Was Queen Charlotte mixed race?

[Lalli]

In all fairness I would argue Medieval Europe was a lot less racist than Europe during Queen Charlottes time due to the whole superiority complex from conquering half the world not being in play and the whole concept of race based on skin colour would make absolutely no sense in that time period. Something that makes this claim even dumber.

True. Medieval European weren't generally racist but religiously they were pretty bigoted. But as long as you was Christian (usally Catholic or Orthodox depending where you was living) yours ethnic/racial background didn't matter very much if any. Racism became more common in 19th century.

If you really want to know a person’s ancestry, it makes more sense to think in terms of ethnicity rather than “race”. “Black” or “White” are meaningless, that doesn’t tell me anything, it barely even helps with visualizing appearance since that encompasses a veritable hardware store paint sample section of skin tones. If someone says “that guy’s black” it’s like what do you mean, that could be like two thousand different distinct peoples everywhere from New Guinea to Abkhazia to Liberia to Argentina, but if you’re specific and say “that guy’s Igbo” then we’re getting somewhere, that actually means something.

And even if you go with ethnicity it too would become meaningless and pointless. Someone could very well is one certain former prime minister Turkish because one of his great-grandfathers was Ottoman official.

 

[Vulgarian]

In all fairness I would argue Medieval Europe was a lot less racist than Europe during Queen Charlottes time due to the whole superiority complex from conquering half the world not being in play and the whole concept of race based on skin colour would make absolutely no sense in that time period. Something that makes this claim even dumber.

Well yes, in a sense there wasn't a pseudo-scientific theory of biological race.

People tend to confuse that, however, with saying that racism didn't exist. There has always been some degree of prejudice against people who look different or speak differently.

The point though, is that you can't have it both ways, just investigating this claim about Phillipa of Hainault I found within a few minutes the claim that:
1. It would make no difference to anyone in Medieval Europe if she was mixed race so no one bothered to explicitly remark upon it.
2. She was painted white at her coronation and her mixed race status was buried due to a long history of whitewashing people of colour out of European history.

These things can't both be true.

 

[pompejus]

True. Medieval European weren't generally racist but religiously they were pretty bigoted. But as long as you was Christian (usally Catholic or Orthodox depending where you was living) yours ethnic/racial background didn't matter very much if any. Racism became more common in 19th century.

And to be fair there were significantly less non-white people in Europe than there are these days. I think less than 99.99% of the people in medeival Europe would have ever seen someone who was not white (or to fair, seen someone who was from more than 50 kilometers from their native village). People didn't know how black (African) people looked like. They only knew them from stories. Which is why depictions of them of that period are so "off".

 

[Crazy Boris]

And even if you go with ethnicity it too would become meaningless and pointless. Someone could very well is one certain former prime minister Turkish because one of his great-grandfathers was Ottoman official.

That’s actually another thing, people conflating ethnicity and nationality, and that’s especially prevalent with the Ottoman Empire. For some reason, despite the empire’s extending far into Europe, Asia, and Africa, people assume it to be totally Turkish, even though it was an incredibly diverse society and that was something the Ottomans even embraced (up until the young turks and three pashas ruined everything for everyone), and this was reflected in the Ottoman dynasty themselves, if you look at a list of Ottoman consorts, there’s a lot of Greek, Slavic, Arab, and Caucasian names.

So someone being Ottoman could mean they’re Turkish, or Greek, or Arab, Serbian, Romanian, Armenian, Bulgarian, Georgian, Kurdish, Albanian, Abkhaz, Jewish, Bosnian, Hungarian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Roma, Italian, Croat, Nubian, Zaza, Macedonian, Ukrainian, Circassian, something or any combination of these.

But most people hear “Ottoman” and assume Turkish. It’s like if you assumed all Americans are of Irish ancestry because a couple presidents have recognized themselves having Irish heritage.

 

[Lalli]

That’s actually another thing, people conflating ethnicity and nationality, and that’s especially prevalent with the Ottoman Empire. For some reason, despite the empire’s extending far into Europe, Asia, and Africa, people assume it to be totally Turkish, even though it was an incredibly diverse society and that was something the Ottomans even embraced (up until the young turks and three pashas ruined everything for everyone), and this was reflected in the Ottoman dynasty themselves, if you look at a list of Ottoman consorts, there’s a lot of Greek, Slavic, Arab, and Caucasian names.

