It was neat! I continue to be delighted at what a great team we make, in which I turn up the anecdotes volume and tell you about it, and you read it and tell us all the neat anecdotes in it and tell us that there's a life by Caroline Daum, and then I find it and you help me read it! :D
We did not, but like I said, it fits with Lehndorff on December 15th 1752
Exactly, I had double-checked it when doing this write-up yesterday.
Definitely the sex part. "Vollziehung der Ehe" is "consumation of marriage".
Aahhh, yes, of course, I should have thought of that. (Oh, wait, I was super distracted and rushed because of reasons.) I just figured it was sex because that was a common thing to worry about.
I'm a bit sceptical about the medical part of these supposed Fritzian concerns, given that in the one and only letter to Fredersdorf where he mentions the upcoming marriage, he also makes that "take a hot hunter or page with you" joke.
I had the same reaction! (There were many things I wanted to say yesterday and did not.) I suspect Fritz is actually medically concerned, but then using the medical part to justify his main concern, which is, "I'm still your top priority, right? Right???"
No, you're reading it right - "the doctors denied there was any chance that he would live" (in the long term).
Awesome, thanks.
This has become quite a different story!
Indeed! But the interesting part is that the individual elements are all there, even if the way they're put together completely contradicts the later version of the story. I did wonder briefly if maybe Fritz gave his permission (the second time) on December 19, 1753, but no, his "take a hot hunter or page with you" letter is from "around the beginning of November 1753." Incidentally, Richter gives the marriage date as December 30, not December 20, citing the church book in the Potsdam Garrison Church, and Fahlenkamp agrees. Our chronology says December 23!! Which is from Wikipedia, no citation. (This is what I mean by constantly hitting different dates for the same event.) (Fontane of course gives 1750, but we know that's way off.)
The 20th could be a typo, or the 30th could be a typo/misreading that Fahlenkamp copied from Richter.
(God or Fritz, easy to confuse. :P)
Truth, hence my letting Heinrich use the "Allmighty" designation. :)
Heee, that was hilarious. :D
But she definitely means Fritz. (So there, Wikipedia and Fahlenkamp!)
Aha! That was my first reading (and "so there!" my first reaction), but then I started second-guessing and thinking maybe I just have Wikipedia and Fahlenkamp on the brain because I've been doing some serious research on that subject in the last month.
So...is she being defensive because when she was writing, there were already claims about him not having been in favor? Because that seems like an interesting thing to interject into his death description. "Fredersdorf was Fritz's favorite, so Fritz was worried about his health and didn't want to let us get married" is an important part of the plot; "Fredersdorf was in favor when he died!" is...lacking context unless there are already rumors going around.
(Deschamps accuses Fredersdorf of embezzlement, but never actually says he was out of favor, as far as I can tell, and indeed implies quite the opposite (based on my memory of Selena's summary of the editor's summary of a text none of us have read)).
Btw, if it were only Caroline, I'd have to point out her possible bias, but we have so much other evidence that while this isn't the strongest piece, it's definitely good to add to the picture.
"Der große König" was NOT how Rococo people talked about God.
Re: "Anekdoten, die wir erlebten und hörten"
It was neat! I continue to be delighted at what a great team we make, in which I turn up the anecdotes volume and tell you about it, and you read it and tell us all the neat anecdotes in it and tell us that there's a life by Caroline Daum, and then I find it and you help me read it! :D
We did not, but like I said, it fits with Lehndorff on December 15th 1752
Exactly, I had double-checked it when doing this write-up yesterday.
Definitely the sex part. "Vollziehung der Ehe" is "consumation of marriage".
Aahhh, yes, of course, I should have thought of that. (Oh, wait, I was super distracted and rushed because of reasons.) I just figured it was sex because that was a common thing to worry about.
I'm a bit sceptical about the medical part of these supposed Fritzian concerns, given that in the one and only letter to Fredersdorf where he mentions the upcoming marriage, he also makes that "take a hot hunter or page with you" joke.
I had the same reaction! (There were many things I wanted to say yesterday and did not.) I suspect Fritz is actually medically concerned, but then using the medical part to justify his main concern, which is, "I'm still your top priority, right? Right???"
No, you're reading it right - "the doctors denied there was any chance that he would live" (in the long term).
Awesome, thanks.
This has become quite a different story!
Indeed! But the interesting part is that the individual elements are all there, even if the way they're put together completely contradicts the later version of the story. I did wonder briefly if maybe Fritz gave his permission (the second time) on December 19, 1753, but no, his "take a hot hunter or page with you" letter is from "around the beginning of November 1753." Incidentally, Richter gives the marriage date as December 30, not December 20, citing the church book in the Potsdam Garrison Church, and Fahlenkamp agrees. Our chronology says December 23!! Which is from Wikipedia, no citation. (This is what I mean by constantly hitting different dates for the same event.) (Fontane of course gives 1750, but we know that's way off.)
The 20th could be a typo, or the 30th could be a typo/misreading that Fahlenkamp copied from Richter.
(God or Fritz, easy to confuse. :P)
Truth, hence my letting Heinrich use the "Allmighty" designation. :)
Heee, that was hilarious. :D
But she definitely means Fritz. (So there, Wikipedia and Fahlenkamp!)
Aha! That was my first reading (and "so there!" my first reaction), but then I started second-guessing and thinking maybe I just have Wikipedia and Fahlenkamp on the brain because I've been doing some serious research on that subject in the last month.
So...is she being defensive because when she was writing, there were already claims about him not having been in favor? Because that seems like an interesting thing to interject into his death description. "Fredersdorf was Fritz's favorite, so Fritz was worried about his health and didn't want to let us get married" is an important part of the plot; "Fredersdorf was in favor when he died!" is...lacking context unless there are already rumors going around.
(Deschamps accuses Fredersdorf of embezzlement, but never actually says he was out of favor, as far as I can tell, and indeed implies quite the opposite (based on my memory of Selena's summary of the editor's summary of a text none of us have read)).
Btw, if it were only Caroline, I'd have to point out her possible bias, but we have so much other evidence that while this isn't the strongest piece, it's definitely good to add to the picture.
"Der große König" was NOT how Rococo people talked about God.
Interesting, didn't know that! Thanks.