re: b) - I know that "kid surrounded by fawning sycophants, gets told whatever he does is perfect" is the standard bad upbringing cliché for a prince - which Fritz and siblings definitely did not get - but I do wonder which of his contemporaries did, at least among the top players. Other than the obvious suspect, i.e. Louis XV, Louis the well beloved indeed. Because the Habsburgs didn't; we don't know as much about MT's raising as we do about her kids' raising, but what we do know was those kids is that they had a great deal to learn and definitely got chided if they weren't good in something. (Marie Antoinette with languages, for example.) Just not FW style chided, OMG. And all the Hannover Georges famously despised their male offspring and weren't that keen on some of the female ones, either. Catherine when still Sophie von Anhalt Zerbst had a very critical mother as I recall who had something of the SD Syndrome of wanting to live her ideal life through her daughter. With the result that when sycophants do show up, which happens during the princes' teenage days at the latest, all those teenage royals, not just Fritz, eat the that praise up with a spoon.
And then, of course, there's (P)Russian Pete. An example of Mitchell being a good judge of character and seeing through hyperbole in either direction is when he has his first chat with the Russian envoy post coup, on August 6th, 1762, and writes:
I think it unnecessary to repeat the account he gave me of the late revolution, nor of the death of the Emperor, which happened the 17th July, on the roadvto Slusselburg—a fortress—where he was to be imprisoned, and which, it is said, was occasioned par une cholique hemeroidale, to which his Imperial Majesty was subject, but which was increased by his intemperance; nor shall I mention the reports which havecbeen spread of the Emperor's intention to poison his wife, and to marry his mistress the Countess Elizabeth Woronzow, who, it is said, is with child, for this unfortunate Prince is even charged with a design of altering the succession, in prejudice to his own son and in favour of this unborn child; all those reports, and many others not worth mentioning, seem to me highly improbable, and greatly exaggerated in order to justify the late revolution (for which a reason mustbe given to the people). His real crime was a contempt for the nation he was to govern, which he showed too openly on every occasion, and thereby made himself a number of enemies; add to this, infinite conceit of himself, imagining that he was capable to execute every project which Peter the Great had formed, and that by a servile imitation he was instantaneously to become as formidable a warrior as the King of Prussia, whom he had chose for his model. His bad conduct with regard to his wife, his natural weakness and levity and precipitation with which he acted in the most important affairs, afforded more than sufficient handles for his destruction, without supposing him either criminal or malicious, yet hints of this kind are thrown out by authority, but do not acquire thereby any degree of credibility.
but I do wonder which of his contemporaries did, at least among the top players.
Louis the Well-beloved was the one who came to mind for me too. However, I think more interesting would be to look at the *previous* generations, because those are the examples that would lead Fritz to expect his parents' generation to go about raising their children a certain way.
I also think, again from Catt's context, that he's talking less about the parents themselves indulging their children, than the parents doing their best to make sure the people around the children aren't flattering them.
With the result that when sycophants do show up, which happens during the princes' teenage days at the latest, all those teenage royals, not just Fritz, eat the that praise up with a spoon.
Yeah, Catt has Fritz saying that when the flatterers showed up, Fritz ate it up with a spoon, but then he learned not to trust people, and now he doesn't let anyone influence him, so it's all good!
Self: *clears throat*
If Catt plus various other quotes + FW2's upbringing are anything to go by, Fritz has several of the pieces of good child psychology, but is not quite seeing the whole picture, and putting them together wrong.
An example of Mitchell being a good judge of character and seeing through hyperbole in either direction
That *is* a pretty good character evaluation! It basically summarizes modern scholarship, after centuries of swallowing the post-coup rationalizations whole. (As Lehndorff witnessed everyone doing.)
yet hints of this kind are thrown out by authority, but do not acquire thereby any degree of credibility.
Well done, Mitchell! That's a healthy skepticism to have when you work with heads of state.
Yeah, Catt has Fritz saying that when the flatterers showed up, Fritz ate it up with a spoon, but then he learned not to trust people, and now he doesn't let anyone influence him, so it's all good!
