Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN
http://www.google.nl/images?um=1&hl=...rshall&spell=1
I see what you mean. But to me the identity is more important than features.
One can be black and irish. But the Black Irish, thats a interesting subject. I will dig up some cartoons as how Americans saw the Irish immigrants
http://www.nde.state.ne.us/ss/irish/scientific.gif
Irish resembled blacks!
I never knew Jane Austen was blonde! Bit of a looker, too. How did she find time to write Mansfield Park? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Egmond Codfried
So your argument now seems to have resolved itself to:
a) people who appear black in pictures are black
b) people who appear white in pictures are black
As you say, "Black or white? Seriously. And how do you determine this?" Apparently one can't - so the pictures don't make good evidence.
Just for comparison, could you post a couple of pictures of people who appear white and actually are white? Seriously. As things stand there's no reason to believe that anyone in an old painting was actually the colour they appear to be.
There's a very good oil-paining of the Irish Regiment, the Black and Tans. Would that help?
THE MASQUE OF BLACKNESS
Explores how Africans came to Europe looking for a milder sun. In praise of black beauty which does not fade. How blacks are miraculously turned white.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Masque_of_Blackness
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&so...=&oq=&gs_rfai=
There is no law which says that blacks cannot be made blacker with blackface.
And blacks turned white by painting themselves white.
The question is why they should have a need for such a play with such a theme.
So there are many images and things about blackness swirling around the Stuart court.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9BahiuEgVz...nmark_1617.jpg
Queen Anne was the first royal to revive the practice of using a little Moor to symbolise high birth.
http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/i...ry_in_1612.jpg
Queen Anne of Denmark, grandmother of The Black Boy, as a blindingly white woman with a blond afro.
The NPG site has another dark drawing of Anne of Denmark but the truly black ones are kept away from us. Not so for Charles II.
Look for NPG D25726 on NPG.org.uk
By now everyone who has brains can understand that blacks can be rendered white in paintings, by bleaching and painting themselves white.
I actually have irrefutable scientific proof that Queen Anne of Denmark could not have been black.
You see back in 2007, genetic analysis was conducted on the remains of the Romanof family in Russia, and it was determined that the Csar Nicholas was of the mitochondrial haplogroup T.
Now mitochondrial DNA is great for establishing geneologies, because it is 100% matrilineally inherited, i.e. you get your mtDNA from your mother and only your mother.
Csar Nicholas' matrilineal heritage can be traced back to Queen Anne through Queen Victoria. Charles the I and II would be in that group as well.
And the origin of haplogroup T? Somewhere around Syria or Turkey some 20,000 years ago. It's the second most common haplotype in European populations in many regions, and suggest there is no recent African heritage in the European royals.
Some other European royals have been so kind to allow their DNA to be tested as well, and some have come up as haplogroup H, another haplogroup that originated out of the Middle East, and is not so coincidentally the most common geneology in Europe and much of the Middle East today. Now this isn't as informative as the haplogroup T, which is mostly isolated to Europe these days, but it does make African heritage very unlikely.
What does this all mean? It means that the European royalty were white.
Blonde Afro? Stroll on!!!!! Presumably, since her hair was identical, you're going to tell us Elizabeth I was black!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dafydd manton
On that basis, you could make the argument that there were no rich white women in Elizabethan England at all.
Check out this lot....
Thank you so much. Now go back to sleep. And could you please change your avatar? As we all know, babies come from cabbages. And Bush did not mastermind 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Oh, there weren't, they were all leprachauns. Except for those that weren't Hobbits, of course, but then Hobbits are a bit dark, "covered with brown, furry hair", as I recall. The plot thickens!
MISTRESS ANNE BOLEYN
http://www.wissen.de/wde/generator/s...perty=zoom.jpg
[A dark portrait of Anna Boleyn]
http://www.earlywomenmasters.net/cds...a_teerling.jpg
[Anna Boleyn’s daughter , Queen Elizabeth I, described as 'dark', so this portrat is whitened. She is famous for painting het face white]
ANNA BOLEYN’S APPEARANCE
Quote:
The Venetian diarist Marino Sanuto, who saw Anne during the meeting between Henry VIII and Francis I of France at Calais in October 1532, described her as "not one of the handsomest women in the world; she is of middling stature, swarthy complexion, long neck, wide mouth, bosom not much raised ... eyes, which are black and beautiful".[26] Simon Grynée wrote to Martin Bucer in September 1531 that Anne was "young, good-looking, of a rather dark complexion". Lancelot de Carles called her "beautiful with an elegant figure", and a Venetian in Paris in 1528 also reported that she was said to be beautiful.[27] Other descriptions of her were less neutral. An observer at her coronation wrote that "the crown became her very ill, and a wart disfigured her very much. She wore a violet velvet mantle, with a high ruff of gold thread and pearls, which concealed a swelling she has, resembling a goitre".[26] The most influential description of Anne, but also the least reliable, was written by the historian and polemicist Nicholas Sanders as late as 1586: "Anne Boleyn was rather tall of stature, with black hair, and an oval face of a sallow complexion, as if troubled with jaundice. She had a projecting tooth under the upper lip, and on her right hand six fingers. There was a large wen under her chin, and therefore to hide its ugliness she wore a high dress covering her throat ... She was handsome to look at, with a pretty mouth".[28] Sanders' description contributed to what biographer Eric Ives calls the "monster legend" of Anne Boleyn.[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Boleyn
Quote:
In 1532, a new Venetian ambassador described Anne thusly:
'not one of the handsomest women in the world. She is of middling stature, with a swarthy complexion, long neck, wide mouth, bosom not much raised, and in fact has nothing but the King's great appetite, and her eyes, which are black and beautiful - and take great effect on those who served the Queen when she was on the throne. She lives like a queen, and the King accompanies her to Mass - and everywhere.'
