But yes, I'm afraid this might not have ended too well for little AW, favourite or not. All the more impressive he didn't give up his source regardless.
That's what I was thinking. Though if he's worried that his source might get their head cut off, maybe that contributed. :/
UGH FW.
Me when FW does something: Ugh, FW.
Me when Fritz does something: Oh, Fritz.
:P
So he could have the intel from Johnn, but he could also have it from Seckendorf. Though why Seckendorf should suddenly provide him with the real goods in this particular month, and not before, I don't know, so it might be the Danes after all.
Good point, it could have been Seckendorff. We have no data on what he knew, because his November 11 report just says that on November 6, Katte's head was cut off below Fritz's window, and Fritz had to watch, and that there's hope that Fritz is about to be freed, because FW is looking for some people (lit. "Cavaliers") to go to him.
Whereas the Johnn report has all the details that make it clear it was from an eyewitness, as does Stratemann.
An important difference between the two is that Johnn (like the pamphlet) has the "if I had ten lives to give," whereas S's is more generic. But that could also reflect bias: Johnn's makes Katte look good and FW look bad, and S's has Katte explicitly blame himself and not just exonerate Fritz (the only report so far to do so). Also, this:
1731 pamphlet presumably based on Johnn: "Mein gnädigster Cron-prinz sie haben nicht Ursach mich um Verzeihung zu bitten" Stratemann: "Ihro Hoheit haben nicht Ursache um Vergebung zu bitten"
But since we don't have Seckendorff's account of the details of the execution, it's really hard to say whether Stratemann's is closer to one or the other.
(If he risked hanging out with in disgrace Løvenørn.)
But if Wikipedia is to be trusted, he wouldn't have had to! Løvenørn was back in Denmark by November. It would have been Johnn passing on the goods.
how much parents dealing out verbal abuse to their children was treated very differently to children talking badly about their parents (or just talking back) - and not just in the 18th century but still in the 20th
Yeah, in Wilhelmine's memoirs, she says there was no excuse for mocking her father behind his back, because no matter what your parents do, children should never forget the respect they owe them. Needless to say, I disagree with the notion that only punching down is morally acceptable, which is very convenient for the people who get to make the rules. ;)
doesn't seem to occur to Editor Wolff that one reason why Stratemann focuses to much on reporting cute anecdotes about the smaller kids is that anything he could say about the older ones (other than in euphemisms, like Wilhelmine being sick throughout the second half of 1730) would not sound good.
Sigh. Of course not.
He already had managed to secure the marriage with Charlotte (whose engagement he reports on) for his Duke, and was presumably gunning for Fritz, and if his mail got opened by Prussians, he really did not want to be found spouting criticism of FW, would be my guess.
Re: The Braunschweig Perspective : First Impressions
That's what I was thinking. Though if he's worried that his source might get their head cut off, maybe that contributed. :/
UGH FW.
Me when FW does something: Ugh, FW.
Me when Fritz does something: Oh, Fritz.
:P
So he could have the intel from Johnn, but he could also have it from Seckendorf. Though why Seckendorf should suddenly provide him with the real goods in this particular month, and not before, I don't know, so it might be the Danes after all.
Good point, it could have been Seckendorff. We have no data on what he knew, because his November 11 report just says that on November 6, Katte's head was cut off below Fritz's window, and Fritz had to watch, and that there's hope that Fritz is about to be freed, because FW is looking for some people (lit. "Cavaliers") to go to him.
Whereas the Johnn report has all the details that make it clear it was from an eyewitness, as does Stratemann.
An important difference between the two is that Johnn (like the pamphlet) has the "if I had ten lives to give," whereas S's is more generic. But that could also reflect bias: Johnn's makes Katte look good and FW look bad, and S's has Katte explicitly blame himself and not just exonerate Fritz (the only report so far to do so). Also, this:
1731 pamphlet presumably based on Johnn: "Mein gnädigster Cron-prinz sie haben nicht Ursach mich um Verzeihung zu bitten"
Stratemann: "Ihro Hoheit haben nicht Ursache um Vergebung zu bitten"
But since we don't have Seckendorff's account of the details of the execution, it's really hard to say whether Stratemann's is closer to one or the other.
(If he risked hanging out with in disgrace Løvenørn.)
But if Wikipedia is to be trusted, he wouldn't have had to! Løvenørn was back in Denmark by November. It would have been Johnn passing on the goods.
how much parents dealing out verbal abuse to their children was treated very differently to children talking badly about their parents (or just talking back) - and not just in the 18th century but still in the 20th
Yeah, in Wilhelmine's memoirs, she says there was no excuse for mocking her father behind his back, because no matter what your parents do, children should never forget the respect they owe them. Needless to say, I disagree with the notion that only punching down is morally acceptable, which is very convenient for the people who get to make the rules. ;)
doesn't seem to occur to Editor Wolff that one reason why Stratemann focuses to much on reporting cute anecdotes about the smaller kids is that anything he could say about the older ones (other than in euphemisms, like Wilhelmine being sick throughout the second half of 1730) would not sound good.
Sigh. Of course not.
He already had managed to secure the marriage with Charlotte (whose engagement he reports on) for his Duke, and was presumably gunning for Fritz, and if his mail got opened by Prussians, he really did not want to be found spouting criticism of FW, would be my guess.
Totally agree.