So someone being Ottoman could mean they’re Turkish, or Greek, or Arab, Serbian, Romanian, Armenian, Bulgarian, Georgian, Kurdish, Albanian, Abkhaz, Jewish, Bosnian, Hungarian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Roma, Italian, Croat, Nubian, Zaza, Macedonian, Ukrainian, Circassian, something or any combination of these.

But most people hear “Ottoman” and assume Turkish. It’s like if you assumed all Americans are of Irish ancestry because a couple presidents have recognized themselves having Irish heritage.

Exactly. And work too such way that single ethnic group might be and usually is extremely diversed. For examples Arabs are not really genetically homogenous group despite them speaking same language and sharing several cultural similarities. But Moroccan and Iraqi hardly have anything common on genetic sense. Moroccan Arabs have surely lot of Berber blood and Egyptians are still ratherly descedants of Ancient Egyptians but not so much descendants of Arab conquers despite them speaking Arabic.

So there is even existing such idea that language would be related with ethnicity. Not really. Actually them have not any common anywhere.

 

[DJ03]

1. It would make no difference to anyone in Medieval Europe if she was mixed race so no one bothered to explicitly remark upon it.
2. She was painted white at her coronation and her mixed race status was buried due to a long history of whitewashing people of colour out of European history.

But they can be both false.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I think this is just one giant case of selective interpretation by modern people who've seen a much broader range of skin colors than medieval Europeans saw, and hence think differently of what "brown skin" means.

E.g., Herodotus describes the Egyptians as black, although we know for a fact that they didn't look like sub-Saharan Africans (aside from anything else, the Egyptians clearly distinguish themselves from Nubians in their artwork).

 

[AddyLane]

It's just a wild, incorrect theory made especially popular today by Shonda Rhimes's use of different races in The Bridgertons on Netflix and of course, The Spare's marriage to Meghan Markle. Like many things today, some people want it to be that way, so they believe it and spread it - even if there's no real proof of it. It's no different that Philippa Gregory's bending of actual historic truth for her books, and way too many people thinking that it all is true. Having done genealogy and even Ancestry DNA, if we go far enough back we can find a great deal.

Like I've seen posted here, people back then seemed to care more about what religion you were, rather than what race.

 

[Denliner]

Sidenote: what’s the deal with people assuming “Moors” are a homogenous group? Have you ever seen the Maghreb? Any human skin color that exists, you can find there, it’s a total melting pot, there’s dozens of ethnic groups, tribes, and clans under that umbrella term.

Because there are a lot of people that solely try to claim their achievements from the Arabs to the Berbers to black Afrocentrists while denying and denigrating each other as contributors (even though all three existed at the same time within Moorish society). The only exception is the Muladi and that's because they've either assimilated into Maghrebi society (or some other kind of diaspora) or converted to Christianity after their expulsion.

 

[isabella]

Well yes, in a sense there wasn't a pseudo-scientific theory of biological race.

People tend to confuse that, however, with saying that racism didn't exist. There has always been some degree of prejudice against people who look different or speak differently.

The point though, is that you can't have it both ways, just investigating this claim about Phillipa of Hainault I found within a few minutes the claim that:
1. It would make no difference to anyone in Medieval Europe if she was mixed race so no one bothered to explicitly remark upon it.
2. She was painted white at her coronation and her mixed race status was buried due to a long history of whitewashing people of colour out of European history.

These things can't both be true.

I can tell you who first is likely true (who would have not mattered if Philippa had been of mixed race NOT who she was) and the second is doubtless false (came from the same people who are convinced who, among the others, Cleopatra, who almost surely was entirely of Greek-Macedonian ancestry, was black because she was Egyptian, when a) she was Greek-Macedonian and b) the majority of the Egyptians was NOT black neither in the Ancient era or today)

 

[Gloss]

I can tell you who first is likely true (who would have not mattered if Philippa had been of mixed race NOT who she was) and the second is doubtless false (came from the same people who are convinced who, among the others, Cleopatra, who almost surely was entirely of Greek-Macedonian ancestry, was black because she was Egyptian, when a) she was Greek-Macedonian and b) the majority of the Egyptians was NOT black neither in the Ancient era or today)

AFAIK you can see virtually all Cleopatra's tree up to Alexander's conquest, she is like half Greek and and half Anatolian/Iranian

 

[isabella]

AFAIK you can see virtually all Cleopatra's tree up to Alexander's conquest, she is like half Greek and and half Anatolian/Iranian

Right, I had forgotten who Cleopatra I had Anatolian/Iranian blood so her descendants also had some of it (but Cleopatra I herself had likely more Greek than Anatolian/Iranian blood)

 

[Analytical Engine]

Considering that the Ptolemys had concubines as well as committing GoT levels of incest, there's a possibility that Cleo had at least some Egyptian ancestry.

