posted
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor?? Portrait of a Wealthy African / Flemish or German / ca. 1540 / Private Collection, Antwerp.
It is part of the Walters Museum exhibit from some tine in the past. It says Flemish or German, meaning that this dude was a long term resident there. So what were Africans doing there at that time, and how long had they been dwelling there?
Charles V was most definitely Flemish and Gernan, but was he African?
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were Africans in Europe at that time. So according to a one Ish Gebor, to suggest that the above is not Charles V, is De Factco White Sumpremacism. So I am going to have to confirm it. The above indeed a depiction the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V,
unlike the fake picture of Charles V that appears on the realhistoryww.com website
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is how I see it compared with this one.
Charles V - Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen
When the nose and the complexion are adjusted for a black person, and the lower lip retracted.
The forked beard (allowing for curled black hair), the mustache (there is one there), the jutting chin, the jawline , the shape of the ear, the eyes, and the forehead.
There is also the open mouth which couldn't be properly closed, and the teeth, which often seems to be restricted to the front incisors only.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once gave you credit for having "Some" sense, but apparently you have none.
After all this time you seem to believe Albinos have RULES when producing a FAKE picture. So you figured that because features where similar to a picture the Albinos said was Charles V, that meant something.
How very dense.
Please note the case of the Mulatto Queen of Britain - Charlotte. Please also note that Albinos declare that all of these portraits are of Queen Charlotte.
. Because of their lack of Melanin, Albinos are often degenerate liars and falsifiers. That is just their nature, thus they recognize no rules in their lie making. Please follow one Donald Trump for an ongoing example.
For you convenience and the convenience of others, there is a page at Realhistoryww.com with many examples of how the Albinos create FAKE White portraits for men who are described in history books as having BLACK SKIN!
No I have not. As I told Narmer, I haven't posted anything over there in 2-3 yrs. Besides they know all about ES. You wanna meet them Mike head on over to the Opposing views section and introduce yourself lol. I'm sure they'd love to hear your theories lol.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] I once gave you credit for having "Some" sense, but apparently you have none.
After all this time you seem to believe Albinos have RULES when producing a FAKE picture. So you figured that because features where similar to a picture the Albinos said was Charles V, that meant something.
How very dense.
Please note the case of the Mulatto Queen of Britain - Charlotte. Please also note that Albinos declare that all of these portraits are of Queen Charlotte.
If her skin tone is light why are you calling her "mulatto"?
Saying "damn you're stupid" theatrics in place of an explanation will not suffice as an answer You will have to give the readership a reasonable explanation as to why you are calling her "mulatto" otherwise their are no grounds to call her that. Posting another picture will also not be an answer because the question again on any picture you post will be the same why are you calling her "mulatto" and you will also have to have a text that states in first person account that she had anything other than an "albino", as you call it, skin tone. Posting another picture is also just posting another picture, it's random to suggest one picture is more accurate than another since there are no photos of her Although an average, looking at all the pictures has a higher probability of her resemblance.
^^ see this woman? She is an albino.
Now tell us why you are calling Queen Charlotte a mulatto with zero evidence
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Mike,
No I have not. As I told Narmer, I haven't posted anything over there in 2-3 yrs. Besides they know all about ES. You wanna meet them Mike head on over to the Opposing views section and introduce yourself lol. I'm sure they'd love to hear your theories lol.
. Come-on now Doxie, you're being disingenuous, you know damn well that it would take them one post to Ban me.
Reminds me of when I joined "Historum" things were going great and the denizens were posting how the looked forward to reading more of my point of view. But then the Mods found out I was there, then it was bye bye Mike111.
Albinos in power say they want the truth, but see what they do when the truth comes calling. No hard feelings though, they're Albinos, and that's what Albinos do. Like I always say - they can't compete, and they know it.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: you know damn well that it would take them one post to Ban me.
Hahahaha That's exactly what would happen. gentile or Jew, albinos are all the same. As soon as they can't dispute your info, they censor or ban. We even got a taste of that here on ES.
Remember Rasol and his crew. As soon as they got beat down and found the site wouldn't ban, they went M.I.A.
