Posted: Mon 13 Oct 2008 13:06 Post subject: DID PRESIDENT WASHINGTON HAVE NOBLE LEANINGS?
DID PRESIDENT WASHINGTON HAVE NOBLE LEANINGS?
[George Washington with a Moor, not with the ‘light skinned mulatto’ William Lee! John Trumbull's 1780 painting of George Washington]
AS I’M DOING A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THE MOOR IN EUROPEAN ART (1500-1789), I came to the conclusion that the Moor was used as a symbol for Blue Blood, by the Old Nobility. Those who were nobles from the beginning of time; not bestowed on them by mere Kings. So I’m surprised to find portraits of George Washington with a Moor.
I do not know how these portraits came into existence, but it looks like the first president of a republic, which was found on the high principles of equality, would still flaunt his ‘ancien regime’ noble credentials. This thread is started to find out what the forum knows about this matter.
The description of William Lee state that he is a ‘light skinned mulatto.’ So it’s surprising that people would put in Wikipedia that he is shown on the portraits of Washington, while the figure looks more like a Classical African. The very image of a Moor we see in European paintings. Usually smaller than the main figure, many times a child, gorgeously dressed, generic looks. Paintings are made for looking at the image, and understanding te symbolism. By the 1780's in the USA, any painter would know how pure Africans or Mulatto-types would look like.
Interesting is the portrait of Washington alleged natural son, West Ford, which might show a real mulatto-type, with darker skin, as his mother was a slave-woman.
George Washington was rather fond of heraldry, as the following quote suggests:
It is far from my design to intimate an opinion, that Heraldry, Coat-Armor, etc. might not be rendered conducive to public and private use with us; or that they can have any tendency unfriendly to the purest spirit of Republicanism. On the contrary, a different conclusion is deducible from the practice of Congress, and the states; all of which have established some kind of Armorial Devices, to authenticate their official instruments.
George (of a patrician bent, it is true) used his arms (Argent, two bars beneath three mullets gules) on seals and book-plates. These arms appear on the flag of the District of Columbia.
=================================================
U.S. Presidents of Royal Descent:
John Quincy Adams, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Grover Cleveland, John Calvin Coolidge, Gerald Ford, Ulysses S.Grant,Benjamin Harrison, William Henry Harrison, Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Jr., James Monroe, Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, George Washington
==============================================
Washington’s ancestry
John Trumbull's 1780 painting George Washington also depicts William Lee.
William Lee (c. 1750–1828), also known as Billy Lee or Will Lee, was George Washington's personal servant and the only one of Washington's slaves freed outright by Washington in his will. Because he served by Washington's side throughout the American Revolutionary War and was sometimes depicted next to Washington in paintings, Lee was one of the most publicized African Americans of his time.
On 3 May 1768, George Washington purchased Lee, then a teenager described in Washington's account book as "Mulatto Will", from the estate of the late Colonel John Lee of Westmoreland County, Virginia for sixty-one pounds and fifteen shillings. William kept the surname "Lee" from this previous owner. Also purchased at this time was William's brother Frank, as well as two other slaves. Washington paid high prices for William and Frank, as they were to be household slaves rather than field laborers. Light-skinned mulattoes like William and Frank were often chosen to serve as domestic servants, who were given responsibilities and privileges most slaves never enjoyed. Frank became Washington's butler at Mount Vernon, while William served in a variety of roles, including Washington's valet or manservant. As valet, Lee performed chores such as brushing Washington's long hair and tying it behind his head.
================================================
The Nobility
Posted: Mon 13 Oct 2008 14:41 Post subject: Re: DID PRESIDENT WASHINGTON HAVE NOBLE LEANINGS?
Egmond Codfried wrote:
it looks like the first president of a republic, which was found on the high principles of equality, would still flaunt his ‘ancien regime’ noble credentials. This thread is started to find out what the forum knows about this matter.