 

[isabella]

Considering that the Ptolemys had concubines as well as committing GoT levels of incest, there's a possibility that Cleo had at least some Egyptian ancestry.

That depend from the identity of the unknown mothers of some Ptolemys princes and princesses. If, as is extremely likely, Cleopatra II was daughter of Cleopatra I, Ptolemy XII and his brother Ptolemy of Cyprus were son of Cleopatra IV (and there are more than enough evidences in support of this theory), and Cleopatra V was the daughter of Berenice III and Ptolemy X (who surely existed) we have no space for a different ancestry (and while it do NOT matter Ptolemy XI’s mother was almost surely his father’s first wife Cleopatra Selene, meaning who his wife Berenice III (who he had killed) was also his half-sister (other than being his cousin and stepmother). And keep in mind who the only Ptolemys to be ever called illegitimate were Ptolemy XII and Ptolemy of Cyprus (and that could be because their parents’ wedding was NOT recognized as dynastic as they were divorced BEFORE Ptolemy IXs ascension and so Cleopatra IV was never Queen or co-regent).

And I do NOT believe who GoT reached the same level of the Ptolemys

 

[Irrisa]

So, I’m realizing I should’ve worded my thoughts differently. As mentioned by other replies before this, Charlotte wouldn’t have been considered mixed race due to a variety of factors, including the fact that the apparent African ancestor, the mistress of a Portuguese king, was about five centuries before Charlotte was born. (Also, I think it was mentioned on here that describing the moorish people as African isn’t entirely accurate either) I guess I should’ve asked, why were people calling Queen Charlotte mixed race, since it seemed like she was what we would consider a white, European woman. It looks like most of this quandary came from a simple and slightly confusing misunderstanding of ancestry.

 

[Jürgen]

So, I’m realizing I should’ve worded my thoughts differently. As mentioned by other replies before this, Charlotte wouldn’t have been considered mixed race due to a variety of factors, including the fact that the apparent African ancestor, the mistress of a Portuguese king, was about five centuries before Charlotte was born. (Also, I think it was mentioned on here that describing the moorish people as African isn’t entirely accurate either) I guess I should’ve asked, why were people calling Queen Charlotte mixed race, since it seemed like she was what we would consider a white, European woman. It looks like most of this quandary came from a simple and slightly confusing misunderstanding of ancestry.

The answer is that they generally didn’t. But that some found her tan and hair style to look “mulatto” like. A dark tan, a button nose, broad mouth, and curly hair are individual traits found in Europeans, which sometimes comes together and which can look vaguely African.

 

[isabella]

So, I’m realizing I should’ve worded my thoughts differently. As mentioned by other replies before this, Charlotte wouldn’t have been considered mixed race due to a variety of factors, including the fact that the apparent African ancestor, the mistress of a Portuguese king, was about five centuries before Charlotte was born. (Also, I think it was mentioned on here that describing the moorish people as African isn’t entirely accurate either) I guess I should’ve asked, why were people calling Queen Charlotte mixed race, since it seemed like she was what we would consider a white, European woman. It looks like most of this quandary came from a simple and slightly confusing misunderstanding of ancestry.

Because they had an agenda and calling Queen Charlotte black or mixed race suited to their agenda of black centrism and accuse of whitewashing, likely…

 

[pompejus]

Because they had an agenda and calling Queen Charlotte black or mixed race suited to their agenda of black centrism and accuse of whitewashing, likely…

Partialy, yes. But I also think some people say it simply, because such a scandal in the royal family sells books. It was first thought of in the 1940's and black revisionism wasn't particularly big in those days. And obviously there are some contrarians who like everything that is out of the ordinary. And of course several people who have absolutely no knowledge about history and just saying stuff they heard from others. Basicly, there are several reasons.