Frederick the Great and Other 18th-C Characters, Discussion Post 31

[cahn]

And in this post:

-luzula is going to tell us about the Jacobites and the '45!

-I'm going to finish reading Nancy Goldstone's book about Maria Theresia and (some of) her children Maria Christina, Maria Carolina, and Marie Antoinette, In the Shadow of the Empress, and selenak is going to tell us all the things wrong with the last four chapters (spoiler: in the first twenty chapters there have been many, MANY things wrong)!

-mildred_of_midgard is going to tell us about Charles XII of Sweden and the Great Northern War

(seriously, how did I get so lucky to have all these people Telling Me Things, this is AWESOME)

-oh, and also there will be Yuletide signups :D

Comments

The Backstory for the '45

[luzula]

So, here's my write-up of the '45. I apologize for not having as much gossip about individual people as your discussion posts often have! Hopefully it's interesting anyway, and no doubt others can fill in more, or you can ask if there's anything in particular you're wondering about. And mildred_of_midgard, do tell me if you think I'm wrong about anything! *g* I'm always happy to discuss and learn more.

I was supposed to write about the '45, but to do that, I really have to start at the Glorious Revolution (so named by the victors, of course). So, James II/VII really pushed the Catholic agenda, and besides that, seems to have had a general ability to piss people off. Apart from the Highlands, where he seems to done all right when he was sent there before he got on the throne? Might explain why many of them fought for him later.

There was a failed coup by the Duke of Monmouth (illegitimate son of Charles II) in 1685, and then a successful one by William of Orange, married to James' sister Mary, in 1688. The differences between James and William can be seen by:
William: *sends bland and diplomatic letter to Scotland making vague promises of goodwill, asking if he can be their king*
James: *sends rude and autocratic letter demanding that Scotland support him since he is obviously the rightful king*

The "Glorious Revolution" is supposed to be the beginning of democracy, with more influence from Parliament; my impression is that William had no particularly democratic inclinations and in fact there wasn't even any Parliament elected in England during his and Mary's rule--he just kept going with the convocation that offered him the crown [I'm very sure I read this but now I can't find the reference. If you want I'll make more of an effort to track down the source]. The increased influence of Parliament was a much more gradual process.

First Jacobite Rebellion, in 1689:
James pretty much fled to Ireland, where he found some support, and in '89, John Graham of Claverhouse, later Viscount of Dundee, called "Bonnie Dundee", raised the standard for James, though he didn't have that much support. (Also compare previous famous Graham, the Marquess of Montrose, Scottish Royalist leader during the Civil War.)

Snarky historian Bruce Lenman: Claverhouse was "the sort of unimaginative soldier for whom the arrival of an order from a superior terminated all speculative thought, if indeed he ever indulged in such".
Loyal protagonist of Rosemary Sutcliff book "Bonnie Dundee": Claverhouse was the noblest man ever to live!

Whatever the truth, Claverhouse won at the battle of Killiecrankie, but died there, and his successor failed to keep the troops together. James lost in Ireland as well, and found refuge in France, along with a lot of Irish and Scots, who served in France's army. This is the origin of the Irish Brigade, for example, which distinguished itself at Fontenoy.

The 90's and 00's were not great for Scotland--harvests were bad, William of Orange didn't care much, there was a failed colonial venture. In 1707 the union with England was accomplished, with Queen Anne (Mary's sister) appointing the negotiators for both England and Scotland, and plenty of bribes to go round to buy the votes of the Scottish elite. The usual corruption (sorry, patronage) of 18th century politics!

Failed Jacobite attempt of 1708:
France: we're at war with Britain, so let's distract them with the Stuarts! : D
They sent 5,000 troops to Scotland, with James "III/VIII" (the future "Old Pretender") on board. He looked wistfully at the shore, but the British navy turned up and the ships had to turn back.

Many people in Scotland were not happy with the union, because Scotland was decidedly the junior partner and was for example forbidden trade with France (which obviously led to smuggling instead). Jacobitism was linked with opposition to the Union in the popular mind (even though previous Stuarts had tried for a union!), and also with Episcopalianism in Scotland and Catholicism in Ireland.

Second Jacobite Rebellion, in 1715:
The Hanoverian succession was in 1714, and in 1715, the Earl of Mar raised the second Jacobite Rebellion after failing to gain favor with the new regime (he was nicknamed "Bobbing John"). This was the biggest one, in terms of mobilization (about 15,000 men, twice the Jacobite army of the '45), and had nothing to do with foreign support! People were unhappy with the Union and George I. But the Earl of Mar was a bad leader and didn't press his advantage when he should have, and the different groups just sort of milled around. Instead, the Duke of Argyll took the initiative for the government and won (although he was criticized for moving without instructions from London, which explains why the Campbells were so slow to move in '45).

Abortive Jacobite attempt, in 1719:
Spain: we're at war with Britain, so let's distract them with the Stuarts! : D
But the ships were scattered by storms, and the small party that was left was quickly defeated at the battle of Glenshiel. (George Keith was in this one!)

