Black Queen Redux
Nat Turner
news:ATD78.36111$Ni2.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Nat Turner" <gary...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:3C5E9253...@netscape.net...
>
> (snip)
>
>
> > You're making yourself look foolish.
>
> (snip)
>
> It is quite clear to me who is the fool in this debate. On one hand we
have
> outrageous and unsupported claims about a point which no one except you
> seems to give a damn. On the other hand we have reasoned and supported
> argument dismissing these foolish remarks.
>
> By now Mr Turner, you would have realised that several of the contibutors
of
> this *History* newsgroup are in fact historians of some standing. They
know
> of what they write. They give their time and knowledge freely, for their
own
> entertainment and education as well as to help others to see the wonderful
> world that is our past. You wander in here and make a ridiculous claim and
> each point you make is dismissed with reasoned argument.
> And what is your response? We are fools for not seeing your enlightened
> view.
> Why don't you pull your head out of the sack of your own ego and accept
that
> none of us here accept your version of history. It might work down the
pub,
> but some of the folks here have actually read a history book.
>
> Mekon
Well, if there are indeed historians following this thread I beg they
address the following points:
1. The referenced Ramsey portrait of Q.Charlotte. Why the woman in the
portrait is clearly not the woman seen in all other portraits of
Q.Charlotte.
2. Why there is a second version of this portrait to be found in several
books wherein the features of Q. Charlotte are radically changed.
3. The reports by writers of the day wherein Princess Charlotte (upon her
arrival in London) is described as having "yellow skin...flat nose...odd
hair..." et cetera.
4. The line from the German doctor's diary in which this doctor writes, "she
has the face of a true mulatto."
5. Her astounding fertility and ability to birth 15 "healthy" infants. This
was unlike any other German princess. It would seem Q.Charlotte's fertility
was not affected by the generations of inbreeding like other German
princesses were.
6. The fact that the Royal House of Mecklenburg-Strelitz had black servants.
There you are. Have at it, mates.
Nat Turner
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Turner) wrote:
> 1. The referenced Ramsey portrait of Q.Charlotte. Why the woman in
> the portrait is clearly not the woman seen in all other portraits of
> Q.Charlotte.
He was a lousy painter or you have a bad reproduction. You have to
come up with a reason why this is the only painting with these
features.
> 3. The reports by writers of the day wherein Princess Charlotte
> (upon her arrival in London) is described as having "yellow >
skin...flat nose...odd hair..." et cetera.
Which writers, give names and where they are stated, plus the quotes
not what you think they have said.
> 5. Her astounding fertility and ability to birth 15 "healthy"
> infants. This was unlike any other German princess.
Prove it.
> 6. The fact that the Royal House of Mecklenburg-Strelitz had black
> servants.
You claim there is evidence for this, you have yet to post it.
As for point 2 it is possible that the reproduction in the other
books are better than the one you have. Where is the original
portrait?
Point 4 can you quote the original German and produce evidence the
doctor had seen a mulatto.
You are the one making this assertion, it is therefore up to you to
provide some evidence.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Nat Turner
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> In article <u653k0o...@corp.supernews.com>, gl...@fuse.net (Nat
> Turner) wrote:
>
>
>>1. The referenced Ramsey portrait of Q.Charlotte. Why the woman in
>>the portrait is clearly not the woman seen in all other portraits of
>>Q.Charlotte.
>>
>
> He was a lousy painter or you have a bad reproduction. You have to
> come up with a reason why this is the only painting with these
> features.
Because in this portrait her features -- mulatto features -- coincide
with the comments writers of the day made about her upon her arrival to
London. Also, Ramsey was one of the most highly regarded portrait
painters of the day. He was the Royal portrait painter, if I'm not
mistaken. Most of his work is in the London Museum. Indeed, I'd
appreciate it very much if someone went there and reported back on this
portrait.
>
>
>>3. The reports by writers of the day wherein Princess Charlotte
>>(upon her arrival in London) is described as having "yellow >
>>
> skin...flat nose...odd hair..." et cetera.
>
> Which writers, give names and where they are stated, plus the quotes
> not what you think they have said.
A reasonable request, but I simply don't have the time right now. I
assure, though, that my paraphrasing of these comments are reasonably
accurate.
>
>
>>5. Her astounding fertility and ability to birth 15 "healthy"
>>infants. This was unlike any other German princess.
>>
>
> Prove it.
Prove what? You guys have it all wrong. This is an informal
conversation. I don't get paid for this. I have no intention of
defending my comments to the level you require. There's no profit in
that for me, (right now). I don't want to do the work, and you don't
want to do the work so let's stop pretending and either continue the
conversation on the informal terms such conversations are held, or break
it off.
