the NPG listing: [6]. In Looking at Paintings: A Guide to Technical Terms by Doherty and Woollett (Getty Publications, 2009), it states "'Studio of' or 'workshop of' is used with paintings made by an unknown assistant or assistants in the artist's shop, perhaps under the artist's direct supervision." British monarchs weren't in the habit of sitting for a portrait by any old artist, and photography did not yet exist, so the only image that whoever it was in Ramsay's studio who painted this work would've had to work from would've been other portraits, rather than from life. So the painting attributed to Ramsay that is at the center of the "negroid features" claims is not considered, by the owners (the Royal Family) or the museum in which it hangs, to have been by Ramsay's own hand. Indeed, that painting utterly lacks Ramsay's delicacy and polish. I am aware of one single portrait that Ramsay did of Queen Charlotte, depicting her with her two eldest sons . That portrait does not look "negroid" to me. Charlotte was no beauty, but all of her features were well within the range of those exhibited by Caucasians. Every other portrait of Charlotte claimed to have been by Ramsay is cataloged as "Studio of..." or "After..." or some other attribution. As it states on the Royal Collection's web page about the aforementioned portrait: "Allan Ramsay was already fifty when he found himself superintending the productions of innumerable copies of his state portraits of the King and Queen. This means that beyond these there are disappointingly few original portrait compositions by him..." The official portraits by court painter Johann Zoffany, for which the Queen sat, show her looking quite different than the Studio of Ramsay picture, such as this one which shows a woman no more or less idealized than the Studio of Ramsay picture, but considerably less supportive of claims of depicting "negroid features". Bricology (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This analysis makes some sense and may be entirely true (although opinions about whether she looks "Negroid" in the portrait or whether the portrait falls outside the alleged artist's style may and do differ, and I can see why some who have seen it hold an opinion different from yours). But because it constitutes a synthesis of facts and theories, it can't be reflected in the article unless independently published and cited to footnotes, leaving my original query intact, "What reliable source do we quote stating that Valdes or Stockmar 'mixed-up' Charlotte of Wales and Charlotte of Mecklenburg?...Or that the 'mulatto' portrait of Charlotte Mecklenburg was probably done by assistants for whom she did not personally pose?" FactStraight (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

FactStraight wrote "You seem to be repeating the same arguments you initially layed out rather than addressing the ones I'm raising."

I'm having to repeat myself because you seem to be incapable of grasping (or unwilling to to grasp) my refutations of these utterly spurious claims; you just keep prevaricating and trying to shift the burden of evidence onto me, rather than on to the elusive Mr. Valdes, who is behind these claims.

"Neither this article nor Wikipedia should be focused on debunking Valdes, which is what the arguments here seem to take as their objective..."

I have repeatedly pointed out that Valdes doesn't get credibility as a source automatically conferred upon him just because of something that PBS allowed him to post on their website. Some websites are notoriously lax about what they will include. Furthermore, there are many websites -- even normally credible ones -- who post or host claims that are subsequently disproved, and yet they don't remove them. Even notable people make demonstrably false claims on normally credible websites; Valdes doesn't even qualify as notable, yet you're willing to extend credence to him because his opinions appear on the Frontline website.

"Nor do I acquire some special burden of proof here because I mention having heard this rumor independently of Valdes -- that is simply an indication that your assumption that Valdes originated the rumor may not be accurate (and yet it may -- I don't know). Regardless, Valdes is not the only source of the allegation..."

You claim "Valdes is not the only source of the allegation", but you have provided absolutely no additional sources, much less any that predate Valdes' claims on the Frontline website. Again -- the onus is upon claimants to support their claims, not upon skeptics to disprove them. If you have other sources to support these claims -- by all means, add them. Otherwise, it's pointless to keep harping on their supposed existence. In short: put up or shut up.

