I duly googled and from what I an see, it's even more complicated: it's a 2019 e-book basedon a 1986 publication which in turn is based on a 1971 doctoral thesis. Its author proudly asserts that he didn't change a thing for the public print edition in the foreword, with together with young Andrew's youthful days and the footnotes to the entire book as well as the bibliography is online. Now, our author uses a lot of primary sources - thus I learn the majority of Mitchell's papers, which Bisset used for his book, are still at the British Library - but evidently there can't be any research post dating 1971. Thus I doubt there will be any explicit gayness. However, this early chapter does say Mitchell met and befriended Algarotti in Italy. Also the following horror story about Mitchell's marriage:
Dad Mitchell (widower): gets involved with lady, arranges for an engagement between her ten years old daughter Barbara and his fourteen years old son Andrew; marries Barbara's mother (also called Barbara), everyone moves in together
Andrew Mitchell: at eighteen (meaning when Barbara is fourteen) gets widowed himself as his fourteen years old bride dies in childbirth.
Andrew Mitchell: Has no known heterosexual activity after that experience as far as anyone knows.
Anyway, I will somehow acquire this book, because it does look highly relevant to my interests, but I am cautioning myself about the research date. I also note in the bibliography the publication datae for Chester Easum's Heinrich biography, which is 1942. This US biography of Heinrich was the only big one (aside from essays and co portraits) before Ziebura and thus gets referenced here and there; for example, Krockow says Easum disapproves of the Obelisk and calls it a monument to Heinrich's emotionally twisted and warped nature (twisted and warped by hate of his brother), but also that Easum says approving things about Heinrich's treatment of prisoners etc. Now, if Easum as an American writer published this in 1942, he can't have had access to the Prussian State Archive for obvious reasons. Which means he must have relied on material published and accessible in the US up to that point. So no Marwitz, no letters from Heinrich to Ferdinand, and Lehndorff only if he got his hands on copies of the diaries in the US.
Otoh, the Mitchell doctoral thesis writer includes not just the first Lehndorff volume but also 2 and 3 in his bibliography, which have indeed lots more Mitchell entries than the first one.
The Mitchell doctoral thesis writer, explaining to his readers in the foreword who Lehndorff is - "The Queen's Chamberlain, the Prussian Lord Hervey, though without that lord's malice or style".
I don't know whether to laugh, agree or protest. I mean, yes, they had the same office - technically. And they both left posterity detailed records of the courtly goings on. But Queen Caroline had actual political influence on George II, and Hervey having influence with her was a major factor in Robert Walpole staying PM as long as he did. Hervey also had actual interactions with George II. Conversely, yes, Lehndorff didn't have malice, but style? *looks at icon*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Andrew Mitchell: Secret Algarotti Boyfriend?!
Date: 2020-09-08 09:25 am (UTC)Dad Mitchell (widower): gets involved with lady, arranges for an engagement between her ten years old daughter Barbara and his fourteen years old son Andrew; marries Barbara's mother (also called Barbara), everyone moves in together
Andrew Mitchell: at eighteen (meaning when Barbara is fourteen) gets widowed himself as his fourteen years old bride dies in childbirth.
Andrew Mitchell: Has no known heterosexual activity after that experience as far as anyone knows.
Anyway, I will somehow acquire this book, because it does look highly relevant to my interests, but I am cautioning myself about the research date. I also note in the bibliography the publication datae for Chester Easum's Heinrich biography, which is 1942. This US biography of Heinrich was the only big one (aside from essays and co portraits) before Ziebura and thus gets referenced here and there; for example, Krockow says Easum disapproves of the Obelisk and calls it a monument to Heinrich's emotionally twisted and warped nature (twisted and warped by hate of his brother), but also that Easum says approving things about Heinrich's treatment of prisoners etc. Now, if Easum as an American writer published this in 1942, he can't have had access to the Prussian State Archive for obvious reasons. Which means he must have relied on material published and accessible in the US up to that point. So no Marwitz, no letters from Heinrich to Ferdinand, and Lehndorff only if he got his hands on copies of the diaries in the US.
Otoh, the Mitchell doctoral thesis writer includes not just the first Lehndorff volume but also 2 and 3 in his bibliography, which have indeed lots more Mitchell entries than the first one.
The Mitchell doctoral thesis writer, explaining to his readers in the foreword who Lehndorff is - "The Queen's Chamberlain, the Prussian Lord Hervey, though without that lord's malice or style".
I don't know whether to laugh, agree or protest. I mean, yes, they had the same office - technically. And they both left posterity detailed records of the courtly goings on. But Queen Caroline had actual political influence on George II, and Hervey having influence with her was a major factor in Robert Walpole staying PM as long as he did. Hervey also had actual interactions with George II. Conversely, yes, Lehndorff didn't have malice, but style? *looks at icon*