Thoughts partly prompted by my reading the Beuys biography, and partly by earlier discussions: so, we have FW, son and grandson of two ladies who weren't just smart and determined but actually in charge and/or dominating in their respective domains, and son of a man who aside from pushing to be King instead of "just" Prince Elector and aside from the (admittedly immense) conflict with his father about Stepmom and the suspicion of murder prefered compromise, and definitely abided by the rules his wife set in terms of their relationship no matter whether you agree with Beuys or not on the validity of the French ambassador anecdotes. It doesn't seem to be a big leap to assume that the bad opinion FW had of the female sex in general (and promptly transmitted to his sons), which Wilhelmine reports in her memoirs early on, his "my way or nothing" determination and celebration of manliness and as much all masculine company as possible were all in reaction to this, as much as his austerity programm was in reaction to everyone else's baroque opulence. (While the last one was of course also due to the dire necessity of restoring broke Prussia's finances, the former are textbook backlash of privileged masculinity going toxic, no?)
However, I wonder whether two more things aren't also due to this upbringing, in this case not actions against it but, despite himself, following it. If our speculation that SD stopped having sex with him post August 1730 (as indicated by the lack of pregnancies thereafter as well as FW for the first time straying and going - unsuccessfully - after another woman) is correct, then he doesn't seem to have, as the euphemism for marital rape goes, tried to force his marital rights. And we do know he did not make Frau von Pannewitz pay for rejecting and punching him. Now in the later case this might have been partly because by his own standards he was clearly in the wrong there and she was behaving as a good Christian wife (tm) should, but then FW in other matters was entirely capable of overriding his own standards (ask whipped for nothing Doris Ritter), especially when angry. So I'm wondering whether the fact that in both cases, he accepted the women's right to say no to sex wasn't due to some inner buried standard from his youth.
And then there's the fact he didn't divorce SD, or locked her up. Much as she hated him, she really dreaded the divorce prospect (not least due her own backstory with her mother), which we know from letters. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying FW should be congratulated for NOT doing awful things when he did do so many other awful things. I'm just curious about the factors that might have caused him drawing the line there. A Protestant divorce, unlike a Catholic annulment, would not have illegitimized his male offspring. SD's father did it to her mother while still keeping future G2 as heir without a problem. And from his pov, certainly his life would have been easier - and the chances of him being the sole influence on his son(s) greater - if, after several years of marital battle showed SD would never give up her English alliance idea - if he'd have done the despote thing of putting her in some remote castle somewhere. (Küstrin or Stettin come to mind.) Again, see SD's father, and see also, for that matter, Wilhelmine's father-in-law doing just this to his wife. Yes, SD didn't offer him the excuse of adultery, but he already thought (correctly) she was conspiring against him with foreign amabassadors, and this is FW; he certainly could have done it without anyone in his own country making much of a protest. (I assume brother G2 might have done a token protest, but I don't see him going to the baricades for her.) Even when he's ranting at Fritz during the August 1731 submission and painting a "what if" scenario, Wilhelmine is the one getting the imaginary prison away from sun or moon. SD gets unspecifically made very unhappy. Now both daughter and wife are in his complete social power... but I think the difference is that daughters aren't covered by childhood impressions. Wives and mothers are. Maybe that's the difference?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Some FW Speculation
Date: 2020-07-21 07:30 am (UTC)However, I wonder whether two more things aren't also due to this upbringing, in this case not actions against it but, despite himself, following it. If our speculation that SD stopped having sex with him post August 1730 (as indicated by the lack of pregnancies thereafter as well as FW for the first time straying and going - unsuccessfully - after another woman) is correct, then he doesn't seem to have, as the euphemism for marital rape goes, tried to force his marital rights. And we do know he did not make Frau von Pannewitz pay for rejecting and punching him. Now in the later case this might have been partly because by his own standards he was clearly in the wrong there and she was behaving as a good Christian wife (tm) should, but then FW in other matters was entirely capable of overriding his own standards (ask whipped for nothing Doris Ritter), especially when angry. So I'm wondering whether the fact that in both cases, he accepted the women's right to say no to sex wasn't due to some inner buried standard from his youth.
And then there's the fact he didn't divorce SD, or locked her up. Much as she hated him, she really dreaded the divorce prospect (not least due her own backstory with her mother), which we know from letters. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying FW should be congratulated for NOT doing awful things when he did do so many other awful things. I'm just curious about the factors that might have caused him drawing the line there. A Protestant divorce, unlike a Catholic annulment, would not have illegitimized his male offspring. SD's father did it to her mother while still keeping future G2 as heir without a problem. And from his pov, certainly his life would have been easier - and the chances of him being the sole influence on his son(s) greater - if, after several years of marital battle showed SD would never give up her English alliance idea - if he'd have done the despote thing of putting her in some remote castle somewhere. (Küstrin or Stettin come to mind.) Again, see SD's father, and see also, for that matter, Wilhelmine's father-in-law doing just this to his wife. Yes, SD didn't offer him the excuse of adultery, but he already thought (correctly) she was conspiring against him with foreign amabassadors, and this is FW; he certainly could have done it without anyone in his own country making much of a protest. (I assume brother G2 might have done a token protest, but I don't see him going to the baricades for her.) Even when he's ranting at Fritz during the August 1731 submission and painting a "what if" scenario, Wilhelmine is the one getting the imaginary prison away from sun or moon. SD gets unspecifically made very unhappy. Now both daughter and wife are in his complete social power... but I think the difference is that daughters aren't covered by childhood impressions. Wives and mothers are. Maybe that's the difference?