Then follows over 20 years of solid Hanoverian and Whig rule. You would be forgiven for thinking that the Stuarts would just live out their lives in Rome and never be seen in Britain again.

Abortive Jacobite attempt, in 1744:
France: we're at war with Britain, so let's distract them with the Stuarts! : D
They meant to send 15,000 men led by de Saxe across the channel and take London. But there were storms and disagreement in the French government.

First Part of the '45 (up to Derby)

[luzula]

Third Jacobite Rebellion, in 1745:
Finally, our main event! So, Charles Edward Stuart/Bonnie Prince Charlie (henceforth BPC) was 25 at the time and ambitious (but not always smart, he made an enemy of George Keith, for example, who would've been a great help to him). When the French wouldn't back him and he was discouraged by both Scottish and English Jacobites unless he came with lots of French troops, he turned to the Franco-Irish community, some of whom invested in outfitting two ships for him. The ships carried arms and 700 volunteers from the Irish Brigade. But the largest of the ships ran into a RN ship and had to turn back. (This is the divergence point of my alternate history If Fate Should Reverse Our Positions, by the way, where both ships made it and subsequently the course of the war was changed! : D)

So BPC famously invaded the West Highlands with seven men. Understandably, many Jacobites were reluctant to back him. But he wheedled, ordered, and guilted several clan chiefs into doing so--a key figure here is Cameron of Lochiel, without whom he would likely have failed. Lochiel was guaranteed the value of his estates if the venture failed (and BPC kept his promise--Lochiel got a French regiment), and with that respected clan chief behind him, recruitment went better.

Scottish clans were built around military service--the clansmen owed it to the chief. Some chiefs were beginning to erode that structure by evicting tenants and letting the land to the highest bidder, such as the Campbells, which is why they had a harder time recruiting. Lochiel had actually planned to do so, but had been dissuaded by James III/VIII who didn't want him to let go of that military power.

Sorry, too much detail. *zooms out* Anyway, the Scottish Highlands: some clans were Jacobite (Camerons, MacDonalds, Stewarts, ...), some Hanoverian (Campbells, Mackays, ...), some fence-sitters or divided (Frasers, Mackenzies, ...).

First skirmish of the war: 16th August, two companies of redcoat recruits (=200 soldiers) were marching south along the Great Glen, and were famously ambushed at a bridge by twelve Macdonalds (pretending to be many more). The redcoats fled and were captured.

BPC famously raised his standard at Glenfinnan on 19th August. He had about 1,200 men (also the captured redcoats were present). During the next week he went up the Great Glen and then up to the Correyarrick Pass, marching on foot at the head of his little army.

Backtracking: what were the Hanoverians doing? Well, most of their troops were in Flanders, and they initially didn't take the rumours of BPC very seriously. In the 1707 union, some parts of the Scottish government that could have reacted quickly had been dismantled, and strategy was dictated from London. The ranking military officer, General Cope, was ordered to attack. He took about 1,700 men and went into the Highlands, but when he got to the Correyarrick Pass, he looked up at that steep slope and was afraid of being ambushed there, and couldn't stay because of lack of rations. So he went north to Inverness instead, to gather support there.

The Jacobite army: Well, I guess the way is open for us to invade the Lowlands now! : D

Incidentally they were marching on roads that were built after the '15 to give easy military access to put down rebellions in the Highlands, but that were really useful to the Jacobite army. They made their way down to Edinburgh, recruiting along the way (the north-eastern part of the Lowlands was strongly Jacobite), and were joined by Lord George Murray, who was to become the senior military commander. Opinions differ about him: Duffy calls him "gifted, energetic, highly unstable". They reached Edinburgh and took it by sneaking in at night.

Cope and his army: Uh, I guess we'll just...go round in a big circle and come back to Edinburgh?

They met at the battle of Prestonpans outside the city. The numbers were fairly even (Cope's 2,000 against the BPC:s about 1,800) and the Jacobites won by a Highland charge, that is, they ran at the enemy, fired their muskets once at close range, then dropped the muskets and attacked with swords. This is not how redcoats were trained to fight! They were trained to load and fire their muskets fast, at another line of soldiers that was also standing still and firing at them. Neither side had good artillery. After the battle, hundreds of captured redcoats actually changed sides (though many of them deserted later).

BPC stayed in Edinburgh some time to wait for more recruits, after which there was a council.
Most of the Scots: Let's stay here and hold Scotland, and wait for French reinforcements!
BPC: I want the whole shebang! Let's invade England! : D

BPC won by one vote, but had to give up the eastern route. Instead they marched southwest on the 1st of November, now 5,000 strong, and took Carlisle, then continued south to Manchester, where they were joined by the only group of English volunteers they were to have, and reached Derby on 4th of December. Duffy praises their logistics and staff work highly, crediting it to O'Sullivan, one of the French-Irish officers who came over with BPC. Also, BPC had tax officers who appropriated all the taxes (since he considered himself the rightful monarch), using them to pay his way.