"That is exactly what an encyclopaedia does: address and clarify what is known about a subject [speculations about George Washington being a homosexual] and what may have been believed to be known which has since been confirmed, debunked or remains a mystery. If and when enough interest in George Washington's possible homosexuality is expressed that reliable articles discuss the controversy sufficiently to prompt editors here to write about it, the article will appropriately mention the issue -- whether or not sufficient evidence is available to resolve the question."

That is utterly absurd. I defy you to show me a printed encyclopedia that engages in rumor-mongering like this article does! No, encyclopedias require sources to be reliable and notable, which disqualifies Valdes, and require citations to secondary sources, which Valdes never provides. The site describes him as an "historian". He has no credentials as such. If he had, they would've been listed. I've searched extensively and can find no mention of any credentials he holds as an historian, no published works (much less peer-reviewed works), no degrees in history, no memberships in professional associations, nothing.

"...leaving my original query intact, "What reliable source do we quote stating that Valdes or Stockmar 'mixed-up' Charlotte of Wales and Charlotte of Mecklenburg?"

I find it hard to believe that you could still have any questions about that issue. I provided a link to the official website of the University of London Institute of Historical Research -- the specific page on Queen Charlotte's Household (staff). Since you seem to be unwilling to visit that link, here is the complete list of ALL of the medical professionals to Queen Charlotte, throughout her reign (1761-1818), and the dates they served:

Physicians:

Joseph Letherland (5 Sept. 1761 to 31 Mar. 1764)

Mark Akenside (5 Sept. 1761 to June 1770)

John Pringle (5 June 1766 to 18 Jan. 1782)

George Baker (23 June 1770 to 15 June 1809)

John Turton (1782 to 14 Apr. 1806)

Sir Francis Milman (17 Dec. 1801 to 1818)

William Heberden (14 Apr. 1806 to 1818)

Extra Physician:

William Hunter (12 Aug. 1762 to 30 Mar. 1783)

Physicians to the Royal Household:

John Pringle (5 Sept. 1761 to 11 Aug. 1762)

Charlton Wollaston (1 Apr. to 19 July 1764)

George Baker (19 July 1764 to 23 June 1770)

John Turton (23 June 1770 to 1782)

Thomas Gisborne (1782 to 24 Feb. 1806)

Sir Francis Milman (24 Feb. 1806 to 1818)

Surgeon:

Pennel Hawkins (5 Sept. 1761 to 25 Dec. 1791)

Thomas Keate (1792 to 1818)

Surgeons to the Royal Household:

Thomas Gataker (5 Sept. 1761 to 18 Nov. 1768)

William Broomfield (18 Nov. 1768 to 23 Nov. 1792)

John Griffiths (23 Nov. 1792 to 1818)

Apothecary:

Augustus Hermann Brande (5 Sept. 1761 to 1784)

Augustus Everard Brande (1784 to 1818)

Apothecaries to the Royal Household:

John Devaynes (5 Sept. 1761 to 14 July 1795)

Griffith Jones (14 July 1795 to 1 Jan. 1814)

Alfred Jones (1 Jan. 1814 to 1818)

Note that, on the website, each name is accompanied by a source footnote (as opposed to Valdes' blank assertions, sans sources). Now, do you see Christian Friedrich Stockmar's name listed there? Of course not! I also previously listed links to two different encyclopedia entries on Baron Stockmar, which clearly state to whom he was the personal physician. If that's not good enough for you, here is a link to Baron Stockmar's official biography, written by his son Ernest: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=ddsLAAAAYAAJ&rdid=book-ddsLAAAAYAAJ&rdot=1 . I defy you to find any mention in it of Stockmar even claiming to be Queen Charlotte's personal physician. Anyone, spending ten minutes searching Google, could've found that same information about who Charlotte's physicians were, as well as finding NO support (other than Valdes) that Stockmar was her physician. Simply put: there is no way that Valdes' claim is an honest mistake. So are you finally willing to admit that Valdes is lying about Stockmar being her personal physician? Since he's lying about that, and I've already demonstrated that he lied about Queen Elizabeth II supposedly publishing an apologia that "referred to both her Asian and African bloodlines" and that he's utterly twisted the meaning of Bowden's poem and its reference to "Numidia", how can anyone justify Wikipedia being used to promote his spurious claims? Bricology (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If Charlotte IS African then why aren't her cousins, descendants, and more of her ancestors African?

