"The Fugger family was a historically prominent group of European bankers, members of the fifteenth and sixteenth-century mercantile patriciate of Augsburg, international mercantile bankers, and venture capitalists like the Welser and the Höchstetter families. This banking family replaced the de' Medici family, who influenced all of Europe during the Renaissance. The Fuggers took over many of the Medici assets as well as their political power and influence."
Alessandro Medici Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
Muurz!
Malibudusul, keep up your good work!
Muurz! Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
Jakob Fugger of the Lily (German: Jakob Fugger von der Lilie) (6 March 1459 – 30 December 1525) also known as Jakob Fugger the Rich or sometimes Jakob II. Fugger was a major merchant, mining entrepreneur and banker of Europe between ca. 1495-1525. He was a descendant of the Fugger merchant family located in the Free Imperial City of Augsburg, where he was also born. Within a few decades he expanded the family firm to a business operating in all of Europe. He began his education with the age of 14 in Venice, which also remained his main residence until 1487. At the same time he was a cleric and held several prebendaries, even though he never lived in a monastery.
Black people true illuminatis!!
Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
cool ^^^^^ put the link
Is there women who were pope? Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
I Found!!!
Pope Joan "Pope Joan was a legendary female Pope who allegedly reigned for a few years some time during the Middle Ages. The story first appeared in 13th-century chronicles, and subsequently spread and embellished throughout Europe. It was widely believed for centuries, though modern religious scholars consider it fictitious, perhaps deriving from historicized folklore regarding Roman monuments or from anti-papal satire."
Mystery of the pregnant pope: New film reopens one of the Vatican's most enduring wound
"What causes Catholicism to accept these shadowy figures as real but dismiss Joan as a tall tale is the fact she was a woman.
And if she never existed, how do you explain three curiosities of Roman life that survive her? First, there is the small wayside shrine or edicola in a back street between the Colosseum and the basilica of St John Lateran that for centuries has been treated by visitors as marking the spot where Joan infamously gave birth.
The Vatican in the 17th century rebranded it with a statue of Our Lady, but it continues to draw those curious about the woman pope.
And then there are the eight incongruous designs at the base of the great baldacchino, or altar cover, in the centre of St Peter's.
The Vatican's denials only fuel the rumours
Seven show a woman's face, topped by a papal crown, in various stages of agony. The final one replaces the woman's face with a baby's. Below the face is a swollen belly and below that folds of skin that contract to create the impression of giving birth.
Are these, as most experts suggest, just a bit of mischief by the 17th-century sculptor Bernini? Or does their presence, decorating an altar that by tradition is used only by the Pope, suggest that Joan's legend is not so distant from the heart of Catholicism?...
The Fugger family dynasty began in the mid-14th century with a modest textile business in the Swabian town of Augsburg. Over the next two hundred years the family amassed one of the greatest fortunes of all time. Through banking and mining interests they acquired the wealth and assets of the Florentine House of Medici and exerted great influence over the Holy Roman Empire and the royal courts of Europe. Like the Medici, the Fuggers were also significant patrons of the arts during the Renaissance. The roots of the German Fugger surname lie in the kingdom of Bavaria. The name is derived form the middle high German word "fucker" meaning "sheep shears" (fun fact-lioness)
^^^^ Here's the primary link on the Fugger family dynasty but let's look at the following Coat of Arms first:
Coat of Arms, Fugger family
^^^^ So what does this mean? The Fugger family was black right?
Of course not. Look at how this coat of arms appears, at the top of the following portraits of members of the Fugger family:
On each of these portraits we see Germanic white people of the Fugger family with each of their individual names written in the oval borders. So what is the black black woman doing in the Fugger family Coat of Arms wearing a mitre (bishop's hat?).