Let's just stop and appreciate how weird it is that this war is going on during the winter. The huge armies on the continent have correspondingly huge numbers of horses, which can't graze during the winter. So you would have to bring feed for them, which of course is pulled by horses, along with everything else you need because it's winter, and the soldiers will get sick and freeze...well, it's not a great idea. So usually war takes a break during the winter--but not this one.

By now Wade had pulled his army together (consisting of regiments brought from Flanders) and they gave chase, but it didn't go so well. They tried to get through the Tyne Gap but couldn't get through the snow. Soldiers froze to death. Why did the Jacobites not have this problem? Well, perhaps the Highlanders were hardier (that's certainly what the PR says), but also, soldiers were not allowed to be billeted in ordinary people's houses in England, because it gave the army bad press. So they slept in tents and froze. OTOH, the Jacobites did billet their soldiers in people's houses (and paid for it).

Another army was also assembling, under the Duke of Cumberland (George II's second son). They tried to intercept the Jacobite army but were outmaneuvered, so that BPC could have gone on straight for London. Odds are that he could have initially taken it, but then Cumberland would have come a couple of days behind him...anyway, we'll never know what would have happened, because at a council the Jacobites decided to turn around, possibly affected by the testimony of the Hanoverian spy Dudley Bradstreet who told them there was yet another army between them and London.

The '45: from Derby to Culloden and after

[luzula]

BPC was bitterly disappointed, but his opponents argued that they had gotten much less English and French support than they needed. In fact the French, having heard of BPC's early successes, were planning an expedition across the channel...but a combination of the British Navy and hearing about BPC turning back at Derby dissuaded them. So the Jacobite army marched back north, with Cumberland chasing them, but they had no problem getting away--also, Cumberland had left most of his infantry behind to guard against the possible French invasion.

Meanwhile, more recruiting had been going on in Scotland, along with French reinforcements. BPC sent Colonel Lachlan MacLachlan of MacLachlan (whose name I only include because it is such a delight) to have them come down south to meet them, but their commander Lord John Drummond (a Scotsman serving in the French army) refused. He claimed King Louis had told him to first clear out the enemy fortresses, but in fact the king had told him to put himself at BPC's disposal. So that's another road not taken.

The Manchester regiment, along with some other forces, was unfortunately put in charge of holding Carlisle, which was taken pretty quickly. As English Jacobites the wrath of the Hanoverian government would fall heavily on them--they were penned up without water, food or sanitation, and several of them died. Later more of them died in jail where they were given rotten offal to eat, and then they were all executed or transported. All officers were executed except those with French commissions, who were treated well and exchanged to France.

A pause here to discuss the very different treatment of prisoners by the Jacobite army. After Prestonpans, they made sure the wounded on the other side got medical treatment, food, etc. The officers were released on parole if they undertook not to fight for the duration of the war.

The difference is not because the Hanoverians were evil and the Jacobites good. In the 18th century, war can only be declared by (the sovereign of) a country, and in war one has to follow certain rules, such as extending parole to captured officers, and setting up cartels to exchange them. BPC made claim to be the sovereign of Britain and as such regarded himself as having every right to declare war--and really wanted to show that he could conduct himself according to the honourable rules of war: he paid for food and billets, he treated the captured well, he didn't harm civilians (which is also just common sense if you're hoping to be accepted as their king). But in the eyes of the Hanoverians, the Jacobites are NOT in a position to declare legitimate war: they are traitors and should not be treated as honourable opponents in war. Their officers shouldn't be given parole, they should be hunted down and executed! Unless they had French commissions. The Hanoverians were furious with the Hessians when, later on, they were considering setting up a cartel with the Jacobites to exchange prisoners (there were some Hessian mercenaries on the Hanoverian side).

The Hanoverian officers taken prisoner at Prestonpans had respected their paroles--until an expedition was sent to forcibly "liberate" them. They were ordered to break their paroles, on direct order from George II himself. Most did, except for a few, for example Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Halkett who said that [the king] was master of their commissions, but not of their probity and honour.

Anyway. The Jacobites meet up with their reinforcements, unsuccessfully besiege Stirling Castle for a while, and then clash with the Hanoverian forces that have been building up near Edinburgh. They are led by General Henry Hawley, or "Hangman Hawley", so called not for his treatment of Jacobites but of his own men. A contemporary source: Nobody disputed Mr Hawley's genius for […] prosecuting with vigour any mortal to the gallows.

So the two sides meet at Falkirk, a confusing battle in a January rain- and hailstorm, at the end of which the Jacobites went "We...won? I think?" They did indeed win and the Hanoverians retreated, leaving behind their artillery which was bogged down in a mire. But the Jacobites did not go on the offensive, which BPC wanted to do; instead they decided in council to retreat to the Highlands, yielding Montrose and other harbours on the north-east coast which were their hope of further French reinforcements.

