I have collected many leads and portraits from the internet and from books that show that Blue Blood meant Black Blood (1500-1789). And that the European nobility and royalty was part of a European, fixed mulatto race. Blue Blood was symbolised by a Moor, next to the royal person. People who disagree might start with showing their proof that these people were really White's.
posted
Egmond - Theoretically, everyone has some trace amounts of Black blood. But that does NOT make them Black. To me the cut-off is one half (one Black and one White parent), in which case, you can call yourself Black or White, depending on your appearance. But after that, you are either Black or you are White.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Egmond - Theoretically, everyone has some trace amounts of Black blood. But that does NOT make them Black. To me the cut-off is one half (one Black and one White parent), in which case, you can call yourself Black or White, depending on your appearance. But after that, you are either Black or you are White.
[Queen Charlotte Sophie; 'a true mulatto face' and 'yellow']
Dear Mike111,
But then you should keep in mind what I'm out to proof, that racism today is a reaction to a despotic Black and Coloured elite which dominated White Europeans.
I follow J.A.Rogers (1941), Sex and Race, who set out to disprove the ONE DROP RULE that every one with at least one Black ancestors is Black and inferior. Some 300 courtcases were held in the USA because these 'Blacks' violated this rule and passed as White's, marrying Whites or something this horrible and defiling the noble White race.
Rogers unearthed many coloured kings and queens, and showed them not to be animalistic, but rational cultured beings.
Then I have proven that people who are described as Black, black brown, chimneysweep, bad complexion are shown as Whites. But you also find some black prints, because they are harder to suppress or falsify. Some of these white skinned looking people were described as brown or yellow or black or swarthy. I show you what has remained, what is not yet censored or destroyed.
The question is how someone remotely looking and described as black or mulatto or ethnic could be part of European royalty. I have changed the definition to 'a fixed, mulatto race' some looking more African or Asian or White.
Egmond Codfried
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Egmond - Theoretically, everyone has some trace amounts of Black blood. But that does NOT make them Black. To me the cut-off is one half (one Black and one White parent), in which case, you can call yourself Black or White, depending on your appearance. But after that, you are either Black or you are White.
Black or White does not mean a thing except in a political sense. I do not think that Blacks are good and Whites are bad. As you might have read I identify a despotic and cruel Black and Coloured European elite. The Surinam slavemaster were members of this coloured elite, getting filthy rich over the back of their African brothers. But I do not think that Blacks today should still be exploited and slaughtered because of this episode. Just as I would like to see White South Africans living in peace among the Black South Africans they so mercilessly oppressed, killed, maimed, kept ignorant etc.
Egmond Codfried
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
These official studies must prove the existence of a coloured European race (1500-1789)who dominated the White's in just the same way as we see White's always dominating society, today. They do these discoveries one at the time, I do it wholesale!
================================================
Leonardo Da Vinci may have been an Arab
By Malcolm Moore in Rome Last Updated: 2:02AM GMT 10 Dec 2007
A self-portrait of Leonardo Da Vinci, who is believed to be from the Middle East Leonardo Da Vinci may have been an Arab, according to scientists who have studied a single, complete fingerprint found on one of his paintings.
Did Da Vinci hide God's face in painting? The print, taken from the artist's left index finger, was discovered after an exhaustive three-year trawl through his works by researchers at the University of Chieti.
Professor Luigi Capasso, an anthropologist who led the team, said the central whorl of the fingerprint was a common pattern in the Middle East.
"Around 60 per cent of the Middle Eastern population have the same structure," he said.
The revelation will give weight to the increasingly popular academic theory that Da Vinci's mother, Caterina, was a slave who came to Tuscany from Istanbul.
Alessandro Vezzosi, an expert on the Renaissance genius and the director of the museum in his hometown of Vinci, said: "We have documents that suggest she was Oriental, at least from the Mediterranean area.
"She was not a peasant of Vinci. Furthermore, her name was Caterina, which was very common among slaves in Tuscany at the time."
Almost nothing is left of Da Vinci, or his family.
After his death in 1519, his remains were dispersed in a series of religious wars.
The discovery of the fingerprint came after three years of scrutinising 52 manuscripts and paintings attributed to the artist.
Using the latest spectral scanning technology, the team found more than 200 prints, but only one perfect specimen, on a painting called "Portrait of a Lady with an Ermine".
Da Vinci used his finger to smudge the necklace's shadow in the painting, which is from the Czartoryski museum in the Polish city of Krakow.
Not all the traces in the various documents were left by Da Vinci.