The answer applies to all the European heraldry where you see Moors. They don't represent members of the given family they are mascot-like religious/political symbols. The Moors never invaded Germany. The number of blacks in Germany in the 14th century was very few and certainly no artistocratic family of Europe was black. However some blacks were employed as attendants
So what is the nature of the symbolism of this black woman in the Fugger Coat of Arms wearing a Bishops hat? What the fug is it? The exact symbolism is uncertain but it goes back to the former Counts of Kirchberg
" The arms show the arms of the former Counts of Kirchberg. The black figure probably is the black bride as mentioned in the biblical Black Madonna, derived from the line in the biblical Book Song of Songs 1:5 "I am black but comely, O daughters of Jerusalem, ...".
The oldest image of the arms of the Counts of Kirchberg below shows the Black Madonna holding a fleur-de-lys (stylized lily emblem) this was in later images changed to a mitre (Bishop's hat), This was done when Eberhard von Kirchberg became Bishop of Augsburg in 1407."
" Another story states that the arms of the counts simply showed ther devotion to St. Mary and thus showed St. Mary holding her symbol, a fleur-de-lys. In 1273 Emperor Rudolf is said to have punished the Lords of Kirchberg by changing the figure into a black figure as a symbol of shame.
In any case, the arms have been shown during the centuries with a black female and the arms were also taken as such in the arms of the famous Fugger family, when they acquired the county in 1507." _____________________________________________________
Whatever the proper story is the concept is the same blacks used in European heraldry are symbolic they don't represent the appearance of the family members that use these symbols in their coats of arms. The same is true today the Black Madonnas still exist in European churches. Does this mean that the people praying to those madonnas revere black people as a people? Obviously not, later the descendants of these people enslaved blacks. The Fuggers of the 14th century also did not revere blacks as a people and this coat of arm does not mean they did. However they may not have been racist against blacks at this time. More virulent racism was a propaganda tool that was later employed to exploit Africans for labor when Atlantic slave trading developed
Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
This manuscript was whitened
The black presence in Germany is a fact. Black people are the original people of germany
Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
Lioness, Whites of germany were only wild
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by malibudusul: This manuscript was whitened
The black presence in Germany is a fact.
so they whitened up all the people in the whole manuscript but they left the the coat of arms alone? poppycock, that makes no sense
There were a few black people in Germany in the 14th century however they are not represented as a population by the black woman in the coat of arms. The black woman in the coat of arms is not supposed to represent a person who lived in Europe. That is false
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by malibudusul: This manuscript was whitened
The black presence in Germany is a fact. Black people are the original people of germany
Pope Johanna was not white, if she existed, a white woman would not get her foot in the door, as whites were shoe leather.
You are doing very well sticking to your own research, malibudusul. Answering the obession with Black images on a family batch. Blacks were the first humans, black civilisation already lasts 10.000 year, slavery of Blacks is not significant to Black achievement.
Yes the black identified elite had images made where they looked white, but they were not white in person. They might not have resembled James Brown or Nat King Cole in blackness of skin, but white they were not.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Blue blood is black blood. Not all resembled Nat King Cole, but they were not whites, did not appear as whites. The images are confusing, as they held strange standards of beauty. They had other ideas of portraiture, and we need to approach all portraits as symbolistic of purpose, not realistic.
Symbolism in art. Look for it in wikipedia. Only ignorant trash will see these image as realistic. I was at the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam, which has a collection of symbolist paintings bought by the brother of Johanna Bonger, Andries Bonger in Paris. In my mind the Indonesians are very much into the symbolism, spirit world and things etherical, to explain his love for this style.
Andries Bonger, brother of Johanna van Gogh-Bonger
You will notice how all whites in the whole world react in the same stupid way. You give them proof, they are frightened. They do not respond in a rational way. So we teach them to be rational and human.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
Yes the black identified elite had images made where they looked white, but they were not white in person. They might not have resembled James Brown or Nat King Cole in blackness of skin, but white they were not. [/QB]
Egmond, you say this elite who had images made where they looked white might not have resembled Nat King Cole or the Moors we see in coats of arms.