The Highland clans in the Jacobite army wanted very much to smash up the three forts in the Great Glen, which they proceeded to do with Forts George and Augustus, but failed with Fort William. But meanwhile Cumberland had taken over command of the Hanoverian army and was marching up the northeast coast towards Inverness. The Jacobites besieging Fort William were hastily recalled, getting to Inverness in time for the famous battle of Culloden.

The Jacobite army by this time was hungry and tired, and so were its commanders. BPC had failed to get hold of a shipment of French gold which had landed north of Inverness among Whig clans, and had no more money to pay his troops or pay for food. Cumberland had been drilling his troops in holding the line and not yielding to the Highland charge, and they had more artillery, more men, and more food. So the Jacobites lost badly, and the army was dispersed (the ones who could get away).

Then followed the great scourging of the Highlands. The feeling among the Hanoverians was that they had been too lenient after the '15 and look what happened. There was killing of unarmed people, burning of houses, rape, driving off with their cattle, and withholding of grain imports in the hopes of a famine. Here's the opinion of the Earl of Albemarle, one of the commanders: I [...] always feared from the bad inclination of the people in most of the northern counties and from their stubborn, inveterate disposition of mind, nothing could effect it but laying the whole country waste and ashes, and removing all the inhabitants (excepting a few) out of the kingdom.

Actually some of the worst officers were not Englishmen but Lowland Scots, among them Captain Caroline Scott, named after his godmother the queen, Caroline of Ansbach. The Campbells OTOH, who were traditional rivals to the Jacobite clans, were more moderate, and some said they would surrender, but only to a Campbell.

You can read more about BPC:s escape here, courtesy of mildred_of_midgard. When he got back to the continent he got a letter from Frederick the Great, saying among other things: All Europe is astonished at the greatness of your enterprise, for though Alexander and other heroes have conquered kingdoms with inferior armies, you are the only one who engaged in such an enterprise without any. But BPC sank slowly into bitterness and alcoholism after losing.

In the aftermath of the rising, many who had fought were rounded up and brought to trial, though the terrible conditions in jails and prison-hulks killed more than were actually executed. Those who survived were transported. Eventually there was another disarming act, Highland dress was forbidden, and measures were taken to weaken the clan system. A couple of decades later, when the clan elites had been more tightly tied to the Hanoverian government, the Highlands were used as recruiting grounds for regiments that would fight in the American colonies.

Yep. There's lots more to say, just ask, or fill in what I've left out! : )

Major sources:
The Jacobite Risings in Britain 1689-1746 by Bruce Lenman (1980)
Fight for a Throne: the Jacobite '45 Reconsidered by Christopher Duffy (2015) (This one is so great! *dangles temptingly in front of mildred_of_midgard*)

[luzula]

Oh, and also--this is unrelated to the Jacobites, but it strikes me that you guys might enjoy my short 18th century pastiche f/f story Some Omitted Scenes from the Adventures and Amours of Alithea de Richelieu and Arabella de Montferan, Set Down by the Former for the Pleaſure of the Latter. It's fanfic for a 1744 novel which is about two women cross-dressing and traveling around Europe, but you can read it without having read the canon.

[conuly]

Your link to "In the first twenty chapters there have been many things wrong" is broken.

[cahn]

Whoops, thank you! Fixed!

Re: The Backstory for the '45

[cahn]

Wow, thank you for all this detailed writeup (...you weren't kidding about it taking forever and I hope it wasn't too hard on your hands!), and also thanks for starting out with context because, uh, as you have probably gathered my history background is basically nonexistent and I always want moooore context :D (Also thank you selenak and mildred_of_midgard for the Stuart and BPC background last post, that also made it much easier to parse!)

ahahaha I enjoyed the repeated refrain of distracting Britain from war with the Stuarts :D

So let me see if I've got this straight: James III was James II's kid and Bonnie Prince Charlie was James III's kid, right? James III was in the 1708 attempt, who was in the 1715/1719/1744 rebellions/attempts?

Why did BPC decide to go in 1745 even though it seems the odds were against it? Was it related to the aborted 1744 attempt? (Although that seems like a negative inducement if anything, since you say France wasn't interested in backing him.)

Re: First Part of the '45 (up to Derby)

[cahn]

The '45!

Is "RN" Royal Navy?

If BPC had not invaded England right then (in the winter??) would it have turned out better for him?

The Butcher of Cumberland! He's the only person in this whole thing that I'm very vaguely familiar with (or at least was before last post), as selenak's been telling us about the Hanovers. But it's interesting to finally see how he got that soubriquet...

(argh, I promise I'll reply more later, I have to sleep)

Re: The Backstory for the '45

[luzula]

No worries, it was fun to write! : D

So let me see if I've got this straight: James III was James II's kid and Bonnie Prince Charlie was James III's kid, right?

Yes, exactly! Sorry if that wasn't clear.

