Talk:Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rustygecko (talk | contribs) at 10:35, 24 March 2022 (→Black Ancestry?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:35, 24 March 2022 by Rustygecko (talk | contribs) (→Black Ancestry?: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

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.

Article policies

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

	Biography portal 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.

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

	Germany portal 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

	History portal 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

	England portal 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

	United Kingdom portal 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

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)

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 17, 2018 and November 17, 2021.

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

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)

And now the edit-warring IP has registered an SPA... Enigma 16:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

”Bridgerton” is driving a lot of traffic to this page, though, so removing any discussion of the “myth” seems like a bad idea. 100.40.76.131 (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, sounds like a racist position to me. I knew about it before Bridgerton. Discounting black scholars are "fringe supremacist" is super telling of your character. BTW, people loved Valdes on this page when they thought they said Charlotte was 100% white. I changed it to what Valdes really said and then people brought out their pitchforks. Valdes must not be legit because OMG, uses 2 names. Valdes is a terrible person. Look at this source 100 years later after the contemporary sources. Then wanted to blame Bridgerton. That's some heavy bias there. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be NPOV. Not a website to support white supremacy.--KimYunmi (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

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.

Categories: