# Talk:Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz

Its amazing there is zero mention of the American Revolution 1775–83 or other British colonies e.g. Canada, Austraila, Barbados etc. Did Charlotte have any captured thoughts or interactions with any of this history?

The idea that George III was married to a black woman sounds like something the American rebels would have believed. It reminds me of the controversy over the race of Varina Davis, wife of Jefferson Davis, who was also claimed to be black by political opponents of her husband. (There was even a doctored photo of her in circulation that gives her apparent African features -- see the talk page) DancesWithGrues (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding this, but since it is a Good Article I'm now reluctant, since I'm not confident enough it is appropriate. That is, I wanted to write about how queen Charlotte has become popular in recent years due to the Bridgerton novels and tv series, including the series around her persona Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story. Would this section make sense? Cozyenby (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be relevant as the Bridgerton series has led to a renewed interest in the life of Queen Charlotte. 92.18.27.180 (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
See MOS:POPCULT for guidance. DrKay (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The page has illustrations for her arms as queen consort in three stages, but do we know how her arms were displayed prior to marriage. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone is mad at me for lining up the article with what the sources actually say. Including moving the quotes to the correct location.
First of all, there were added weasel quotes that the cited thesis never used. The quotes were in the wrong location and attributed to the wrong author–somehow they drifted from Springer to Rogers. If the thesis didn't say it, and I couldn't find backing, then I changed it to neutral language.
By moving the Springer quotes to Rogers, it makes Rogers look like he's not Jamaican-American. Which is true. It's said in his own book, and in the thesis, which I also fact checked as I read it by adding the correct dates. "Mid-20th century" no. It's exactly 1929. And why cut the first person to claim it? Springer. Literally the first citation in that section of the thesis. The thesis doesn't say it appeared in the mid-20th century. (The thesis focuses mainly on the identity of Charlotte, the city, in relation to the identity of the Queen Charlotte and how both shifted over time in relation to mainly class and race secondary--it doesn't focus on the race issue as the central thesis. Someone is going to doubt I actually read it and then scrolled to page 27).
Then Rogers was made out to be a "writer" in this article but the thesis went out of its way to say the Rogers was an amateur historian who could not get a college education at the time and that he was discounted by the White community because he was Black. But because of him, the idea caught in the Black community. Downplaying both is disingenuous, so I went back and said what the thesis actually said, paraphrasing it.
Also, the Valdes article may have shown up in Huffpost in 1999, but the Frontline article specifically has been changed at the top to say that it was first published in 1997. They dont't cite it, but I changed the date based on Frontline's claim. Some sources falsely say that Valdes "teamed up" with Frontline, so I ignored that given the update.
There were added sources along the way that were attributing things they never said to them, or saying the article took an overall position of, which were not correct. So I changed it to what the article said or added specific attribution according to the article. If the article said nothing of the sort, I cut it entirely.
You really need to fact check and make sure this stays NPOV. Just because it doesn't line up with your POV, you should properly show what the sources say and not add things it doesn't say, don't downplay credentials just because you don't like the author. Also check the sources when new sources are added. That's the whole point of NPOV. 
I try my best with people I disagree with to present their entire worldview. I don't agree with Freytag, but I'll still add things like he was a champion of the Lower and Middle Class, along side with his, "I want to genocide all Polish people."
I fact checked the diagram created for Freytag too... and then the Kishotenketsu diagram which some white person decided to make up out of the blue. So this isn't the first time people claim something a source says as true, but it turns out to be false because they are counting on people not fact checking.
I fact checked this article before with Valdes too, where someone said he claimed that Charlotte was White, which is exactly opposite of what he said. I didn't add the original citation, so, I lined it up, with the article and added quotes,(BTW, long, long before Bridgerton). People tried character assassination of Valdes, which is not NPOV. So was invalid. And again, when people added entire Portuguese books,  but failed to add a page number or quotes, I asked for page numbers and quotes to back up the claim, so the books got deleted as counter proof. You can't make up what you think the source "should" say and instead should point out what it really said. And you shouldn't be falsely adding sources to the end of a line just because you want the claim to look better. All of these things are against basic academia, even ignoring Wikipedia rules. Present the spirit of the sources cited and let the reader judge on their own. 'cause if reader fact check as I did, then it looks bad, doesn't it? Are you counting on people not fact checking?
So don't get mad at me for fact checking and making sure the sources and article line up. Not my fault some people like to make up whatever they like and drift quotes to wrong attributions without checking if what's stated is true before pushing "Publish".--KimYunmi (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Added back the cut sentence, which was established on page 27-28 of the thesis (you have to scroll as inputting the page number does not work). Technically the thesis doesn't need to be cited again under wikipedia rules since it is the frame of the entire first paragraph which is a summary of 2 pages of the thesis with added support, but because other person didn't bother to read the thesis and it's unlikely anyone else will, I went ahead and added back the source anyway. The transition to Valdes makes more sense under those conditions–showing that the majority of the idea comes from the Black community, how and why which is also why I added the credential that Valdes looks at the Black diaspora so there is a more solid history. No additional citations were needed since it was a rewrite to check sources.--KimYunmi (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Celia Homeford (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

In the Marriage section, second paragraph, there is a reference to Baron Philip Adolphus von Münchausen. Curious as to his relationship, if any, to the literary Baron Munchausen, I went down a rabbit hole but couldn't connect them. The Freiherr Münchhausen who inspired the character lived during that time. Then I found this:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Adolph_von_M%C3%BCnchhausen
Note the different spelling and also the lack of mention of him being titled, but he is the man who served as the Hanoverian minister in London at the time. This detail came from Natalee Garrett's book on Queen Charlotte? Anyone got a copy to confirm? If yes, what's her source? ShorinBJ (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)