Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 22:34, 4 August 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months

	Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 8, 2018 Good article nominee Listed December 12, 2019 Good article reassessment Kept
	Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 17, 2018, November 17, 2021, and November 17, 2022.
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as High-importance). British Royalty High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Horticulture and Gardening Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lower Saxony (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lower Saxony, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Lower SaxonyWikipedia:WikiProject Lower SaxonyTemplate:WikiProject Lower SaxonyLower Saxony Plants Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 5 times. The weeks in which this happened: December 27, 2020 to January 2, 2021 (20th) April 30 to May 6, 2023 (7th) May 7 to 13, 2023 (3rd) May 14 to 20, 2023 (5th) May 21 to 27, 2023 (24th)

There is a request, submitted by DDMS123 (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

British Colonies & American Revolution

Its amazing there is zero mention of the American Revolution 1775–83 or other British colonies e.g. Canada, Austraila, Barbados etc. Did Charlotte have any captured thoughts or interactions with any of this history?

The idea that George III was married to a black woman sounds like something the American rebels would have believed. It reminds me of the controversy over the race of Varina Davis, wife of Jefferson Davis, who was also claimed to be black by political opponents of her husband. (There was even a doctored photo of her in circulation that gives her apparent African features -- see the talk page) DancesWithGrues (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The whole section on Charlotte's ancestry sounds like someone arguing she must be white because I say so. It's not NPOV. It was, until I changed the source to say what it actually said then a bunch of racists came in and tried to argue her to be white and then discount the source, when they left it alone when they thought it argued she was white. But that's not the point of wikipedia. It's too hardline on the fact she was white, skipping over the fact that her doctor and her actual official painter, she PREFERRED thought she was part black. That's quite a miss there. Most of the citations pondering her race as white, also are quite after the fact after she died, not contemporary to her or had a personal relationship with her. This is worth fixing and mentioning. I would do it, but every time I fix this page and try to make it more NPOV, some racist comes along and tries to argue she's white and delete the NPOV-ness. Please reconsider. Also, I think it's worth changing her portrait to her preferred painter, not trying to make further arguments about how she was really white and all the sources about her thinking she was black MUST be wrong. The mentioned portrait as the reference point, I noticed was removed. The scrubbing on this page is coming off really racist, honestly. Putting more weight on non--contemporary scholars and putting down PoC scholars, really doesn't look good for wikipedia. Looks kinda like white supremacy. Keep it NPOV, not racist. If people of her time period and her since she kept that company caring for her were of the opinion she was black, then maybe, just maybe she thought she was? Is that such a terrible thing? Let people ponder and draw their own conclusions, not cram down an opinion. Deletion of information to argue a person's race is wrong.

Historians are split on this, BTW. It's not hardlined one way or the other. But people are using selective bias because they hate the idea.

--KimYunmi (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW, edited to be more NPOV, but I'm sure it'll backslide again because racists like to discount POC scholars. Also noted that all of the books citing that she was not Moor have no page numbers and cannot be verified. And one of the citations did not say as the person edited it claimed it did and was referring to a title, not an ancestry or dispute. Someone said that the Guardian article claimed that Charlotte's ancestor was related to George III, her husband, but the Guardian article never claimed that. This is shady. Don't add sources unless you know the page numbers and what they actually said. And if they didn't actually say it, don't add it. This is the second time I've gone to verify sources about her being white, and then finding out that the sources are fabricated to support the POV, when they never said such a thing. Please do not do this. It's misrepresenting the truth. The Guardian article also did not 100% back that she was white, unlike the representation here. I worked to NPOV it and show what it really said. I'm sure someone wants to delete that too. Because why not racism?

The point is, adding unsubstatiated claims to the page without reliable references just to back one PoV, and deleting what articles and scholars actually said is crossing NPOV. Also being of the opinion that black scholars are somehow extremist and less than is also racist. I check sources on all sides. And the side that hardline says she's white, needs serious work, like translating the exact pages of what was said with page numbers. Let's make this NPOV, and verifiable. Not falsely claiming a source says it says something it doesn't. Also having opinions on scholars does not belong on wikipedia. Especially saying that all of the PoC scholars are terrible is really racist. So, I'm taking that away from you too. Deal with it.