Many of them belonged to his apprentices, or to people who handled the manuscripts, said Prof Capasso.
The left-handed Da Vinci often ate while he worked, so some of the grubby marks are food-based, and research is currently being carried out into what sort of diet the artist had.
The fingerprint is also being used to identify two paintings, which may rocket in value to up to £70 million each if they are found to be genuine.
"We are pleased that the fingerprint can be used to authenticate unknown works, or those we are unsure were carried out by the great genius," said Prof Capasso.
A team of forensic policemen from Rome has examined La Madone de Laroque and Saint Catherine of Alexandria for fingerprints that may match the new Da Vinci print.
The paintings are on show at the History of Biomedicine Museum at Chieti University.
The picture of the madonna was bought in a French street market for £142 and has been thought until now, together with the St Catherine, to be the work of Giampietrino, one of Da Vinci's pupils.
However, studies on the paintings show that the tip of the artist's fingers were used to smudge a soft-focus effect, one of Da Vinci's trademark techniques.
Colonel Gianfranco de Fulvio, an Italian police forensic expert, said his team had taken several photographs of the surface of the two paintings and were busy checking to find a match.
"I'm used to working on fingerprints left by the Mafia, but the skill is similar. We are pretty confident about settling the matter," he said.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egmond - I really understood you point from the start; but there is another way of looking at it. That is to say; see these people were part Black, but they were STILL okay. They were part Black, but yet they were intelligent, compassionate leaders etc. etc. Or, they were part Black and despotic and cruel rulers. In either case, their Blackness is made to be the determinate. When in fact they were NOT Black people. Whatever they were, or were not, it is not attributable to Black people. What you are doing is simply using the "one drop" rule in reverse.
Needless to say; I am offended by the whole concept of Blacks having to mix with something else to be "okay". That was not necessary at the dawn of civilization, and it is still not necessary today (though some make me doubt it). Hopefully; Gone is the time when Black communities greedily gobbled-up all those who were not "pure White" in an effort to build-up their numbers and self esteem. A person 3/4 White, is White, let them alone to be White.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egmond Codfried - Quote: Just as I would like to see White South Africans living in peace among the Black South Africans they so mercilessly oppressed, killed, maimed, kept ignorant etc.
Black south Africans are in general; stupid enough, so it could happen. But in all other places, religious dogma or civil law requires some sort of accounting. In some places it's called the concept of "Justice".
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
If the portrayal of Christ and His disciples at the Last Supper, and scenes of Christ and the saints as African fits the threader-header, then here are 15th century scenes of Black European Royalty from Bratislava - the present capital of Slovenia. I got this magazine while there last month.
They rather resemble slender San, Khoi, of South Africa. Then again, San reputedly covered all of Europe from the Paleolithic down through pre-Western European era roughly some centuries past the life of Christ. It's my opinion that the Celts (also known by Halstaat, La Tene, and Phoenicians) were San.
But, as for royalty, in this post the page above is my further contribution to the discussion.
Marc W.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
[Francois de la Nouë, Huguenoths leader, nobleman, historian, military leader]
Well I guess Marc Washington understands where I'm coming from with my research. Is this your real name? I was born as Egmond Codfried, I publish as Egmond Codfried and have no use for tacky nick's. It frightens me as if someone is wearing a mask and is up to no good.
There are Black's in the European diaspora, and they need to be researched from a afrocentric viewpoint. According to Kaplan The Rise of the Magi it all really started with Charles IV of Luxembourg, having African courtiers and using Moors in royal, propogandistic images. I would say that he himself was an African European. According to Kaplan the image of the Black Magi of King was perfected by 1500, where his study ends.
My research starts with 1500 and ends with the French Revolution. In 1500, with the Renaissance, I see a coloured European nation, taking over. They had classical knowledge and claimed Blue Blood, and Blue Men used to be the name of the Black's in medieval Europe (500-1500). They always showed the Moor as a Classical African. So they were Black and coloured, freely marrying among each other to become 'a fixed mulatto race.' They were like a 'pocket' of African and Asian DNA among the White's.
From the iconography I would say that some looked more African, others more Asian or White. They were sometimes depicted as white of skin. But it's very possible that there was a major destruction of black images and portraits around the French Revolution (1789), so we might not get to see all there was. I also found proof that there are still portraits which are kept out of the public sphere.
Black or White is a phenotype, it does not say anything about merit. As a researcher I'm out to dig up the facts and reconstruct the past, not to pass moral justment.
