Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:49, 4 May 2023

	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 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

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: December 27, 2020 to January 2, 2021 (20th)

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)

Propose changing African ancestry "myth" to "claim"

I'd like to change the term "myth" to "claim" in this entry. Myth implies a long-standing and popularly held belief that has no grounding or has even been disproven or countered with historical research. By contrast, in this case, recent (20th c.) scholars are building a claim from historical evidence and reasonable historical conjecture. The claim is highly contentious but seems to be made in good faith and remains open to scholarly critique. Some of the evidence is indeed comprised of rumors or comments from the past, but not ones that ever rose to the status of popular myth, more like quiet whispers, so "myth" seems inaccurate to describe them. All this also assumes that the term is being used neutrally here. In this case, though, the use of "myth" seems to be working to discredit the claims before they can be considered, so it may represent a bias in the entry. "Claim" is a neutral term implying some have made the claim with some evidence, but that it remains contested on legitimate grounds, where as "myth" asserts already that it is factually untrue. Any opposition to replacing the term "myth" with "claim"? Troutfang (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to change it. It is not a widely held scholarly position — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.9.254.195 (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I was unable to find a single peer reviewed article in Historical Abstracts to support this myth, and the entry on Princess Charlotte in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Online (revised 21 May 2009) by Clarissa Campbell Orr makes no mention of it either. The "evidence" for this ancestor myth is the argument that Princess Charlotte had "African features." This is especially flimsy because there were numerous fraudulent portraits of the princess in circulation. See Timothy Clayton's "A Spurious Charlotte Exposed" in Print Quarterly. Sep2008, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p254-267. Abstract: "Investigates the scandal in which prominent London print sellers John Bowles and Robert Sayer advertised fake portraits of German princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz following her betrothal to British king George III. The fraudulent print, which depicts Mrs. Geo Pitt, appeared in newspapers and caused a stir in the art community in the early 1760's. Newspaper articles chronicle the publishing history of the false print, tracing it to artist Richard Houston, who went on weeks later to produce a real portrait of Queen Charlotte. The scandal reflected the ruthlessness of the business at a time when the print selling trade soared in London." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.222.70 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"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–?), was from a "black branch of the Portuguese Royal House"" this appears to be the only real evidence, even if Madragana was black African, possible but statistically unlikely, after 5 centuries she would be one among something in the order of up to a million potential ancestors of Charlotte (assuming a generation is 25 years). We enter "no true scotsman" territory, if due to severe inbreeding and other sources of admixture (all speculative) she was by a miracle 0.1% black rather than 0.0001%, would she be black? It would not be in good faith to treat it like a legitimate claim, whether in light of the recent TV show or diversity or any other reason. If you want to attack someone, why attack people who hold to academic standards? Why pit diversity against it when there are real life equivalents like Alexander Pushkin and Alexandre Dumas fully supported by people who value facts and the truth and will never yield? 2A00:23C7:69A6:D01:7CBD:767D:2745:83D9 (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! Abedidos (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a ridiculous myth and shouldn't be given the time of day on Misplaced Pages as the "claim" is pseudohistory. I propose it remains as is or be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:1e95:2201:4895:8967:4ba4:1a71 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree. The original proposal suggested using "claim" instead of "myth" because the word "myth" implies a longstanding idea or story. The word "claim" is defined by Macmillan as "a statement that something is true, even though you have no definite proof." Definitely not implying it is a scholar-held opinion.

Since this idea has been floating about for, what, 25 years, I opine that "claim" is a more accurate description than "myth". It should be changed. History Lunatic (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)History Lunatic

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)

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)

Black Ancestry?

Does a person who MAY have had 0.0000029% Arab blood make them black? In that case we can all claim to be just about anything we like. This is just silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustygecko (talk • contribs) 10:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

You are exctly right. That is specially amusing for a Brazilian. In Brazil most white people have more than 10% non white ancestry. Knoterification (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2022 (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)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• History good articles
• All unassessed 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 United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• GA-Class Germany articles
• Low-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• GA-Class Women's History articles
• Low-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• GA-Class England-related articles
• Low-importance England-related articles
• WikiProject England pages
• GA-Class United Kingdom articles
• Low-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• GA-Class plant articles
• Low-importance plant articles
• WikiProject Plants articles
• GA-Class Horticulture and gardening articles
• Low-importance Horticulture and gardening articles
• WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report