Scrapbookpages Blog

May 20, 2018

British royalty and an African American woman

Filed under: Uncategorized — furtherglory @ 3:29 pm

Is it O.K. for British royalty to marry an African American?

Sorry — I am against it.

You can read about it in this news article:

The following quote is from the news article:

Begin quote

LONDON — It was an electrifying and unexpected moment in the midst of what had been a (mostly) by-the-book British wedding service. And as it went on, you could practically feel centuries of tradition begin to peel away.

Here was a relaxed, charismatic African-American bishop — Michael Bruce Curry, the head of the Episcopal Church — speaking to British aristocrats and members of the royal family in the cadence of the black American church.

But what was striking was not just his message, of love and inclusion; or his tone, which was soaring and magisterial; or his obvious delight in the matter at hand. It was the sheer fact of his prominence in a service that featured a fair number of ecclesiastical heavyweights, including the archbishop of Canterbury (who tweeted his admiration of the bishop).

The service, carefully put together by Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, included all the usual traditional elements, like a reading from the Bible by Harry’s aunt, the sister of Diana, the Princess of Wales.

End quote


  1. Okay, I tried emailing the email left at scrapbookpages. com, but the message delivery failed because it said the address did not exist, so I will leave my message here:

    In an article/webpage on the scrapbookpages .com website about Schindler’s List, the following paragraph is listed:

    “In the movie Schindler’s List, the Germans are always portrayed as not only brutal, but stupid and inept. There is a famous scene where three German SS officers attempt to execute a Jew, but their pistols won’t fire. The German Luger pistol was highly prized by Allied soldiers in both World War I and World War II; thousands of them were taken from dead or captured German soldiers because the Luger was considered the best pistol in the world. This scene attempts to show that even the best that the Germans could do wasn’t good enugh. Remember that Schindler’s List is a fictional story, based on a fictional novel, Schindler’s Ark; it is neither objective nor true history.”

    Ok, first of all, the scene actually happened. It was based off the true story of Rabbi Levertov. I’m surprised you don’t know that or didn’t mention it if you did. It was not a fictitious Hollywood scene. You can read about it from his daughter here: levertov4ever. com/survivinggoethsguns.htm . This is well known and can be read in many places. Did the scene happen exactly as presented? No. Did it happen pretty similar, including multiple German gun jams? Yes.

    I also disagree with the last sentence of the paragraph:

    “Remember that Schindler’s List is a fictional story, based on a fictional novel, Schindler’s Ark; it is neither objective nor true history”

    The film has fictitious elements in it, but it is not a fictional story. That would be like saying Apollo 13 is a fictional story, which it wasn’t. It just had fictitious elements in it.

    You say the film always portrayed the Germans as stupid and inept. The purpose of the Rabbi Levertov scene was not to show the Germans as incompetent, but to show the senseless murder of people on a whim; to show how little value on life there was at times, and how terrifying it was for the victims. The thing I always got out of that scene was how the guards viewed the gun through an analytical perspective; trying to understand what went wrong with the jams, not caring or really paying any attention to the fact that this guy’s life was just hanging in the balance. That was the purpose of the scene. The fact that Schindler himself was a German, and the fact that the Germans at the end of the scene left when they could have killed the rest of the Jews, also shows that the film was not trying to portray Germans as “always brutish, stupid, and inept”. The film was about how dangerous and wrong it is to have the mindset of not valuing life, etc. For whatever reason, all you can see is a political agenda against the Germans.

    Your website has a lot of great info, such as the article on the Anne Frank house, which I just read last night in its entirety, and which was fantastic. But the site also has a political bias in many of the articles. It is not a neutral site. At the very least, better fact-checking is in order before such strong conclusions are presented, which I think are really just your own personal biases.

    Comment by Samuel — July 1, 2019 @ 10:29 am

  2. Thought this was a history site. You guys are just racist, Nazi apologists.

    Comment by Timo Ericsson — August 19, 2018 @ 8:59 pm

  3. I think it’s great. More power to them, the royal line could use some color so they’ll stop being so pasty.

    Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — May 23, 2018 @ 2:55 pm


    Princess Sophie Charlotte was born on this date in 1744. She was the first Black Queen of England, and is the the great great-great grandmother of the present Queen Elizabeth II

    Charlotte was the eighth child of the Prince of Mirow, Germany, Charles Louis Frederick, and his wife, Elisabeth Albertina of Saxe-Hildburghausen. In 1752, when she was eight years old, Sophie Charlotte’s father died. As princess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Sophie Charlotte was descended directly from an African branch of the Portuguese Royal House.

    Read more:

    Comment by Herbert Stolpmann — May 23, 2018 @ 7:43 am

    • The Stolpmann Lie Factory never stops, I see.

      Good anti-slave trade propaganda in the 18th century. Good pro-race-mixing propaganda in the 21st century. Never let the truth spoil a good story…

      Comment by hermie — May 24, 2018 @ 12:34 am

      • It’s always a lie when you don’t believe it, huh, hermie?

        Comment by brycesdaddy1105 — May 24, 2018 @ 6:47 pm

        • If hermine would not be such self-centered Scheisskopf, he would know that Queen Charlotte died nearly two centuries ago but is still celebrated in her namesake American city. When you drive from the airport in North Carolina, you can’t miss the monumental bronze sculpture of the woman said to be Britain’s first black queen, dramatically bent backwards as if blown by a jet engine. Downtown, there is another prominent sculpture of Queen Charlotte, in which she’s walking with two dogs as if out for a stroll in 21st-century America.
          Some actual Portraits of her show her blackness and an ugly face, almost like a gorilla, which were rejected and not by His Royal Highness

          Comment by Herbert Stolpmann — May 25, 2018 @ 12:56 am

          • [the woman said to be Britain’s first black queen]

            “Said to be,” i.e. an unfounded rumor and a figment of imagination, Herbert. Stop using your funny Holocaust evidentiary standards for everything and anything.