If they may not have looked like the above please post some color photos of modern day people they may have looked like. thanks
Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
The Black elite was defined by me as Black identified, fixed mulatto intermarrying race of persons looking more Asian, Black or white. But all identified as Black, whites were outcastst and shoe leather. In a sea of whites there was bound to be some admixture, but Africans themselfes could have been fair before they entered Europe. The people who founded the nobility might have back breeding of blackness in their mind, so Blacks would not be lost by constant mixing with whites. So not all had the broad noses and thick lips, but they were not whites, but Blacks.
Remember that Olivier Hermanus nor Thomas Mann were considered whites by the people who care about these things. The whites themselves exclude anyone with a tinge of Blackness.
There is this Dutch 18th century guy who looks just like Bob Marley. I was matching the hystorical figures with their today contemporaries and had over here on ES the thread Lookalikes.
Charles V Habsburg.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Some of the European black identified elite might have resembled Tofik Dibi, from Morocco. I was looking at some Jane Austen films, and they went to a lot of trouble to create hystorical hairstyles with false hair. The heavy curly styles are easily supported by some North African women and you see them never with normal, white girls. Heavy curls.
Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
"The people who founded the nobility might have back breeding of blackness in their mind, so Blacks would not be lost by constant mixing with whites. So not all had the broad noses and thick lips, but they were not whites, but Blacks."
Egmond, but they all had brown or black skin, right?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
Some of the European black identified elite might have resembled Tofik Dibi, from Morocco. I was looking at some Jane Austen films, and they went to a lot of trouble to create hystorical hairstyles with false hair. The heavy curly styles are easily supported by some North African women and you see them never with normal, white girls. Heavy curls.
Here is one portrait of
Ludovico “il Moro” Sforza as Duke of Milan from 1489 until his death. In this picture he has a similar skin complexion to Tofik Dibi and his nickname was "Il moro"
^^^ Calling him or Tofik Dibi "black" is a matter of opinion. For example do you have a quote from Tofik Dibi calling himself a black person? There are a few different portraits of Ludovico “il Moro” Sforza but let's say for argument's sake his skin was indeed brown so we will call him a "black person". For argument's sake let's also call Tofik Dibi a "black person." But if we look at other 15th century paintings of European aristocrats more of them are pale skinned than brown skinned. So why do you assume that this was not the reality? What evidence do you have that this is not how things were that many of these kings, queens and government officials were not pale skinned? There are hundreds of portraits like this. On what basis are you saying these paintings did not represent the complexion of the actual people? If we look at representations of Jesus throughout the world there are many interpretations of how he may have looked and it is sometimes biased by what ethnic background the painting is produced in. But with these European nobles there were officially appointed court painters who sat in front of these Kings and nobles and made portraits. This is not guess work the artists were painting them in person. So why do you assume they are not fairly accurate to how the person looked including in many many cases a pale skin tone? Just becuase you have a different theory? That is not proof that these hundreds and hundreds of portraits of fair skinned European nobles are not all accurate to the person's actual skin tone.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by malibudusul: "The people who founded the nobility might have back breeding of blackness in their mind, so Blacks would not be lost by constant mixing with whites. So not all had the broad noses and thick lips, but they were not whites, but Blacks."
Egmond, but they all had brown or black skin, right?
I mentioned Dibi for his looks, I did not ask him if he identified as Black. Probably not, today is 2012, not 1100-1848. But after the whites are through with him, I'll ask him about it.
Malibudusul, I consider you the only intelligent and sane person, next to me, on this. You practice cause and effect and you believe in your own mind, your own findings. The elite was brown or black of skin, no matter what images we are shown. The image of Blacks has been distorted after 1848, and next Hollywood and Jim Crow. The whites really believe us to be these ape like, uncivilized people. I do not hate whites but i tend to get wary and do not want to waste one second with them. You give them prove, they act like they do not hear you and go on asking for proof. Please do not pay attention to tithe stealing church ministers who want to fuc k up the blue blood theory and others who are talking about white protestant kings, but who are crazy people. they cannot accept that blacks were ruling whites, using them as shoe leather. blacks are no fuc king angels, but they civilised the hell out of these whites, gave them christianity.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by malibudusul: "The people who founded the nobility might have back breeding of blackness in their mind, so Blacks would not be lost by constant mixing with whites. So not all had the broad noses and thick lips, but they were not whites, but Blacks."
