...yeeep thank you for all the reminders, also the part where you mentioned that they are Confusingly Named because you definitely did save me from another Richelieu-type confusion :P
Good god, I see what kind of training these ambassadors get in Dresden at the court of August the Strong. *g*
HAHAHAHA
when he was pressuring France to pressure Sweden to attack Russia
Holy cow, Fritz. (Not even touching the locking up EC's brother and nephew, omg.)
btw, Montefiore cites primary sources for contemporaries declaring that the Anna+Julia relationship was like the most lesbian thing they'd ever seen)
okay, I think this is hilarious!
but, also, that Anna + Duke Anton hated each other from the beginning, even before they were married. :(
I feel like this would have much more potential to be hilarious if they weren't locked up together :( But, okay, I see what you guys are saying, we can always hope.
Anna L must have had a strong sex drive, since she was producing kid after kid in prison with Anton, whom she hated, when there was no incentive to produce an heir to the throne!
...was it Anna that would have had to have the strong sex drive? Well, yeah, let's hope they got along better, anyway.
Montefiore and Massie do sound hilarious and informative!
Good god, I see what kind of training these ambassadors get in Dresden at the court of August the Strong. *g*
HAHAHAHA
Now I have crackfic in my head where Lynar, Suhm, and Manteuffel, all get official seduction training as part of the job. :P Before there was James Bond, there were Saxon envoys!
(I still can't get over TWO CONSECUTIVE Saxon envoys, to the SAME court, leaving Saxon service to be with their royal loves, ONE year apart, and BOTH love affairs meeting tragic ends before the reunion.)
btw, Montefiore cites primary sources for contemporaries declaring that the Anna+Julia relationship was like the most lesbian thing they'd ever seen)
okay, I think this is hilarious!
The quotes were pretty amazing! I was like, "Welp. That's pretty unambiguous."
...was it Anna that would have had to have the strong sex drive?
No, not necessarily. I have circumstantial evidence to *hope* this was the case, but the alternatives are: her sense of duty regarding her husband's marital rights (which didn't include not sleeping with other people, but might have included not refusing him sex), or marital rape. I'm just hoping that with the multiple threesomes she got into, one while also having sex with her husband, this is a sign she had a strong sex drive.
Montefiore and Massie do sound hilarious and informative!
Recommended as long as you bring your grain of salt! Like most historians, honestly, like, say, Blanning.
OH. Blanning. That reminds me! I'm reading one of his other books, and I can't resist sharing. So my recent reading has gone like this:
Zweig: In the last months and days of his life, Louis XVI was studying Hume's history of Charles I very hard, so as to avoid the mistakes the latter had made when dealing with his rebellious subjects. Unfortunately, Louis erred too much in the opposite direction; so instead of being too arrogant and inflexible, he was too accommodating, and the revolutionaries realized they could lead him to the scaffold like a sheep to the slaughter. Alas.
Blanning: So Louis XVI was reading about Charles I around the time of his trial, but somehow he missed the important lessons Charles I had to teach, which is that you need to be MORE LIKE Charles I, to wit: never give ground. In fact, everyone could learn from Charles I. Especially Selena's fave. Quote, "[The pamphlet describing Charles I's death] also helped to sustain the English monarchy through the trials and tribulations that awaited it at the inept hands of Charles’s two sons. Charles II and James II would have done well to mark, learn and inwardly digest their father’s advice: 'Keep you to true principles of piety, virtue and honour, and you shall never want a kingdom.'"
Me: The guy who didn't lose his kingdom or his head should have looked more to the guy who lost his as a role model for how to keep your kingdom?
Blanning: I said what I said. I will concede that Louis XVI had piety, virtue, and honor in spades, but he lacked certain other necessary traits. Allow me to admire Charles' haughtiness some more. *fanboys*
Me: I want to see Selena's face when I tell her this.
ETA: Also the part where MORE PIETY was not exactly the lesson James needed to learn from Dad in Saving Your Kingdom 101.
