![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 19
Yuletide nominations:
18th Century CE Federician RPF
Maria Theresia | Maria Theresa of Austria
Voltaire
Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Ernst Ahasverus von Lehndorff
Friedrich Heinrich Ludwig von Preußen | Henry of Prussia (1726-1802)
Wilhelmine von Preußen | Wilhelmine of Prussia (1709-1758)
Anna Amalie von Preußen | Anna Amalia of Prussia (1723-1787)
Catherine II of Russia
Hans Hermann von Katte
Peter Karl Christoph von Keith
Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf
August Wilhelm von Preußen | Augustus William of Prussia (1722-1758)
Circle of Voltaire RPF
Emilie du Chatelet
Jeanne Antoinette Poisson (Madame de Pompadour)
John Hervey (1696-1743)
Marie Louise Mignot Denis
Lady Mary Wortley-Montagu
Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis
Armand de Vignerot du Plessis de Richelieu (1696-1788)
Francesco Algarotti
18th Century CE Federician RPF
Maria Theresia | Maria Theresa of Austria
Voltaire
Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Ernst Ahasverus von Lehndorff
Friedrich Heinrich Ludwig von Preußen | Henry of Prussia (1726-1802)
Wilhelmine von Preußen | Wilhelmine of Prussia (1709-1758)
Anna Amalie von Preußen | Anna Amalia of Prussia (1723-1787)
Catherine II of Russia
Hans Hermann von Katte
Peter Karl Christoph von Keith
Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf
August Wilhelm von Preußen | Augustus William of Prussia (1722-1758)
Circle of Voltaire RPF
Emilie du Chatelet
Jeanne Antoinette Poisson (Madame de Pompadour)
John Hervey (1696-1743)
Marie Louise Mignot Denis
Lady Mary Wortley-Montagu
Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis
Armand de Vignerot du Plessis de Richelieu (1696-1788)
Francesco Algarotti
Re: Andrew Mitchell: The Return
in 1755, Fritz hinted he could visit, and G2 was all NO NO NO DO NOT WANT to his ministers, who had to tone it down and massage it into a diplomatic reply
ROTFL
This is how Blanning describes this episode, while recounting Anglo-Prussian relations leading up to the Seven Years' War:
Fortunately, relations with Uncle George (II) had thawed slightly from their normal state of deep freeze. Back in 1751 Frederick had gone out of his way to upset him by sending the Jacobite Earl Marischal George Keith to Versailles as Prussian ambassador. When his foreign minister, Podewils, asked how George might react, Frederick replied coarsely, “I don’t give a fuck!” 86 In late 1754, however, the two kings had cooperated to contain the damage to the Protestant party in the Holy Roman Empire threatened by the conversion of the Crown Prince of Hessen-Kassel to Catholicism. The ice was dissolved further when Frederick traveled across Germany to his territories in the west in May 1755, passing close to George, who was in residence at Herrenhausen. Although the two kings did not meet, amicable messages were exchanged.
Amicable messages thanks to the underappreciated ministers, I see.
Blanning continues:
Frederick also used a visit by the Duchess of Brunswick to the Hanoverian court, on a matrimonial mission of her own, to convey informally the assurance that he would never attack his uncle’s territories.
Fritz: Just in case you had any concerns on that front, or anything.
G2: Thanks, I guess. Your word is as good as gold!
The recall of Jean-Henri D'Andrie, who was Prussian minister in London from 1738 to 1747, left Prussian representation there in the hands of a secretary of legation.
Note: this is when the Brits suggest Peter Keith, and Fritz is all NO NO NO DO NOT WANT about the idea. :P
Mitchell, due to being on the front lines with Fritz, was one of the few who got to know Eichel and get alone with him well - until later 1758, which was when Mitchell went from distructing Heinrich to hanging out with Heinrich more and more, and Eichel (who apparantly was the "loyal only to the monarch and no one else" type - when FW ruled, this was FW, when Fritz ruled, it was Fritz) became distrustful of Mitchell and considered him contaminated by Heinrich's Fritz-critical opinions
Oohh, this is very neat! It's not the least bit surprising of Eichel, but it is new information. Also, Mitchell getting to know him, that *is* a coup!
G2's immediate reaction is not on record
Lol. I still remember Lavisse saying it was a pity that FW's alliance with France never got him into this position vis-a-vis the Emperor.
Mitchell dates:
Woot! This is going in the chronology! This is soooo great, thank you so much.
1730: Andrew resumes his studies, enroles at the law faculty i nLeyden where he spends two semesters (this means he's in the Netherlands when Peter Keith hightails it out of Prussia); (studying in the Netherlands for two terms was also what Boswell did before embarking on his Grand Tour, when I read this bit, I thought, that sounds familiar)
Neat!
