"A True Mulatto Face" by Kimba Hudson (2014) [Queen Charlotte, consort of George III]


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

ricland

Newbie
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
7
City
cincinnati
Country
United States
"A True Mulatto Face" by Kimba Hudson (2014) [Queen Charlotte, consort of George III]

newbookcoversmall.jpg



A True Mulatto Face: Kimba Hudson: Amazon.com: Kindle Store

The mulatto in question is Queen Charlotte, consort to England's King George III. My novel is an attempt to show how a mulatto wound up the wife of the most powerful monarch of her time (1761). When I first heard of this story, my initial question was, "How were her Negroid features not immediately detected and her wedding to King George called off?”

You'll have to read the book to find that out – but the evidence she was mulatto is so compelling that as I began encountering it, I could not help wonder why no one else had written a book about this amazing woman.

Indeed, the evidence Charlotte was half-black is all over the internet. At the top of the list is a description of her made by her grandson-in-law's physician, Baron Stockmar:

"Small and crooked, with a true Mulatto face."
--Baron Christian Stockmar, MD
Memoirs of Baron Stockmar - Ernst Alfred Christian Stockmar (freiherr von), Georgina Adelaide Müller - Google Books

memoirs-of-baron-stockmar.jpg


Please note two things about Stockmar's choice of words: first, the word true; second, the capital M. Clearly, Stockmar meant to idiot-proof his meaning — let the world know for posterity Queen Victoria's grandmother was half black.

When I posted this quote in one of the forums several people replied Stockmar was only trying to say Queen Charlotte was ugly; that is, "mulatto" was a term for ugly during her day. But my research revealed its meaning is identical to its meaning today: a person of white and black parentage. The word "mulatto" is of Latin origin and seems to have taken the original meaning as early as 1593. Consider:

Origin of MULATTO:
Spanish mulato, from mulo mule, from Latin mulus
First Known Use: 1593

A mule, of course, is a hybrid, a cross between a horse and donkey. The Latin word for mule is "mulus" and from that we can see how some enterprising Spanish-speaker used it to mean a cross between the white race and black race — mulatto. Below is a painting made by a South American painter in 1780 graphically showing usage of the word during that time:


Mulatto.jpg



In other words, all available evidence shows Stockmar meant exactly what we mean when he used the mulatto in his memoir. Stockmar was born in 1787 and died in 1863. He arrived at the English court in 1816 two years before Queen Charlotte (by then Queen Mother) died. As Physician-in-Ordinary to her granddaughter, Princess Charlotte, and grand-son-law, Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, he was considered part of the royal family. His memoir, in fact, describes taking meals with the huge brood (Queen Charlotte and King George had 13 children who survived).

Therefore, we must conclude that when Stockmar described Queen Charlotte as "a true Mulatto" he most surely meant she had Negroid features.

Stockmar went on to become a respected diplomat and confidant of Charlotte's granddaughter, Queen Victoria. We have several letters from Queen Victoria discussing political matters with him. Stockmar was not only a physician, but one who while serving as a doctor during the Napoleonic wars, set up a military hospital in which wounded from both sides were treated. The man was no flake given to inexact descriptions; in fact, we could hardly expect there existed anyone better qualified than he to describe Charlotte's features.

His description was part of a dozen others describing members of the royal household. In each we see the same exacting language as in Charlotte's description:
The Regent: 'Very stout, though of a fine figure; distinguished manners; does not talk half as much as his brothers; speaks tolerably good French. He ate and drank a good deal at dinner. His brown scratch wig not particularly becoming.'

The Duke of York: the eldest of the Regent's brothers. 'Tall, with immense embonpoint, and not proportionately strong legs; he holds himself in such a way that one is always afraid he will tumble over backwards; very bald, and not a very intelligent face: one can see that eating, drinking, and sensual pleasure, are everything to him. Spoke a good deal of French, with a bad accent.'

The Queen Mother (Charlotte, wife of George III.): 'Small and crooked, with a true Mulatto face.'

Memoirs of Baron Stockmar VOL. I. E pp. 50


Another argument offered against Charlotte being a mulatto is that that no one else said she was, and that all the paintings of her show a decidedly Caucasian-looking woman. Not so! There are many references to her mulatto features in literature and many paintings and mezzotints that support Stockmar's description. In the series directly below the first portrait was painted by Royal Painter Allan Ramsey on Queen Charlotte's Coronation Day in 1761. The face and curly hair are clearly that of a young woman of African descent. The second portrait has kept the hair but substituted a Caucasian-looking face. The third dispenses with the hair altogether and gives a face wholly unlike the original. But please note, the brush-work is finer and more expertly done in the first portrait—and, more tellingly, it's the identical brush-work and technique seen in Royal Painter Ramsey's tens of other royal family portraits.

forgeries.jpg



Many of the other Queen Charlotte portraits come in two flavors as well: one in which she appears to be mulatto; the other in which she is Caucasian. In the first portrait below Charlotte's hair is unquestionably an Afro; in the next the Afro is covered and her features whitened.

afrocover.jpg



My book is an attempt to weave together all the bits and pieces of the woman into an engaging tale that explains how her marriage to George III might have happened. Since her supposed African ancestry has never been admitted by the British Royal family the book best falls under the heading of speculative fiction. But in the great tradition of the genre, the reader will find no liberties are taken with fact – where actual historical people and events are used, the facts are faithfully rendered.