I still can't get over TWO CONSECUTIVE Saxon envoys, to the SAME court, leaving Saxon service to be with their royal loves, ONE year apart, and BOTH love affairs meeting tragic ends before the reunion.
Poniatowski: And then there are those of us who enter Saxon service to be with their Royal loves, who end up being royals themselves but still aren’t reunited, and who when they finally meet again have their heart and spirit completely broken and only intermittently snarky and sentimental memoirs left to write while livingin a golden cage.
Manteuffel: Guys, this is why I drew the obvious conclusion: nearly all royals suck, playing sugar daddy now and then is fine, that’s fun, but don’t hand over your heart, and if you do officially leave Saxon service because your rival has become top minister, make sure to remain unofficially in Saxon and Austrian service.
Blanning stanning Charles I.:
Me: I want to see Selena's face when I tell her this.
😲🤯🤨😆
More seriously, though, it does take true originality to draw that conclusion. Wait, it doesn’t, I can at least think of one other person who did - Queen Henrietta Maria, Charles I.’s wife, she who banished youngest son Henry from her presence and let him die alone because he didn’t want to become a Catholic, this while the Royal family was in exile and future Charles II’s only hope in being restored to the throne lay in convincing the Brits he really was a good Protestant and would remain so, which is why he explicitly told Henry not to convert. Henrietta Maria kept badgering Charles (the only later II) to be more like more like Dad all her life, and both before and after the Restoration, he was “yeah, no” about it in the most diplomatic way. (Famous quote: “I’ll not go on my travels again”, meaning into exile. And he didn’t.)
Also the part where MORE PIETY was not exactly the lesson James needed to learn from Dad in Saving Your Kingdom 101.
LOL yes. Nor BE MORE HAUGHTY. I’m reminded again of that Lehndorff diary entry where he goes on about “I’ve read up on the Stuarts, what a weird royal family, and what I really don’t get is why they were losing their kingdoms because of religion and arrogance left and right”. A case can be made that Charles II was the exception to this because he was arguably the grandchild of Henri “Paris is worth a mass” IV, the ultimate religious pragmatist, who was most like granddad, i.e. more an early Bourbon than a Stuart. Or, to quote the Horrible Histories song about him, "I'm Scottish-French-Italian, a little bit Dane, 100% party animal".
So, um. Can we make a deal? I start the new post and you guys tell me the gossipy sensationalism version of the English Civil Wars? :) By which I just mean that this is one of those (many many) history things I know basically nothing about because I never read a piece of historical fiction set in that time period :P Seriously, what I know about this entire time period is "English revolution... something something... Oliver Cromwell... something something... people getting their heads cut off... Charles II." I tried looking up wikipedia but... it's a lot.
(Also apparently in my brain I was conflating the names Glorious Revolution and the English Civil Wars, whooooops)
We can try. :) I know some fiction, both from the pro Parliament and the royalist quarters, plus eons ago I've read the Charles II biography by Antonia Fraser, and much more recently the one about the Winter Queen and her daughters - and sons, and one of the sons, Rupert (of the Rhine, poodle owner, legendary Cavalier and part time pirate), fought for Uncle Charles while another, Karl Ludwig (Liselotte's dad) tried to keep out of the Civil War in the vain hope of making Parliament continue to pay his mother's and his financial support this way (they didn't).
:D Should I read the Fraser? Like I said to mildred, I am planning to read the Winter Queen!
(I don't need fiction, it's just that over the past couple of years I've realized this theme where the difference between "I know absolutely nothing about History Thing X" and "I know enough that I can follow along without needing a primer" has in almost all cases been that I read some kind of fiction concerned with that era as a child, and which sometimes inspired me to go digging into nonfiction :) )
I will gladly read whatever gossipy sensationalism Selena has, but you have to understand that the entire 17th century is the period that I tried studying 20 years ago out of a sense of obligation, and ended up almost crying with boredom until I gave up and went back to my fascinating 18th century. So while I know the general outlines of this century better than you do (judging by that summary, lol), what's in my head is the dry version of history, not the "anecdotes and personalities" version.