But from my research I conclude that racism against Blacks came when the White's in Europe wanted to free themselves from this Blue Blooded oppression. This makes sense to me. They had to show the white's that Black was not superiour, but evil.so fake science was employed to come up with all these grotesque visions of Blackness. Which still haunts us today.
This coloured elite portraited themselves with a Moor, a classical African and had a Black identity, a Black consiousness. Just like a Black leader who might be a tyrant but has a Black identity, wich will not prevent him from enslaving, deceiving, robbing and killing other Black's. Slavery was started with this European Black and coloured elite. But slavery could not last this long without the help of other Black and coloured Africans. So even today I watch Black's who attack other Black's just as Massa told them to do!
In Holland every taxpayer pays for the upkeep of museums. So I would like to see Black's visiting these 'Halls of White Supremacy' and getting in on the action. Now they are only janitors and cleaners, not staff or curators. So I like Blacks to be asking questions about how history is presented. Why does a publice museum refuses to show Maurits Huygens? So what if he has African traits. Are Africans less human?
Egmond Codfried
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ArabianArab: Sad really lol
I do not now if you are a Arab, but as I speak to everyone, I noticed that Arab's can get very hostile when I show them images of The Moor looking all classical African. They see my reaction and assure me that Black's are not inferior, but as light skinned Arabs consider themselves the true Moor's, they hate this being symbolized by a pitch black, Classical African, who some of them consider a natural slave. But we cannot change the European imagery of the Moor as a Black man and should take it from there.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lord Sauron: Codfried asks:
--------------------------- Are Africans less human ? ---------------------------
No, I think Africans have the most hue, so I guess that makes us morehueman .
I mean, all the anthropological evidence speaks for itself.
It was a rethorical question because I think we are all equal. I do not go for this more melanin, more clever bullshit! So from some accident of history Black's and coloureds came to dominate White's in Europe, just as White's dominated Black's in South Africa. If we deconstruct racism by exposing its roots, we can really change things.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Elizabeth Keppel, Marquiss of Tavistock, ancestor of Camilla Parker Bowles, Prince Charles' second wife.
She belongs to a noble Dutch family Van der Duyn van Maasdam famous for being 'swarthy' or 'noir et basane' meaning black brown. Strange as it might sound, she more likely looked like the female Moor, next to her, and was not white skin. Showing her Blue blood as part of the Old Nobility. Her grandfather slept with king William I and got very rich.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
If the portrayal of Christ and His disciples at the Last Supper, and scenes of Christ and the saints as African fits the threader-header, then here are 15th century scenes of Black European Royalty from Bratislava - the present capital of Slovenia. I got this magazine while there last month.
They rather resemble slender San, Khoi, of South Africa. Then again, San reputedly covered all of Europe from the Paleolithic down through pre-Western European era roughly some centuries past the life of Christ. It's my opinion that the Celts (also known by Halstaat, La Tene, and Phoenicians) were San.
But, as for royalty, in this post the page above is my further contribution to the discussion.
If the portrayal of Christ and His disciples at the Last Supper, and scenes of Christ and the saints as African fits the threader-header, then here are 15th century scenes of Black European Royalty from Bratislava - the present capital of Slovenia. I got this magazine while there last month.
Kaplan mentions images which show people with Black faces but with white hands. He wonders if this was a later addition. I guess that white skin still signaled 'Christian' and black skin, heathen. So they found some hybrid symbolism by giving the Black Christian a black face but white hands.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are numbers of North-Europeans with black hair and a more or less tanned skin, so why wouldn't aristocracy also contain people like that? I always have thought this darker looks came in them by earlier mixed relationships with a Roman, French, Spanish or even Asiatic or Africans. Fact is that people have been mixed for ages, so the classical white blond-haired, blue-eyed European becomes more rare by the year. Thousands of years ago there were black Africans in European communities, so that leaves traces... Covering up their darkness because white was supposed to be higher valued as black, is also possible, in fact darker people still want to be light coloured, and whites are going to take sunbaths to darken their skincolour!
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
P. Kaplan mentions in The rise of the magus (1985)the famous miniature book Les heures très riches, with many images of Blacks, of which some are puzzling and in need of an explenation. I could not find them in google yet. But this one seems to show a army of Blacks behind the cross.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ?????: There are numbers of North-Europeans with black hair and a more or less tanned skin, so why wouldn't aristocracy also contain people like that? I always have thought this darker looks came in them by earlier mixed relationships with a Roman, French, Spanish or even Asiatic or Africans. Fact is that people have been mixed for ages, so the classical white blond-haired, blue-eyed European becomes more rare by the year. Thousands of years ago there were black Africans in European communities, so that leaves traces... Covering up their darkness because white was supposed to be higher valued as black, is also possible, in fact darker people still want to be light coloured, and whites are going to take sunbaths to darken their skincolour!