There is no question that the "founding fathers" of the nation were old-school aristocrats who opposed "high principles of equality." Egalitarianism was preached by a few only when it was realized that the war would be lost without an inflow of volunteers. Egalitarianism was promised by a few radicals in order to attract fighters. The promise was promptly broken by the landowning gentry as soon as independence was won.
Until Andrew Jackson, only male landowners could legally vote and only wealthy plantation owners could legally run for public office. The "founding fathers," including Washington, Jefferson, etc. sincerely believed that only hereditary aristocracy (owners of large tidewater plantations) had the right to rule. Come to think of it, women did not gain the vote until the 1920s.
Many introductory texts explain that, until the Jacksonian era, all of the nation's rulers (president, Congress, Supreme Court) openly rejected egalitarianism for White males. And even in Jackson's administration, egalitarianism for White males was a granted only as a trade-off for disenfranchising free African Americans and the extermination of eastern Native Americans via the Second Seminole War and The Trail of Tears. A recent book on the topic, that is a good place to start, is Alexander Keyssar, The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States (New York: Basic Books, 2000).
Thank you for this vigorous answer; this is how I envisioned a discussion ought to flow. The Nobility is like a Hydra, you chop off one head, and it springs another. But I see they did not go as far as to reintroduce noble titles in the USA.
Now I understand from two new threatening threads that I should not go pushing my luck by suggesting that Ol' George over here might also have not been lily white, in looks or ODR-wise. I WILL NOT. Instead I will plaster this on egyptsearch.com. But thank you again.
Thinking out loud, still under the same heading of George Washington, I notice a correlation between prosecuting people under the ODR because they have this offending blood, and other people in Europe doing their damnest best to proof that they are descendents of a Noble ancestor.
Still thinking out loud, about a guided tour we had last Saturday in our Dutch National Archives, were we were shown a cabinet with secret files of Dutch persons who were accused of being Jews, during the German occupation 1940-45. They wrote to defend themselves, claiming that they were illegitimate children of the 'milkman' or something. Most of the time it did not help them, and they were exterminated.
I should not go pushing my luck by suggesting that Ol' George over here might also have not been lily white, in looks or ODR-wise. I WILL NOT. Instead I will plaster this on egyptsearch.com.
Different discussion groups have different rules. In this site, such a claim would raise the quesion of what you meant. How plausible. If you meant that Washington had sub-Saharan ancestry, your claim would go unchallenged. If you meant that Washington had sub-Saharan ancestry within the prior century or so, your claim might go unchallenged. Alternatively, it might arouse curiosity about your data and a request for details. If you meant that Washington ethnically self-idenfied as member of the A-A community you would definitely be challenged to provide a source. If you meant that Washington looks Black to you, you would probably be ignored (other than by someone saying that the man does not look black to them). Finally, if you evade explaining precisely what you meant, and refuse to clarify despite moderator warning, you could get suspended again. All in all, this site is not a good place to make claims that are deliberately ambiguous.
Egmond Codfried wrote:
under the same heading of George Washington, I notice a correlation between prosecuting people under the ODR because they have this offending blood, and other people in Europe doing their damnest best to proof that they are descendents of a Noble ancestor.
Isn't there a timing discrepancy? The ODR prosecutions of the 1910-1930 era took place long after the age of revolutions (1776-1860) that ended European rule by the nobility.
I should not go pushing my luck by suggesting that Ol' George over here might also have not been lily white, in looks or ODR-wise. I WILL NOT. Instead I will plaster this on egyptsearch.com.
Different discussion groups have different rules. In this site, such a claim would raise the quesion of what you meant. How plausible. If you meant that Washington had sub-Saharan ancestry, your claim would go unchallenged. If you meant that Washington had sub-Saharan ancestry within the prior century or so, your claim might go unchallenged. Alternatively, it might arouse curiosity about your data and a request for details. If you meant that Washington ethnically self-idenfied as member of the A-A community you would definitely be challenged to provide a source. If you meant that Washington looks Black to you, you would probably be ignored (other than by someone saying that the man does not look black to them). Finally, if you evade explaining precisely what you meant, and refuse to clarify despite moderator warning, you could get suspended again. All in all, this site is not a good place to make claims that are deliberately ambiguous.
I WILL NOT! But off the record, would the US government prosecute Americans who openly drank alcohol IN the South of France during the Prohibition Era, after they returned home? Just to make sure, I ask this little off-topic question because I just said what I will do on ANOTHER site where nobody gives a toss! Please not a new topic for my sake!
under the same heading of George Washington, I notice a correlation between prosecuting people under the ODR because they have this offending blood, and other people in Europe doing their damnest best to proof that they are descendents of a Noble ancestor.
Isn't there a timing discrepancy? The ODR prosecutions of the 1910-1930 era took place long after the age of revolutions (1776-1860) that ended European rule by the nobility.
I wrote that some people are yearning to have a certain kind of blood in them, while a government is punishing people for having another certain kind of blood in them. By the way, your book is to be found nowhere in Holland. Could you sent one, with an invoice, to our Royal Library, The Hague?
Last edited by Egmond Codfried on Fri 17 Oct 2008 14:14; edited 2 times in total
Isn't there a timing discrepancy? The ODR prosecutions of the 1910-1930 era took place long after the age of revolutions (1776-1860) that ended European rule by the nobility.
About the Nobility ending its rule, I have some private NOT FACTUAL doubts. Off course we are talking degrees of rule. In England they are still much in control, their nobility was not abolished like in other European countries. Only after the WWII the Dutch government and parliament were not dominated by these grandees anymore. Today the Dutch Nobility is invisible; they don't use their titles in public, unless you know their names and spot them dominating the judiciary, army etc. But I have to confess not to have studied them during this time, so I’m not making any factual claims. It's an accepted fact over here that this change came only after WWII.
About the Nobility ending its rule, I have some private NOT FACTUAL doubts. Off course we are talking degrees of rule. In England they are still much in control, their nobility was not abolished like in other European countries. Only after the WWII the Dutch government and parliament were not dominated by these grandees anymore. Today the Dutch Nobility is invisible; they don't use their titles in public, unless you know their names and spot them dominating the judiciary, army etc. But I have to confess not to have studied them during this time, so I’m not making any factual claims. It's an accepted fact over here that this change came only after WWII.
You may be right. That is why I asked it as a question. I have never thought of any connection between U.S. phenomena of the Jim Crow era (specifically, the legal enforcement of a ODR) and a nostalgic claim of noble blood on the part of Europeans. Perhaps you could elaborate.
About the Nobility ending its rule, I have some private NOT FACTUAL doubts. Off course we are talking degrees of rule. In England they are still much in control, their nobility was not abolished like in other European countries. Only after the WWII the Dutch government and parliament were not dominated by these grandees anymore. Today the Dutch Nobility is invisible; they don't use their titles in public, unless you know their names and spot them dominating the judiciary, army etc. But I have to confess not to have studied them during this time, so I’m not making any factual claims. It's an accepted fact over here that this change came only after WWII.
You may be right. That is why I asked it as a question. I have never thought of any connection between U.S. phenomena of the Jim Crow era (specifically, the legal enforcement of a ODR) and a nostalgic claim of noble blood on the part of Europeans. Perhaps you could elaborate.
No, not the nostalgic claims today, but during this time (1500-1789) in Europe and there after many tried their luck, by producing an ancient noble ancestor. Fake genealogies were ordered, paintings faked to look like the present family, family arms where fraudulently added, bribes were paid. Families sometimes making several unsuccessful attempts.
The Old, real Nobility spent a lot of time refuting these claims and keeping the impostors out. I read here in a periodical named Virtus, how researchers many years, even centuries after the fact still show how a title was fraudulently obtained. King William I of The Netherlands instilled a new system in 1813; everybody was given equal titles, to be upgraded if they could produce evidence. This perhaps worked better for the new nobles, then the old.
In the US it was about offending drops of blood. So it's these two very different fights about ‘drops of blood’ which struck me.
Now if this will turn out to be the same kind of blood, I do not know. That’s were you come in and save the day.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
