Some days, by the time I have been awake for an hour I find enough outrageous news to keep my fingers employed all day on PF. Other days I am so astounded at the news coming in from all directions that I have problems sorting my thoughts into order and only manage to put into writing one rant. Today is one of the latter and I have so many things that outrage me that it is late in the day before I can assemble my thoughts in order to write about the one subject that has blown my mind the furthest from its normal irritated meanderings. The subject about which I am about to ramble may not be the biggest news of the day, in fact given my source, it may not even be scratching the awareness of other PF posters, but that makes it worthwhile posting about it because it is so preposterous.
Whilst browsing for something else historical earlier I came across an item headed "Queen Charlotte, Britain's First Black Royal?" Naturally this piqued my interest and diverted me off my earlier quest. It is quite long so I will just give the main flavour of the assertions made:
Sophia Charlotte of Micklenburgh-Strelitz (an obviously German Princess) born in 1744 was married to King George III and therefore became Queen Charlotte, mother to George IV as well as his 14 siblings. Considering the care that royalty have always taken over lineage, one can be quite certain that at a time when black people were though sub-human, any hint of black African history would have disbarred her from the British Royal Family.
It seems a Portuguese historian (who's name I won't bother with) has traced her ancestry back fifteen generations to the (suspected) mistress of a Portuguese monarchs son who MAY have been black (She was a Moor and therefore not necessarily dark skinned). Even on the outside chance that there were any truth in this very tenuous link would this make her mixed race as even if there were any substance, it would make her one fifteenth black and certainly not a black queen of Britain. In fact, even were this assertion true her black relative would have been her great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandmother.
I dug further, only to find this garbage listed by the BBC under "Black history you may not know." and on an American site (HOWAFRICA, the rise of Africa) as an sub-Saharan African icon, which she most definitely was not. It even suggests she might have been dark skinned and on some other sites as having negroid or mulatto (Afro-Caucasian) features.
I would normally just laugh at this as rabble rousing, but I am told this is now accepted teaching in some schools and colleges. Nevertheless, if people want to accept such garbage why should I care? But it does raise a question in my mind: How diluted can your black heritage be for you to still qualify as black? Since there have been black people recorded in Britain since the time of the Romans, would you or I be justified in believing that we might have some black ancestor 15 or more generations ago and would therefore qualify as black? In fact if science is to be believed humanity came out of Africa, so are we not all to some degree black? In this case this woman was less than 1% black and because it suits the Woke BLM agenda, she is awarded the epithet of blackness.
So logic would dictate that BLM is a non-organisation because if we are all black it follows that all lives matter. If not, how black do you have to be? Those like Meghan Markel and Lewis Hamilton are 50/50 (given that they have no other black ancestors) so when they identify as black they deny their whiteness and are going by the colour of their skin, not necessarily their race. Similarly, many of those who are claiming to be black will be less than 50% black, so how white do you have to be before you have to retract your blackness? Black history month would have it that you can be less that 1% and still be black, I wonder if that would wash with blacks on the street?
Mike.X