Dear, I hope you will find time to read all of my stuff, but I'm striving to get to the bottom of this thing. So I am not adressing blackness in the whole population, but a 'pocket' of extreme Black and coloured DNA concentrated in the Nobility and the Royals of Europe. The basis of Nobilty is intermarriage to preserve Blue blood. This would explain them remaining Black and Coloured over many ages. Even Charles II Stuart showing up pitch black and named The Black Boy.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
[A coloured looking, Arab like Magi in Heures tres riche]
I'm quite put out! No images of Blacks from Les tres riches Heures de duc de Berry by the Limbourg brothers, on the web. Now who do I have to **** to get these images? Jeez!
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You seem to be a 'veelschrijver', so I'm afraid that's too much asked! It should be very well possible that there is a large dose of black and coloured DNA into European royalty, and it is very well likely that they always have tried to hide that, because, for ages and ages, white was supposed to be higher as black. As we all know what's connected to black in history: hell, devil, evil, etc. contrary white as clean, virgin, innocence etc., all these things are part of a culture that developed by the wish of the ones who held the lines: not only royalty, but don't forget the church! I think we all are a product of what has been told to us, and what has been told to our forefathers. A lot of what we think, how we act, behaviour etc. is a result of the culture we live in. What do you want to prove with this theory? That 'they' told us fairy tales for ages??? I'm convinced they did, and also I'm convinced every big leader or group of leaders still is misleading people and they will remain to do so...
Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ?????: You seem to be a 'veelschrijver', so I'm afraid that's too much asked! It should be very well possible that there is a large dose of black and coloured DNA into European royalty, and it is very well likely that they always have tried to hide that, because, for ages and ages, white was supposed to be higher as black. As we all know what's connected to black in history: hell, devil, evil, etc. contrary white as clean, virgin, innocence etc., all these things are part of a culture that developed by the wish of the ones who held the lines: not only royalty, but don't forget the church! I think we all are a product of what has been told to us, and what has been told to our forefathers. A lot of what we think, how we act, behaviour etc. is a result of the culture we live in. What do you want to prove with this theory? That 'they' told us fairy tales for ages??? I'm convinced they did, and also I'm convinced every big leader or group of leaders still is misleading people and they will remain to do so...
[Maria jacoba van Goor (1687-1737)]
Dear, of moet ik zeggen Schat, ik ben een schrijver en een onderzoeker 24/7. I'm a writer and researcher by the grace of god, 24/7, and I'm trying to find FACTS about the story of Black's and White's in Europe and why we have racism and such. Myth's can be usefull but we should strive to find scientific facts. My research started with the portrait of baroness Belle van Zuylen's (1740-1805)extremely rich Black grandma, Maria Jacoba van Goor (1687-1737). Then I read this description of her family friend baron Aarnoud Joost van der Duyn van Maasdam, from the oldest and noblest of Dutch Noble families, as 'noir et basane' (brown black), 'swarthy,' and 'chimney sweep.' So I really wanted to know how a black baron could be a baron in White Europe. Now I believe the whole old nobility started as 'Blacks and coloureds' because Black people in Europe (500-1500) were called Blue men, and the nobility claimed Blue Blood. And they showed themselves with a Moor, a pitch black Classical African or Moor, to show us they were Blue blooded, thus 'Black and coloured.'
The Drake Jewel (1575) has a miniature of Elizabeth I Tudor on the inside.
The casing shows the profile of a Black King dominating the profile of a White woman. He symbolises Africa and she Europe. This is a symbolic presentation of Black superiority in Europe. Blacks and coloureds were oppressing White Europe and giving them some sort of civilisation at the same time. This Reversed Apartheid ended with the French Revolution. We are shown fake portraits to hide this horrific episode.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ DUDE ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THOSE ALBINO CUNTS I WORK WITH ???
I KNOW XYYMAN HAS BEEN BUSY "NASHING" HIS GUMS TO YOU GUYS.
IF YOU "GROWN MEN" ARE GOING TO TAKE THE SIDE OF THE RACIST TROLL WHO IS IN THE WRONG. THEN YOU CAN TAKE YOUR CONTRACT AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR PALOURED ASS. YOU DON'T HAVE THE BALLS TO CONFRONT ME ABOUT IT ANYWAY LOL .