Finally, the language used is modern. Shakespeare of course did the same thing in Anthony and Cleopatra. His players spoke the language of the day, not the spoken Latin vernacular (which no one alive knows much about). Likewise, I see no reason for my characters to say things like “Hoisted by my own petards, sir!” when it can simply be “I fouled up, sir!” I think the latter easier to read and more fun. In fact, I recently saw a gladiator movie where one gladiator says to the other, “I won't fight you!” The second gladiator replies, “Wait a minute – that's not the way it works.” I laughed my head off – a hip gladiator! -- because it struck me as exactly the sort of thing the second gladiator would say were his Latin vernacular known and used. My dialog attempts this same kind of hipness (and humor). I've translated a 250 year-old vernacular into something closer to our own. Some readers will like this; others won't.

As to literary reports of Queen Charlotte's mulatto features here are a few, after which our roller-coaster ride of 18th century fun and frivolity begins... Enjoy!

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A30EZVM

– Kimba Hudson


References in Literature:

“She was undoubtedly a plain young girl with a large mouth, with a rather swarthy complexion and, her nostrils spreading wide, with something of the appearance of a mulatto.”
George III A Personal History
by Christopher Hibbert 2000
George III A Personal History - Christopher Hibbert - Google Books
——————————
J.A. Rogers Writes:
From Crisis Magazine Feb 1940
“her portrait by Ramsay in the National Gallery shows her to be decidedly Negroid. I have a copy bought in London which I have been showing to both colored and white persons without saying who she was and they invariably take her for a colored woman…”
The Crisis - Google Books
———————————————-
The Princess Royal Geoffrey Wakeford
page 110 “her mulatto looks”
The Princesses Royal - Geoffrey Wakeford - Google Books
——————————
 
Last edited:
Additional Links

“The jewels lit up her (queen Charlotte) fine, broad features, echoes of her mulatto ancestry…”
The Love Stones, by Tobias Hill
novel 2003
The Love of Stones: A Novel - Tobias Hill - Google Books
———————————-
In an article in the Sunday Telegraph, 3/10/99, reporting Dr Steve Jones geneticist calculation that ‘one in five British people has a direct black ancestor’, it is stated that the explanation for Queen Charlotte’s ‘mulatto’ appearance is that …
Faithful handmaid: Fanny Burney at the court of King George III - Hester Davenport - Google Books
Steve Jones - Telegraph
——————————————–
The last of the cocked hats: James Monroe & the Virginia dynasty:
“the small, mulatto-faced Queen Charlotte, whose wide-slit mouth was reminiscent of the rigid demarcation line she set between virtue and vice…”
University of Oklahoma Press, 1945 Arthur Styron
The last of the cocked hats: James Monroe & the Virginia dynasty - Arthur Styron - Google Books
———————————–
William Haig Miller, James Macaulay, William Stevens – 1873 – Full view:
The Queen Mother (Charlotte, wife of George III.) “Small and crooked, with a true mulatto face.” (An old playgoer reports that when George m appeared in a theatre without the Queen, the gallery used to call out, ‘ ‘ George, where’s Pug^ …
The Leisure Hour - William Haig Miller, James Macaulay, William Stevens - Google Books
——————————–
Posthumous memoirs of Karoline Bauer: from the German, Volume 2
By Karoline Bauer 1884
Posthumous memoirs of Karoline Bauer: from the German - Karoline Bauer - Google Books
———————————————–
——————————
The Princess Royal Geoffrey Wakefordpage 110 “her mulatto looks”The Princesses Royal - Geoffrey Wakeford - Google Books
——————————
Parson Austen’s daughter Collins, 1967 Parson Austen's daughter - Helen Ashton - Google Books
——————

George the Third
Stanley Edward Ayling – 1972 – 510 pages – Snippet view
patience when news of the death of the Duchess of Mecklenburg- Strelitz,Charlotte’s mother, arrived only four days … Her colouring was dark, and some discovered a hint of the mulatto in her looks.
George the Third - Stanley Edward Ayling - Google Books
“She was undoubtedly a plain young girl with a large mouth, with a rather swarthy complexion and, her nostrils spreading wide, with something of the appearance of a mulatto.”
George III A Personal Historyby Christopher Hibbert 2000http://tinyurl.com/2fxrg9q
 
If Queen Charlotte was, in fact, a Mulatto, why did none of her children or subsequent generations show any signs of African heritage? Doesn't make too much sense to me.
 
I guess that is the good thing about writing about the dead, you can say anything you want no matter if true or not. You cannot libel the dead.
 
If Queen Charlotte was, in fact, a Mulatto, why did none of her children or subsequent generations show any signs of African heritage? Doesn't make too much sense to me.
because she was not a mullatto. Could that be It?
 