>
>
>>6. The fact that the Royal House of Mecklenburg-Strelitz had black
>>servants.
>>
>
> You claim there is evidence for this, you have yet to post it.
No. If I had it I wouldn't post it. There's a book in all this; why
should I let you write it? But I will tell you this the stuff is documented.
>
> As for point 2 it is possible that the reproduction in the other
> books are better than the one you have. Where is the original
> portrait?
No. All the other artists were inferior to Ramsey. The man didn't err.
In addition, his was the first, commissioned, I believe, the very week
Charlotte arrived in England. This would have been before anyone
instructed him to amend certain things in the portrait. The fact is, the
woman in the Ramsey portrait looks nothing like later portraits of Queen
Charlotte; moreover, she looks nothing like a German or English woman
either. And one final note. I've perused several biographies where the
same portrait -- the Ramsey portrait -- has been radically altered to
depict the subject as Germanic looking woman. It's astounding, but this
altered portrait exists in several biographies as I say.
>
> Point 4 can you quote the original German and produce evidence the
> doctor had seen a mulatto.
Yes. And perhaps next week I will. I've seen it both on the net and in
a book. The german doctor was visiting London and treated her for
something or other. Years later he wrote the referenced comment in his
diary. This diary was subsequently published by his son. Also, mulattos
and blacks were quite common in Germany and England at the time.
>
> You are the one making this assertion, it is therefore up to you to
> provide some evidence.
No. There's no requirement that I do this as I state above. You must
understand, my purpose for starting the thread was to glean information
on the topic; I had no intention of providing this information myself.
Nat Turner
Nat Turner
http://www.lib.virginia.edu/exhibits/charlotte/charcoro.jpg
Clive Summerfield
>
> Because in this portrait her features -- mulatto features -- coincide
> with the comments writers of the day made about her upon her arrival to
> London. Also, Ramsey was one of the most highly regarded portrait
> painters of the day. He was the Royal portrait painter, if I'm not
> mistaken. Most of his work is in the London Museum. Indeed, I'd
> appreciate it very much if someone went there and reported back on this
> portrait.
>
One thing to wary of with Ramsey is that he was a noted abolitionist.
Therefore you can't really assume that there was no bias coming out in the
portrait. That's not saying it isn't accurate, just that it shows how
unreliable portraits are as evidence. Consider those of Richard III as well.
Quite often certain characteristics are exaggerated or downplayed to to suit
the desires of interested parties. You might have a slight problem with
viewing the portrait. It belongs to Armagh City Council, but has recently
been damaged and is currently being restored.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/today/feb04/News/portraitofroyality.shtml
>
> >
> >
> >>5. Her astounding fertility and ability to birth 15 "healthy"
> >>infants. This was unlike any other German princess.
> >>
> >
> > Prove it.
>
>
>
> Prove what? You guys have it all wrong. This is an informal
> conversation. I don't get paid for this. I have no intention of
> defending my comments to the level you require. There's no profit in
> that for me, (right now). I don't want to do the work, and you don't
> want to do the work so let's stop pretending and either continue the
> conversation on the informal terms such conversations are held, or break
> it off.
>
The Bavarian Royal Family was pretty fecund as well, with the House of
Wittelsbach producing a family of 13 siblings Then add in the Prussians with
14, Saxony 9 and Wurttemberg 12. So the 15 "healthy" infants isn't
necessarily as significant as if first appears.
>
> No. If I had it I wouldn't post it. There's a book in all this; why
> should I let you write it? But I will tell you this the stuff is
documented.
>
We may not be writing it, but you almost seem to be trying to get us to do
your research for you.
>
> >
> > As for point 2 it is possible that the reproduction in the other
> > books are better than the one you have. Where is the original
> > portrait?
>
>
> No. All the other artists were inferior to Ramsey. The man didn't err.
It would be a brave man or a fool who would make the claim that an artist
didn't err.
>
> >
> > You are the one making this assertion, it is therefore up to you to
> > provide some evidence.
>
>
> No. There's no requirement that I do this as I state above. You must
> understand, my purpose for starting the thread was to glean information
> on the topic; I had no intention of providing this information myself.
>
Disingeneous of you, if not downright devious and almost dishonest. If you
want other people to do research for you, ask them politely. And unless you
happen to have DNA samples from both the servants and a member of the
current Royal Family, you are never going to have anything more than an
unproven and unprovable hypothesis. And you're up against historians and
genealogists who have identified six seperate lines of descent for Charlotte
from Margarita de Castro y Sousa. Given your expressed motives above
however, I won't be wishing you luck.