DO YOU GUYS REALLY THINK I GIVE A SH1T IF YOU COME HERE TO SEE WHAT I'M POSTING??? IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE GENIUS JUST SAY SO. STOP DOING IT BEHIND MY BACK YOU BUNCHA PINK PUSSIES!!! Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't there archives from the VOC and the WIC? Holland never has been a white country, when you're looking at the people from the south, you can notice that, as written in the link you gave me. Interesting, because that is the province that always has been discriminated against the provinces above the rivers. And unless the fact that they have been very powerfull in economy (they still are) they always have been considered as less, lower. And maybe at the same time the black roots declares the successes in sports!
I also believe that black blood has been brought in for ages,started with the Romans. About the black royalty; you should have to know what has been needed to become a baron, or some other royalty. The titles came in at a certain moment, they must have been started somewhere, somehow, with somebody...
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egmond - Your posts are very interesting, but of little historical value because they are disjointed - that is not intended as a criticism. Your work would be of much greater value if you could establish connections. For instance; KING GUSTAV IV ADOLF OF SWEDEN had to have Black ancestors, establishing who they were and where they came from would be of enormous value. I personally have never delved into this sort of thing, but it is my understanding that there are societies and archives which maintain data on the lineages of all European nobles. Please take no offense - it's just a thought.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes some of the royalty of Europe had black blood. But that is to be expected after the centuries of black presence in Moorish Spain and Italy. However, these people still represent white power and control not any sort of BLACK power in Europe.
The reason black images became so predominant is because, to them, albeit secretly, blacks (and asians,arabs, etc) represented the 'mysterious' world outside of Europe and ancient people, kingdoms and empires of fabulous wealth and riches. It also represented the aspirations of Europeans to DOMINATE these ancient people, cultures and empires and make Europe the world wide dominant empire on earth..... which they eventually did.
Not to mention the fact that most of the trappings of royalty in Europe originated with Africans, Asians, Persians and other eastern populations to begin with.....
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you go back far enough, we all descend from one population and there are enough theories that would have been in Africa.
But that's not what he meant. The fact that there probably have been members from populations that they considered as 'lower' and 'inferiour', who managed to enter a white dominated society, must have had reasons.
When there have been royalties who were black, how did they manage to become royal anyway? By their high class they indeed represented white supremacy, but HOW did they do that? I don't know what was needed to become a baron, was it wealth, was it power, something else perhaps? It isn't possible they were royalty out of heritance, because their parents were so, or maybe their forefathers were kind of royals in Africa and had been allowed to have kind of similar title based on special merits?
Maybe historical archives can make it clear, but I think just because it is covered, it also will be covered in the VOC and WIC archives.
When you are searching data about this time, the only reliable data can be found in the archives of the churches they belonged to. Before Napoleon,there was no registry of birth, deaths, and marriages, as only in churches.
Not to mention the fact that most of the trappings of royalty in Europe originated with Africans, Asians, Persians and other eastern populations to begin with..... ????
To begin with what? ( Maybe this is a stupid question, and I should have known this when I should have enough knowledge about history, but I don't understand what you mean)
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
When there have been royalties who were black, how did they manage to become royal anyway? By their high class they indeed represented white supremacy, but HOW did they do that? I don't know what was needed to become a baron, was it wealth, was it power, something else perhaps? It isn't possible they were royalty out of heritance, because their parents were so, or maybe their forefathers were kind of royals in Africa and had been allowed to have kind of similar title based on special merits?
Maybe historical archives can make it clear, but I think just because it is covered, it also will be covered in the VOC and WIC archives.
[William of Orange (1533-1584), described as 'more brown then white,' shown here with dark skin, subnasal prognasty and curly hair]
[Jan the Old (1535-1606), Count of Nassau-Dillenburg, William of Orange's jonger brother, and Queen Beatrix true ancestor. Here showing extreme subnasal prognastism, while his black skin colour, seen on other prints, is whitened]
Dear ?????
I do like your approach, because you ask questions. Just like I did, when starting out. But I did not settle for ‘maybe’ or ‘perhaps,’ but went for the facts. This approach prevents me from speaking about things of which I have no knowledge of. It’s slow and hard work, and difficult to get a rounded theory. Some parts remain hypothesis. Baron Aarnoud Joost van der Duyn’s ‘brown black’ colour moved Belle van Zuylen to write a whole political poem, which can be characterized as ‘Black is beautiful,’ writing that colour says nothing about merit. Still I used to think they were discriminated against, but now I believe that the coloured elite came under fire because of their despotic and cruel rule. The French Revolution was approaching, to end this Blue blooded dictatorship and to publicly kill a king and his wife, sending shockwaves around Europe, where kings were seen as almost divine creatures.