James III was in the 1708 attempt, who was in the 1715/1719/1744 rebellions/attempts?

Well, the '15 was a spontaneous thing and James III came as fast as he could? But had to leave soon again when the rising failed. I think BPC was hanging around in France pestering everyone in '44, and probably intended to go, if it happened.

Why did BPC decide to go in 1745 even though it seems the odds were against it? Was it related to the aborted 1744 attempt? (Although that seems like a negative inducement if anything, since you say France wasn't interested in backing him.)

Well, France had intended to back the '44 attempt, so the odds probably didn't seem that bad to him? I think he figured that if he went on his own (and remember he had intended to come with those troops that were lost) and had some initial successes, then France would back him when that happened. Which they kind of did, but not enough. Also, this was his goal in life and he had spent his life preparing for it! He'd had a tutor to teach him Scots and a bit of Gaelic (and English, of course), he'd made sure to climb around in the Italian mountains so he was in good physical shape, etc. He was just champing at the bit. Also, there was communication between the Stuarts in Rome and Jacobites in Britain, so he definitely had contacts and knew where to turn when he got to Scotland.

Re: First Part of the '45 (up to Derby)

[luzula]

Is "RN" Royal Navy?

Er, yes, sorry.

If BPC had not invaded England right then (in the winter??) would it have turned out better for him?

Opinions differ? And of course it's hard to know. But I think they saw the winter as something that would favor them, since the Highlanders were used to harsh conditions and the ordinary British army weren't used to fighting in winter. And if they had waited, the Hanoverians would have had more time to gather their forces. Speed is how William of Orange managed his coup, and then most of the army just accepted a fait accompli. BPC:s attempt was a gamble from the start, but speed was his hope, too--the British army was much larger than what he could hope to gather. (Although actually the Hanoverians were worried about the loyalty of some of the Scottish regiments especially.)

It seems like a lot of ordinary people were just keeping their heads down. Like, who cares who's on the throne, the Hanoverians haven't done much for me, but I'm not going to stick my head out for this Stuart either?

(argh, I promise I'll reply more later, I have to sleep)

No worries, definitely prioritize sleep. : )

In the Shadow of the Empress: The rest.

[selenak]

Okay, I’m on the road this entire week (and the next), so this will be on the fly, but here it goes:

Affair of the Necklace: nothing to complain about. I also believe her that the necklace in question looked terrible even though I haven’t seen it, since this era was not noted for featuring subtle jewelry.

French Revolution in general: also okay for the pov the book takes, though maybe it’s worth pointing out that both Louis and MA were in fact guilty of the main charge in their trials, which wasn’t having been King and Queen but conspiring with foreign armies against France and furthering an overthrow of the government with the help of said foreign armies. Since Louis had taken an oath on the new constitution, this also constituted a breaking of said oath. Now obviously the oath had been taken under pressure, and also the conspiring was done with the very real fear that their lives were at stake. But it still meant that the King and Queen of France were in league with foreign powers and doing their best to help said powers invade France. So, for all that both trials had an predestined outcome, the irony is that as opposed to the general accusations of tyranny and the vile slander of sexual molestation of her own son for MA, this particular charge was true, and the fairest court of the world would have had to find them guilty of it.

Speaking of revolutions: Goldstone is downplaying the Neapolitan Revolution and its brutal put-down as much as she can. And the paranoid atmosphere earlier with all the spying at Charlotte’s investigation is present as a harmless excentricity. Now again, given what happened to her sister, I very much understand Maria Carolina becoming paranoid as hell and becoming hardcore as a result even before events erupted - which of course alienated the progressive Neapolitans from her like at record pace. Goldstone revers to the revolutionaries as “collaborators” (of the French), which is biased framing, for while the short lived Neapolitan Republic was very much supported by the French, the main protagonists were long term progressives and the “best and brightest”’ of the nation. The reason why Charlotte is still massively unpopular in Italy is the charge that Southern Italy never quite recovered from the intellectual bloodletting that followed, once Nelson came through on the royal side. To quote wiki: “Of some 8,000 political prisoners, 99 were executed, including Prince Gennaro Serra, who was publicly beheaded, and others, such as the intellectual Mario Pagano, who had written the republican constitution; the scientist, Domenico Cirillo; Luisa Sanfelice; Gabriele Manthoné, the minister of war under the republic; Massa, the defender of Castel dell'Ovo; Ettore Carafa, the defender of Pescara, who had been captured by treachery; and Eleonora Fonseca Pimentel, court-poet turned revolutionary and editor of il Monitore Napoletano, the newspaper of the republican government. More than 500 other people were imprisoned (222 for life), 288 were deported and 67 exiled. The subsequent censorship and oppression of all political movement was far more debilitating for Naples.”