For my question, it is not necessary to know whether it is true or false that Charlotte had African ancestry, a biracial appearance, or whether if she did have African ancestors they would be called "Black" or "South-of-Saharan" ancestors by some people. If being descended from this pivotal ancestor makes Charlotte to a certain degree African, then isn't it true that everyone else who was the same number of generations down from that pivotal ancestor must have been at least as or more African as Charlotte? Wouldn't one (or both) of her parents have to be at least as African as she was (noting that if one parent wasn't African at all the other parent would have to be TWICE as African as Charlotte)? Doesn't it follow that all of her children had to be AT LEAST half as African as she was? How can Charlotte be x% African and her granddaughter Victoria NOT be at least (x/4)% African? So why does this question (whether it be true or false) of African ancestry (not ancient African ancestry that I believe everyone must have, but recent medieval-time African ancestry) pertain ONLY to Charlotte and not to all of her ancestors in the line between her and the pivotal African ancestor, nor to her cousins from that ancestor, nor to her descendants? I mean, why is this question FOCUSED onto Charlotte and not onto any of her other relatives?64.131.188.104 (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

This note points out the very silliness of the whole drama-trauma. Most of European royalty shared this ancestor in question, including Charlotte's husband George III. History Lunatic (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic

Longest Time as Consort

The Death subsection says, "She is the second longest-serving consort in British history (after the present Duke of Edinburgh), having served as such from her marriage (on 8 September 1761) to her death (17 November 1818), a total of 57 years and 70 days." The Duke of Edinburgh's page echoes this, saying "[h]e is the longest-serving consort of a reigning British monarch...." But it also correctly notes that he did not become consort to a monarch until Elizabeth II's accession to the throne in 1952, meaning he has been a consort for 70 years, but to the monarch for only 55. Am I misunderstanding something? Or is this language confusingly written? I hesitate to change both articles as I lack any knowledge of the subject. Czrisher (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything confusing. I think you've just made an arithmetic error: 2017 − 1952 = 65. 65 is greater than 57. DrKay (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

My thanks to DrKay and chagrined regret at having wasted time through foolish error. Czrisher (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101094028/http://www.hrp.org.uk/discoverthepalaces/Historyandstories/Surprisingstories/QueenCharlotteshatchment.aspx to http://www.hrp.org.uk/discoverthepalaces/Historyandstories/Surprisingstories/QueenCharlotteshatchment.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

African ancestry section is huge mass of OR

I don't see any sources in this section which review the claims of African ancestry and say that they're incorrect; the "actually Valdes is wrong because" seems to all come from a Wikipedia editor. Does anyone have any sources, or does the section need to be cut down? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

There's some criticism at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/11/27/britains-black-queen-will-meghan-markle-really-be-the-first-mixed-race-royal/?utm_term=.a6dac0d4a2d3, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/12/race-monarchy, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews-arts-culture/5-things-you-didnt-know-about-queen-charlotte-180967373/, and http://www.philly.com/philly/news/meghan-markle-mixed-race-prince-harry-queen-charlotte-20171128.html. They could be used to re-draft the section. DrKay (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese. A lot of the citations in this section appear to be drawn from obscure Portuguese publications, hence impossible to verify because this is English Wikipedia after all. I've made an attempt to add text from the sources that DrKay suggested. Please review and guide accordingly--DanJazzy (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs) 16:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll be starting this review in the next couple of days. auntieruth (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• 2nd paragraph of "Life as Queen" needs a citation. Many other citations are missing. Placing onhold for 7 days. auntieruth (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: The short passage about the birth of her children and the two childhood deaths? I can see about remedying that, but will you not list the other complaints? – Conservatrix (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: Comment. This article has extensive copyright violations of several sources, so please check it with the Earwig copyvio tool. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• 1785: War of Bavarian Succession was over in 1779. Are you referring to the territorial deal between Joseph and Charles Theodore, over some territory in the Netherlands?