A son teint noir et basané (1764) About his brown black colour, was the title of this key poem. He was the highest military commander of the troops stated in the south of The Netherlands. And belonged to the old aristocracy which typically have no diplomas of nobility extended by kings. They were noble from the beginning of time, which is in this case the end of the Middle Ages. The Van der Duyn family is an offshoot of the Van Bredero family which with the Van Wassenaer’s belongs to the oldest noble families in Holland. When baron Van der Duyn’s father, Adam van der Duyn, died a church minister held a sermon comparing him with the first Adam, who was formed from the black earth. He called him the first noble in the Netherlands. From the genealogies you cannot make out what people looked like, but you can see if they were mixed with some unknown slave or some native woman. With the nobility it’s however strict intermarriage. The bride and the groom displayed their quarters, which are all their noble, Blue blooded ancestors. Nobody would look kindly at someone who cheated and muddied the bloodline with a non-Blue blooded person. The ancestors would be spinning in their ornamented graves!
What I came to rely on is personal descriptions, as of William of Orange (1533-1584), the ancestor of Queen Beatrix, described as ‘more brown then white’ and ‘brown of complexion and the beard’ by Beresteyn (1933). Then this book shows a lot of portraits of the Prince with about 30% showing a dark skinned to even Black looking person with frizzy hair. Both he and his brother show markedly subnasal prognatism, which is a feature connected with the Classical African.
I notice you have good instincts by stating that we are lied to by our betters. This is very true and just follow your instincts. They ridicule the idea that you can see ethnic features and skin colour from portraits, but you can. Why would someone pay good money for his portraits if it did not resemble him in the least? You can find prints which show more or less black complexion and ethnicity. There are also some painted portraits which are half whitened, and show whitened skin, but African or Asian like features. Much has been destroyed or is presented as anonymous, so we do not know the family name.
When you feel confident to recognise these threats you might strike out and start asking questions about other portraits as well, even though you do not have a personal description yet. Regarding sources you have archives and also the bibliographies in the back of scientific books. When you retrace a research you might stumble on things which the author neglected to mention for one reason or the other. But it all starts with really being motivated to get to the bottom of something. Which is quite another approach as some pleasant banter over liquor or over the garden fence. I have written a whole book, I presented a bookreview here, and numerous articles on this matter, so I do not think my research is disjointed. My aim is to find people who have actually done research, who know how research works and how you have to synthesise knowledge from different, disparate sources. How to use your own mind instead of others telling you what to believe and think. Jane Fonda told us not to believe everything our government tells us. This also goes for our historians, teachers and church leaders who belong to the same class as or are in the pocket of our governments and the nobility. To them we are mere milk cows or taxpaying cows and expendable.
If you have any more questions I would be happy to answer them.
Egmond Codfried
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
FRANCIS, DUC D'ALENÇON AND ANJOU, DESCRIBED AS 'SWARTHY.' I SEE SOME BLACKNESS ON THÍS IMAGE.
BORN: 1554 DIED: 1584
Sketch of Alençon by J Decourt Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris Suitor of Elizabeth I. Youngest child of Catherine de Medici, brother to Charles IX of France. Took the title of Duke of Anjou after the death of his brother Henri.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
I do like your approach, because you ask questions. Just like I did, when starting out. But I did not settle for ‘maybe’ or ‘perhaps,’ but went for the facts. This approach prevents me from speaking about things of which I have no knowledge of. It’s slow and hard work, and difficult to get a rounded theory. Some parts remain hypothesis. Baron Aarnoud Joost van der Duyn’s ‘brown black’ colour moved Belle van Zuylen to write a whole political poem, which can be characterized as ‘Black is beautiful,’ writing that colour says nothing about merit. Still I used to think they were discriminated against, but now I believe that the coloured elite came under fire because of their despotic and cruel rule. The French Revolution was approaching, to end this Blue blooded dictatorship and to publicly kill a king and his wife, sending shockwaves around Europe, where kings were seen as almost divine creatures.