In 1747 Lord Chesterfield, speaking from his experience as secretary of state, and ith the friction between Hannover and Prussia in mind, believed that 'whoever went to Berlin must be a very unhappy man between the two courts".
So I know that the Prussian report says that Chesterfield wasn't home when Keith showed up, but he returned to Britain in 1732 and married Aunt Melusine's daughter (possible lover of Katte) Petronella in 1733, and Peter was evidently in London around 1734-1736, so...I wonder if Peter thanked him for his staff's role in saving his life, and if they got to know each other, and if Chesterfield, who was busy expressing opinions on the state of Anglo-Prussian diplomacy in 1747, was interested in getting Keith sent to Britain that year. It's tenuous, but it's possible.
In sum, I've been waiting for this write-up, and, as always,
Chesterfield on FW
The King of [sic!] Prussia in the oath he prepared for the Prince to swallow, among many other things, has made him swear that he will never believe in the doctrine of Predestination! A very unnecessary declaration in my mind for any body who has misfortune of being acquainted with him to make, since he himself is a living proof of free-will, for Providence can never be supposed to have pre-ordained such a creature!
You go, Chesterfield!
Re: Chesterfield on FW
(Doctor Johnson had a famous clash with Chesterfield years later and said apropos the "Letters to his son" that Chesterfield's idea of being a gentleman clearly involved having the morals of a whore and the manners of a dancing master.)
Re: Chesterfield on FW / predestination
It also touches on something that's been irritating me since I first read it: FW's opposition to predestination, and the fact that he made it such an important part of Frederick's submission. Because as far as I know, FW was a calvinist, and Calvin's doctrine was clearly pro predestination, so I don't quite get it. Did he just not care about the doctrine in this case and his opposition is all personal and a result of his conflict with Fritz, as in: Fritz discovering it as a clever argument against him, saying that everything he is/does/likes is predestined by God, so why would his father fault him for it? Certainly comes across that way. (It's an argument to irritate his father for sure, but it's also interesting in the context of Fritz trying to make sense of himself I think.)
And of course Fritz, submission or not, argues for predestination again, early on in his correspondence with Voltaire, while Voltaire obviously takes the free will side. It's very much a philosophical instead of a theological argument with him, though, because since Fritz doesn't believe in an immortal soul, the whole post-death part of salvation/damnation is clearly irrelevant to him.
Re: Chesterfield on FW / predestination
Re: Chesterfield on FW / predestination
Ergo: Fritz could have found no surer way to strike at Dad under the guise of submission (since he was reading religious books and talking with the preacher, as demanded) than to declare himself a believer in predestination. Aside from that, it also was a way to justify himself. (I.e. assert his individuality - if God had meant him to be the way he was, etc.). But seriously, Predestination was a life long terror to FW, and anyone who knew him personally knew that.
Re: Chesterfield on FW / predestination
Re: Chesterfield on FW
Re: Andrew Mitchell: The Return - Choosing an Envoy
G2: I just don't like younger relations called Fritz, okay? They're never up to any good.
Note: this is when the Brits suggest Peter Keith, and Fritz is all NO NO NO DO NOT WANT about the idea. :P
To fully appreciate how utterly insulting to Peter Keith (and also somewhat insulting to the Brits in terms of how serious he took relations with them until 1756) this is, get this: the Legationssekretär in GB was one Abraham Michell (yes, Michell, just to make life easier for us), whom Fritz had never met, who had, in fact, never visited Prussia in his life, and about whom it's unclear whether he even had taken the customary oath of loyalty to Prussia when becoming the previous envoy's secretary. The previous envoy had also been a Swiss (but at least one who' dbeen to Berlin and was known to people there), and Michell had joined Prussian service through this backdoor. When Podewils suggested raising him from Legationssekretär to minister, rank wise, now that he was full time envoy, Fritz said no, he'd demand a bigger salary then, and Fritz was all about saving money. And Michell - who, again, no one in Berlin knew and who never had visited any part of Prussia in his life - remained on the job.
...I do hope Peter never learned the Brits had asked for him, or at least not who the alternate candidate was. Also, again, date wise: This decision was made in 1747; within two years, after Hans Hermann's half brothers killed each other, Fritz intervenes in Katte family affair and gets cousin Ludolf a rich heiress.
Chesterfield: it is, indeed, possible, but like I said, I REALLY HOPE HE DIDN'T TELL PETER:
Re: Andrew Mitchell: The Return - Choosing an Envoy
It may not be deliberate whitewashing! Maybe he only read the diplomatic versions. After all, those ministers are getting paid for *something*, and that includes successful spin doctoring.
get this: the Legationssekretär in GB was one Abraham Michell (yes, Michell, just to make life easier for us), whom Fritz had never met, who had, in fact, never visited Prussia in his life, and about whom it's unclear whether he even had taken the customary oath of loyalty to Prussia when becoming the previous envoy's secretary.