            And do you even realize what 15 generations (between Queen Charlotte and her alleged negro ancestor) mean genetically?!? 15 generations mean that she would be 1/32,768 Black and 32,767/32,768 non-Black (2 to the power of 15 = 32,768) anyway !! As you can see, even within your own theory, the word “negligible” would be a huge understatement to depict Queen Charlotte’s alleged Blackness.

            At least, you conceded that Blackness gives “ugly faces, almost like a gorilla”. Better than nothing… 😉

            Comment by hermie — May 25, 2018 @ 7:13 pm

            • Queen Charlotte was a Moor of Portuguese descent – thus African. Unless you are a real Arschloch accept the facts!

              She gave birth to 13 Mulatto children (two had died making it fifteen). Irrespective of your stupid fractional calculation their genes were spread out right through European Nobility – even Prince Charles had ears like a monkey which were in parts (unsuccessfully) surgically rectified.

              I only feel sorry for that poor women, George III calling: ‘Komm Frau ins Bett’. Her vulva must have been hanging like that of an elephant!

              Comment by Herbert Stolpmann — May 27, 2018 @ 12:35 am

              • HS wrote: “accept the facts!”

                The facts, butthole?!? When did the unsubstantiated theory of an unknown “historian of African diaspora” named Mario de Valdes y Cocom become a fact??? When it became useful for the genocidal ideology of mass immigration and race mixing.

                [begin quote] [Historian Kate] Williams and many other historians are very sceptical about [historian Mario de] Valdes’s theory [about the alleged Blackness of Queen Charlotte]. They argue the generational distance between Charlotte and her presumed African forebear is so great as to make the suggestion ridiculous. Furthermore, they say even the evidence that Madragana was black is thin.[end quote] (

                HS wrote: “your stupid fractional calculation”

                Crucial calculation. Would you say that there are no Blacks in the United States because the African Americans have about 20% of European genes in their genepool? Of course, you wouldn’t say that. But you nevertheless dare to call Queen Charlotte “a Black queen” with her alleged 0.003%* (1/32,768) of African genes.

                * “0,003%” if a her alleged Moorish ancestor had been a pure (100%) Black.

                HS wrote: “a Moor of Portuguese descent”

                The Iberian aristocrats had no Moorish genes. The term “blue blood” (meaning “noble”) came from Spain and the unspoiled racial purity of Iberian aristocracy ( A Moorish Portuguese is a commoner, not an aristocrat. You unsubstantiated beliefs make no sense…

                Comment by hermie — May 27, 2018 @ 10:28 am

                • An American genealogist has established that Queen Charlotte, the wife of George III, was directly descended from the illegitimate son of an African mistress in the Portuguese royal house.

                  Comment by Herbert Stolpmann — May 27, 2018 @ 8:10 pm

                • A complete impermeability and deafness to all rebuttals, the ultimate weapon of any good Holocaust believer. So typical…

                  Comment by hermie — May 28, 2018 @ 7:38 am

  5. This marriage remains a mystery ; nobody knows how they were even introduced . It is being used by the dominant Marxist establishment to push the agenda that inter racial marriage is a good thing . However from experience most half castes are mentally damaged and are a disruptive element in society.

    Comment by peter — May 21, 2018 @ 10:35 am

  6. I laughed much at the negro preacher’s grotesque performance & ridiculous speech about love.

    British aristocracy defiled its own blood with Jewish genes to such an extent that it didn’t need or deserve a speech about inclusion.

    Comment by hermie — May 20, 2018 @ 6:55 pm

  7. Does she get automatic citizenship like the wetbacks do If they marry someone who is a citizen of the country?

    Comment by Tim — May 20, 2018 @ 6:49 pm

  8. Thankfully, no one here gives a damn whether you are for or against this marriage. The whole thing was the antithesis of bigotry and hate. Judging by the number of American and Canadian fiags being waved by the estimated more than 100,000 people outside Windsor Castle, and the many who, when interviewed, stated they had flown to England for the sole reason of being there, there are, thank Providence, enough North American people of good heart to put negativity where it belongs. Thank God we still have the freedoms not only to say what we wish here, but also to see the unpleasantness of those who snivel and gripe.

    Comment by David Neale ( and yes, that IS my real name) — May 20, 2018 @ 3:56 pm

    • American and Canadian flags are being flown for ass kissing reasons. People went to the wedding for “name dropping” purposes only. They got themselves a chip in the big game. That’s all they give a shit about. That’s the social event of the year. F—k England.

      Comment by Tim — May 20, 2018 @ 6:52 pm

    • “Thank God we still have the freedoms not only to say what we wish here, but also to see the unpleasantness of those who snivel and gripe.”

      Too bad “those who snivel and gripe” don’t have the freedom to say what they don’t wish without being socially lynched and morally bullied by zealous bigots of political correctness (& other tricks of Jewish social engineering).

      Comment by hermie — May 20, 2018 @ 7:15 pm

    • You wrote: “Thankfully, no one here gives a damn whether you are for or against this marriage.”

      I don’t think that you can speak for “everyone here.”

      I think that people do read my blog because they do care for my opinion. People who don’t care for my opinion do not read my blog.

      Comment by furtherglory — May 21, 2018 @ 10:43 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: