Archaeologica.org

.
.

I believe painted pictures of monarchs are mostly imaginative; especially decades, centuries, or, in cases, a millennium after their death. I am more inclined to believe coins more likely show the true image. Yet, there have been periods when monarchs were represented more to conform to some convention than their actual appearance; and counterfeits have been common throughout modern history. The following coins were minted during the life of the following monarchs:



A bigger image of it is here:
http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/02-16 ... 10-00.html

More on The Golden Age of the African and how to maneuver through its 300+ pages:
http://www.beforebc.de/AboutAuthorAndAf ... enAge.html

.
.

I believe painted pictures of monarchs are mostly imaginative ...

About as imaginative as your conclusion that the House of Hapsburg is black. PaulMarc, do you have a shred of genetic evidence to back any of this up, or is this statement just your latest fantasy?

As mentioned previously, physical characteristics do not always indicate race (such as a dark appearance or curly hair on a coin). I would suggest that you pick up a book on Genetics 101 and clue yourself in to the latest techniques in analysis. Quite frankly, you remind me of the Russians during the Cold War Era who claimed that they virtually invented everything worth inventing. They didn't have a shred of evidence either.

Whatever you do, do not quit your day job!

It's a HUGE conspiracy! Everything has been WHITE WASHED!!!

I am more inclined to believe coins more likely show the true image.

Why?

While I am certainly not saying he is correct, given the more relaxed views of race in the past and the 400 plus reign of the family, it would be easy to imagine there was some “Black Blood” somewhere in the wood pile.

How that would show up in painting or on coins is problematic.

The nose is wrong.