To me Queen Charlotte was clearly mixed race based on her pictures. I thought that the explanation that her features were due to a Moorish / African ancestor from hundreds of years prior to her birth was preposterous, but I recently read something that made sense, and that is that there was so much inter-marriage / inbreeding and that Queen Charlotte had numerous lines of descent going back to one or more persons of African descent.

So no Queen Charlotte is not the product of a union of a white and black parent, but I do believe that she has noticeable African features due to African ancestry, which can be due to a Moorish / African ancestor from the 13-14th century, or maybe a more recent ancestor, but I think the key explanation is that her African features came about due to limited gene pool. FWIW I don't think that any of Charlotte's children look as obviously mixed race as she, but some of them like Queen Victoria's father, have subtle features.

I do think that it is interesting that Queen Charlotte's African features were observed and commented on but it was not a showstopping scandal. I think that it reflects the premium placed on royal ancestry.
 
Then where are the other royals from the extremely limited gene pool with the same features as Charlotte?

Whatever "evidence" people have, there are not many serious historians who have uncovered any kind of veracity for this theory (and this at a time when Charlotte's heritage wouldn't matter and would likely be celebrated), and quite a few who have said it simply isn't true.

As it stands, it's a nice pop culture wish. Nothing more.
 
Then where are the other royals from the extremely limited gene pool with the same features as Charlotte?

Whatever "evidence" people have, there are not many serious historians who have uncovered any kind of veracity for this theory (and this at a time when Charlotte's heritage wouldn't matter and would likely be celebrated), and quite a few who have said it simply isn't true.

As it stands, it's a nice pop culture wish. Nothing more.


To me I don't doubt that Queen Charlotte is mixed race, rather I can see questioning how her mixed race appearance came about. As I stated before, I thought that it was preposterous that the explanation was due that she had an African / Moor from the from the 13-14th century but the reveal that her lineage traces back to African / Moor ancestor multiple times gave the explanation plausibility.

Queen Charlotte's appearance is well known because she married George III of the United Kingdom. There are images of Charlotte's family members but not as numerous as Charlotte's. There are portraits of Queen Charlotte where she appears to be Caucasian, but there are also multiple pictures and comments that indicate that she is mixed race. It's understandable why pictures of Charlotte and her relatives would be "whitewashed"*, but help me understand why there are pictures and comments depicting her as appearing to be mixed race / having features associated with people of African ancestry?

So to answer the question, I think that it is a combination of recessive genes coming into play and there not being a lot of images and commentary about Charlotte's kin to be able to confidently state that she was the only one to appear to have African ancestry. Although if she is the only one who has her features, then to me that does not make me doubt her ancestry, it means another explanation like she was the result of an extramarital encounter or a foundling.

* Caveat, the images may not necessarily be whitewashed or edited, people can have different appearances at certain phases of their life.

Almost all historians agree that this is very unlikely to be true.
What is unlikely to be true?
"
 
To me I don't doubt that Queen Charlotte is mixed race, rather I can see questioning how her mixed race appearance came about. As I stated before, I thought that it was preposterous that the explanation was due that she had an African / Moor from the from the 13-14th century but the reveal that her lineage traces back to African / Moor ancestor multiple times gave the explanation plausibility.

Queen Charlotte's appearance is well known because she married George III of the United Kingdom. There are images of Charlotte's family members but not as numerous as Charlotte's. There are portraits of Queen Charlotte where she appears to be Caucasian, but there are also multiple pictures and comments that indicate that she is mixed race. It's understandable why pictures of Charlotte and her relatives would be "whitewashed"*, but help me understand why there are pictures and comments depicting her as appearing to be mixed race / having features associated with people of African ancestry?

So to answer the question, I think that it is a combination of recessive genes coming into play and there not being a lot of images and commentary about Charlotte's kin to be able to confidently state that she was the only one to appear to have African ancestry. Although if she is the only one who has her features, then to me that does not make me doubt her ancestry, it means another explanation like she was the result of an extramarital encounter or a foundling.

* Caveat, the images may not necessarily be whitewashed or edited, people can have different appearances at certain phases of their life.

Things like eye color and various other factors are a matter of recessive genes, but they rely on much more direct ancestry (your parents and grandparents and perhaps another generation back) than we are talking about here. Even with multiple intermarriages, if the only ancestor in question is as far back as in Charlotte's case (and I haven't heard claims of more than one woman), inbreeding isn't going to suddenly bring it out.

Additionally, Charlotte wasn't any more (or less) inbred than any other royal around her, so when I say "where are the others" I don't mean just her family, but then it should have popped up elsewhere in the very limited Germanic royal gene pool. If Charlotte is the only example, it's hard to make much of a case.

She was not regarded as physically attractive despite other qualities like being intelligent and many of the "mulatto" comments might have been meant as "ugly", as mentioned, or simply an offhand slur. If she had been beautiful, she would have been described in very different language, and I wonder if any of the discussion of her background would have come around.

