This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Enigmaman (talk | contribs) at 03:33, 28 February 2021 (→Propose deletion of the "ancestry" section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:33, 28 February 2021 by Enigmaman (talk | contribs) (→Propose deletion of the "ancestry" section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 | 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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
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. |
|
|
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
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)
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)
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)
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 03:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Categories:
