It seems to me that at least some of "strange" features of appearence of Queen Charlotte may be more easily explained by her Slavic (or more broadly Eastern European) ancestry. The House of Mecklenburg was founded in 12 century by Slavic prince Pribislav and, while it was quickly Germanized, members of that house often married members of other East German royal houses (some of which, such as House of Griffin, also known as House of Pomerania, were also of Slavic descent). So it seems much more likely to me that Queen Charlotte may have some Eastern European/Slavic facial features, that were seen as strange and ugly by some Wesern Europeans from Britain and France.
Bridgerton should just be seen for what it is: Fantasy/alternate universe fiction. It's annoying when people start trying to see it as legit historical fiction.
I like that you mentioned the casting choices for the live action Lilo and stitch at the end that really baffeled me. Like they will never be satisfied unless Hollywood stops hiring white actors altogether 😅
No, they will never be happy. Activism never has an end point. They pretend it does but then when it’s reached, they shift the goal posts into another area.
There were some, but very few, European nobles with non-European descent. Alexander Pushkin, a famed Russian poet, was notable for his "southern" look, being the great-grandson of Hannibal, the black servant of Tzar Peter the Great. A fact noted by his contemporaries. But here, some Portugese woman 500 years in the past - this sound like a classic historical myth. Keep up the good work dear Lana.
Isn't it also weird how people look for "african features" in her portrait? Is it reasonable to argue that some of those trends kinda resemble tokenism? I'm thinking back on earlier discussions, specifically for those movies when they hire an actor for solely being a diverse symbol, but otherwise, don't make the effort to make the movie good and well written.
When you're looking for something, you will see it. Who knows what she looked like irl, but I doubt genetic traces of *any* ancestor would be clearly recognizable in a person born 15 generations later.
Imagine your grand grand parents were colonizers, they arrive to africa some hundred years ago. Then your parents born in Africa, move again to Britain, then you born and have African ancestry. Because all the documents of your ancestry says that your parents, grand parents are African. What colour is your skin? Examples of mixing colonizers with colonized people, is latam, and not all the people is brown. Skin tones and features varies a lot. Now what could be the case of a colonization where there were not so much mixing with the colonized. Oh god, some things are just so dump that i can't see why people can't think.
Are you watching this show? Would you recommend it? Your excellent video got me thinking and doing some research. Moors were "Berbers from North Africa and Syrians from Damascus." They were not sub-Saharan black Africans. The Moors "created an exquisite civilization, called Al-Andalus, the remnants of which can still be visited in southern Spain." Speaking of double standards, seeing the words "invaded" followed by "created an exquisite civilization," can you imagine if somebody wrote that about a European colony? "The English established colonies in the New World, and created an exquisite civilization, which was the world's first nation-state to be a democracy." I'm not sure why there is a sudden fixation to pretend historical royalty was black. That would mean that Europeans were not racist, and that black Africans did have power within Europe. It also means that the black European royalty was complicit in the African slave trade. This goes against the narrative of victimhood and of European/American/white people racism. Thank you very much for the video!
More research: Speaking of slaves, the Berbers of North Africa (Moors) took slaves for centuries, mostly from Europe. President Thomas Jefferson sent an American naval fleet in the year 1801 to combat the Barbary pirates, who "continued to demand tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean. Refusal to pay would result in the capturing of American ships and goods, and often the enslavement or ransoming of crew members." This was the first Barbary War. Fun fact: In "Robinson Crusoe" (1719), the teenaged Robinson wants to be a sailor, despite his parents' objections. On his first voyage, just a day or two out of England, his ship is conquered by Barbary pirates, and he is enslaved for several years.
Another small tidbit: King George III was the grandson of King George I, who was Prince-Elector of the German city state Hanover. England was desperate for a Protestant king after Queen Anne died in 1714, and George of Hanover was Anne's second cousin. Naturally, many English people were not happy about having a transplanted German, who did not speak English and certainly was not "one of them," as their ruler. The House of Hanover ruled GB until 1901 when Queen Victoria died. Her eldest son was the first British king of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which was the House of his father Prince Albert.
Wow thanks for sharing all this interesting information! And yes, I did actually watch the show by now, I was planning on reviewing it but it didn't hook me in enough. It has some nice moments, tugs at your heartstrings when it comes to George's mental illness and how it affects both him and Charlotte. On the whole tho, it's subjectively not really my kind of show. I thought it was ok, nothing exceptional or exceptionally bad. Except that they called stays a corset - that was a crime 😂
I haven't seen bridgerton, but from what I've heard, it seems like it's a show about our society today, but disguised as being in the past. For example, the show brings up that black people need to follow a higher standard to be seen as equal, which puts a lot of pressure on them. Or they bring up gossip and cancel culture. In that context, a mixed casting makes more sense since they're not actually telling a story about the past, but about our current time in a fictional setting. I don't really know what I think about using real historical names, maybe it just adds to the disguise. At least I don't like pushing flawed theories. (Correct me if I'm wrong about the show, though.)
