Yes, I picked up your Grimaldi manstory, and found it to be a hoax.
You keep posting this as if it meant something. It doesn’t.
Photoshop can be used to make a black guy look white. The reason that we know that this has been done to the Obama pictures is that we have lots of other evidence that Obama is black. We don’t have any evidence that anyone you are claiming has had their portrait taken is black. Descriptions of people as “black” during the period you want to examine do not mean that they were African - it means they had black hair, and swarthy, but white, skin.
Plus, as mentioned, the whole theory makes no sense. Why would the nobles give two toots on a tin trumpet whether the commoners knew they were black or not? They were the nobility - they had all the money and all the status, and lots of heavily armed folks to whack off the various limbs of those who got uppity.
Tell you what - I think we can agree that during the period in question, calling someone a “Moor” means something closer to what “black” means today. Do you have some instances where people referred to several kings or dukes or something as “Moors” or “Moorish”? Not swarthy or black-haired - a “Moor”.
Got anything like that?
Regards,
Shodan
Egmond, please, I’ve in a friendly way tried to explain to you that in Europe it has been common to call black haired people for black. The same way people with red hair are often called red.
Before you repeat ‘tall black man’ yet again, let me remind you of the point I picked up on all the way back in Post #198. Just because lots of biographies continue to use that phrase doesn’t stop it being a misquotation. Unless, of course, you can supply a cite to that exact phrase being used about him in a seventeenth-century book or document. Or can’t you be bothered to check out your own sources?
(I would actually be very interested to know who did first use that supposed quote. But something tells me you won’t be able to answer that.)
Ludovico Sforza, of Milan, Italy (1452-1508) was called “il Moro” or “The Moor.”
Here is his portrait. Not remotely a black man, not in a billion years. He had dark hair, yes - but so does Marilyn Manson. You can tell from his facial features he was obviously not black and “the Moor” was just a nickname. And even if Ludovico Sforza was 100% Nubian with black skin like obsidian and hair as kinky as a Brillo pad, it still wouldn’t make the nobility of Europe black.
No one is forcing you to read it. As it happens, a lot of interesting information is being posted to demonstrate just how ludicrous the fact-free OP actually is, so in the interest of promoting the Straight Dope on this topic, this thread will remain open for the forseeable future.
As to whether this is a spoof, I will point out that the SDMB has been challenged by True Believers, in the past, with claims that the moon landings were a hoax, that circumcision was a Jewish plot to emasculate mankind, that the WTC/Pentagon attacks were carried out by the U.S. (or Israel?) using controlled demolitions, and that Saddam Hussein was a serious threat to the U.S. Lots of people believe lots of different things.
Egmond, as someone asked – what about the phrase “Tall, Dark and Handsome”? It usually means someone with dark hair and eyes.
Oh yes, definitely. This one will definitely go down in Dope history.
(Although I am pretty disappointed that the Vikings did NOT come from the land of the ice and snow with the midnight sun where the hot springs blow. Dammit, Robert Plant lied to me!)
Egmond Codfried, I’m open to new ideas and I’ve been reading your theories. Bud sadly, the only thing I see are speculations, not any evidences.
You claim that EVERY royal and EVERY noble person in the years 1500-1789 in Europe were of a black race. This means we’re talking about hundreds of thousends of people. Yet they left - according to you - in 1789 without leaving any traces in paintings. Yes, I know you claim that the paintings in the museums have been whitened and faked afterwards (by persons who must have had an awful lot of time on their hands) but there are also many paintings in private possessions in private homes in Europe. And they also depict their ancesters as white people.
And again, I can’t understand how they all could have been gone in the 19th century when photos started to be taken. Because the same royals as were in power in 1789 continued as royals in the 19th century, continued marring their first cousins and other relatives, how could all their grandchildren become white???
I want Egmond to tell me why John Clifford, 9th Lord Clifford was called “Black Face Clifford.” Why? Tell me why. I want you, Egmond, to tell me why.
I’m sure we could invent an explanation for this–we’re a talented, if sometimes off-kilter, bunch.
What I have been waiting to discover, for lo these many days, has been how the original black leaders of 1500 suddenly arose from somewhere without having been seen, and enslaved all those white folks. Where were the black people hiding between the White entry into Europe 6,000 years ago and the black ascension five hundred years ago?
(Of course, since every history of language notes that “blue blood” indicates extremely white skin, I am curious how the OP has ignored that information to reverse it, completely, with his claim that “blue blood” meant “black skin.” I am not holding my breath.)
Now we are getting somewhere. However, “the Moor” sounds like an Anglicization of “Moro”.
So I have to agree with you - this is not evidence in favor of our friend’s pet theory.
Not that I expect him to recognize that.
Regards,
Shodan
My comment was meant as a jest. You had provided the comment:
I thought the comment about her lesbian tendencies was irrelevant to the issue at hand. Further, the term lesbian comes from the greek island of Lesbos, home to the poet Sappho. Not that long ago, the current inhabitants of Lesbos kicked up a minor fuss about the use of the term, pointing out that all the men and all of the women on the island were Lesbians, and that gay women should not use the term.
My comment was a riff on this, asking if Pushkin’s granddaughter were greek, that is, from Lesbos. This being a thread about ethnic origin, I figured big yuks would ensue. :rolleyes:
Again, I neglected the fact that English is not your native tongue, and that you are monomaniacal. My apologies for wasting your time.
And considering that Queen Victoria was the last of the Hanover line, and which descends from the Stuarts, and since you can’t throw a bone in European royalty without hitting one of HER descendents, they can’t have gone away, either. (Didn’t the Hohenzollerns of Prussia also have some Stuart blood?)
A line from Stephen Pile appropriately describes the OP, his historical skills and his theory:
“So giftedly bad he backs unwittingly into genius”.
An epitaph for this thread, perhaps?
In the background it seems to portray the infamous Burning of the Sydney Opera House.
And now, to round off the thread’s surreality, we have a visit from Mr. Subliminal . . .
Which can only mean one thing, and one thing only.
The *real *Elizabeth II is black, and the tiny old lady with the funny hats is an impostor. And the same goes for [del]Dumbo[/del]Prince Charles ! It’s all make believe to hide how nubian noblemen master us puppets from behind the scenes !
And if the other rumors about the queen are true . . . that means black blue blooded nobles are actually . . . :eek: I’m afraid to to complete my own train of thought . . .
A spammer posted in this thread and a bunch of others during the night. I don’t know why he chose this thread. He was posting about hookers.
Yes, the Hohenzollerns had Stuart blood. Frederick the greats grandfathers (George I of England) grandmother was Elizabeth Stuart whose father was James I of England.