In her novel about Sir William Hamilton, “The Volcano Lover”, Susan Sontag gives Eleonora Fonseca Pimentel the last word. (The novel is written in third person for the most part, with four first person narration epilogues, and the last one is by Eleonora, waiting for her execution and cursing Emma, Charlotte and the Royals and British in general.) Alexandre Dumas in his mid 19th century written novel about Emma which is very sympathetic to her nonetheless has the repression of the Neapolitan revolution, which she enabled in order to help her friend, as the one sin that haunts her and the guilt that plagues her as her “sinful life” never does. In real life, Whig politician Charles James Fox denounced Nelson in the House of Commons for the admiral's part in "the atrocities at the Bay of Naples", national hero or not.

Again: given all this happened AFTER MA’s execution, it’s all too understandable that Charlotte thought “I’m not going to be executed by the rabble, down with all traitors, it’s kill or be killed!”, and that Emma thought she needed to save her friend from MA’s fate, and that Nelson thought the same thing. But to handwave everything the way Nancy Goldstone does and say “Napoleon killed way more people! Also it was Ferdinand not Charlotte who wanted them to die!” Is pretty partisan, as per usual. One of her sources, Kate Williams’ Emma biography “England’s Mistress” does a better job of putting things into perspective without indulging in whataboutism. Their contemporaries certainly thought it was a big deal.

Joseph’s reforms: yes, more or less true to what the problem was. Though again, the framing is important here, and to repeat what I said before - she leaves out the very first Joseph vs Mimi and Leopold clash in the 1760s, which was about Dad’s money, and Joseph wanting it for the ginormous Austrian war debts, while Leopold wanted it for Tuscany and Mimi just wanted the cash. Note that favourite or no, MT did not side with Mimi there. Whether Mimi, like Leopold, was against Joseph’s reforms because she could see that ramming them down people’s throats en masse was a disaster in the making, and that you had to introduce reforms differently, or whether she simply was way more conservative and didn’t want reforms at all is up to debate.

(Note that the author of the “Five Princesses” book points out that the Princesses were generally conservative, and several, like Eleonore Liechtenstein, deeply devout, and so very critical of many of Joseph’s reforms for this reason even before disaster unfolded. Her book has the ladies as her heroines, too, but she doesn’t try to put them in the right all the time.)

Also: three times, Goldstone says about Leopold’s son Franz (the future II): “He was trained by Joseph”. Which is a hilarious way of trying to blame Franz, who was an arch reactionary who couldn’t stand his uncle and vice versa, on Joseph. “Trained by Joseph” only in the sense that he became part of the army when Joseph was Emperor. But she could have said with way more truth “He was raised by Leopold”. Because he was. He still ruined not just what remained of Joseph’s but all of his father’s works when he became Emperor and took Austria back behind even MT’s own reforms. For which he himself is to blame. “Trained by Joseph’” my ass.

Joseph dying alone: without a family member present, true, but his friend Lacy was (that’s one of the two other male members of the friendship circle Joseph and the princesses formed), who had been there when Joseph’s daughter had died already, and held his hand on this occasion. Also, note that Eleonore Liechtenstein, who had her share of arguments with Joseph throughout their friendship (they were easily the two most thinskinned, temper-having and bullheaded members of the group), and did indeed befriend Mimi in her later years, wrote a far more generous epitaph for him than Goldstone did in a letter to her sister Leopoldine Kaunitz, to wit: We were often infuriated by him, but how much verve, life, enthusiasm and love for justice did he awaken in all of us!”

Lastly: Leopold and Mimi were allies, but he still didn’t send her and Albert back to Brussels unsupervised. He insisted that Metternich Senior (the father of the famous Metternich) was to go with them and do a part of the governing. From which you can deduce Leopold didn’t think the Netherlands revolting was all to blame on Joseph’s reforms and Napoleon and didn’t consider Mimi and Albert geniuses at governing.

ETA: Wait, you also asked about Mozart. While he was indeed in financial trouble when he died, the way of his burial was due to the Josephinian burial reforms, that’s true. (Amadeus doesn’t claim the opposite, btw. If it had been simply a matter of money, Salieri or van Swieten, both of whom are shown following the coffin up to a point, could have paid for a funeral. However, there wasn’t one available. If Salieri himself had died at this point, he would have been buried in the exact same manner.) Now, there was a point to this in that funerals often had been ruinously expensive, especially for poor families, because letting the dearly departed go out in style had become such a point of honor and showing off for all classes. But of course by prescribing the same type of re-usable coffin for everyone, Joseph did FW and Fritz one better and pissed off everyone as well.

Re: The '45: from Derby to Culloden and after

[cahn]

Oh wow, that's really interesting about the different ways the prisoners were treated, and why!

They are led by General Henry Hawley, or "Hangman Hawley", so called not for his treatment of Jacobites but of his own men. A contemporary source: Nobody disputed Mr Hawley's genius for […] prosecuting with vigour any mortal to the gallows.

UM I need more detail on this :P Stories about him sending his own men to the gallows??

So, the scourging of the Highlands is where the Butcher of Cumberland got that name? (Or was it Culloden?)