Posts: 4693 | From: Saturn | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged |
Do you actually understand the meaning of the word rendition?
Look it up!!
Do you really believe that every painting is meant to an exact image of the subject, even those announced as such?
Do you think the people who lived in those times actually believed or even assumed that the images they were presented with were always good impressions of the subjects?
A rendition is exactly as it says - a rendition.
The pictures you posted are of no relevance whatsoever.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: I once gave you credit for having "Some" sense, but apparently you have none.
After all this time you seem to believe Albinos have RULES when producing a FAKE picture. So you figured that because features where similar to a picture the Albinos said was Charles V, that meant something.
How very dense.
Please note the case of the Mulatto Queen of Britain - Charlotte. Please also note that Albinos declare that all of these portraits are of Queen Charlotte.
<photos snipped>
. Because of their lack of Melanin, Albinos are often degenerate liars and falsifiers. That is just their nature, thus they recognize no rules in their lie making. Please follow one Donald Trump for an ongoing example.
For you convenience and the convenience of others, there is a page at Realhistoryww.com with many examples of how the Albinos create FAKE White portraits for men who are described in history books as having BLACK SKIN!
posted
I could understand fanciful imagery but why wouldn't someone back then not want an accurate representation of what they actually look like? Unless charactures was a big thing back then I would assume your own rendition would be a sign of disrespect.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: Mike you are not very bright, are you?
Do you actually understand the meaning of the word rendition?
Look it up!!
Do you really believe that every painting is meant to an exact image of the subject, even those announced as such?
Do you think the people who lived in those times actually believed or even assumed that the images they were presented with were always good impressions of the subjects?
A rendition is exactly as it says - a rendition.
. Listen here you silly little Piss-tailed Boy, is this really a fight you want to make?
Silly little boy, rendition applies to things open to interpretation like MUSIC - idiot!
Portrait art ALWAYS seeks to look like the subject, with room for individual emphasis on certain features.
Think BOY, what a confusing world it would have been if nobody looked like their portraits. You do understand that portraits fulfilled the function of Photos, before there were photos.
What you stupidly called rendition is actually called "ABSTRACT" art and IMPRESSIONIST art.
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor?? Portrait of a Wealthy African / Flemish or German / ca. 1540 / Private Collection, Antwerp.
It is part of the Walters Museum exhibit from some tine in the past. It says Flemish or German, meaning that this dude was a long term resident there. So what were Africans doing there at that time, and how long had they been dwelling there?
Charles V was most definitely Flemish and German, but was he African?
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Holy Roman Emperor Charles V.
Habs, Mike has already proven conclusively on his website (see link) that the above Portrait of an African Man by Jan Mostaert (ca. 1520-1530) is none other than Charles V.
You have seen this portrait numerous times on Egyptsearch.
So why are you trying to undermine Mike, pretending that you have never seen the Mosaert portrait and instead try to suggest a different portrait of a man who looks like a different person and who is wearing an Islamic turban and un-kingly earring, not accoutrements that Charles V would wear, why are you suggesting he might be Charles V ??
You have obviously mounted a covert attack on Mike's research. So don't be surprised at the reprecussions
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Since you are the Photoshop expert why don't you paint the give the picture of the white Charles V above the same colour as the black one and see if there is a close resemblance?
Mike behaves like a spoilt child who cannot stand any disagreement with his views. He uses bluster to defend his views instead of critically and thoughtfully considering the views of others. Insulting people and yelling at them doesn't amount to an intelligent analysis and critique of their views. He can be as bad as Zawi Hawass. He ought to be more mature in the way he approaches others opinions.
Mummy of Charles V
There is a reason why I used the word rendition. There is a body lying in a tomb at the Escorial (ie if it is actually the body of Charles V). The only way we can verify how he truly looked like is to open it up and grant access to the body for some experts for a facial reconstruction and an analysis of his DNA. The picture of his mummy shows that with the exception of one of his coins, virtually all his portraits greatly underemphasize the nature of his jaw deformity, which is why they should be called renditions.
In the absence of that the only thing we can do is to present well reasoned arguments of the evidence available to us, and ask others to judge if our conclusions are sound and worthy of merit. Intelligent speculation is all we are capable of, and is all that we are doing.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
O.k. but how do you explain the turban and earring? Why would Charles V have a turban and earring?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The paintings are not meant to be immediately identified as Charles V, and are there for the more discerning. You could even ask why he is wearing such a small earring, instead of the larger ones associated with moors.
As to the turban the likely reason is he had some kind of scalp condition as a youth, which was covered up with a wig when he was portrayed as white, and a turban when he was portrayed as black.
When you consider that his portrayals as an adult display him with curly hair, it stands to reason that what we see as his hair in youth portraits must be a wig, unless hot combs or some other such technology were used to straighten it, assuming aforesaid technologies were in use back then.
Balthazar by Barend van Orley
Take a look at this painting. Is he wearing some kind of helmet with a fancy hat attached to it, or a turban with some kind of hat attached, or a hat with the bottom half formed as some kind of wrap?
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: There is a body lying in a tomb at the Escorial (ie if it is actually the body of Charles V). The only way we can verify how he truly looked like is to open it up and grant access to the body for some experts for a facial reconstruction and an analysis of his DNA.
The picture of his mummy shows that with the exception of one of his coins, virtually all his portraits greatly underemphasize the nature of his jaw deformity, which is why they should be called renditions.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: You have obviously mounted a covert attack on Mike's research. So don't be surprised at the reprecussions
. For once I agree with lioness.
You are examining FAKES while calling them by the FAKE term "Renditions" (as relates to paintings), and you wonder why I show you no respect????
And from these FAKES you hope to glean information on the REAL portraits????
Then you go even further, you use a FAKE painting of Charles V's FAKE mummy, and try to use that as real EVIDENCE.
Sorry....
But Damn you're stupid!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Charles V, died on 21 September 1558 from malaria. Twenty-six years later, his remains were transferred to the Royal Pantheon of the Monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial.
(there is no mention of MUMMIFICATION - so only BONES would be left after 26 years).
The mummified body of the Emperor Charles V in the Escorial. Photograph of a painting by by V. Palmaroli y González
(THINK - you silly boy, would an EMPERORS body be displayed like that)?????
The Royal Site of San Lorenzo de El Escorial is a historical residence of the King of Spain, in the town of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, It is one of the Spanish royal sites and functions as a monastery, basilica, royal palace, pantheon, library, museum, university and hospital.
The Pantheon of Kings
The Pantheon of Kings is located beneath the Basilica, and consists of 26 marble sepulchers containing the remains of the Kings and Queens of Spain. As seen in the layout above, it is octagonally shaped, with the sepulchers ‘stacked’ in six columns around the room. An additional two sepulchers are located above the entrance. The Kings’ tombs are all on one side, while the Queens’ tombs are on the other.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Having views contrary to my own is not a problem or an issue. But using fake evidence and convoluted logic is. It cheapens my work, and the work of others, who have worked very hard, for a very long time, to expose Albino lies and reveal honest truth.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
What evidence do you have that this is ACTUALLY a faithful rendering of Charles V?
What other images do you have to corroborate your conclusion?
Why this one and not any of the other portraits of well dressed black men in the Netherlands from that era?
What distinguishes this painting, what are the features of this painting that separates from the other paintings of black men from that era, and makes this the definitive painting of Charles V?
Note that I am not saying that your conclusions are wholly unfounded, but what is the supporting evidence besides the fact of the man being black and exhibiting some prognathism which many black people do?
Conclusions are a dime a dozen. A deep scrutiny of the features, and that the conclusion is a well reasoned one from the analysis of those features is what really counts.
We are only reasoning from images about scenes from 500 years back. This is not a physical science in which we can conduct experiments which prove our theories. We can only have well reasoned conclusions, nothing more than that.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
What evidence do you have that this is ACTUALLY a faithful rendering of Charles V?
What other images do you have to corroborate your conclusion?
Why this one and not any of the other portraits of well dressed black men in the Netherlands?
What distinguishes this painting, what are the features of this painting that separates from the other paintings of black men from that era, and makes this the definitive painting of Charles V?
Note that I am not saying that your conclusions are wholly unfounded, but what is the supporting evidence besides the fact of the man being black and exhibiting some prognathism which many black people do?
We can now say, with great confidence, that this picture depicts Charles V..
It doesn't actually say This is the most faithful rendering of Charles V we know about it, which is why we have to be open to the notion that other paintings may also be paintings of him even he looks different in them.
After all, why not this one:
You can't say it is this one or that one and that is why we have to concede that there could be others.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: You can't say it is this one or that one and that is why we have to concede that there could be others.
. That there might be other portraits of Charles V has never been the issue.
However your haphazard thinking and logic, with no research IS!
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor?? Portrait of a Wealthy African / Flemish or German / ca. 1540 / Private Collection, Antwerp.
.
Question - Where or when, have you ever seen a European King wearing a Turban????
turban (n.) Look up turban at Dictionary.com 1560s, from Middle French turbant (15c.), from Italian turbante (Old Italian tolipante), from Turkish tülbent "gauze, muslin, tulle," from Persian dulband "turban." The change of -l- to -r- may have taken place in Portuguese India and thence been picked up in other European languages. A men's headdress in Muslim lands, it was popular in Europe and America c. 1776-1800 as a ladies' fashion. Related: Turbaned.
Definition of Turban
1 : a headdress worn chiefly in countries of the eastern Mediterranean and southern Asia consisting of a long cloth that is wrapped around a cap (as by Muslims) or directly around the head (as by Sikhs and Hindus)
2 : a headdress resembling a turban; specifically : a woman's close-fitting hat without a brim
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Habsburg the top picture is supposed to be Balthazar and he is holding a chalice of which is very common in adoration of the Magi scenes, Mike thinks instead it's a royal scepter but he's not 100% confident so he says "probably" in the caption. So the top one is uncertain.
The lower one has a turban and earring which you will not see in any painting of a European king. So you have to admit on these two pictures we can not say with "great confidence" that they depict Charles V. So I recommend you let go of these two paintings as depicting Charles V with great confidence and move on with some other line of argumentation.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Why would the artist Joos van Cleve depict Balthazar in two different paintings in a different outfit and paint them in the same year 1525? My guess is that this narrow lower panel of Balthazar with the gold helmet of which had a now lost attached 3 panel "triptych" format as in the Joos van Cleve painting is not by Joos van Cleve. I could be wrong but the only similarity is that the way the cloth of the sleeve hangs below the hand in a similar put not exactly the same way.
Balthazar was purportedly one of the Biblical Magi along with Caspar and Melchior who visited the infant Jesus after he was born. Balthazar is traditionally referred to as the King of Arabia or Ethiopia and gave the gift of myrrh to Jesus. A much earlier work of Byzantine art about a thousand years earlier depicts the magi as three similar looking Persians The Bible does not mention the names of the Magi (or even how many there were), but their traditional names are ascribed to a Greek manuscript from 500 AD translated into Latin and commonly accepted as the source of the names. In this original manuscript, Balthazar is called Bithisarea which later developed into Balthazar in Western Christianity.
Anyway as we can see the top Joos van Cleve Adoration of the Magi scene shows Balthazar in 17th century clothing. This shows that the artists depicted scenes like this as allegorical not literal depictions of the clothing of the period. Similarly the male figure in the center panel is not dressed literally as to the time period of the scene. The church did this to make the allegory more relatable to the present day of when the painting was made not at all intended as an historical record and there is wide and allowed variation in the Christian art as to who the magi were.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Actually the word Magi is taken from the name of Persian Zoroastrian Priests: which is based on Sumerian/Chaldean Astronomers who expertise was considered Occult - thus the root of the word MAGIC.
Btw - the Bible makes no mention of MAGI.