Egmond, but they all had brown or black skin, right?
I mentioned Dibi for his looks, I did not ask him if he identified as Black. Probably not, today is 2012, not 1100-1848. But after the whites are through with him, I'll ask him about it.
Malibudusul, I consider you the only intelligent and sane person, next to me, on this forum. You practice cause and effect and you believe in your own mind, your own findings. The elite was brown or black of skin, no matter what images we are shown. The image of Blacks has been distorted after 1848, and next Hollywood and Jim Crow. The whites really believe us to be these ape like, uncivilized people. I do not hate whites but i tend to get wary and do not want to waste one second with them. You give them prove, they act like they do not hear you and go on asking for proof. Please do not pay attention to tithe stealing church ministers who want to fuc k up the blue blood theory and others who are talking about white protestant kings, but who are crazy people. they cannot accept that blacks were ruling whites, using them as shoe leather. blacks are no fuc king angels, but they civilised the hell out of these whites, gave them christianity.
Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
Egmond Say: "Malibudusul, I consider you the only intelligent and sane person, next to me, on this forum. You practice cause and effect and you believe in your own mind, your own findings. "
Posted by malibudusul (Member # 19346) on :
Egmond, we are South American we learned since child to suspect of all Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by malibudusul: Lioness, Whites of germany were only wild
lol! you guys are a trip.
But apparently some German people thought so.
Wild men and Moors
Lyin'_ss - I forget what did you make up about this one. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Dana is a queen compared to you. You are a demented, ugly, ammoral slut, and the most empty in terms of intellect.
You are also a liar, a cheat and a fraud. On all of these counts I have caught you and called you out many times.
Skunt, there were the Muurs who owned Europe, before your cagotic, neanderthal, wildmen ancestors were released from the bottomless pits of Asia.
Face the facts!
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by malibudusul: Egmond, we are South American we learned since child to suspect of all
Yes, I do credit my background as a Surinamese for my findings. I never thought I would believe this but these whites are obviously mentally ill, and so are the Blacks that follow them.
To be explained to that the elite was described as Black and brown,. To be offered images which show blackness, and still not understanding: means they are sick.
Perhaps you and I grew up among Blacks, having no whites lord over us, forcing us to eat their demented sh it on a daily basis.
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
quote:Originally posted by Egmond Codfried:
Charles V Habsburg.
I need to proof that the Mostaert portrait is Charles V's true looks.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Portrait of an African and other paintings by Jan Mostaert
Jan Mostaert, also known by the names Joannes Sinapius and Master Of Oultremont (c. 1475 – 1555/1556) was a Dutch Renaissance painter of portraits and religious subjects, though his most famous creation was the "West Indies Landscape". He worked eighteen years as portraitist for Margaret of Austria, Regent of the Netherlands. According to Karel van Mander, Mostaert was born in Haarlem and had been a pupil of Jacob van Haarlem, bug ups Haarlem.
Mostaert accompanied Margaret on many of her travels and painted many portraits of her courtiers, coming into contact with upper class and public figures. One such figure is presented in "Portrait of an African Man" (c. 1520-30). It is not known exactly who this man was but there are indications that he was either associated with Margaret's court or was an attendant of her nephew, Charles V. The man wears rich clothes, gloves, and holds a sword, all indicative of his important status. The insignia on his hat and bag allude to possible Spanish or Portuguese origins. Although African kings were depicted in paintings of "The Adoration of the Magi", they were often stereotypical representations. "Portrait of an African Man" is significant because it is the only independently painted portrait of a black man in the Renaissance period. The small, oil-on-panel portrait is known to have had at least three different titles: "Duke of Burgundy", "Portrait of Charles VIII", and "Portrait of a Courtier". It was once paired with a portrait of a lady, thought to be Anne of Brittany, the wife of Charles VIII, King of France. Portrait of a Man
Jan Mostaert -Portrait de Jacob Jansz van der Meer (1505) - Portrait d’une femme (1525) Hans Memling – Le Christ donnant la benediction , 1478-81
Portrait of Joost Van Bronkhorst
what is the total number of Mohrs in this post?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
lol at this nonsense babble above, by this bigot!