http://englishhistory.net/tudor/annedesc.html
Quote:
Anne Boleyn's Appearance
The only firmly identified, contemporary image of Anne Boleyn - a 1534 medal.
© British Museum.
Scanned by Douglas Dowell.
Anne Boleyn's appearance has been twisted by those who wished to denounce her. Contemporary accounts were distorted by the author's (usual) dislike of her. After her death, a monstrous legend was built up. Nicholas Sander's description provides the supreme calumny. The Venetian ambassador provided a more impartial report - but still not all that flattering. So, what is universally agreed upon?
Anne Boleyn was very dark. All writers agree on this point. Wyatt says she was "not so whitely as . . . above all we may esteem." Sander said she had a "sallow complexion, as if troubled with jaundice", and the Venetian ambassador said she had a "swarthy complexion". Dark brown or black hair, along with eyes so dark they were almost black and a very dark skin, combined to make Anne Boleyn conspicuously dark - and the opposite of the contemporary ideal, with golden hair, blue eyes and a pink-and-white complexion. Anne had small breasts, when a voluptuous figure was the ideal. The Venetian ambassador said she was of "middling stature" and Sander said she was "rather tall in stature". One of her favourite chaplains felt that Bessie Blount was more beautiful, although Anne was quite pretty. Much of this lukewarm praise would have been due to the fact that she was the opposite of the aforesaid contemporary ideal.
In all honesty, the following description of Anne Boleyn is ridiculous; the culmination of a legend built up by Roman Catholics who blamed her for the break with Rome. Therefore, it owes much to the deeply ingrained idea that evil people had hideous exteriors, very much like Richard III's alleged hunchback. However, it goes a long way to illuminate the degree to which Anne was slandered long after her death.
Anne Boleyn was rather tall of stature, with black hair and an oval face of sallow complexion, as if troubled with jaundice. She had a projecting tooth under the upper lip, and on her right hand, six fingers. There was a large wen under her chin, and therefore to hide its ugliness, she wore a high dress covering her throat. In this she was followed by the ladies of the court, who also wore high dresses, having before been in the habit of leaving their necks and the upper portion of their persons uncovered. She was handsome to look at, with a pretty mouth.1
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nne_Boleyn.png
Whitened, propogandistic image of Queen Anne Boleyn. Today used as a tool of revisionism.
http://www.janeausten.co.uk/graphics..._cassandra.jpg http://www.ewtn.com/gallery/holyface/21.jpg
Ok It’s time to put this one to bed. I have it on very good authority that Jane Austen was actually a man, and not only was she a man but actually she was The Risen Christ. I mean look, the eyes are the same and they’ve got the same nose and mouth. How can you not believe? The beard? Well they did have razors in Austen’s day didn’t they? And you can plainly see the halo behind her in both pictures.
Gosh. A straight-haired redhead! Pretty, ain't she? Just out of interest, in that top picture, why are the pearls nearly black?
Excuse me, but genetics is a much stronger position to argue from than your misunderstanding of basic English, and ridiculous statements of "clearly African features" in paintings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Egmond Codfried
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652717/
Here is the peer-reviewed paper, the results were also duplicated by other labs later on, of the genetic analysis conducted on the remains of the Romanof family. The mitochondrial DNA clearly shows that the British royals were predominantly of the haplogroups T (T2 to be even more specific), which is heavily concentrated in Central Europe and Turkey, of course there is some gene flow between North Africa and Europe, but the fact remains that genetically the royals are more likely to be white.
Edit: And no, I will not change my avatar. Before I just thought that you were a funny lunatic, but now that you've displayed a dislike for David Bowie I think I'm going to have to hate you.
Edit2: Just fyi the vast majority of black skinned people of African heritage, around 90%+ are of the haplogroup L.
By the way, QE 1 was famous for plastering on the makeup because she caught smallpox and was hiding the scars.