Sorry! Read the Winter Queen! (Which I'm still only a third of the way through, because I got distracted by the 18th century again, as is my custom. ;) )
Also, I'm not saying it's intrinsically boring, far from it. Many exciting things happened! It's just the things I've read about have never pushed my fannish buttons.
But definitely start a new post before I go to bed, so I can subscribe to notifications before Selena wakes up and starts teaching us things!
I will! Only I've promised myself to read Faust first, and also I got the vague impression that it would be better if I knew a little more about the 17th century going in than "various people got their head cut off." :P
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Russian gossipy sensationalism
Date: 2021-09-07 04:59 am (UTC)Good god, I see what kind of training these ambassadors get in Dresden at the court of August the Strong. *g*
HAHAHAHA
when he was pressuring France to pressure Sweden to attack Russia
Holy cow, Fritz. (Not even touching the locking up EC's brother and nephew, omg.)
btw, Montefiore cites primary sources for contemporaries declaring that the Anna+Julia relationship was like the most lesbian thing they'd ever seen)
okay, I think this is hilarious!
but, also, that Anna + Duke Anton hated each other from the beginning, even before they were married. :(
I feel like this would have much more potential to be hilarious if they weren't locked up together :( But, okay, I see what you guys are saying, we can always hope.
Anna L must have had a strong sex drive, since she was producing kid after kid in prison with Anton, whom she hated, when there was no incentive to produce an heir to the throne!
...was it Anna that would have had to have the strong sex drive? Well, yeah, let's hope they got along better, anyway.
Montefiore and Massie do sound hilarious and informative!
Re: Russian gossipy sensationalism
Date: 2021-09-08 12:14 am (UTC)HAHAHAHA
Now I have crackfic in my head where Lynar, Suhm, and Manteuffel, all get official seduction training as part of the job. :P Before there was James Bond, there were Saxon envoys!
(I still can't get over TWO CONSECUTIVE Saxon envoys, to the SAME court, leaving Saxon service to be with their royal loves, ONE year apart, and BOTH love affairs meeting tragic ends before the reunion.)
btw, Montefiore cites primary sources for contemporaries declaring that the Anna+Julia relationship was like the most lesbian thing they'd ever seen)
okay, I think this is hilarious!
The quotes were pretty amazing! I was like, "Welp. That's pretty unambiguous."
...was it Anna that would have had to have the strong sex drive?
No, not necessarily. I have circumstantial evidence to *hope* this was the case, but the alternatives are: her sense of duty regarding her husband's marital rights (which didn't include not sleeping with other people, but might have included not refusing him sex), or marital rape. I'm just hoping that with the multiple threesomes she got into, one while also having sex with her husband, this is a sign she had a strong sex drive.
Montefiore and Massie do sound hilarious and informative!
Recommended as long as you bring your grain of salt! Like most historians, honestly, like, say, Blanning.
OH. Blanning. That reminds me! I'm reading one of his other books, and I can't resist sharing. So my recent reading has gone like this:
Zweig: In the last months and days of his life, Louis XVI was studying Hume's history of Charles I very hard, so as to avoid the mistakes the latter had made when dealing with his rebellious subjects. Unfortunately, Louis erred too much in the opposite direction; so instead of being too arrogant and inflexible, he was too accommodating, and the revolutionaries realized they could lead him to the scaffold like a sheep to the slaughter. Alas.
Blanning: So Louis XVI was reading about Charles I around the time of his trial, but somehow he missed the important lessons Charles I had to teach, which is that you need to be MORE LIKE Charles I, to wit: never give ground. In fact, everyone could learn from Charles I. Especially Selena's fave. Quote, "[The pamphlet describing Charles I's death] also helped to sustain the English monarchy through the trials and tribulations that awaited it at the inept hands of Charles’s two sons. Charles II and James II would have done well to mark, learn and inwardly digest their father’s advice: 'Keep you to true principles of piety, virtue and honour, and you shall never want a kingdom.'"