A son teint noir et basané (1764) About his brown black colour, was the title of this key poem. He was the highest military commander of the troops stated in the south of The Netherlands. And belonged to the old aristocracy which typically have no diplomas of nobility extended by kings. They were noble from the beginning of time, which is in this case the end of the Middle Ages. The Van der Duyn family is an offshoot of the Van Bredero family which with the Van Wassenaer’s belongs to the oldest noble families in Holland. When baron Van der Duyn’s father, Adam van der Duyn, died a church minister held a sermon comparing him with the first Adam, who was formed from the black earth. He called him the first noble in the Netherlands. From the genealogies you cannot make out what people looked like, but you can see if they were mixed with some unknown slave or some native woman. With the nobility it’s however strict intermarriage. The bride and the groom displayed their quarters, which are all their noble, Blue blooded ancestors. Nobody would look kindly at someone who cheated and muddied the bloodline with a non-Blue blooded person. The ancestors would be spinning in their ornamented graves!
What I came to rely on is personal descriptions, as of William of Orange (1533-1584), the ancestor of Queen Beatrix, described as ‘more brown then white’ and ‘brown of complexion and the beard’ by Beresteyn (1933). Then this book shows a lot of portraits of the Prince with about 30% showing a dark skinned to even Black looking person with frizzy hair. Both he and his brother show markedly subnasal prognatism, which is a feature connected with the Classical African.
I notice you have good instincts by stating that we are lied to by our betters. This is very true and just follow your instincts. They ridicule the idea that you can see ethnic features and skin colour from portraits, but you can. Why would someone pay good money for his portraits if it did not resemble him in the least? You can find prints which show more or less black complexion and ethnicity. There are also some painted portraits which are half whitened, and show whitened skin, but African or Asian like features. Much has been destroyed or is presented as anonymous, so we do not know the family name.
When you feel confident to recognise these threats you might strike out and start asking questions about other portraits as well, even though you do not have a personal description yet. Regarding sources you have archives and also the bibliographies in the back of scientific books. When you retrace a research you might stumble on things which the author neglected to mention for one reason or the other. But it all starts with really being motivated to get to the bottom of something. Which is quite another approach as some pleasant banter over liquor or over the garden fence. I have written a whole book, I presented a bookreview here, and numerous articles on this matter, so I do not think my research is disjointed. My aim is to find people who have actually done research, who know how research works and how you have to synthesise knowledge from different, disparate sources. How to use your own mind instead of others telling you what to believe and think. Jane Fonda told us not to believe everything our government tells us. This also goes for our historians, teachers and church leaders who belong to the same class as or are in the pocket of our governments and the nobility. To them we are mere milk cows or taxpaying cows and expendable.
If you have any more questions I would be happy to answer them.
Egmond Codfried [/QB][/QUOTE]
Well, I can't help you with proves or with access to historical archives, the subject just interests me. I like history, I like cultures, and because I had some questions in mind for myself personally, it took my attention. People from the south of Holland don't only LOOK different, they also ARE different. That can be a result of a certain development in culture, but also a sign that there are traces of foreign blood. And then, when you start to try to figure that out, many of us are having some forefathers who actually came from other cultures. Also sometimes you can't find proves, but the outernal appearance confirms that there must have been foreign blood in their veins. And when that counts for many of us, why shouldn't it be the same for a royal family??? So, my questions are a bit different, but your theory sounds logical, specially because our royal family has roots in the south.
By the way, the province of Brabant really is excluding in many sports, and it is scientifically proved that dark races are more athletic as whites or yellow. At the same time they still have that 'being less' attitude ( they call it Calimero's (want-zij-zijn-groot-en-ik-ben-klein)), and I wondered for myself where that attitude came from. Is it because, as many say, the old provinces above the rivers always have tried to dominate and tried to keep them poor and stupid, or is it something that developed out of something in ourselves? There have been times that the south was much more powerfull and rich, right now we are the best in economical and sportive field, but still people feel like that Calimero. Last week, for instance, I read a remark made by an actrice who was married with a man from the south:
He can be lazy for a whole day without feeling guilty.
She thought it was because of his catholic background, but I think it is cultural. More savoir vivre. More relaxed, more making fun, more enjoyment, more easy going. And that indeed leads more to the south as to the north...
I wish you succes with your research. May I possibly find something that could be usefull, I will let yoy know.
With kind regards, Proud on the south! Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: SOME NOTES ON METHODOLOGY
FRANCIS, DUC D'ALENÇON AND ANJOU, DESCRIBED AS 'SWARTHY.' I SEE SOME BLACKNESS ON THÍS IMAGE.