Jan Mostaert (about 1475 - about 1556), Portrait of an African man
The Rijksmuseum Amsterdam has acquired a unique portrait of an African man. The panel, painted by Jan Mostaert and dating approximately from the period 1520-1530, is the only independent painted portrait of a black man in the Renaissance. The Albertina in Vienna keeps a drawing by Mostaert's contemporary Albrecht Dürer from about 1515, showing the head of an African man. There is some resemblance, but it is altogether unsure whether the same person is represented. A painted portrait of a black African, appearing so early in the 16th century, is absolutely unique. The black King Bathasar was of course regularly depicted in the 15th and 16th centuries in representations of ‘The Adoration of the Magi’, but these are generally very stereotypical. Furthermore, these paintings render a moment in history and are no portraits.
It is not known who is represented on the panel just acquired. There are indications that he was associated with the court of Margaret of Austria in Malines or that he was an attendant of her cousin Charles V. His pose, his rich clothing and other details are evidence of a successful assimilation within the cultural standards of the European Renaissance. The rich clothing worn by the subject of the portrait, the gloves, the sword and the embroidered bag suggest Spanish-Portuguese origins and give evidence of the considerable status he must have had. The pilgrim’s insignia on his hat, of Our Lady of Halle (south of Brussels, where Burgundy and Hapsburg pilgrims journeyed), the sword and the fleur-de-lis on the embroidered bag are clues that, in time, may possibly provide more information about the man’s identity. The painting was on view in the Rijksmuseum before, when it formed part of the exhibition 'Mediaeval Art form the Northern Netherlands', held in the summer of 1958 to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Rijksmuseum. It was then called 'Portrait of a Blackamoor'.
The panel can be viewed from 8 July to the end of August in the Philips Wing. After that, the portrait will become part of the collection of Early Dutch Paintings on loan to the Boijmans-Van Beuningen Museum in Rotterdam. The painting will also be on show as part of the exhibition Black representation. Africans and Creoles in Dutch fine art (Zwart Verbeeld. Afrikanen en Creolen in de Nederlandse beeldende kunst) (working title) planned for 2008 in De Nieuwe Kerk. From 2008 on the painting will be given a prominent place in the ensemble devoted to Malines and Brussels– seats of centralised power in the Netherlands in the 16th century - in the exhibition ‘Renaissance and Reformation’ in The New
Jan Mostaert (Haarlem, about 1475- about 1556) was, according to the biographer Karel van Mander Margaret of Austria's court-painter for about 18 years. However, he apparently did not work in her residency Malines, as the Harlem archives do not mention his absence from his town of birth for a long period.
The Rijksmuseum owns four other paintings by Mostaert: Portrait of a Lady (SK-A-3843), The Adoration of the Magi (SK-A-671), The Tree of Jesse (SK-A-3901, formerly attributed to Geertgen tot Sint Jans) and the triptych with the Lamentation (SK-A-2123). The newly acquired portrait in all respects enriches the collection enormously. The BankGiro Loterij, the Mondriaan Stichting, Vereniging Rembrandt co-facilitated by Prins Bernhard Cultuurfonds , the VSBfonds and the Rijksmuseum Fonds contributed towards the acquisition of the panel.
I was privileged to see this Mostaert portrait. It's quite small. I saw drawings and a grainy photo of Charles V's mummy and My, was he so black skinned. The mummy was described as black and very prognastic. There you have it, we are looking for a black skinned royal with massive prognathism
My Suriname Museum of Black History opens this week. I'm designing the folder as we speak. Living in Central The Hague I will have little trouble finding 60 visitors a day for €1 entrance.
These are the panels to be displayed in my staircase.
Are you paying attention Malibudusul. I was thinking about your hormone problem, I was once young too; while a museum at home brings all kinds of interesting people right to your door. And they pay money too.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