It's simpler to perhaps think she was unusual-looking (that happens. especially with royals. even now) than reach for more complicated explanations like she was a foundling who happened to be raised as a princess and married a king.

The BRF is pretty aware of their ancestry. If Charlotte had mixed heritage, Charles would have likely embraced it by now (if not his mother at some point before). I understand why people want this to be true, but I think the weight of evidence is against it.

The more fascinating (and factual) thing about Charlotte is she managed to deal with 15 pregnancies!!
 
Last edited:
If Queen Charlotte possessed African ancestry, any genetic evidence would likely be minimal in the current generation of British royals (William IV - Victoria - Edward VII - George V - George VI - Elizabeth II - Charles III) due to the passage of over 250 years. Consequently, the percentage of such ancestry, if present, would be insignificant. I've seen portraits of her where she clearly looks mixed, and I've seen portraits of her where she doesn't.
 
Stockmar apparently didn't like Queen Charlotte, so his comment may have been intended more as an insult than a description.
 


As for Rogers’ quote from Horace Walpole, a contemporary of Charlotte, we see a description of the new Queen with a hypercritical focus on how well conforms to the English beauty standards of the day. The complete quote is:

She is not tall nor a beauty; pale, and very thin; but looks sensible, and is genteel. Her hair is darkish and fine; her forehead low, her nose very well, except the nostrils spreading too wide; her mouth has the same fault, but her teeth are good. She talks a great deal, and French tolerably;…
from The Letters of Horace Walpole, Earl of Orford, Volume 3, p.434; appearing in Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. X (Chamber to Clarkson)).
 
To me I don't doubt that Queen Charlotte is mixed race, rather I can see questioning how her mixed race appearance came about. As I stated before, I thought that it was preposterous that the explanation was due that she had an African / Moor from the from the 13-14th century but the reveal that her lineage traces back to African / Moor ancestor multiple times gave the explanation plausibility.

Queen Charlotte's appearance is well known because she married George III of the United Kingdom. There are images of Charlotte's family members but not as numerous as Charlotte's. There are portraits of Queen Charlotte where she appears to be Caucasian, but there are also multiple pictures and comments that indicate that she is mixed race. It's understandable why pictures of Charlotte and her relatives would be "whitewashed"*, but help me understand why there are pictures and comments depicting her as appearing to be mixed race / having features associated with people of African ancestry?

So to answer the question, I think that it is a combination of recessive genes coming into play and there not being a lot of images and commentary about Charlotte's kin to be able to confidently state that she was the only one to appear to have African ancestry. Although if she is the only one who has her features, then to me that does not make me doubt her ancestry, it means another explanation like she was the result of an extramarital encounter or a foundling.

* Caveat, the images may not necessarily be whitewashed or edited, people can have different appearances at certain phases of th
I also think that she looks mixed race as well. However, I think that if she looked mixed race it was due to a more recent affair amongst one of her more recent ancestors. That is just a guess though.
 
I just want to add some of my thoughts to this thread. The user that has created this thread mentions the name Abram Gannibal in some of his post. Ricland assumes that this might be Charlottes biological father. This is not the first time that I have heard Abram Gannibal's name in regard to being Queen Charlotte's biological father. I would honestly like to know where these rumors started.

Baron Stokmar said that Queen Charlotte had a "True Mulato face." Granted, she was old in age when this comment was made. People said that this comment was made as an insult, and that may very well be true. However, I've found that whenever someone insults a person, they often genuinely believe that the person they are insulting looks like what they are calling them. For example, if someone said that if someone used Mulato as an insult against Alexander Pushkin that would be an insult and the insulter's genuine description of Pushkin. If someone used that same insult against a historical person like Marie Antoinette that insult would make no sense, because Marie Antoinette has no African lineage and does not look mixed in the slightest. Sorry for rambling I'll make another post.
 
The evidence that Queen Charlotte was mixed race is shaky at best. The evidence from her portraits is inconclusive (not all show her with "African" features) and while broad noses and thick lips are more prevalent among people of African descent, they aren't limited to them only, just as red hair isn't limited to people with Celtic DNA.

Yes, Baron Stockmar called used the word mulatto to describe her but its important to keep in mind that NO ONE ELSE DID. Charlotte and her husband had many detractors and were often the subject of ridicule, satire, and caricatures. NOT ONCE did any of these detractors claim she was mixed race or caricaturize her allegedly mixed race features. Believe me, if there had been one shred of evidence that she was mixed race, her enemies would have described her in words much stronger & offensive than mulatto. And those insults would also have been directed at her sons, who had their own enemies.

And look at the American South, a bastion of slavery and racial bigotry, where several places were named in Queen Charlotte's honor: Charlottesville, Virginia; Charlotte, North Carolina; Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; etc. She would never have been honored in this way if there had been any rumors she was a "mulatto."

It has been claimed that Queen Charlotte owed her African DNA to a thirteenth century ancestor Madragna, the mistress of Afonso III of Portugal, but it isn't certain that the Madragna herself was African. Besides, she lived five hundred years before Queen Charlotte and she was also the ancestor of countless other royals including Queen Charlotte's husband George III (through his grandmother Queen Caroline), Catherine the Great of Russia, and Empress Maria Theresa of Austria (whose children included Queen Marie Antoinette of France).

As for the Abram Gannibal claim, it's a modern invention. There is no contemporary evidence or even rumors that he was her father. If Charlotte's mother had slept with him, the affair would probaby have been uncovered (George's III sister Caroline Matilda and great-grandmother Sophie Dorothea come to mind). Furthermore, George III would never have considered Charlotte as a potential bride if there had been any hint of scandal regarding her mother's behavior.
 
I just want to add some of my thoughts to this thread. The user that has created this thread mentions the name Abram Gannibal in some of his post. Ricland assumes that this might be Charlottes biological father. This is not the first time that I have heard Abram Gannibal's name in regard to being Queen Charlotte's biological father. I would honestly like to know where these rumors started.

Baron Stokmar said that Queen Charlotte had a "True Mulato face." Granted, she was old in age when this comment was made. People said that this comment was made as an insult, and that may very well be true. However, I've found that whenever someone insults a person, they often genuinely believe that the person they are insulting looks like what they are calling them. For example, if someone said that if someone used Mulato as an insult against Alexander Pushkin that would be an insult and the insulter's genuine description of Pushkin. If someone used that same insult against a historical person like Marie Antoinette that insult would make no sense, because Marie Antoinette has no African lineage and does not look mixed in the slightest. Sorry for rambling I'll make another post.
Congratulations on your first posts. And you are not rambling.
I find this fascinating.

I understand that genetic features can turn up several generations later.
There was a case in Ireland about 40 years or so ago, where a woman gave birth to a dark-skinned child and as both parents as well as the siblings looked Irish, that caused a bit of a marital stir. Turned out that the child, apart from the skin, had no African features and blood-samples matched the parents (no DNA tests of course).
Anyway, it's rare but not unique that such a clear genetic trait is suddenly switched on up to several generations after having been introduced so to speak to the family of one of the parents.
So a broad nose or even a slightly darker skin hue would IMO not be impossible.
After all she cold simply have inherited her great-grandfather's nose and her great-grandmother's hue.
- Or she could simply tan easy and been fond of say riding, which meant that she would have been exposed to the sun. Or she could have been sailing and thus got a tan that way. Even if ladies at the time tried their best to remain pale, a week on the sea would quickly give you a tan.
 
In some of Charlottes paintings she looks mixed, and in some she simply does not. I see people say that she only looks mixed in Ramsey's paintings, but I personally disagree. She also looks quite a bit different than her siblings in my opinion, so that's why the Gannibal/affair claims attracted me. You do see people make crazy claims about historical figures being ethnic, but there is no evidence to back up that claim, and the person looks extremely white. This is probably the only time where I can say that the person in question does resemble a person of color, and there so happens to be this "Mulato" claim. It just lines up really well. I completely disagree with the Madragana claim. There is no way Charlotte would have inherited anything from her. In the end she is more than likely a white German woman, but I see why people can make the argument that she may have been mixed. I may post some website links that have the Abram Gannibal claims. A lot of them are from the 2000's and early 2010's, which is way before Bridgerton. Please feel free to keep this conversation going. I do love this topic.
 
Yes, Baron Stockmar called used the word mulatto to describe her but its important to keep in mind that NO ONE ELSE DID. Charlotte and her husband had many detractors and were often the subject of ridicule, satire, and caricatures. NOT ONCE did any of these detractors claim she was mixed race or caricaturize her allegedly mixed race features. Believe me, if there had been one shred of evidence that she was mixed race, her enemies would have described her in words much stronger & offensive than mulatto. And those insults would also have been directed at her sons, who had their own enemies.
I do completly agree with your statement about Madragana. There is no way that she could have contributed to Charlottes looks whatsoever. I completely understand you when you say that no one else made any comments about her being mixed race, and that is quite true.

However, it is not uncommon for mixed race people to not be recognized as mixed race. I am African American and so is my family. I have an aunt that, in my opinion is clearly of a mixed racial background. Most people that are white assumes she is white, while most people of African American decent can tell that she is of mixed race. The same thing goes for individuals such as Meghan Markle. Most people that were white could not tell that she was biracial until she told them so. Keep in mind that these examples take place in modern times where we are exposed to mixed race people all of the time.

What I'm getting at is that people of European background are mostly surrounded by other people of European background. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, I just want you to take that into consideration. Most white people especially back then were not exposed to people of African and mixed race decent a lot. If a mixed-race person had extremely light skin, they probably would not have been able to tell that they were mixed race, even if that person's features were very Afrocentric due to the lack of exposure to people of mixed race decent who were extremely pale.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post. I do love your comment and your insight. Please do reply with your thoughts.
 
Africans and other dark-skinned people were not an unknown phenomenon in UK in the mid-1700s. In fact many at court would have owned plantations or had shares in plantations in the West Indies or had trade connections or had property in America, where there were black slaves in most if not all the thirteen colonies. And in a city like London where people of all sorts of ethnicities ended up, black Africans were if not a common sight then certainly not an uncommon sight. - That would also have been the case in other major port cities in Europe at the time.
Apart from that in the early 1700s it was fashion among the nobility to have a black (as black as possible in fact) boy standing around looking decorative. (They also hired people to be hermits in the parks, so it wasn't a racist thing.) So I think most at court would have seen black people.
So I dare claim that people at court at the time would have recognized African features if they saw them.
However, just because you don't look particularly black, that doesn't mean you can't be mixed, Meghan Markle springs to mind. (In fact she could be any number of ethnicities only judging by her looks.)
And because people may have a dark hue, doesn't necessarily mean they are sub-Sahara African.
Andalusia, Cyprus, Lebanon, Egypt, India, Morocco and Native Americans just to mention some. Some of these people can have both broad noses and a darker skin hue.
The author may actually lack a bit of imagination in not considering wider options.
 
Apart from that in the early 1700s it was fashion among the nobility to have a black (as black as possible in fact) boy standing around looking decorative. (They also hired people to be hermits in the parks, so it wasn't a racist thing.) So I think most at court would have seen black people.
So I dare claim that people at court at the time would have recognized African features if they saw them.
Hey thanks for the reply. There was actually a painting done of Queen Charlotte with a black boy in the painting with her. This work was completed by Johann Georg Ziesenis.

I do understand that black people were in the UK at the time. However, I think that seeing black people regularly and being in a predominantly black space most of your life can really make a difference. I have been raised around mixed-race people that were clearly mixed race to me and other black people, be mistaken as white by non-black people. Mixed race people are extremely common in western nations today. Even more so common than 250 years ago. These non-black people see black people every day, but they haven't operated in a predominantly black space for most of their lives.

I do see where you are coming from when you say that there were indeed black people in the UK and at the courts. I do believe that some people in the courts may have been able to pick out African features. However, with my experiences if the person was extremely light I don't believe that most non-black people would be able to tell. If it did cross their minds, I feel that it could easily be put to rest, because of Charlottes status and the shear unlikeliness.

Another reason I don't really believe they would have been able to tell is, because of the infamous Allen Ramsey painting. Ramsey was an abolitionist, and people claim that Charlottes painting resembles a mixed-race woman because he was spreading propaganda through his works. I believe that this painting clearly depicts Charlotte of mixed race, weather this was propaganda or an accurate depiction. We may differ on that opinion. If people in the court could easily point out a mixed-race woman, I believe this painting would have been immediately trashed, seeing that in my opinion the painting obviously shows Charlotte as mixed race. Yet it wasn't. I don't think that they would want their Queen consort to be depicted in such a blasphemous way, as it was at the time.

Again, thank you for the reply. Please feel free to reply again. I loved being challenged on my thoughts.
 
Well, two things:
The problem with paintings of the time, especially commissioned paintings is that they, were naturally, can depict what the costumer wish or the painter imagine the costumer want. And as you point out, a painting is a reflection of what the artist see and artists do tend to view the same thing very differently, which a visit to any art-class will quickly demonstrate.
An example is the famous painting of Henry VIII, who was portrayed with muscular calves (which he seems to have been very preoccupied with) even though he at the time was obese. So a painting is not necessarily an accurate physical image.
In fact I find written descriptions of a person to be just as accurate as any painting of the time.

Another thing is that you seem to ignore an alternative: That Charlotte had ethnic facial features, but they were not sub-Sahara features. And even if they were there is a considerable physical difference. Someone from Ghana will usually look very different than someone from say Sudan and their facial features are also very different. Skin-color vary a lot. Someone from Uganda can be downright black, while only 500 km to the east someone from Kenya can be light brown.
Even Berbers and Tuaregs can vary widely in their skin-tones.

I will take your argument and turn it around:
I will claim that few if any at the court would have been able to distinguish physically between a typical Kurd and a light-skinned Tuareg for example. So I propose that someone may have noticed Charlotte's different ethnic features (if she indeed had any) and thought: Hmm, she looks sort of darkish southern something, ergo she must be a mulatto.

So instead of staring at paintings of Charlotte, I would be more interested in her ancestry for three generations before and ask: Is it possible that her parents, grandparents and great-parents was of mixed ethnicity or came from a background other than archetypical European? Considering how obsessed nobility were with ancestry it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out.
 
That's what kind of stumps me as far as the paintings. Allan Ramseys paintings of Queen Charlotte are not the English beauty standards by any means. Allan Ramsey didn't really play up on Charlottes looks in the painting according to the English beauty standard at the time. It is entirely possible that Charlotte did not care to appease the English through the portraits.

The reason why I suspected sub-Saharan African decent is because of certain paintings like the ones from Allan Ramsey, Johann Zoffany, and Francis Cotes. I also mentioned the Mulato comment made about her in her later years by Baron Stockmar. If someone showed me a portrait of Queen Charlotte without me knowing her, I'm fairly certain I would assume she was of sub-Saharan African and European decent. Then you add on that someone insulted her by describing her as Mulato. She doesn't look of Asian, north African, or indigenous decent to me. My suspicion of sub-Saharan African decent is more opinion based.

