Intro

On Saturday, as Meghan Markle settled into her role as contractual concubine to the British throne, Twitter was flooded with images and a brief biography of a late “Princess” Sophie Charlotte. Sophie Charlotte, grandmother to the late “Queen” Victoria, was believed to have African ancestry. An ancestry veiled by portraits that implement what filters and photoshop do presently—visually alter blackness. The exposition of this information

is of course deliberate. Though the British “royal” family has maintained central placement in American media for centuries, this information was never readily available, nor has it proven viral in the age of media, until now. It’s availability is to coat desire with inclusion, a “fact” that suggests that said inclusion is old news. Specifically, Sophie Charlotte as Victoria’s grandmother makes it so that blackness is not just present in Markle, but an attribute of the royal bloodline. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

I’m black too…

My queries to this are:

How is this different than any of the other white people suckled at the breasts of those connected to them by a buried lineage?

How is this different than any of the legally white people who too stem form the black black woman of our nation’s past?

The answer is of course that there is no difference. The black woman is the mother of humanity. The being whose womb can literally produce any and every color. The being whose children, ripped from her womb, have been psychologically disfigured to not acknowledge her until it becomes convenient to do so.

So while many celebrate blackness as an heirloom to the British throne, they overlooked that this information surfaced to bamboozle the black body to rejoice in an action that will ultimately  substantiate their exclusion. Just as whites are the main beneficiaries of welfare, and affirmative action—though these programs are aligned with their “aid” to the descendants of Africans, reaching for that black black mother will become another way the white word seeks to capitalize on a black identity they created. 

With this statement, I of course do not mean that whites created black people—because they of course did not. This statement articulates a caricatured blackness as specifically invented to fulfill a distinct purpose. This purpose was and is solely to enable to mythical superiority of whites. 

Similarly, gifting the white collective access to a convenience claim, where they can both enjoy white privilege and the “ups” of blackness. This is similar to capitalistic holidays like Christmas, or social conception of birthdays where an individual receives gifts seen to monetize their value, but a white supremacist society is the sole recipients of “holidays” they created for the sole purpose of accruing capital. Nevertheless, these deliberate actions limit black mobility in the global paradigm of white supremacy, diversifying white victory. 

A Hollywood Hoax 

Hollywood illustrated something similar a few years back with claims that actress Shailene Woodley was a descendant of a black ancestor. This news made those lacking self and esteem rejoice in the pseudo belief that Woodley was “like them” despite making a career off her white female privelage. In reality, this news actualized Woodley as eligible to fulfill a future role of black woman, at the expense of those excited by said revelation. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________Defining Blackness

In contemplating the convenience claim, it is imperative to contemplate blackness. Though defining blackness as African ancestry is the most tried and tested way to compartmentalize blackness and people believed to be black, this news of Princess Charlotte illustrates the enormous hole in said behavior. Due to centuries of sexual violence and mental bludgeoning, African ancestry is more common than we as a people have been conditioned to believe. This ancestry however, does not make you black. 

While all black people have melanin, not all melenated people are black.

Malcolm X was black. Winnie Mandela was black. Assata Shakur is black. 

Clarence Thomas, Henry Louis Gates, Tom, sorry I mean Don, Lemon are not. Meghan Markle nor her mother are black, and neither was “Princess” Charlotte.

Though linked to royals of Portugal, it is beyond interesting that there is little to no information regarding how she came to be affiliated with British royals. To those of you tempted to link me to one of several articles written on Princess Sophie Charlotte, I point to her distorted photos, that in image personify what white “his”tory does to the black body.  This omission is not surprising, and anyone who knows anything about the treatment of the black female body knows exactly why this information is omitted. History tells a similar story of Dido Belle of Scotland. 

Nevertheless, despite her African origins, it is imperative to note that her involvement and procreation with those within the British dynasty cast her as a core component in the oppression of her kinfolk. Thus, the same blood running through her veins, was the same blood shed to maintain her lifestyle. 

Markle fulfills a similar function with her espousal to a man who has an overt interest in Africa, pegged as culturalism, but most likely actualizes the starry eyes of evil intentions. Let us not forget that the not so United States used the body of an African descended president to shed the very blood that runs through his veins, for “the good of the republic.” ____________________________________________________________________________________________

Counter Color Narrative

I would  be remiss if I did not acknowledge the elephant in the room. A part of me believes that Princess Sophie Charlotte’s blackness was something needed by those lacking self and esteem, and those determined to paint the racist British empire as anti-racist. It is also feasible that for many to conceptualize blacks as royals, an affiliation to a white empire is mandatory.  This is best illustrated by the placement of the adjective “black” in front of the word royal, illustrating that the general conception of the word “royal” is seen as incongruent to black bodies.

We have years and years of African royalty omitted from textbooks, and popular culture including but not limited too:

Queen Aminatu

Queen Nefertiti

Makeda, Queen of Sheba

Queen Ranavalona the First of Madagascar

Queen Cleopatra of Egypt

Queen Nandi of the Zulu Kingdom

Thus, a black queen should be anything but surprising, but the fact that it is illustrates the ingrained inferiority the black female body and her offspring are held too by default.

I say to this say Princess Sophie Charlotte as an undocumented queen of a predominantly black country or continent, born on the day of the British nuptials would not prove viral, as princesses, princes, kings, and queens seem only interesting and newsworthy when they are white.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion

If it sounds like I am upset about this, I am. 

It is upsetting that despite the method, sexual, social or what have you, the black female body remains a conduit, a middle passage for white supremacist actions. The blood has yet to dry on our collective backs, and our wombs have yet to heal from centuries of abduction. 

Thus, with every repost, every celebratory comment, or any other performance of collective amnesia, white and non black persons of colors are gifted a convenience that will ultimately yield casualty to the black collective, who remain on commerce in the global white quest for capital.

Black Power ❤

***The author uses air quotes to dispute the ingrained belief that royalty is inherently white.