It seems rather hypocritical that you require proof that a google search of images provides an accurate view, while asking others to accept that a similar selection is proof in and of itself.
Isn’t it more reasonable to hold yourself to the same high standards you ask of others?
I’m concerned about the way you issue treats about closing me down or revoking my posting privileges. I’m used to a system of warnings and demerits, so I know were I stand. Now it all sounds quite random, and ill motivated to me. I did not notice you telling other people off about personal insults. If you feel this discussion should stop right now, just say so. Do not treat like I’m some subject to a despotic tyrant.
I have been posting personal descriptions, and will be posting more right now.
If the black boy was black, so was his sister Maria Henriette Stuart. So why the hell does she look white on her marriage portret? Or why are there white portraits of his parents? And about his mother and grandmother, the images really look black to most people.
No, no. Your point was not, “look at these images i’ll link to - i’ll be back to post more on the subject that will provide proof”. It was “look at these images, and you might understand what i’m talking about”.
If you intended all along to provide further evidence - that you believed the images you linked to were not, in fact, convincing evidence on their own - then the reasonable response to Marienee’s post would be to ask for (or wait for) similar later posts with evidence from them, too. The reasonable, fair position is to require of yourself what you require of others; You didn’t allow or ask Marienee for her further evidence, simply dismisssed what they had said immediately. Thus, to claim a series of images as adequate proof for understanding on your part is hypocritical; you’re holding yourself to a lower standard than you require of others.
Edit: Please could you qualify “most people” there? What number of people have you asked their opinion on the blackness of his mother and grandmother? Most of the people in the world? In your particular country? In your particular field? I’d be very interested in seeing your statistics on the study you performed in order to be able to say that.
I’m bound to use the sources as I find them. The sources which say The Black Boy looked black, swarthy or a tall black man have not been discredited by some anonymous nobody on this forum.
This is OT. There is a map in google which shows the distribution of blackness in the whole world. Mostly found in the equatorial region of Africa. Blackness originated in Africa and not in other regions around the equator. There are blacks and there are whites, which are descendents of albino’s, coming out of blacks. Whiteness became hereditary and all the colours in between are a mix between these phenotypes.
If you want to discuss how moderating works here, start a thread in the “About This Message Board” forum or ask me in private. We do have a system of warnings and if you read the registration agreement, you would know what the rules are. Both myself and tomndebb have cautioned other posters who made personal remarks about you. In the meantime I’m trying to keep your thread open and I’m trying to see that questions about your theory get answered.
Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, marchall of France, King of Swede:
Moorish, Semitic
Madame Germaine de Staël-Holstein, barones, daughter of De Necker, ‘minister’ of Finance of Louis XVI:
too swarthy, good features, but bad complexion
James Boswell, scottisch noble and writer
Swarthy, with black eyes and black hair.
Anna Boleyn, Queen of Henry VIII, mother of Elisabeth I
very dark, with black eyes and dark hair
Elisabeth I
dark
Lorenzo de Medici
dark and swarthy with a flattened nose
William I of Orange (1533-1584)
more brown then white, brown of complexion and the beard
This family was also very prognastic, looking like classical africans
http://huguenots-france.org/france/celebrites/images/noue2.jpg
Francois de la Noue, French noble.
I prize this as the blackest image on-line, but offcourse some will fault the copper plate for getting mildew or something.
Don’t you get it, Egmond? They’re all repitillian shape-shifters. They can take whatever shape they wish to dazzle the perceptions of those who look too closely. I’d strongly encourage you to abandon this line of inquiry, as those who have gotten too close to the truth in the past have encountered . . . consequences. Consequences most dire. There are some things about the nature of our universe, and its non-human inhabitants, that are not meant to be pondered by the mind of Man.
Seriously. Drop it, my friend. For the sake of your life, and the lives of all you hold dear. You’ve only scratched the surface: the real story is far stranger and far more harmful. You remember what happened to the Communist chick at the end of the last Indiana Jones movie. That wasn’t fiction, either.
Should I answer this? How does this contribute to the argument at hand? Will this person be warned?
http://www.gebladerte.nl/z0152.bmp
Germaine de Staël, writer and politician
daughter of De Necker
I loves this women, god knows I do, as did Madame de Recamier
He looks like Robert DeNiro to me. Is Robert DeNiro black?
If your only point is that there was a lot of genetic diversity in Europe (especially in the ruling classes, since they often married people from other parts of the continent often for diplomatic reasons), then yeah, we get that. If not, then what is your point? And why is everything that refutes your point allegorical or fabricated, while every piece of evidence you cite supports your point only when shorn of context?
Warned for what? Making fun of you and trying to wind you up? You’re the only person in this thread who thinks that last paragraph was an actual threat. Koxinga has his tongue firmly in his cheek there and anyone with actual cognition recognizes that.
No. But you will be warned the next time you ignore my instructions. I asked you to take these questions to another forum or private messages. I also asked you to stick to your topic without going off into tangents about September 11th, the Nazis, or anything else unrelated to your original subject. I’ve been patient and you’re dancing on my last nerve.
Even though you’ve ignored all of my previous questions, and already said “goodby”, I have to ask:
So who was ruling Europe before 1500?
How did blacks evict this incumbent ruling class?
Where did the former rulers go?
Of course, if you’re feeling charitable, you could also answer any of my previous questions to you.
http://www.gebladerte.nl/z0149.jpg
Maria Jacoba van Goor (1687-1737), her mother was a niece of Rembrandt
Extremely rich, regent-class, only daughter married a baron
Her granddaughter Belle van Zuylen, Isabelle de Charrière writes about herself: ‘she does not have the white hand, she knows this and even jokes about it, but colour is no joking matter.’
This portrait precipitated my research because she looks classical African in features.
Maurits Huygens by Rembrandt, half-whitened or over paint
Regent class
He looks like a mulatto.
The Huygens museum refuses to show him alongside his parents,
brother, sisters and employers; ‘because we know nothing about Maurits Huygens
An African man, anonymous Spanish noble man at the Hapsburg court by Mostaert
That leaves you without explanation where the black people came from.
Honestly, might Edmond be on to something here? Is increased intermarrage between North and South Europeans–producing a ruling class in the north that was noticeably darker than its subjects–a major trend during the Renaissance? In other words, it there really a trend of English queens looking more like Sophia Loren than Helen Mirren?
No, no. You are on to something here, not dear Egmond. Your hypothesis is plausible and is something a serious academic might consider worthy of study.
Which has nothing to with Egmond’s thesis.
Here is another source or fact for you.
Calling somebody black, especially a couple of hundred years ago, in Europe meant something completely different than today in the modern world.
Also, they did not have “REAL” pictures taken with cameras, these pictures were painted by hand, while the person stood portrait or just plainly interpretation by the painter.
I disagree, and when you’re this dismissive of other people it damages your chances of having your own theory taken seriously. As it is, you’ve linked to dozens of portraits and said either ‘this person has African features’ or ‘this person is black and the portrait has been repainted.’ That’s been the majority of your evidence to this point and it’s not even a little bit convincing because none of the nobles you linked to looks like he or she could even possibly be black.
It looks to me like the other posters (like APB) know more about your sources than you do. You need to demonstrate your own knowledge. Prove the “swarthy” description was being applied to Charles II and not his statue, or that the “tall black man” quote is accurate. EDIT: Just to be clear, I’m speaking as a poster here and not moderating.