People at the court may have thought that she looked awfully different. They did indeed talk about her looks in the press. Again, due to the unlikeliness of an affair taking place I think that the notion could have been put to rest easily. Queen Charlottes legal ancestry is as white as it can be. Madrgana is the first mention of anyone who could possibly be a person of color. Madragan is described as a moor, so she was more than likely a Muslim or of north African descent.

Again, I'll bring up Allan Ramsey. His painting certainly did not flatter Queen Charlotte according to the beauty standards. In my opinion she looked very ethnic in the photos. I think that if royalty could point out African features so well, they would have made the painting a scandal. I think that they would have talked about the painting weather Charlotte had Sub-Saharan featues or not. I think that the reason royals did not make a fuss about the paintings was because they could simply connect the sub-Saharan features in the painting to sub-Saharan heritage.

I am sort of baffled though. You would think that we would have at least one account in the whole of the UK talking about how Charlotte looked at least the bit ethnic in the Ramsey paintings. Not only would it be seen as gossip, but it could have been used to smear Ramsey for being an abolitionist.

Sorry for the long reply time. Feel free to keep the conversation going.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, that sounds a lot like "in the minds of the beholder" to me.
Anyway, I wonder if it was that big a deal at the time, that Charlotte had (if she did) ethnic features.
In one of my books I have a photo of a painting of an English nobleman (also officer) who in the mid 1700s ended up being a chief in a tribe in what is now eastern USA, something he was very proud of, so there is a painting of him in full regalia of that particular tribe.
That is, while there certainly was racism at the time it was different that it would be later. Hence the notion of natives in sub-Sahara or the Americas being savages, but they could also be respected and often admired noble savages. Sailors for example were rarely (skin-color) racist and there were ethnicities of all kinds in say the Royal Navy, including of course black Africans.
So in that light and because nobles often married or at least associated foreigners who could have all sorts of ethnic features, Charlotte having ethnic features was perhaps not considered that big a deal as it would have later on, during the Victorian period, where Britain truly became a major colonial power and here racism became a part in justifying colonialism.

Another thing is, which we so often forget today where we have plastic surgery and dental correction, is how many ugly people there were back in the 1700s. It was a very common sight. While people with perfect facial features were literally extraordinary. So in that light people looking at Charlotte, being used to looking at facial features that were often far from perfect, may not have given facial features that looked ethnic that much thought. A case of so long as she hasn't got hopelessly crooked teeth and warts she ain't that bad looking.

Racism based on skin-color and ethnic features became much more common and in fact become doctrinized if you will, later on, with the intellectual racial theories and the idea of sub-humans versus superior humans being established. The film Die Ewige Jude being the ultimate example of that.
I think things may have been a little less black and white if you permit the pun, in the later 1700s than they would be a hundred years later.

There is often, I find, a tendency to view and judge the past with modern eyes and with modern prejudices.
 
Indeed there is. In India in the days of the East India Company many young officials married local women or took concubines and had children with them. These officials were often painted with their spouses and themselves wearing local Indian dress.

As for Charlotte, reading this debate makes me very much regret that there was no photography, no daguerrotypes during her lifetime. That would have settled it. I just have the feeling that she was a very plain German woman, with a wide nose and an extremely wide mouth, which would have given an odd impression. There is a portrait on Wikki of Charlotte’s oldest surviving brother and he had a VERY wide mouth that stretched over much of his face. If Charlotte resembled him then that would certainly account for her mouth.
 
Hmm, that sounds a lot like "in the minds of the beholder" to me.
Anyway, I wonder if it was that big a deal at the time, that Charlotte had (if she did) ethnic features.
In one of my books I have a photo of a painting of an English nobleman (also officer) who in the mid 1700s ended up being a chief in a tribe in what is now eastern USA, something he was very proud of, so there is a painting of him in full regalia of that particular tribe.
That is, while there certainly was racism at the time it was different that it would be later. Hence the notion of natives in sub-Sahara or the Americas being savages, but they could also be respected and often admired noble savages. Sailors for example were rarely (skin-color) racist and there were ethnicities of all kinds in say the Royal Navy, including of course black Africans.
So in that light and because nobles often married or at least associated foreigners who could have all sorts of ethnic features, Charlotte having ethnic features was perhaps not considered that big a deal as it would have later on, during the Victorian period, where Britain truly became a major colonial power and here racism became a part in justifying colonialism.

Another thing is, which we so often forget today where we have plastic surgery and dental correction, is how many ugly people there were back in the 1700s. It was a very common sight. While people with perfect facial features were literally extraordinary. So in that light people looking at Charlotte, being used to looking at facial features that were often far from perfect, may not have given facial features that looked ethnic that much thought. A case of so long as she hasn't got hopelessly crooked teeth and warts she ain't that bad looking.

Racism based on skin-color and ethnic features became much more common and in fact become doctrinized if you will, later on, with the intellectual racial theories and the idea of sub-humans versus superior humans being established. The film Die Ewige Jude being the ultimate example of that.
I think things may have been a little less black and white if you permit the pun, in the later 1700s than they would be a hundred years later.

There is often, I find, a tendency to view and judge the past with modern eyes and with modern prejudices.
While modern day prejudices and prejudices back then may have not been the same, I personally think that it would be a different conversation when dealing with royalty. Royals took ancestry and legitimacy very seriously. So, while Charlotte's ethnic features may have not been so much a problem on their own, you would think that being paired with legitimacy they would have been at least a little more spoken about. I also don't think we can say that prejudices were extremely hard to come by in 18th century Great Britain. The UK did have slave owners and slaves living across the empire. It wouldn't be surprising if this instilled a sense of superiority among some British people when it came to black people. I feel as if we do have to keep in mind that slavery was not outlawed in the UK until 1833. Charlotte died in 1818.

Charlottes looks were not without slander.

"She is not tall nor a beauty; pale, and very thin; but looks sensible, and is genteel. Her hair is darkish and fine; her forehead low, her nose very well, except the nostrils spreading too wide; her mouth has the same fault, but her teeth are good. She talks a great deal, and French tolerably."
This is a quote by Horace Wolpole

"Plain in youth, she grew almost grotesquely ugly in late old age. George III had chosen her as his wife without seeing her and is said to have been rather disconcerted by her appearance when he met her first, at her arrival from Germany on the eve of their wedding. Still, as she became older, her plainness became less noticeable to some of those around her. ‘The bloom of her ugliness is going off."

This is supposed to be a quote from Charlottes chamberlain. This is from Michael Levey's book.

There were also a lot of satire cartoons about Charlotte and George mocking there looks.
 
Indeed there is. In India in the days of the East India Company many young officials married local women or took concubines and had children with them. These officials were often painted with their spouses and themselves wearing local Indian dress.

As for Charlotte, reading this debate makes me very much regret that there was no photography, no daguerrotypes during her lifetime. That would have settled it. I just have the feeling that she was a very plain German woman, with a wide nose and an extremely wide mouth, which would have given an odd impression. There is a portrait on Wikki of Charlotte’s oldest surviving brother and he had a VERY wide mouth that stretched over much of his face. If Charlotte resembled him then that would certainly account for her mouth.
I really wish that there was photography at the time as well. Weather Charlotte has ethnic features or not, I would want to see what she really looked like. Everything else aside nearly every picture of Charlotte looks completely different. Some of the portraits of Charlotte don't even look like they could be related to one another.
 
The written descriptions are fascinating. There just as revealing about those who wrote them as about Charlotte.
But if her possible ethnicity wasn't mentioned in descriptions, nor gossiped about to any significant extent, then the logic conclusion is that it wasn't an issue among the majority at court.
The two descriptions doesn't mention what at the time and still today would be typical sub-Sahara features like a darker skin complexion, thick lips, very curly hair, dark eyes, broad nose etc.
Again logic leads me to conclude: Because she probably didn't possess those features.

So I begin to suspect this whole issue is more a modern fixation, I dare say, that black Africans had a larger and much more frequent role and appearance in European, (but also Egyptian,) history than has been realized so far.
I find that such historical appropriation is based very much on the agenda of those who present, backed up by very selected evidence while dismissing evidence to the contrary.
I find that peculiar, considering that Africa had very advanced and rich cultures like the kingdoms of west Africa in say Mali, Ghana and Chad that would absolutely be worth studying and putting focus on in their own right. So why people who wish to put focus on black African historical legacies doesn't put a lot more emphasis on these undeniably totally black African civilizations is beyond me.
There is simply so much sub-Sahara history just waiting to be dug up and be presented as a genuine black, free from other ethnicities, legacy.
 
I just want to add some of my thoughts to this thread. The user that has created this thread mentions the name Abram Gannibal in some of his post. Ricland assumes that this might be Charlottes biological father. This is not the first time that I have heard Abram Gannibal's name in regard to being Queen Charlotte's biological father. I would honestly like to know where these rumors started.

Baron Stokmar said that Queen Charlotte had a "True Mulato face." Granted, she was old in age when this comment was made. People said that this comment was made as an insult, and that may very well be true. However, I've found that whenever someone insults a person, they often genuinely believe that the person they are insulting looks like what they are calling them. For example, if someone said that if someone used Mulato as an insult against Alexander Pushkin that would be an insult and the insulter's genuine description of Pushkin. If someone used that same insult against a historical person like Marie Antoinette that insult would make no sense, because Marie Antoinette has no African lineage and does not look mixed in the slightest. Sorry for rambling I'll make another post.
Gannibal and Alexander Pushkin are the Great- and great-great-grandparents of the current Duke of Westminster Hugh Grosvenor, through his mother Natalia Ayesha Phillips Grosvenor.

I read upthread some poster wondering why, if Charlotte was mulatto, the mulatto-part doesn't appear in her current ancestors. After many generations of marrying into the white families, the mixed-race face disappears completely.
 
Back
Top Bottom