Matthew 2; Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
The Magi are popularly referred to as wise men and kings. The word magi is the plural of Latin magus, borrowed from Greek μάγος magos, as used in the original Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew ("μάγοι"). Greek magos itself is derived from Old Persian maguŝ from the Avestan magâunô, i.e., the religious caste into which Zoroaster was born (see Yasna 33.7: "ýâ sruyê parê magâunô" = "so I can be heard beyond Magi"). The term refers to the Persian priestly caste of Zoroastrianism. As part of their religion, these priests paid particular attention to the stars and gained an international reputation for astrology, which was at that time highly regarded as a science. Their religious practices and use of astrology caused derivatives of the term Magi to be applied to the occult in general and led to the English term magic, although Zoroastrianism was in fact strongly opposed to sorcery. The King James Version translates the term as wise men; the same translation is applied to the wise men led by Daniel of earlier Hebrew Scriptures (Daniel 2:48).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, it looks like you are not capable of pursuing any line of enquiry which does not promise to reaffirm your foregone conclusions, so I will wait for Lioness to chime in with hers, unless she if afraid of challenging your opinions and thus falling foul of the acid tongue of Your Imperial Mikeness.
Who knows, even Doxie might have an opinion.
Doxie, are you there?
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
Pictures from those exact SAME times say Hebrews had NEGRO HAIR and appearance....
You have to look at the women and children, of course beardless, to get a sense of the structure of the face
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Sans those with overly large NOSES (whether in protrusion or width), or overly large LIPS, Albinos and Blacks are indistinguishable in PROFILE. Therefore hair type is the only clue to phenotype. The guy on the right has Negro hair.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
My opinion is none of them are Charles V. Yes painters have done different renditions of the same person in different settings, clothes,hair styles, and poses. They did also do ancient "photo shopping" where they left out blemishes, made them better looking than what they were. Like in the case of Elizabeth I all paintings made of her even in her older years were done making her still look young. However changing the race, skin color was NOT done, everyone would know that White dude was NOT the king if he was Black or that Black dude wasn't the king if he were White as kings and queens made progresses through their kingdoms where they were seen riding their horses or in their carriage not to mention on coins. That's what got Louis 16th & his family caught,he was recognized by his likeness on a coin lol.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Habsburg,
My opinion is none of them are Charles V. Yes painters have done different renditions of the same person in different settings, clothes,hair styles, and poses. They did also do ancient "photo shopping" where they left out blemishes, made them better looking than what they were. Like in the case of Elizabeth I all paintings made of her even in her older years were done making her still look young. However changing the race, skin color was NOT done, everyone would know that White dude was NOT the king if he was Black or that Black dude wasn't the king if he were White as kings and queens made progresses through their kingdoms where they were seen riding their horses or in their carriage not to mention on coins. That's what got Louis 16th & his family caught,he was recognized by his likeness on a coin lol.
. Come now Doxie, you surely can't be that dense.
THE FAKE ALBINO PORTRAITS ARE "MODERN" PAINTINGS!!!
To test my claim just find a good picture of the original.
Then look for CRACKING of the paint.
Craquelure From Wikipedia
Craquelure (French: craquelé, Italian: crettatura) is the fine pattern of dense "cracking" formed on the surface of materials, either as part of the process of ageing or of their original formation or production. The term is most often used to refer to tempera or oil paintings, where it is a sign of age that is also sometimes induced in forgeries, and ceramics, where it is often deliberate, and usually called "crackle". It can also develop in old ivory carvings, and painted miniatures on an ivory backing are prone to craquelure.
(Craquelure in the Mona Lisa, with a typical "Italian" pattern of small rectangular blocks)
Normally, craquelure is formed by the aging of paints. It can be used to determine the age of paintings and to detect art forgery, because craquelure is a hard-to-forge signature of authenticity.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
You have to look at the women and children, of course beardless, to get a sense of the structure of the face [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Sans those with overly large NOSES (whether in protrusion or width), or overly large LIPS, Albinos and Blacks are indistinguishable in PROFILE. Therefore hair type is the only clue to phenotype. The guy on the right has Negro hair.
The guy on the right is part of the same group as the women, Elamites so we look at the group in totality. There is nothing do indicate that the man on the right above does not have curly hair as opposed to specifically afro "Negro" hair
.
