Völker is a terrible name for searching! As Preuss had access to the state archives, it makes sense he'd have looked it up. (Especially since a sensational story like "poison attempt on our glorious King by his evil enemies via a minion!" actually would have been a Prussian propaganda friendly story.
....mind you, I do think there might have been more to it than just Glasow (and friend) helping themselves to money and issuing fake orders, because Lehndorff, Henckel and Kalckreuth (who is pro Glasow and thinks he got framed!) all mention he hand contact with the Countess Brühl, and if you're the second most important lady of Saxony, with still ample cash at your disposal, you don't hang out with a valet to the King who has just invaded because you just feel like it. So he might have sold some copies of letters to the Saxons as well, stuff like that.
I'm still curious as to who Nicolai's source was, and why they were so insistant that Glasow was "seduced" and just a naive young man (of 22, as of the mercy petition his father wrote to Fritz) while the true villain was Völker. Like I said, Nicolai elsewhere usually names his sources, which is really helpful. If he is vague about this one, then the only idea I have is that they might still be serving in the current (i.e. FW2) royal household. Which would surprise me, though; anyone who knew Glasow - who died in 1757 - would have been really old in 1792, plus I doubt FW2 used any of Fritz' staff (as opposed to letting them retire honorably) - he had had his own for years and years as Prince of Prussia.
(Incidentally, Mildred - the term Nicolai keeps using is indeed "verführen" and "verführt", same as when FW asks Fritz whether he seduced Katte or vice versa.)
Now Lehndorff, Henckel and Kalckreuth - who all had seen him in person - all agree that Glasow was extremely handsome, and this was how he caught Fritz' eye originally. Lehndorff and Henckel see him as a high-handed guy throwing his weight around as the new Fredersdorf (in his own eyes) (and as an ungrateful treacherous bastard), while Kalckreuth thinks he was a good egg and it framed by his dismissed servant who had it in for him. (Whereas said dismissed servant is the hero of the tale in the other accounts, even in Nicolai's.) None of them think that Glasow was seduced and manipulated by the coffee maker.
Conclusion: could whoever told the story to Nioolai maybe a) have fallen for young Glasow himself back in the day, and/or b) bear a grudge against Völker/Wöllner?
Or, crazy out there theory: Nicolai was born in 1733, which means that when Glasow rose to prominence in 1755 (when he is Fritz' companion on the incognito trip to the Netherlands), he was Glasow's age - maybe he himself had fallen for the dashing young Glasow, wants to believe the best of his youthful crush and that's why he can't name sources when he does so everywhere else?
Haha, when I first saw this name, my immediate reaction was, "Detective or not, *I'm* not putting that name in Google! It's worse than Jägerhof. :PP"
Lastly: Fritz objecting to Glasow's "consorting with women", and noticing Glasow's nightly absence: I don't think Nicolai is trying to insinuate something - as valet, it would have been Glasow's duty to be available next door or in the King's room itself
I agree, that was my reading too.
Conclusion: could whoever told the story to Nioolai maybe a) have fallen for young Glasow himself back in the day, and/or b) bear a grudge against Völker/Wöllner?
Or, crazy out there theory: Nicolai was born in 1733, which means that when Glasow rose to prominence in 1755 (when he is Fritz' companion on the incognito trip to the Netherlands), he was Glasow's age - maybe he himself had fallen for the dashing young Glasow, wants to believe the best of his youthful crush and that's why he can't name sources when he does so everywhere else?
I had been wondering if it was something like this, yeah.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-24 08:42 am (UTC)....mind you, I do think there might have been more to it than just Glasow (and friend) helping themselves to money and issuing fake orders, because Lehndorff, Henckel and Kalckreuth (who is pro Glasow and thinks he got framed!) all mention he hand contact with the Countess Brühl, and if you're the second most important lady of Saxony, with still ample cash at your disposal, you don't hang out with a valet to the King who has just invaded because you just feel like it. So he might have sold some copies of letters to the Saxons as well, stuff like that.
I'm still curious as to who Nicolai's source was, and why they were so insistant that Glasow was "seduced" and just a naive young man (of 22, as of the mercy petition his father wrote to Fritz) while the true villain was Völker. Like I said, Nicolai elsewhere usually names his sources, which is really helpful. If he is vague about this one, then the only idea I have is that they might still be serving in the current (i.e. FW2) royal household. Which would surprise me, though; anyone who knew Glasow - who died in 1757 - would have been really old in 1792, plus I doubt FW2 used any of Fritz' staff (as opposed to letting them retire honorably) - he had had his own for years and years as Prince of Prussia.
(Incidentally, Mildred - the term Nicolai keeps using is indeed "verführen" and "verführt", same as when FW asks Fritz whether he seduced Katte or vice versa.)
Now Lehndorff, Henckel and Kalckreuth - who all had seen him in person - all agree that Glasow was extremely handsome, and this was how he caught Fritz' eye originally. Lehndorff and Henckel see him as a high-handed guy throwing his weight around as the new Fredersdorf (in his own eyes) (and as an ungrateful treacherous bastard), while Kalckreuth thinks he was a good egg and it framed by his dismissed servant who had it in for him. (Whereas said dismissed servant is the hero of the tale in the other accounts, even in Nicolai's.) None of them think that Glasow was seduced and manipulated by the coffee maker.
Conclusion: could whoever told the story to Nioolai maybe a) have fallen for young Glasow himself back in the day, and/or b) bear a grudge against Völker/Wöllner?
Or, crazy out there theory: Nicolai was born in 1733, which means that when Glasow rose to prominence in 1755 (when he is Fritz' companion on the incognito trip to the Netherlands), he was Glasow's age - maybe he himself had fallen for the dashing young Glasow, wants to believe the best of his youthful crush and that's why he can't name sources when he does so everywhere else?
Re: Glasow: the Nicolai version
Date: 2021-02-27 07:57 pm (UTC)Haha, when I first saw this name, my immediate reaction was, "Detective or not, *I'm* not putting that name in Google! It's worse than Jägerhof. :PP"
Lastly: Fritz objecting to Glasow's "consorting with women", and noticing Glasow's nightly absence: I don't think Nicolai is trying to insinuate something - as valet, it would have been Glasow's duty to be available next door or in the King's room itself
I agree, that was my reading too.
Conclusion: could whoever told the story to Nioolai maybe a) have fallen for young Glasow himself back in the day, and/or b) bear a grudge against Völker/Wöllner?
Or, crazy out there theory: Nicolai was born in 1733, which means that when Glasow rose to prominence in 1755 (when he is Fritz' companion on the incognito trip to the Netherlands), he was Glasow's age - maybe he himself had fallen for the dashing young Glasow, wants to believe the best of his youthful crush and that's why he can't name sources when he does so everywhere else?
I had been wondering if it was something like this, yeah.