Personally, if she was or wasn't of black ancestry isn't the point here (though some of you want to make it to be). The point is that the scholarship on this page is failing miserably in a desperate attempt to prove she was white. That's a bias you need to check. Why did you add sources no one could verify and fabricate the truth? How was that better than what you claimed was a myth? You could have used Kate Williams, whom I added. BTW, I would read every single book if I knew Spanish to see if the books say what you claim they say, but given the track record so far, I have my doubts, so I would appreciate it if someone else with also a neutral PoV actually read said books and verified the contents and found the page numbers. 'cause I doubt you after all of that repeated bad behavior. This is shady behavior. Stop that, it debases your entire side and argument when you fabricate the truth. We can do better. --KimYunmi (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed the part where it claimed she and George shared the same ancestor (Madragana) as that is not what The Guardian source said. In other instances where The Guardian source is used the text appears to be supporting what the article says. Regarding the Spanish/Portuguese sources, one appears to be online but self-published so I will remove it. The others need to be investigated by someone who's fluent in the languages and can trace them down. Hopefully someone will check the messages on this talk page. Keivan.f 03:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

claimed? Queen Charlotte was 6th cousin with King George III through "George III Graf von Erbach" Queen Charlotte descended from George Albert I of Erbach-Erbach (his son), King George III descended from Margherita von Erbach (his daughter by 2nd marriage).

"George III Graf von Erbach" was the one claimed to be the direct descendant of Madragana.

George III Graf von Erbach > Margherita von Erbach > Joaquim Ernest d’Oettingen-Oettingen > Sophie Margarete of Oettingen-Oettingen > John Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach > Princess Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach > Frederick, Prince of Wales > King George III

this is just from one branch of the family, they were connected from several German noble family saxe gotta, Brunswick, Holstein, etc Wentwort12 (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

actually they were 4th cousin twice removed.

"George III Graf von Erbach" was Queen Charlotte's 3rd Great Grandfather.

"George III Graf von Erbach" was King George III's 5th Great Grandfather.

the difference in Great Grandfather just meant the other branch matriculate faster and marry younger then the other branch. other example Louis XIII of France was Louis XVI's 4th Great Grandfather and Marie Antoinette's 2nd Great Grandfather. Wentwort12 (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

And what is your source? You probably don't expect me or anyone else to accept this blindly. A secondary reliable source must be provided to show that Madragana was indeed George and Charlotte's common ancestor. Keivan.f 07:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

source? it's public record from wikipedia

George III Graf von Erbach > Margherita von Erbach > Joaquim Ernest d’Oettingen-Oettingen > Sophie Margarete of Oettingen-Oettingen > John Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach > Princess Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach > Frederick, Prince of Wales > King George III

you seem hellhound to erase actual fact that they were cousins like most Royalties and nobilities.

you and anyone else seem to accept blindly the myth that she was biracial or mixed, because an afrocentrist author wrote in his book that Queen Charlotte has 1 North African ancestor from 15 generations ago, but not the actual fact that George and Charlotte were 4th cousin twice removed based on public record. Hilarious

so I need to find secondary source to state the obvious? no source ever mentioned that Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI was in fact cousins through Marie's grandmother Elisabeth d'orleans daughter of Duke of Orleans which in turned son of Louis XIII, because they were probably more intelligent and knew most Royalties were related. Wentwort12 (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

https://fr.wikipedia.org/Joachim-Ernest_d%27Oettingen-Oettingen

source from wikipedia I suppose stating Joaquim Ernest d’Oettingen-Oettingen was the son of Margherita von Erbach which in turn daughter of George III Graf von Erbach.

"Joachim-Ernest d'Oettingen-Oettingen (in GermanJoachim Ernst zu Oettingen-Oettingen) was born in Oettingen (Germany) on March 31, 1612 and died in Harbourg on August 8, 1658. He is a German nobleman, son of Count Louis-Évrard of Oettingen-Oettingen (1577-1634) and Countess Marguerite of Erbach (1576-1635), daughter of George III of Erbach"

he had daughter Sophie Margarete of Oettingen-Oettingen and then she had a son John Frederick, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach > Princess Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach > Frederick, Prince of Wales > King George III Wentwort12 (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

i have added this to the article! Merzostin (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

You will find very few sources that claim that Queen Charlotte was white. Why is that? Because all historians took that for granted and did not think that was something that had to be said. After all, she was a German princess, was pale skinned, had reddish-blonde hair and blue eyes, and had over 99.9% of European ancestry.

Also, I am a native Portuguese speaker, so I will put some Portuguese sources in the article. Knoterification (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, in fact, the question of her being "black" should not be addressed here at all, because it is WP:FRINGE; a speculation based on a single record from the period, reproduced by modern historical scandalists. Besides, if everyone who had a Moorish ancestor in the 15th generation is considered black, then probably all of Europe, not to mention the Iberian peninsula, should be considered black. Marcelus (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

interesting, someone above mentioned the connection between King George III and Charlotte, which should be addressed here i mean all of them are German nobles, to further showed how can they be remotely black based on pure speculation Merzostin (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Section "in popular culture"?

I was thinking of adding this, but since it is a Good Article I'm now reluctant, since I'm not confident enough it is appropriate. That is, I wanted to write about how queen Charlotte has become popular in recent years due to the Bridgerton novels and tv series, including the series around her persona Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story. Would this section make sense? Cozyenby (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be relevant as the Bridgerton series has led to a renewed interest in the life of Queen Charlotte. 92.18.27.180 (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:POPCULT for guidance. DrKay (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Maiden heraldry

The page has illustrations for her arms as queen consort in three stages, but do we know how her arms were displayed prior to marriage. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I fact checked the article's Ancestry part

Someone is mad at me for lining up the article with what the sources actually say. Including moving the quotes to the correct location.