All Europe is astonished at the greatness of your enterprise, for though Alexander and other heroes have conquered kingdoms with inferior armies, you are the only one who engaged in such an enterprise without any.

Heeeee okay, that's got to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, hasn't it? (Calling mildred_of_midgard?)

Aw man, BPC, sucks to be him (but I guess sucks even more to be a Jacobite)

Re: First Part of the '45 (up to Derby)

[cahn]

So, um! I figure you won't mind telling me how Flight of the Heron fits into all of this ;) (I think I need to read it before reading your fic! Also I have this goal to join the readalong, if I get around to it before it's over... which now that I've finished Shadow of the Empress has a much higher probability of occurring!)

[cahn]

Oh, yes, thanks! I've seen your DW posts on canon and even the fic but I don't think I realized I could read it without having read canon :D

Re: In the Shadow of the Empress: The rest.

[cahn]

Hee! The necklace being ugly is one of the few things I didn't question, not because I knew what jewelry looked like back then (which... does seem like the kind of thing I should know, lol) but because I figured she would actually have seen a picture, whereas all the other stuff...

though maybe it’s worth pointing out that both Louis and MA were in fact guilty of the main charge in their trials, which wasn’t having been King and Queen but conspiring with foreign armies against France and furthering an overthrow of the government with the help of said foreign armies.

Yes, thank you for pointing that out! And to give her credit, I think although she glosses over it she doesn't ignore it entirely like some other things? And this feels like something I once knew -- that is to say, although I didn't remember it, I wasn't surprised by it, as opposed to the Neapolitan Revolution --

Speaking of things you pointed out, I am reeeeeally glad you talked about the Neapolitan Revolution in your comment because OH BOY is that NOT what I got from her book. Woooooow. And I knew absolutely nothing of all this beforehand (I actually know relatively little about Napoleon), so I didn't have any frame of reference for figuring out her biases. (I mean, I know they're always in the same direction, towards the subjets she likes and against the ones she's decided are the antagonists, but...)

Do you recommend Kate Williams' Emma biography? Because I was already primed to think she was interesting from what you'd told me before, and now I think she's even more interesting. What about The Volcano Lover, do you rec that?

He still ruined not just what remained of Joseph’s but all of his father’s works when he became Emperor and took Austria back behind even MT’s own reforms. For which he himself is to blame.

:(

We were often infuriated by him, but how much verve, life, enthusiasm and love for justice did he awaken in all of us!”

<3

(Amadeus doesn’t claim the opposite, btw. If it had been simply a matter of money, Salieri or van Swieten, both of whom are shown following the coffin up to a point, could have paid for a funeral. However, there wasn’t one available. If Salieri himself had died at this point, he would have been buried in the exact same manner.)

Lol, yeah, I realized Amadeus didn't claim it, but the movie didn't say anything about Joseph's reforms (I mean, not that it would have made any sense to!) and as an impressionable kid I made the connection between his financial troubles and getting poured into the mass grave. (Isn't a small bit from Salieri's dad's much-more-fancy funeral shown in the beginning too, or am I making that up? The scene where he died on-stage was super scary for me as a kid, so I never rewatch that bit.)

Re: In the Shadow of the Empress: The rest.

[selenak]

Salieri’s father did have a regular funeral, but then Salieri’s father died before Joseph was the one and only Emperor. (Leaving this aside, without looking it up, I’m not even sure Salieri came from the parts of Italy under Austrian rule. For all I know,l he came from the Spanish-ruled parts, or from the parts directly ruled by the Church, or, gasp, the self ruled parts (like Venice, for example).

Kate Williams’ Emma bio is a good one, yes. Re: The Volcano Lover, I only remember bits and pieces, it’s been thirty years, and I would have to reread in order to be sure whether or not to rec it to you. I mean, obviously Susan Sontag writes beautiful prose, but among the bits I remember was that all the characters around Sir William - his first wife, Emma, Nelson, even Eleonora the revolutionary who only gets one chapter - came across more vividly than him, which for a novel that is explicitly about him is odd. The other thing I recall is a minor point: Goethe has a cameo, and he is basically Thomas Mann. Which is understandable in that Susan Sontag met Thomas Mann in person when she was young, he was a major authorial influence on her, and Thomas Mann certainly believed he was Goethe, too. (His novel Lotte in Weimar Is mostly from old Charlotte Buff’s pov, but there is one chapter from Goethe’s, and he refered to it as his unio mystica with Goethe.) The problem is that Thomas Mann and Goethe were actually quite different, and so the brief Goethe portrait rubbed me the wrong way.

(Here’s a Thomas Mann joke for you from my student days: “Thomas Mann and some friends take the train. When it’s time for everyone’s tickets to be checked, TM discovers he’s forgotten his. The steward demands the penalty money. One of the friends says: “But don’t you recognize him, this is Germany’s greatest writer!” Whereupon the student says: “Beg pardon, Herr Goethe, I didn’t recognize you!”).