ASSUR RELIEF 10TH-6TH BCE -- Assyrian officer presents a new king to the vanquished Elamites at Madaktu after the battle of Til Tuba. Stone bas-relief (7th BCE) from the palace of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh, Mesopotamia (Iraq). British Museum, London, Great Britain
Like the women at top we see a male figure here ^^ with a shaved face revealing a similarly bulbous chin.
Again nothing here uniquely, as you say "Negro" here
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Come now Doxie, you surely can't be that dense.
THE FAKE ALBINO PORTRAITS ARE "MODERN" PAINTINGS!!!
To test my claim just find a good picture of the original.
Then look for CRACKING of the paint.
Craquelure From Wikipedia
Craquelure (French: craquelé, Italian: crettatura) is the fine pattern of dense "cracking" formed on the surface of materials, either as part of the process of ageing or of their original formation or production. The term is most often used to refer to tempera or oil paintings, where it is a sign of age that is also sometimes induced in forgeries, and ceramics, where it is often deliberate, and usually called "crackle". It can also develop in old ivory carvings, and painted miniatures on an ivory backing are prone to craquelure.
(Craquelure in the Mona Lisa, with a typical "Italian" pattern of small rectangular blocks)
Normally, craquelure is formed by the aging of paints. It can be used to determine the age of paintings and to detect art forgery, because craquelure is a hard-to-forge signature of authenticity.
. Doxie, I didn't hear back from you.
Do you understand now?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I see that you have been fighting your basic nature lately, but now you can not hold out any longer.
Very well....
Back to normal here too.
STUPID, LYING, ALBINO BITCH...
GET THE FUCH OUT OF HERE WITH THAT DUMB-ASSED SH1T!
he,he,he, he this is what Mike says when his BS has been called out, trying to pass off curly hair as fro, know he can't say sh!t now
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Habsburg, However changing the race, skin color was NOT done, everyone would know that White dude was NOT the king if he was Black or that Black dude wasn't the king if he were White as kings and queens made progresses through their kingdoms where they were seen riding their horses or in their carriage not to mention on coins. That's what got Louis 16th & his family caught,he was recognized by his likeness on a coin lol.
. Open letter to all:
It never occurred to me that anyone would think that the FAKE portraits of Albinos being substituted for Black Royalty and the like - WERE DONE IN THE SAME TIME AS THOSE PEOPLE LIVED!!!
Why today - the whole world is up in arms because the FOOTBALLER Ronaldos statue doesn't look enough like him!
. So why would you people think that a KING, would tolerate an artist who didn't "ACCURATELY" depict him or her?
After thinking about it, I now realize that Habsburg was thinking the same way Doxie was.
If others of you are thinking the same way, let me know, and I will further explain.
I repeat - THE FAKES ARE "MODERN" (19th. - early 20th. century).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Habsburg, However changing the race, skin color was NOT done, everyone would know that White dude was NOT the king if he was Black or that Black dude wasn't the king if he were White as kings and queens made progresses through their kingdoms where they were seen riding their horses or in their carriage not to mention on coins. That's what got Louis 16th & his family caught,he was recognized by his likeness on a coin lol.
. Open letter to all:
It never occurred to me that anyone would think that the FAKE portraits of Albinos being substituted for Black Royalty and the like - WERE DONE IN THE SAME TIME AS THOSE PEOPLE LIVED!!!
Why today - the whole world is up in arms because the FOOTBALLER Ronaldos statue doesn't look enough like him!
. So why would you people think that a KING, would tolerate an artist who didn't "ACCURATELY" depict him or her?
After thinking about it, I now realize that Habsburg was thinking the same way Doxie was.
If others of you are thinking the same way, let me know, and I will further explain.
I repeat - THE FAKES ARE "MODERN" (19th. - early 20th. century).
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike111: [qb] Come now Doxie, you surely can't be that dense.
THE FAKE ALBINO PORTRAITS ARE "MODERN" PAINTINGS!!!
To test my claim just find a good picture of the original.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
[/QB]
Printer-friendly view of this topic