 Not done Unable to find sourcing that references British involvement in the territorial disputes of 1785.

• several citations missing (marked)  Done
• section on legacy has some text pretty close to the source. could you rework this more in your own words?

 Question: The only citation was attached to a list. You want me to reword a list of locations?

• direct citation on David Buck's comment?

 Not done Seemingly cannot be found without access to The Boston Globe Archives.

• rework sentence According to Mario de Valdes y Cocom, Charlotte may have had African ancestry, via descent from Margarita de Castro e Souza, a 15th-century Portuguese noblewoman, who traced her ancestry to King Afonso III of Portugal (1210–1279) and one of his mistresses, Madragana (c. 1230–?). For example, ....Cocoim, historian of the African Diaspora, posits that Charlotte may have had some African ancestry; she descended from Margarita de Castro e Souza, a 15.... etc.  Done
• would be interesting to dig out a cite on introduction of Christmas tree (or did I miss it).

 Question: Where was a Christmas tree mentioned? Are you referencing the tradition of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert?

• there are several citations still missing, and one leads to an error of fact.
• what was the source on the dispute of 1785? It cannot be that they were intervening in the war. Where did that statement come from?

 Question: In 1785 the plan to swap Bavaria for the Austrian Netherlands was secretly negotiated again, this time Emperor Joseph II. in favour of the deal, although Bavaria provided considerably lower revenues than the Austrian Netherlands. Yet Prussia threatened with war when Frederick the Great heard of the project, Saxony, Hannover, Mainz sided with Prussia; the plan was not realized. This is all that could be found on Bavarian politics in 1785. Your call on whether the statement is removed.

• source of deaths of Octavius and Alfred?  Done
• source on Queen's death  Done
• Fitzgerald source needs proper link to online google books. Ideally, maybe you could find some page numbers and link to them. Simplty linking to the book at every sentence in a paragraph is insufficient, especially if you're going to take this further than GA.

 Partly done: Google books link found. Page citations not done.

• Sources on Bloomsbury memorial, Rutgers, Charlotte Durham, and Madness of King George needed.  Done

I added sources on Rutgers. auntieruth (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• you can cite some of this material to Walley Oullton's published memoirs auntieruth (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• still needs a citation on first paragraph of "early life" and first paragraph of "marriage"  Done
• I tightened up the sourcing on several other paragraphs. Every sentence doesn't need a cite, but theparagraph did. It would ultimately be helpful if you had page citations. I understand that you might not be interested in that....auntieruth (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: I mean to get Charlotte over the threshold of GA status. Are page citations vital to her passing? – Conservatrix (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No, as long as the source is there. We do need citations on those paragraphs mentioned above. I fixed War of Bavarian Succession, and a couple of other spots. Find those missing citations on those paragraphs, and we're good.auntieruth (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Auntieruth55: The deed is done. – Conservatrix (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lowercase sigmabot III

Greetings! I would like to establish lowercase sigmabot III on this talk page to manage the discussion backlog. Please post your thoughts, support or objections below so that we might reach consensus. Thank you. - Conservatrix (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done 48hrs no objections. – Conservatrix (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Portraits

Why should the section Early life contain a portrait from 1761? Why should text be squeezed between images, which is against MOS:IMAGELOCATION? Why should the portrait made of her as a princess be mostly within the section Life as queen? I would appreciate if well-intentioned and explained edits were not reverted without an explanation. Reverting a reasonable edit simply because consent had not been sought for it is as unhelpful as it gets. Surtsicna (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

CITEVAR

The article is a bit confused on the WP:CITEVAR side when it comes to citing books at multiple pages.