First of all, there were added weasel quotes that the cited thesis never used. The quotes were in the wrong location and attributed to the wrong author–somehow they drifted from Springer to Rogers. If the thesis didn't say it, and I couldn't find backing, then I changed it to neutral language.

By moving the Springer quotes to Rogers, it makes Rogers look like he's not Jamaican-American. Which is true. It's said in his own book, and in the thesis, which I also fact checked as I read it by adding the correct dates. "Mid-20th century" no. It's exactly 1929. And why cut the first person to claim it? Springer. Literally the first citation in that section of the thesis. The thesis doesn't say it appeared in the mid-20th century. (The thesis focuses mainly on the identity of Charlotte, the city, in relation to the identity of the Queen Charlotte and how both shifted over time in relation to mainly class and race secondary--it doesn't focus on the race issue as the central thesis. Someone is going to doubt I actually read it and then scrolled to page 27).

Then Rogers was made out to be a "writer" in this article but the thesis went out of its way to say the Rogers was an amateur historian who could not get a college education at the time and that he was discounted by the White community because he was Black. But because of him, the idea caught in the Black community. Downplaying both is disingenuous, so I went back and said what the thesis actually said, paraphrasing it.

Also, the Valdes article may have shown up in Huffpost in 1999, but the Frontline article specifically has been changed at the top to say that it was first published in 1997. They dont't cite it, but I changed the date based on Frontline's claim. Some sources falsely say that Valdes "teamed up" with Frontline, so I ignored that given the update.

There were added sources along the way that were attributing things they never said to them, or saying the article took an overall position of, which were not correct. So I changed it to what the article said or added specific attribution according to the article. If the article said nothing of the sort, I cut it entirely.

You really need to fact check and make sure this stays NPOV. Just because it doesn't line up with your POV, you should properly show what the sources say and not add things it doesn't say, don't downplay credentials just because you don't like the author. Also check the sources when new sources are added. That's the whole point of NPOV.

I try my best with people I disagree with to present their entire worldview. I don't agree with Freytag, but I'll still add things like he was a champion of the Lower and Middle Class, along side with his, "I want to genocide all Polish people."

I fact checked the diagram created for Freytag too... and then the Kishotenketsu diagram which some white person decided to make up out of the blue. So this isn't the first time people claim something a source says as true, but it turns out to be false because they are counting on people not fact checking.

I fact checked this article before with Valdes too, where someone said he claimed that Charlotte was White, which is exactly opposite of what he said. I didn't add the original citation, so, I lined it up, with the article and added quotes,(BTW, long, long before Bridgerton). People tried character assassination of Valdes, which is not NPOV. So was invalid. And again, when people added entire Portuguese books, but failed to add a page number or quotes, I asked for page numbers and quotes to back up the claim, so the books got deleted as counter proof. You can't make up what you think the source "should" say and instead should point out what it really said. And you shouldn't be falsely adding sources to the end of a line just because you want the claim to look better. All of these things are against basic academia, even ignoring Misplaced Pages rules. Present the spirit of the sources cited and let the reader judge on their own. 'cause if reader fact check as I did, then it looks bad, doesn't it? Are you counting on people not fact checking?

So don't get mad at me for fact checking and making sure the sources and article line up. Not my fault some people like to make up whatever they like and drift quotes to wrong attributions without checking if what's stated is true before pushing "Publish".--KimYunmi (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Added back the cut sentence, which was established on page 27-28 of the thesis (you have to scroll as inputting the page number does not work). Technically the thesis doesn't need to be cited again under wikipedia rules since it is the frame of the entire first paragraph which is a summary of 2 pages of the thesis with added support, but because other person didn't bother to read the thesis and it's unlikely anyone else will, I went ahead and added back the source anyway. The transition to Valdes makes more sense under those conditions–showing that the majority of the idea comes from the Black community, how and why which is also why I added the credential that Valdes looks at the Black diaspora so there is a more solid history. No additional citations were needed since it was a rewrite to check sources.--KimYunmi (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Scholarship: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Celia Homeford (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• History good articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (royalty) articles
• High-importance biography (royalty) articles
• Royalty work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class British royalty articles
• High-importance British royalty articles
• WikiProject British Royalty articles
• GA-Class England-related articles
• Low-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• GA-Class Germany articles
• Low-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• GA-Class Horticulture and gardening articles
• Low-importance Horticulture and gardening articles
• WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening articles
• GA-Class plant articles
• Low-importance plant articles
• WikiProject Plants articles
• GA-Class United Kingdom articles
• Low-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• GA-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• GA-Class Women's History articles
• Mid-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests