No one said anything at all about that particular engraving being based on an original painting and, in fact, it probably wasn’t. Loggan is actually a counterexample to the idea that engravers did not have access to their sitters. Some of his preparatory plumbago drawings from life for other prints survive.
Also, you’ve overlooked the other point I made during the previous discussion. A major reason why the Monck engraving looks so dark is because of the poor state of the plate when that impression was taken. Other, sharper versions survive. This is important, because this is equally true of several of Codfried’s examples. The elementary - but easily overlooked - point is that prints were not all the same. Tones could vary considerably. It’s therefore always a bit pointless making judgments about shading based on single inferior impressions.
I’m answering question because I believe many persons are truly interested but do not log-in for fear of the likes of you.
I have never said that Charles II Stuart was 100% garanteed Negro, whatever that means. I have said that blue blood is symbolised by a pitch-black classical Moor, an African. This should be an indication of how they viewed the origins of their black looks. And even if they were Indians, we could ask how this nice Indian family came to occupy the British throne.
Snowden (1971) showed in Blacks in Antiquity that the Classical writers were very aware of African types en named the same African features as we know them today. From the late middleages European artists produced images of classical Africans.
The whole idea that ‘black’ only meant black hair is disproven by consequent descriptions which state: a tall black man, not a tall black haired man. The black boy, not the black haired boy. And if we are in doubt, the black images speak for themselves.
I have posted sources which show there were blacks in Europe in 500-1500.
There exist something as ‘ideological racism.’ These believers know nothing else, they were raised and educated in this believe. It’s of know use to try to reason with them as their view on the mater is irrational. I can be posting sources till kingdom come and they will not get over their panic, fear and hatred.
Blacks can be made to look like whites as these images of a whitened Obama illustrate.
This man is described as a tall black man in all the biographies about him.
I think I took care to write his great-granddaughter, not his granddaughter.
My point is actually that Pushkin could not have been so black if not all his other ancestors had some blackness in them. I regard him as a mix of recent African DNA, his greatgrandfather Hannibal and old European African DNA.
There was speak of Louis XIV embalmed mummy. But I view this lead in conjunction with the fact that his cousin Charles II is described as a tall black man, swarthy and the black boy.
I get that you really, really want to believe this. But your trouble is you’re starting with your conclusion, that blacks were European royalty. And searching for anything you can stretch to fit that notion, while ignoring literally millions of times the evidence that your conclusion is wrong.
The fact is, your theory is utterly without merit and laughable on its face. And its really sad that you are so devoted to it.
Also, 911 was the result of airplanes hitting buildings.
My experience is that at a point certain certain people act as a group of wild dogs in a feeding frenzy. You are not reading what I have offered but respond to the notion that someone is acting ‘uppity.’
I have mentioned the 9/11 plane which dropped into a field and vaporised. Not those we have seem entering a building.
Why don’t they find these African genes when sequencing Europeans? DNA appears to show population groups moving out of Africa and over time becoming Europeans. Is this a conspiracy to trick you?
I read some of the sites you linked to earlier in this thread. I’ve seen the photoshopped Obama picture you have linked half a dozen times, which does nothing for your argument. Of course I’m also still waiting to find out why that matters. Of course I’m also still waiting for the proof that “black” had no meanings other than “of African descent” in this time period.
Not at all. I didn’t even know you were black, if that’s what you are suggesting. I don’t find you uppity, I find you irrational and willing to believe utter rubbish in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.
Nothing vaporized. Whoever told you that was lying to you. They found wreckage and bodies. Why would you believe something so silly?
Especially given that the depictions of Charles II that emphasize African features are rather obscure, whereas the depictions emphasize Northern European features are ubiquitous–much as the photoshopped depictions of the “white” Obama are obscure compared to the ubiquitous depictions where his African heritage is obvious.
Honestly, this does present an interesting exercise for dealing with evidence in history and similar fields, especially for “the likes of me”. For any topic with a large body of sources, a few sources are likely to be very screwy. Though these can be very revealing when read in context, it’s not a good idea to take a few fringe reports as evidence that the vast body of documentation is false–unless there’s reason to suspect an unusual degree of hegemony. In this case, Charles II and the English monarchy preceding him are notorious for **failing **to establish an absolutist state in comparison to the Bourbons, et al.
You already showed me that picture and it is NOT convincing. It does not look like a white man. It looks like an African-American man with Negroid features who has had his skin whitened by Photoshop.
The portrait of King Charles does not make him look black. Not remotely. He does not have African features. You can call him a “tall black man” all you want. How can this boy grow up to be a black man? Tell me how. Explain the process to me. How is it that someone can begin life looking like that, and then end up a “black man”?
I can explain King Charles’s Bourbon ancestry all day long, but it doesn’t matter because Egmond is claiming that it’s the STUART side of King Charles that is responsible for his being “black.” If that is the case, could you explain how this man could be the scion of a great black dynasty in Scotland? And don’t tell me that his face was whitened in his portrait. You could make his skin as black as ink and it would not change Henry Stuart’s facial features, which are Scottish through and through. Actually, he looks like a lighter-haired Robert Burns. I guess Burns was black too.