Clive
*** Animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the
wrong answers. ***
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Turner) wrote:
> and either continue the
> conversation on the informal terms such conversations are held, or
> break it off.
If someone made such an accusation in informal conversation I would
ask for proof. You are after all saying a queen of Britain was a
bastard.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> Years later he wrote the referenced comment in his
> diary. This diary was subsequently published by his son.
So it was not a contemporary reference. Sounds more like memoirs
than a diary to me.
Vaughan Sanders
"Nat Turner" <gary...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3C658E5B...@netscape.net...
> Oh, here's the Ramsey portrait of Q.Charlotte:
>
> http://www.lib.virginia.edu/exhibits/charlotte/charcoro.jpg
>
Well Nat she doesn't look very black to me, but you might be on to something
with the Hanoverians.
Check out this portrait of Princess Anne.
http://www.foals.com/Worcesterhead.jpg
snip
Jamie
Nat Turner
Vaughan Sanders wrote:
Anne of Cleves...???
Nat Turner
Vaughan Sanders
"Nat Turner" <gary...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3C66EA84...@netscape.net...
:-))
A real Hanoverian with impeccable blood lines.
(The horse I mean)
Jamie
Nat Turner
Nat Turner
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a44tj1$mho$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> In article <3C658E13...@netscape.net>, gary...@netscape.net (Nat
> Turner) wrote:
>
> > and either continue the
> > conversation on the informal terms such conversations are held, or
> > break it off.
>
> If someone made such an accusation in informal conversation I would
> ask for proof. You are after all saying a queen of Britain was a
> bastard.
>
> Ken Young
A black bastard to be exact.
Nat Turner
Rabid Bee
> > ask for proof. You are after all saying a queen of Britain was a
> > bastard.
> >
> > Ken Young
>
> A black bastard to be exact.
YOu probably couldn't be taken to court on a charge of libel for calling
somebody black (I certainly hope that nobody woul react in that way).
Questioning the legitimacy of somebody's parents, with no real proof,
certainly could land you in court. For the same reason, questioning the
parentage of somebody historical will enrage historians when you have no
proof.
Anyway, the queen is famously descended from a bastard; William the
Conqueror. There will be others.
Cheers, Alex
a.spencer3
Nat Turner <gl...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:u6gu06...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> A black bastard to be exact.
>
effect.
Suggest you now shut up, go away, and check out your own ancestry in detail.
Surreyman
Clive Summerfield
> news:a44tj1$mho$1...@thorium.cix.co.uk...
> > In article <3C658E13...@netscape.net>, gary...@netscape.net (Nat
> > Turner) wrote:
> >
> > > and either continue the
> > > conversation on the informal terms such conversations are held, or
> > > break it off.
> >
> > If someone made such an accusation in informal conversation I would
> > ask for proof. You are after all saying a queen of Britain was a
> > bastard.
> >
> > Ken Young
>
> A black bastard to be exact.
>
Now that is pointles, obnoxious and in no way constructive. I'm fast
forming the opinion that what you want is not reasoned debate and
discussion, but rather a racist flamefest. In which case, take a hike.
--
Cheers
Mekon
"a.spencer3" <a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:DD4a8.44103$H37.5...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
There is no need for him to do that... *We* all know what he is.
Mekon
Andrew Chaplin
news:3C68D194...@btinternet.com...
> YOu probably couldn't be taken to court on a charge of libel for calling
> somebody black (I certainly hope that nobody woul react in that way).
> Questioning the legitimacy of somebody's parents, with no real proof,
> certainly could land you in court. For the same reason, questioning the
> parentage of somebody historical will enrage historians when you have no
> proof.
>
> Anyway, the queen is famously descended from a bastard; William the
> Conqueror. There will be others.
Of course, the name she reigns under was first used by a queen widely
accused of being a bastard. And, if her address to the troops when England
was under threat from the Armada is any indication, as able an orator as
ever stepped in bootleather. Bastardy is no bar to competence to rule, only
elligibility.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out, and
change "home" to "rogers".)
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> . I
> assure, though, that my paraphrasing of these comments are
> reasonably accurate.
At the moment I would not take your word for the time of day.
> This is an informal
> conversation. I don't get paid for this. I have no intention of
> defending my comments to the level you require. There's no profit
> in that for me, (right now)
None of us get paid for posting to this group, in fact it costs me
money.