Meanwhile, Mitchell in the year 1766, to a new English secretary of foreign affairs, about Fritz:
The duty of my station, as well as the affection I bear to your Lordship as a friend, oblige me to disclose to you some of the weaknesses of my hero. Great men have their failings; if they had not, they would be too much for humanity. His is that of vanity, and a desire on every occasion to have the lead, or, at least, to seem to have it. The first might be dangerous; the second, I mean the appearance of leading, may be yielded with advantage, in order to draw him into such measures as are for his interest, but without shocking his vanity.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: Andrew Mitchell: First Impressions
And then, of course, there's (P)Russian Pete. An example of Mitchell being a good judge of character and seeing through hyperbole in either direction is when he has his first chat with the Russian envoy post coup, on August 6th, 1762, and writes:
I think it unnecessary to repeat the account he gave me of the late revolution, nor of the death of the Emperor, which happened the 17th July, on the roadvto Slusselburg—a fortress—where he was to be imprisoned, and which, it is said, was occasioned par une cholique hemeroidale, to which his Imperial Majesty was subject, but which was increased by his intemperance; nor shall I mention the reports which havecbeen spread of the Emperor's intention to poison his wife, and to marry his mistress the Countess Elizabeth Woronzow, who, it is said, is with child, for this unfortunate Prince is even charged with a design of altering the succession, in prejudice to his own son and in favour of this unborn child; all those reports, and many others not worth mentioning, seem to me highly improbable, and greatly exaggerated in order to justify the late revolution (for which a reason mustbe given to the people). His real crime was a contempt for the nation he was to govern, which he showed too openly on every occasion, and thereby made himself a number of enemies; add to this, infinite conceit of himself, imagining that he was capable to execute every project which Peter the Great had formed, and that by a servile imitation he was instantaneously to become as formidable a warrior as the King of Prussia, whom he had chose for his model. His bad conduct with regard to his wife, his natural weakness and levity and precipitation with which he acted in the most important affairs, afforded more than sufficient handles for his destruction, without supposing him either criminal or malicious, yet hints of this kind are thrown out by authority, but do not acquire thereby any degree of credibility.
Re: Andrew Mitchell: First Impressions
Louis the Well-beloved was the one who came to mind for me too. However, I think more interesting would be to look at the *previous* generations, because those are the examples that would lead Fritz to expect his parents' generation to go about raising their children a certain way.
I also think, again from Catt's context, that he's talking less about the parents themselves indulging their children, than the parents doing their best to make sure the people around the children aren't flattering them.
With the result that when sycophants do show up, which happens during the princes' teenage days at the latest, all those teenage royals, not just Fritz, eat the that praise up with a spoon.
Yeah, Catt has Fritz saying that when the flatterers showed up, Fritz ate it up with a spoon, but then he learned not to trust people, and now he doesn't let anyone influence him, so it's all good!
Self: *clears throat*
If Catt plus various other quotes + FW2's upbringing are anything to go by, Fritz has several of the pieces of good child psychology, but is not quite seeing the whole picture, and putting them together wrong.
An example of Mitchell being a good judge of character and seeing through hyperbole in either direction
That *is* a pretty good character evaluation! It basically summarizes modern scholarship, after centuries of swallowing the post-coup rationalizations whole. (As Lehndorff witnessed everyone doing.)
yet hints of this kind are thrown out by authority, but do not acquire thereby any degree of credibility.
Well done, Mitchell! That's a healthy skepticism to have when you work with heads of state.
Re: Andrew Mitchell: First Impressions
*chokes* Um.
Re: Andrew Mitchell: First Impressions
The duty of my station, as well as the affection I bear to your Lordship as a friend, oblige me to disclose to you some of the weaknesses of my hero. Great men have their failings; if they had not, they would be too much for humanity. His is that of vanity, and a desire on every occasion to have the lead, or, at least, to seem to have it. The first might be dangerous; the second, I mean the appearance of leading, may be yielded with advantage, in order to draw him into such measures as are for his interest, but without shocking his vanity.
Re: Andrew Mitchell: First Impressions