It's fiction, set in early 1810s England (Queen Charlotte takes place a few decades earlier, in her youth). Both shows really are more or less pure fiction, albeit set in a real historical era. You're right about them being shows about our society - the characters definitely don't have the mindset of people from actual Georgian times, various contemporary topics are addressed, etc. As I said, I personally don't mind changes like this in the context of fiction if they're done well - but a) if we're doing this let, there be equal standards across the board when it comes to race swapping b) there are potential issues with such depictions, it opens more question than it answers. For example, if we accept that in this fictional universe Charlotte and her brother (and by extension their parents, etc.) look clearly biracial, and Charlotte's skin color is made into a pretty relevant topic in England, ok - but what does that mean for her home country, Germany? Is nobility that looks like Charlotte an isolated case, and if so do the people really just accept it like we would today? Or is German fictional society of the time also mixed, and how does that influence the world? I wouldn't expect them to address these questions in Queen Charlotte since they are clearly not the focus of the show, but it does make one wonder. To summarize, I think it's hard to do historical race swapping right because nothing exists in a bubble.
The subject is unecessarily complicated. It would be clear, were the races swapped. That's a clue that some force is putting it's finger on the scales and preventing a common sense interpretation.
Good video. I recently watched the Charlotte spin-off, and honestly it didn't seem to have much substance to it. I was flabbergasted how the royal children turned out the way they did. I did wonder if Bridgerton Charlotte was based off a real person and now I know. I think the author would have done better by setting her story in an entirely fictional area, rather than trying to change England for her fantasy idea.
@@LanaMarie Same. Out of all the hairstyles they do on Charlotte, which do you think was the worst? I thought when her hair was pulled back it complimented the shape of her face better.
Calling Charlotte BiRacial based on a 500 Year Old Ancestory sounds a lot like the "One Drop Rule."
This obsession with changing the ethnicity of Europe is so weird to me, like bro just let us have our history.
It seems to me that at least some of "strange" features of appearence of Queen Charlotte may be more easily explained by her Slavic (or more broadly Eastern European) ancestry. The House of Mecklenburg was founded in 12 century by Slavic prince Pribislav and, while it was quickly Germanized, members of that house often married members of other East German royal houses (some of which, such as House of Griffin, also known as House of Pomerania, were also of Slavic descent). So it seems much more likely to me that Queen Charlotte may have some Eastern European/Slavic facial features, that were seen as strange and ugly by some Wesern Europeans from Britain and France.
Bridgerton should just be seen for what it is: Fantasy/alternate universe fiction. It's annoying when people start trying to see it as legit historical fiction.
I like that you mentioned the casting choices for the live action Lilo and stitch at the end that really baffeled me.
Like they will never be satisfied unless Hollywood stops hiring white actors altogether 😅
No, they will never be happy. Activism never has an end point. They pretend it does but then when it’s reached, they shift the goal posts into another area.
I honestly don't know what some people want anymore haha
There were some, but very few, European nobles with non-European descent. Alexander Pushkin, a famed Russian poet, was notable for his "southern" look, being the great-grandson of Hannibal, the black servant of Tzar Peter the Great. A fact noted by his contemporaries. But here, some Portugese woman 500 years in the past - this sound like a classic historical myth. Keep up the good work dear Lana.
Isn't it also weird how people look for "african features" in her portrait? Is it reasonable to argue that some of those trends kinda resemble tokenism? I'm thinking back on earlier discussions, specifically for those movies when they hire an actor for solely being a diverse symbol, but otherwise, don't make the effort to make the movie good and well written.
When you're looking for something, you will see it. Who knows what she looked like irl, but I doubt genetic traces of *any* ancestor would be clearly recognizable in a person born 15 generations later.
Imagine your grand grand parents were colonizers, they arrive to africa some hundred years ago. Then your parents born in Africa, move again to Britain, then you born and have African ancestry. Because all the documents of your ancestry says that your parents, grand parents are African.
What colour is your skin?
Examples of mixing colonizers with colonized people, is latam, and not all the people is brown. Skin tones and features varies a lot.
Now what could be the case of a colonization where there were not so much mixing with the colonized.
Oh god, some things are just so dump that i can't see why people can't think.
Are you watching this show? Would you recommend it? Your excellent video got me thinking and doing some research. Moors were "Berbers from North Africa and Syrians from Damascus." They
were not sub-Saharan black Africans.
The Moors "created an exquisite civilization, called Al-Andalus, the remnants of which can still be visited in southern Spain."
Speaking of double standards, seeing the words "invaded" followed by "created an exquisite civilization," can you imagine if somebody wrote that about a European colony?
"The English established colonies in the New World, and created an exquisite civilization, which was the world's first nation-state to be a democracy."
I'm not sure why there is a sudden fixation to pretend historical royalty was black. That would mean that Europeans were not racist, and that black Africans did have power within Europe. It also means that the black European royalty was complicit in the African slave trade.
This goes against the narrative of victimhood and of European/American/white people racism.
Thank you very much for the video!
More research: Speaking of slaves, the Berbers of North Africa (Moors) took slaves for centuries, mostly from Europe. President Thomas Jefferson sent an American naval fleet in the year 1801 to combat the Barbary pirates, who "continued to demand tribute from American merchant vessels in the Mediterranean. Refusal to pay would result in the capturing of American ships and goods, and often the enslavement or ransoming of crew members." This was the first Barbary War.
Fun fact: In "Robinson Crusoe" (1719), the teenaged Robinson wants to be a sailor, despite his parents' objections. On his first voyage, just a day or two out of England, his ship is conquered by Barbary pirates, and he is enslaved for several years.
Another small tidbit: King George III was the grandson of King George I, who was Prince-Elector of the German city state Hanover. England was desperate for a Protestant king after Queen Anne died in 1714, and George of Hanover was Anne's second cousin. Naturally, many English people were not happy about having a transplanted German, who did not speak English and certainly was not "one of them," as their ruler.
The House of Hanover ruled GB until 1901 when Queen Victoria died. Her eldest son was the first British king of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which was the House of his father Prince Albert.
Wow thanks for sharing all this interesting information! And yes, I did actually watch the show by now, I was planning on reviewing it but it didn't hook me in enough. It has some nice moments, tugs at your heartstrings when it comes to George's mental illness and how it affects both him and Charlotte. On the whole tho, it's subjectively not really my kind of show. I thought it was ok, nothing exceptional or exceptionally bad. Except that they called stays a corset - that was a crime 😂
Blacks are stealing history , Who seen that coming?
I haven't seen bridgerton, but from what I've heard, it seems like it's a show about our society today, but disguised as being in the past. For example, the show brings up that black people need to follow a higher standard to be seen as equal, which puts a lot of pressure on them. Or they bring up gossip and cancel culture. In that context, a mixed casting makes more sense since they're not actually telling a story about the past, but about our current time in a fictional setting.
I don't really know what I think about using real historical names, maybe it just adds to the disguise. At least I don't like pushing flawed theories.
(Correct me if I'm wrong about the show, though.)
It's fiction, set in early 1810s England (Queen Charlotte takes place a few decades earlier, in her youth). Both shows really are more or less pure fiction, albeit set in a real historical era. You're right about them being shows about our society - the characters definitely don't have the mindset of people from actual Georgian times, various contemporary topics are addressed, etc.
As I said, I personally don't mind changes like this in the context of fiction if they're done well - but
a) if we're doing this let, there be equal standards across the board when it comes to race swapping
b) there are potential issues with such depictions, it opens more question than it answers. For example, if we accept that in this fictional universe Charlotte and her brother (and by extension their parents, etc.) look clearly biracial, and Charlotte's skin color is made into a pretty relevant topic in England, ok - but what does that mean for her home country, Germany? Is nobility that looks like Charlotte an isolated case, and if so do the people really just accept it like we would today? Or is German fictional society of the time also mixed, and how does that influence the world? I wouldn't expect them to address these questions in Queen Charlotte since they are clearly not the focus of the show, but it does make one wonder.
To summarize, I think it's hard to do historical race swapping right because nothing exists in a bubble.
This RUclipsr is very *BASED*
The subject is unecessarily complicated.
It would be clear, were the races swapped.
That's a clue that some force is putting it's finger on the scales and preventing a common sense interpretation.
I always enjoy your videos just keep on being yourself and don't change 😎🤙🍻🗿💯
Hello Lana's face. Nice to meet you😆
another great vid 👌
You are so smart! Thank you for this video!
thank you for watching and commenting!
Charlotte might not have been appealing to the eye.... But you sure are 😏 keep up the good work 😁
GREAT VIDEO FICTION VS FACTS...
Good video. I recently watched the Charlotte spin-off, and honestly it didn't seem to have much substance to it. I was flabbergasted how the royal children turned out the way they did. I did wonder if Bridgerton Charlotte was based off a real person and now I know. I think the author would have done better by setting her story in an entirely fictional area, rather than trying to change England for her fantasy idea.
it had a few good moments, but overall just not my cup of tea, so i'm just kind of meh about it
@@LanaMarie Same. Out of all the hairstyles they do on Charlotte, which do you think was the worst? I thought when her hair was pulled back it complimented the shape of her face better.
👍🏻
GREAT VIDEO FICTION VS FACTS...