MovieChat Forums > Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story (2023) Discussion > Queen Charlotte wasn't actually black th...

Queen Charlotte wasn't actually black though

posted a year ago by Phids (320)
17 replies | jump to latest

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but is this supposed to be a story about a "black" Queen Charlotte, wife of George III? If so, she would likely not have been "black" whatsoever, and it's even more likely that she did not look "black" whatsoever. Here are the facts:

- Charlotte (1744-1818) traces her lineage to Madragana, the mistress to King Alfonso III of Portugal, some 500 years earlier
- Madragana (born 1230) had an unclear ethnicity, and may have been a Moor, but likely Mozarab (Christian descendants living under Islamic rule in Spain)
- If Madragana had African ancestry, it seems likely that this would have been North African (e.g. Berber, etc.) and not Sub-Saharan African
- There were 15 generations between Madragana and Charlotte. Even if Madragana was fully African (which seems quite far from reality to begin with), then by the time of Charlotte, Madragana's blood would have provided something like 1/60th the genetic makeup to Charlotte

So not only was there likely no Sub-Saharan African blood in Charlotte's ancestry, but even if there was it would be so diluted by the time of Charlotte that it probably could not have been detected anyway.

[–] liscarkat (16707) a year ago

There are portraits. She was a white chick.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

But some of her portraits make her look like a light-skinned biracial person.

https://th.bing.com/th?id=OIF.gtb%2bGK2SDXFzQnWXG6gHqA&pid=ImgDet&rs=1

It's one of these question where we'll never really have a solid answer, so people who have an axe to grind on one side or another are going to keep up a pointless argument forever.

[–] Guitar King (4400) a year ago

We DO have the answer, only left wing nuts are trying to black wash history again.

"His conclusion is based on various historical sources that describe Madragana as either Moorish or Mozarab, which Valdes interpreted to mean that she was black.

Although popular among the general public, the claims are largely DENOUNCED by most scholars. Aside from Stockmar's jab at her appearance shortly before her death, Charlotte was never referred to as having any specifically African physical features, let alone ancestry, during her lifetime."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

No, we don't have THE answer, we only have a high probability. Historical sources always provide 100% of the information we want, no historical source is completely unbiased, and the portraitists of that era were so keen to flatter their subjects that every portrait of Charlotte looks like a different person. When talking about a person who lived centuries ago, there will always be doubt and room for argument.

And if you are a person who needs 100% certain answers to questions, stay away from historical arguments.

[–] Guitar King (4400) a year ago

When most scholars who know way more than you on the subject DENOUNCE claims of black ancestry, it's settled. Left wing nutters lost.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

No, scholars actually say things like "Currently known evidence strongly indicates [thusandsuch conclusion], but there is still much to learn", or if they really want to put someone in their place, they may go so far as to say "We have no evidence of [whatever]"! They don't actually DENOUNCE people over shit like this, not if they're real scholars.

Because real scholars know that nothing is ever 100% certain (except in mathematics), that all seemingly certain beliefs are really only working theories, that can be overturned by new evidence.

[–] Guitar King (4400) a year ago

I'm sure you feel that Climate Change data can be doubted, too. Right?

[–] Phids (320) a year ago

You're engaging in the fallacy of false equivalence by implying that the evidence on both sides is strong, and so therefore we can't make a conclusion one way or the other. In reality, the evidence on one side is strong. The evidence on the other side is terribly weak.

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

My argument is NOT that Charlotte had African ancestry, because I don't know who the hell her ancestors were. My only argument IS that there are portraits that make her look like she could be biracial.

So if you really want to argue with me, and be warned that I won't take you seriously, you'll have to limit your arguments to whether those portraits exist, or whether the full-lipped, curly-haired woman they show, actually looks biracial.

[–] Satan2016 (23619) a year ago

Were the portraits color-corrected for aging?

[–] Phids (320) a year ago

I have presented historical evidence, so you should take what I say seriously. In the link you provided to a painting, there is a woman who appears to be white and without any African features. If you look at it long enough you can probably start imagining biracial people who look like her, because - after all - biracial people can have a lot of white genes in them.

Now, when taken together with the historical evidence - that it's debatable whether she had any African ancestry, and if so it was likely North African, and that by the time she lived 500 years after the alleged African ancestor, it would not be present in her appearance - you should start to ask yourself if the painter who painted the picture might not have captured her essence as well as a photo would have. Simply look at *more* paintings of her to get a more complete idea.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Queen_Charlotte_of_the_United_Kingdom_in_1766#/media/File:Queen_Charlotte_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_Ozias_Humphry.jpg

[–] Otter (24464) a year ago

No, honey, I'm not reading all your "evidence" or taking you seriously, because you are being so obvious about your agenda. And yes, I have an agenda too, which is to point out that any schmuck on the internet who thinks they know the whole truth about someone who died 200 years ago, is full of shit! Nobody can ever know the whole truth about someone who died 200 years ago, not even a historian who has devoted their entire life to studying that person.

Also, nobody ever knows 100% of the truth about anyone's ancestry, not even their own.

[–] Phids (320) a year ago

Ok, so you don't want to take the historical evidence seriously. You don't want to take scientific evidence seriously. You want to instead entertain a fringe theory.

But you say that *I'm* the one with the agenda?

Come on. This is silly.

[–] BillySlater (4113) a year ago

Historians are wrong. Just take his word for it. lol

[–] pundit2006 (149) a year ago

No shit about that. I agree. Next thing you know is that they will do a new series on Henry the 8th. And he will be portrayed by an African American actor faking an English accent.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12465) a year ago

Remember something, Netflix is run by a bunch of anti-white racists that want to stick black people into as many traditionally white roles as they possibly can, all the while ignoring actual historical figures that really were black.

[–] einstein (2362) a year ago

But werent all queens black according to netflix?