Re: First Part of the '45 (up to Derby)

[luzula]

Ha ha, no, I definitely don't mind. : P

Flight of the Heron has two main characters. One is Ewen Cameron, a Highlander who is in BPC:s army (but BPC himself only has cameos in the book). Ewen is young, idealistic, very handsome, and scrupulously honourable. The other is Keith Windham, a captain in the Hanoverian army. He has a history of being emotionally abandoned (by his mother and by a girlfriend) and so has become cynical about human nature. He's caught up in the ambush at Highbridge in the beginning of the war, which I mention in the comment above, and taken prisoner by Ewen...and luckily that's not the only time they will meet, as there is a prophecy that they will meet five times.

The book has a really great enemies-to-lovers dynamic, of the sort where they aren't personal enemies, just on different sides of a war. There's a lot of conflict between love and duty, also some lovely hurt/comfort.

You can easily catch up to the readalong! We have only read the prologue and the first two chapters so far, and they're short chapters. : ) Oh, and here's a free ebook.

Re: The Backstory for the '45

[mildred_of_midgard]

Work + German + Charles XII = not a lot of time for commenting in salon, but I am reading and enjoying! luzula, thank you so much for the detailed write-up! Teaching cahn about the Jacobites is long overdue! :D

cahn, here's the family tree I made you last month: https://cahn.dreamwidth.org/195296.html?thread=3845856#cmt3845856

More when time permits!

Re: The '45: from Derby to Culloden and after

[luzula]

I don't have much more detail on Hawley, I'm afraid!

His aide-de-camp James Wolfe during the '45 said the troops dread [Hawley's] severity, hate the man and hold his military knowledge in contempt. OTOH Wolfe was apparently known for talking shit about his superiors, and Cumberland among others thought Hawley militarily competent. This is just from Wikipedia, as I can't find more about Hawley's attitude towards discipline from the books I have...

Hawley did court-martial and execute a number of his men for running away at Falkirk, where the proportion of officers to private soldiers killed was high on the Hanoverian side (because of private soldiers running away). Ironically Hawley himself wasn't court-martialed for losing, though Cope was.

This is hilarious, though (from Wikipedia): Like many of his 'historical anecdotes', Walter Scott's suggestion Hawley was an illegitimate son of George II (1683-1760) has been dismissed by historians. If true, George would have fathered him at the age of two, thirty years before his first visit to England.

So, the scourging of the Highlands is where the Butcher of Cumberland got that name? (Or was it Culloden?)

Both, but mostly the former, I would say! Defeating your enemy in battle is a standard thing to do, but killing the wounded, and all the other things he did, isn't.

Heeeee okay, that's got to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, hasn't it? (Calling mildred_of_midgard?)

Looking forward to hearing more! Sadly I can't track down the actual letter.

Re: The '45: from Derby to Culloden and after

[selenak]

Re: tongue-in-cheek - well, at the very least, he was always fond of trolling Uncle George. See also: makilng Jacobite George Keith official Prussian Ambassador. (First to Versailles, then to St. James.) And he defintely didn’t think cousin Cumberland was All That even before Cumberland screwed up in the 7 Years War. Otoh, I don’t think we have any actual pro Stuart quote from Fritz. The religion would have been off putting, if nothing else. Also Mom would have had something to say as long as she still lived.

Re: The '45: from Derby to Culloden and after

[felis]

Sadly I can't track down the actual letter.

Google gave me this version, and while I'm sure Mildred knows more about the circumstances and will correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm pretty sure it's fake. It's not in his Political Correspondence, it doesn't sound like him at all IMO, and then there's the "General Keith, whom I have had the good fortune to engage in my service" line, which is just wrong, since neither James nor George Keith were in Fritz' service in 1745 or 1746. (James, who I think is meant here, was a General in the Russian Army at the time.)

Re: First Part of the '45 (up to Derby)

[felis]

he made an enemy of George Keith, for example, who would've been a great help to him

I'm curious, do you have any info on how and why he managed that? My impression was that George Keith grew rather disillusioned with both BPC and his father, but I don't know many details.

Re: The '45: from Derby to Culloden and after

[felis]

Echoing Cahn re: the prisoner details and the background on that. Also, given that I basically knew nothing about the Jacobites beyond some disconnected names and the things I'd picked up here (let alone some historical context), this was definitely an interesting read!

Re: First Part of the '45 (up to Derby)

[luzula]

All I've got is this quote, from Christopher Duffy's Fight for a Throne: In 1744, "Prince Charles, (who had travelled from Rome incognito) fell out badly with George Keith [...] and there could be no question of the two working together again."

But BPC did later regret it: "I find it a great loss the brave Lord Marischal is not with me, his character is very high in this country, as it must be wherever he is known, I’d rather see him than 1000 French".

Re: The '45: from Derby to Culloden and after

[luzula]

Interesting! You guys are the experts on Fritz, so I will defer to your judgements...