Oh, gosh. So I was with Fritz that Peter might not be the person you'd want for hardcore negotiations, but if the alternative is this guy, and no formal envoy? In a way, though, that almost makes it better: clearly this has less to do with Peter and more to do with 1) Fritz being cheap, 2) Fritz not giving a damn about British relations.
...It's a balance-of-powers miracle that Fritz ended up with any allies at all in 1756. :P
This decision was made in 1747; within two years, after Hans Hermann's half brothers killed each other, Fritz intervenes in Katte family affair and gets cousin Ludolf a rich heiress.
Yep, I was thinking of this. No wonder my fictional Peter is so insecure in 1750. :/
Chesterfield: it is, indeed, possible, but like I said, I REALLY HOPE HE DIDN'T TELL PETER:
Let's hope it went like this.
British: Sound out Fritz.
British: Get a thumbs down.
British: Decide there's no point in telling Peter.
Let's also hope Peter was happier as Academy curator anyway.
Re: Andrew Mitchell: The Return - Choosing an Envoy
British: Decide there's no point in telling Peter.
It did strike me that when after August III's death Heinrich was considered a candidate for next King of Poland, Fritz told the Polish delegation not just no but forbade them to mention it to Heinrich, who indeed dit not find out until visiting Catherine seven years later. So maybe he told the Brits not to tell Peter, either, which would have saved Peter from feeling rejected all over again.
Lehndorff: This is why all right-thinking people are indignant on your behalf, Sir. But I'm honored to know you anyway.
Re: Andrew Mitchell: The Return - Choosing an Envoy
Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
So maybe he told the Brits not to tell Peter, either, which would have saved Peter from feeling rejected all over again.
Good point re Heinrich. I would guess it depends on whether Fritz thinks Keith was scheming, in which case he needs a firm "no, and stop it," or whether it was all the British, in which case he doesn't want to give Peter ideas. Since his letter says he's leaning toward the latter, let's hope he went, "No, and don't bring this up with Keith ever!"
Lehndorff: This is why all right-thinking people are indignant on your behalf, Sir. But I'm honored to know you anyway.
<3 you quoting from my fic!
Re: Andrew Mitchell: The Return - Emotionally Compromised
Here are the two Heinrich passages for you:
Previously Mitchell had been wary of Henry because of his pro-French sympathies but during the months when he accompanied him on campaign he came to see a different side to the King's brother. In Henry Mitchell found the ideal military commander, one who struck a proper balance between valour and humanitas. He praised the 'goodness' with which the prince treated prisoners, his care for the common soldier and his consideration for his officers, and he admired his 'coolness and presence of mind under fire'. Henry, in fact, had all of Frederick's qualities as a commander except his daring, and conspiciously lacked his impatience, his urge to settle everything in one great battle and his unconcern for his men. during this campaign Mitchell alid the basis of that friendship with Henry which lasted for the rest of his life.
Suspicious Eichel, a year later, when Mitchell instead of staying at headquarters with Fritz goes with Heinrich to Glogau in November 1760:
As worrying as Mitchell's absence from headquarters was his growing intimacy with Henry. Eichel, for one, was particularly unhappy about this. Since the end of August, when Frederick had amalgamated Henry's army with his own force, the prince had been sulking. Returning to Breslau, 'se sentant incommodi d'un accès de fievre', as Eichel wrote carefully to Finckenstein, he brooded over the loss of his command. The subsequent estrangement between the two brothers was a further source of that discontent and flagging morale which both Eichel and Mitchell noted among the army command. Many of the general officers shared Henry's view that the concentration of all the troops into one army seriously reduced the capability of the state to defend itself, whereas Frederick was prepared to accept this risk for the possibility of inflicting a massive defeat on one of his enemies should such an opportunity arise. First at Breslau, then ata Glogau, Mitchell was very much thrown into the company of Henry and in the eyes of Eichel, and perhaps Frederick himself, risked being contaminated by the dissatisfaction with the handling of the war which Henry's circle professed. AS so much depended on Britain retaining belief in Frederick's ability to survive, Eichel's concern was understandable. Mitchell was, in fact, trying to persuade Henry to return to headquarters and heal the breach with the King. But he failed in this attempt 'to heal, to soften and to apologize for the King of Prussia's conduct towards him'.
(This would be when Mitchell wrote he was trying to persuade Prussian ministers to help him reconciling the brothers, but that they chickened out. Maybe he meant Eichel?)
Re: Andrew Mitchell: The Return - Emotionally Compromised
Re: Andrew Mitchell: The Return - Emotionally Compromised
Eichel's prominent enough and in favor enough that he'd be my go-to guy for this, if I knew him and got along with him! Too bad Eichel had one-man loyalties.