Me: The guy who didn't lose his kingdom or his head should have looked more to the guy who lost his as a role model for how to keep your kingdom?
Blanning: I said what I said. I will concede that Louis XVI had piety, virtue, and honor in spades, but he lacked certain other necessary traits. Allow me to admire Charles' haughtiness some more. *fanboys*
Me: I want to see Selena's face when I tell her this.
ETA: Also the part where MORE PIETY was not exactly the lesson James needed to learn from Dad in Saving Your Kingdom 101.
Re: Russian gossipy sensationalism
Date: 2021-09-08 06:59 am (UTC)Poniatowski: And then there are those of us who enter Saxon service to be with their Royal loves, who end up being royals themselves but still aren’t reunited, and who when they finally meet again have their heart and spirit completely broken and only intermittently snarky and sentimental memoirs left to write while livingin a golden cage.
Manteuffel: Guys, this is why I drew the obvious conclusion: nearly all royals suck, playing sugar daddy now and then is fine, that’s fun, but don’t hand over your heart, and if you do officially leave Saxon service because your rival has become top minister, make sure to remain unofficially in Saxon and Austrian service.
Blanning stanning Charles I.:
Me: I want to see Selena's face when I tell her this.
😲🤯🤨😆
More seriously, though, it does take true originality to draw that conclusion. Wait, it doesn’t, I can at least think of one other person who did - Queen Henrietta Maria, Charles I.’s wife, she who banished youngest son Henry from her presence and let him die alone because he didn’t want to become a Catholic, this while the Royal family was in exile and future Charles II’s only hope in being restored to the throne lay in convincing the Brits he really was a good Protestant and would remain so, which is why he explicitly told Henry not to convert. Henrietta Maria kept badgering Charles (the only later II) to be more like more like Dad all her life, and both before and after the Restoration, he was “yeah, no” about it in the most diplomatic way. (Famous quote: “I’ll not go on my travels again”, meaning into exile. And he didn’t.)
Also the part where MORE PIETY was not exactly the lesson James needed to learn from Dad in Saving Your Kingdom 101.
LOL yes. Nor BE MORE HAUGHTY. I’m reminded again of that Lehndorff diary entry where he goes on about “I’ve read up on the Stuarts, what a weird royal family, and what I really don’t get is why they were losing their kingdoms because of religion and arrogance left and right”. A case can be made that Charles II was the exception to this because he was arguably the grandchild of Henri “Paris is worth a mass” IV, the ultimate religious pragmatist, who was most like granddad, i.e. more an early Bourbon than a Stuart. Or, to quote the Horrible Histories song about him, "I'm Scottish-French-Italian, a little bit Dane, 100% party animal".
English revolution
Date: 2021-09-08 04:44 pm (UTC)(Also apparently in my brain I was conflating the names Glorious Revolution and the English Civil Wars, whooooops)
Re: English revolution
Date: 2021-09-08 04:57 pm (UTC)Re: English revolution
Date: 2021-09-08 07:59 pm (UTC)(I don't need fiction, it's just that over the past couple of years I've realized this theme where the difference between "I know absolutely nothing about History Thing X" and "I know enough that I can follow along without needing a primer" has in almost all cases been that I read some kind of fiction concerned with that era as a child, and which sometimes inspired me to go digging into nonfiction :) )
Re: English revolution
Date: 2021-09-08 06:12 pm (UTC)Sorry! Read the Winter Queen! (Which I'm still only a third of the way through, because I got distracted by the 18th century again, as is my custom. ;) )
Also, I'm not saying it's intrinsically boring, far from it. Many exciting things happened! It's just the things I've read about have never pushed my fannish buttons.
But definitely start a new post before I go to bed, so I can subscribe to notifications before Selena wakes up and starts teaching us things!
Re: English revolution
Date: 2021-09-08 07:12 pm (UTC)I will! Only I've promised myself to read Faust first, and also I got the vague impression that it would be better if I knew a little more about the 17th century going in than "various people got their head cut off." :P
Post coming right up, in 5-10 minutes.