• For some references, it repeats the long form each time
• For some, it inconsistently uses both the long and the short forms
• For some, it uses the short form with a link and the year in brackets (Template:sfn)
• For some, it uses the short form without a link and the year

Please stick to one method and apply it consistently. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Charlotte in Portraiture

My reorganization has inadvertently excluded Charlotte's golden age, the 1770s, because the article is oddly arranged and would result in clutter if all were employed. The chronological order has been upset by George's episodes of madness. Surely these magnificent portraits deserve to be on display:

• 
  Nathaniel Dance-Holland, 1768
• 
  Johann Zoffany, 1770
• 
  Dance-Holland
• 
  Zoffany, 1771
• 
  Dance-Holland, 1773
• 
  Benjamin West, 1779
• 
  Joshua Reynolds, 1779

– Conservatrix (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment Needed

On the Individual Reassessment Page, please see issues noted for further discussion. In light of these, I cannot see how the Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz article meets number 4 of the "Good Article" criteria: "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." --2605:A601:A1AF:CF00:3D08:6D49:7947:D557 (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I am adding this template, as directed by the Good Article Reassessment page: Charlotte of Mecklenburg Strelitz, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --2605:A601:A1A8:CD00:749D:8807:EFFB:C8B9 (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

African ancestry myth

It could be pointed out that an ancestor 15 generations before would be expected to contribute on the order of 2^-15 or 0.003% to an individuals DNA. If related to that ancestor by three lines, still only about 0.01%. It is unlikely that Charlotte could have inherited enough genetic information from Madragana to make her reckognizably "Negroid", even if Madragana was full-blooded subsaharn African. I believe DNA tests on people of supposedly "pure" European descent ususally show significantly more than 0.01% African. Compunded by the subsequent generations, it is highly unlikely that a DNA test on a modern descendant of Queen Charlotte could resolve this controversy. Eaberry (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Propose deletion of the "ancestry" section

So far as I an see the extended discussion of the African ancestry myth (to the exclusion of any information on her actual ancestry) serves no purpose other than to propogate an legitimise a fringe black supremacist theory that has no scholarly support or factual grounding and is far, far too long in relation to the rest of the article. See WP:BALASPS, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Hence, it should be either removed altogether, or condensed to a couple of sentences simply stating the claims, and that they are unfounded and are uniformly rejected by historians. Ya hemos pasao (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Either delete it entirely or leave it as is, correctly labeled a myth. Now we have an IP coming in to edit war to pretend it's not a myth. Enigma^msg 03:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

And now the edit-warring IP has registered an SPA... Enigma^msg 16:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

”Bridgerton” is driving a lot of traffic to this page, though, so removing any discussion of the “myth” seems like a bad idea. 100.40.76.131 (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, sounds like a racist position to me. I knew about it before Bridgerton. Discounting black scholars are "fringe supremacist" is super telling of your character. BTW, people loved Valdes on this page when they thought they said Charlotte was 100% white. I changed it to what Valdes really said and then people brought out their pitchforks. Valdes must not be legit because OMG, uses 2 names. Valdes is a terrible person. Look at this source 100 years later after the contemporary sources. Then wanted to blame Bridgerton. That's some heavy bias there. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. Not a website to support white supremacy.--KimYunmi (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

DNA evidence?

Would it not be possible to determine using DNA testing? I don't know if they could test her remains or her descendants. As far as her painting of Charlotte go they look very white, but that could have been the way she wished to be seen rather than her actual appearance. I feel this is worth pursuing if possible, not just to answer a question but to prove a point about racial equality. Ty78ejui (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Her official painter painted her more "Mulatto" But this page also deleted her official portrait, because you know, OMG, Official portrait makes her look more black, and the painter, BTW, was known to be more accurate than his contemporaries as said by Guardian. They also deleted that info from the section in a desperate attempt to make her seem white. Because why not support that? Also changed it from Theory to Myth, because for get NPOV when whiteness is more important than factual basis. I'd argue for NPOV. And actually post the portrait she preferred. Let people wonder instead of making an opinion for them.--KimYunmi (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)