BORN: 1554 DIED: 1584
Sketch of Alençon by J Decourt Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris Suitor of Elizabeth I. Youngest child of Catherine de Medici, brother to Charles IX of France. Took the title of Duke of Anjou after the death of his brother Henri.
LOL---Dude looks like Mayor Nagen of New Orleans...LOOOOOOOOOOOL!!! Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of these people are NOT BLACK in any sense of the word.
Blacks have had royalty since before Europe even knew what royalty meant. Europe is not the home of or definition of royalty. Blacks do not need to look at European whites for glimpses of black greatness, because they had their own greatness LONG BEFORE THAT. Check Egypt, check Sudan, check ancient Ghana, check ancient India, check ancient Sumer, check ancient South Asia, check ancient America, check ancient Africa. ALL of these places had traditions of royalty that PREDATE Europe and featured blacks, so there is no reason to look at Europe to find black greatness when there are plenty of historical examples of black greatness all over the world.
In fact, in many ways Europeans were only imitating others in their traditions. So why admire the imitator instead of the originator? Most of what you see in European royal costume either originates in the textile traditions of the Moors or Muslims: silk, brocade, damask, taffeta, felt and so on, as well as India an the far East. Much of the jewelry again comes from the Muslims, Africans, India and the far East. Crowns, thrones, scepters, feathers, sashes and all these other signs of royalty go back to Persia, Egypt, Babylon, India and Asia. And this is the time when Europe was going on a journey to find and bring back more of these ancient traditions and customs to incorporate into their own empire. But they didn't ORIGINATE it. I mean some people pretend that the Europeans invented royalty, when they did not.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried: SOME NOTES ON METHODOLOGY
FRANCIS, DUC D'ALENÇON AND ANJOU, DESCRIBED AS 'SWARTHY.' I SEE SOME BLACKNESS ON THÍS IMAGE.
BORN: 1554 DIED: 1584
Sketch of Alençon by J Decourt Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris Suitor of Elizabeth I. Youngest child of Catherine de Medici, brother to Charles IX of France. Took the title of Duke of Anjou after the death of his brother Henri.
LOL---Dude looks like Mayor Nagen of New Orleans...LOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!
Yeah, you are catching my drift. Wait till I post some other family members!
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Most of these people are NOT BLACK in any sense of the word.
Blacks have had royalty since before Europe even knew what royalty meant. Europe is not the home of or definition of royalty. Blacks do not need to look at European whites for glimpses of black greatness, because they had their own greatness LONG BEFORE THAT. Check Egypt, check Sudan, check ancient Ghana, check ancient India, check ancient Sumer, check ancient South Asia, check ancient America, check ancient Africa. ALL of these places had traditions of royalty that PREDATE Europe and featured blacks, so there is no reason to look at Europe to find black greatness when there are plenty of historical examples of black greatness all over the world.
In fact, in many ways Europeans were only imitating others in their traditions. So why admire the imitator instead of the originator? Most of what you see in European royal costume either originates in the textile traditions of the Moors or Muslims: silk, brocade, damask, taffeta, felt and so on, as well as India an the far East. Much of the jewelry again comes from the Muslims, Africans, India and the far East. Crowns, thrones, scepters, feathers, sashes and all these other signs of royalty go back to Persia, Egypt, Babylon, India and Asia. And this is the time when Europe was going on a journey to find and bring back more of these ancient traditions and customs to incorporate into their own empire. But they didn't ORIGINATE it. I mean some people pretend that the Europeans invented royalty, when they did not.
You are so right with your hypothesis, but you are not actually responding to my research. Nor do you seem to make a attempt to corroborate your assertions. When one wants to research Blacks in the diaspora, one research them wherever they are found. And one has to show step by step how they became kings in Europe and why modern history does not teach about them being Blacks, but shows them as White's. If you believe they were Black, married Black, adorned themselves with images of the Moor, BUT STILL claimed 'White Power,' then you have lost me. Because these facts point to a strong identification with Black, and even Africa if we look at The Masque of Blackness (1605), which celebrates Black beauty. If you would only take time to see what I have collected, you will fiend that I defined them as an intermarriying, fixed mulatto race, with some looking more African, Asian or White. They became a mix, so you could not label them this race or that. Still there is the symbol of the Moor, a Classical African, dominating works of art. I guess we are still on the same page, yet I ask you for some kind of sources.
Egmond Codfried
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It should be very well possible that there is a large dose of black and coloured DNA into European royalty, and it is very well likely that they always have tried to hide that, because, for ages and ages, white was supposed to be higher as black. 
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic