cahn | 18th-Century Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 32

:) Still talking about Charles XII of Sweden / the Great Northern War and the Stuarts and the Jacobites, among other things!

Page 7 of 13 << [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] >>

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

felis

/Mildred, how's that Peter Keith Essay going? ;)

Every couple of months I check if the 1740 issues of the Berlinische Nachrichten have been digitized yet, because among other things, there's that Preuss-alleged reference to Peter in December I want to see. They still haven't shown up, but I found something else this time: Berliner geschriebene Zeitungen aus dem Jahr 1740. These aren't official newspapers, but private reports, from two different people, which were written for the Abbess of Quedlinburg, June-December 1740. (The abbess at the time = a great-aunt of Russian!Pete. She died in 1755 - which is when Amalie got the job - and she and her people were interested in the new king and his politics because all throughout FW's reign there had been quarrels re: sovereignty, stationing of military, and of course recruiting. (I think there were very few people FW didn't have quarrels with regarding the last one.))

The two agents are Schultzer (previously military) and Vogel (low official) and the editor is the same one who published the Stratemann reports. He put some effort into checking all their claims and has lots of footnotes with references to other sources (actual newspapers and military records, other envoy reports, even the elusive Tröger compilation of Manteuffel's Fidamire thing) to verify things or correct them and point out unfounded rumours, in case the two agents don't correct themselves down the line, as they sometimes do.

Why am I telling you all this? Because Peter is mentioned.

On the 14th of October, Schultzer writes the following: "Übrigens ist den 12. der Herr Lieutnant v. Keit, welcher vor einigen Jahren von Wesel nach Engelland übergegangen, aus Engelland wieder hier angekommen, welches S.M., weil er nicht gerufen worden, ungnädig vermerckt haben sollen." ("Incidentally, on the 12th, Lieutnant von Keit, who moved from Wesel to Engelland a few years ago, came back from Engelland, which HM, because he was not called, is said to have received ungraciously.")

As you can see, immediately we have some mixed-up info and an unfounded rumour, but the Editor mentions the July summons in the footnote, setting this straight, and at least it's written in a way ("haben sollen") that makes it clear that it's only hearsay.

Even better: Fritz arrives in Berlin on the 15th, and: "Um 5 Uhr begab sich der Herr v. Kait, welcher Obristlieutenant in Portugisischen Diensten sein soll, durch die kleine Pforte an der Stech-Bahn, dem Dom gegenüber, nach die Königl. Zimmer, wohin S.M. denselben dem Verlaut nach beschieden hätten. Den 16. erschienen S.M. auf der Wachparade, wobei dieser Herr v. Kait sich gleichfalls befand. Weil aber S.M. vom Fieber noch nicht gäntzlich verlassen sind, als haben Sich Höchst-Dieselbe den 17. in Dero Zimmer gehalten. Eodem Abends um halb 9 Uhr trafen endlich die so lange erwartete Bayreuthsche Frau Markgräfin Königl. Hoheiten hier ein."

("At 5 o'clock, Herr von Kait, who is supposed to be Lieutenant Colonel in Portuguese service, went through the little gate at the Stech-Bahn, across from the cathedral, to the Royal Rooms, where HM reportedly had him called. On the 16th, HM appeared at the parade, and this Herr von Kait was also there. On the 17th, HM kept to his rooms because the fever still wasn't gone. The same day at half past eight in the evening the Bayreuth Margravine Royal Highnesses, who had been awaited for so long, finally arrived here.")

There are no references to other sources in the footnotes in this case, so this guy Schultzer seems to be the only one who reported this. That said, he tends to mention a lot of names and people, unlike his colleague Vogel, who keeps things a lot more brief and specifically doesn't have Schultzer's military interests and connections. (He corroborates Fritz's whereabouts, the fever, and Wilhelmine, but doesn't mention Peter.) Since I don't know why anybody should make this up in its entirety, there's at least a chance that Fritz and Peter did indeed meet on the 15th/16th (i.e. the earliest date possible). Fritz then leaves for Rheinsberg on the 19th, still suffering from fever.

Last Peter reference is on October 28: "Herr v. Kait sei Stallmeister geworden." (Which is the kind of career news Schultzer reports all the time. No mention of a commission in the Prussian military, though, which is something he would have noted I think.)

--

Other interesting tidbits:

Since Mildred was interested in the mourning dress code: During the envoy audiences on June 12th, Fritz was wearing violet, not black, which was very unusual. The footnote quotes Manteuffel: contre tout usage et sans rime et raison. Also, during those audiences, people noted (and some envoys were upset) that Valory got first dibs.

On June 5th, Fritz visits the treasury with v. Boden, Eversmann, and Fredersdorff; Eversman gets dismissed at least by June 17th, which is also when the Zernikow gift gets reported (with varying rtl. values). Fredersdorf's collection of responsiblities - Castellan, Bettmeister, Kämmerer, setting the theatre people straight - trickles in bit by bit over the months.

Re: Fritz's August trip - before he even left, there were already rumours that he'd go for an incognito trip to Paris, and lots of arguing back and fourth if true or just invented. (As of August 30th, Schulzer has not yet heard of the Strasburg adventure.)

LOTS of mentions that Fritz had revues for all the regiments and pulled all the prettiest people for his new guard regiment. See also, August 16th, mention of a new chamber servant, previously a musketeer, "[der] gut aussiehet". Also lots of info on the new page/servant/etc uniforms, very splendid and pretty, plus a green/golden carriage that Fritz had himself made.

Height of the rumour mill: right after the Emperor's death. Not just regarding the war preparations - people say we are going to invade Poland! no, Cleve! no, Silesia! yes, we are going to Silesia, but not to invade but to protect MT against Bavaria and Saxony! - but also other deaths, and while the Tzarina did indeed die (although not via unnatural causes), the Saxon King was NOT in fact assassinated in Warschau. :P To be fair, both of them say that nobody really knows and confirmation is missing.

Finally, in less Fritz-related but still interesting news: Schultzer includes the occasional crime report, i.e. several murders and street robberies, a severed head found in a clay jar, and an armoury break-in. Said break-in was followed by a lengthy investigation, starting with a tree, a ladder, and a broken window, and ending with an expert saying that the tree wasn't strong enough for a person and suggesting that it was an inside-job, upon which Stallmeister Schwerin vouched for all his people and the investigator's sights turned towards some craftsmen who had been working there, but a search of their rooms for the stolen goods didn't yield anything. No final conclusion reported. (Me: This detective story, while intriguing, leaves something to be desired.)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Ha! Yeah, I'm trying to remember -- I don't think George III was specifically presented as evil or whatever at school, but what I remember from school was what you say, where George kind of was the public face of British Tyranny vs. Our Heroes the Founding Fathers, and so small!me, along with presumably everyone else, drew conclusions from that.

Yeah, similar. It wasn't that my history classes talked about how G3 was a terrible monarch or a terrible person. I barely remember G3 at all. What we talked about was how monarchy was bad, and how the lack of the rights that would end up in the American Bill of Rights was bad, and G3 and his ministers wanted to keep their subjects from having those rights, so we had to fight for them.

So less that G3 was terrible and more that he was not progressive enough, was the message I got. (Disclaimer: I haven't seen/listened to Hamilton.) I came away with a vaguely negative impression, but I certainly didn't have the sense that he was personally worse than any of the *other* monarchs we covered!

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Oh, wow, this is amazing! Thank you!

The essay is coming along bit by bit. I'm nearly done with the first draft (just getting the facts down), and then I have to revise. But now I have some new facts to get down! So the first draft isn't quite as close to being done as it was 5 minutes ago. ;)

[The big hold-up has been having to work at 4:30 am for my day job for a couple weeks, which has wrecked my sleep schedule like you would not believe.]

("Incidentally, on the 12th, Lieutnant von Keit, who moved from Wesel to Engelland a few years ago, came back from Engelland, which HM, because he was not called, is said to have received ungraciously.")

This is awesome because I have been precisely looking for this date! All I had was a month. If contemporaries have heard of his return by the 14th, then we can assume that at least he returned in the first half of the month, not the latter half.

there's at least a chance that Fritz and Peter did indeed meet on the 15th/16th (i.e. the earliest date possible). Fritz then leaves for Rheinsberg on the 19th, still suffering from fever.

Indeed, and what's interesting to me is that there are already rumors of him not being in royal favor (which would continue to be a topic of discussion until at least 1753). Even if the reason is wrong, it does lead me to believe that either Peter, the people around him, or both were expecting a much warmer welcome than he got. It's possible they did have an in-person and/or written conflict immediately upon Peter's arrival.

:(

Last Peter reference is on October 28: "Herr v. Kait sei Stallmeister geworden." (Which is the kind of career news Schultzer reports all the time. No mention of a commission in the Prussian military, though, which is something he would have noted I think.)

Also awesome to have a date for this!

the Saxon King was NOT in fact assassinated in Warschau. :P To be fair, both of them say that nobody really knows and confirmation is missing.

Hee! I know I saw ambassador reports (in Volz's Spiegel, I think) speculating on Fritz withdrawing with his ministers after the Emperor's death, and secondary sources I've read have said that Berlin was like a beehive buzzing with rumors. This is the context in which Fritz is supposed to have had this exchange with someone who wanted to know what was going to happen:

Fritz: "Can you keep a secret?"

Other person: "Oh, yes, Your Majesty!"

Fritz: "Well, so can I!"

:DD

(I think that turned out to be from one of the unsourced anecdote collections written in 1786-1790, though? I remember being disappointed that it may not have been authentic, because it's one of my favorites.)

This is all wonderful information, thank you! I need to get my German better so I can read all these sources you keep turning up and make my own contributions!

Also, salon people, do keep asking me how the Peter Keith essay is coming along! (Ditto the Fredersdorf-Pfeiffer one.) It really helps!

From:

mildred_of_midgard

FW: That's my intention, but I don't always do it. Let me tell you about that time my advisors wanted me to abandon Peter I. during the Great Northern War. I'd made Peter "a holy promise to never abandon him or make peace with Sweden without him and yet this promise did not keep me from signing a peace treaty without his involvement in the end. What that right? I don't think so, but it still happened. I didn't want to do it for a long time, I even got a hot fever over it, but what could I do, my guys plagued me for so long, Knyphausen even followed me to Wusterhausen and wouldn't leave me alone, so I had to sign it, like it or not. That was a real fraud.

Somewhere in one of the books I was reading, I seem to recall an FW rant about how his successor should *not* imitate him in this, and I really wanted to share it, but I couldn't find it, and I wanted to post the write-up already. If I run across it again, I'll share it!

... by the way, my guess is that at least half of FW's regret is that he ended up on the same side as the Hanover cousins, even though he liked Peter a lot more. :P

Hee! Can someone remind me how he felt about father-in-law G1? He definitely liked Peter more, but was there an outright animosity toward G1? (Future G2, obviously, that dates back to childhood!) I feel like he's supposed to have said he was sad when G1 died, but also that's basically socially obligatory and means nothing.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Me: What is it about these guys and bears????
Mildred: Yep, I have anticipated you. Keep reading your comments.
:P

ROFL!

talking to Voltaire, talking about Voltaire, reading Voltaire, writing to Voltaire, reading Voltaire's letters aloud

I laughed! :D

:D

He has a full schedule!

From:

selenak

Mildred: But the whole point of running away is not fulfilling your responsibilities?

Hatton: But he had given orders for everything to be ready for his arrival!

Mildred: Yes? If you don't behave like everything is normal, then you get caught even sooner? *cough* Fritz.

Or Peter Keith, who wrote to Not!Robert that they could be roomies once Robert arrived with FW and Fritz in Wesel, and also to bring some stuff for him from Berlin. Which presumably did a great deal to convince FW that Not!Robert didn't know about the conspiracy until Fritz told him he'd made a run for it en route.

Historians: G1 was totally at fault for the events of the night of K's disappearance!

Which historians, may I ask? Maybe I have a skewered perspective due to having started with Schnath who notably doesn't think that, but I can't remember G1 in particular being blamed by anyone else, including wiki. Horowski, for example, is clear on the fact that Team Hannover in general is to blame, but who among them specifically (Ernst August with or without Sophie, G1, or all together), I don't think he says. And popular legend, adapted by the Austrian novelist who wrote Sarabande for Dead Lovers, blames not G1 but his father's mistress the Countess von Platen, on the basis of a "woman scorned" motive that assumes she had an earlier affair with Königsmarck. (Whereas wiki thinks if she had a hate-on for Königsmarck, it probably due to him not wanting to marry her daughter, not because she wanted him for herself.) Does Hatton have any take on Platen's role in this? Personally, I can well believe the legend arose as a way not to blame the Hannovers themselves, but I would like to hear an argument one way or another.

But the legend that he caught SDC in flagrante and ran her lover through with a sword is right out.

Again, which legend is this? Maybe there are separate British and German legends? Because the one I know had Platen tell G1 about the affair, not some in flagrante confrontation. (The Australian novelist then upped this by letting Platen organize the murder itself as well.)

Historians: G1 wanted to divorce SDC.

Da capo: which historians? I never read any suggesting this. All the versions I know had her wanting to divorce him, and being bitterly disappointed her parents wouldn't support her in this. I'm really starting to suspect two separate historian traditions, depending on British historians never reading any German sources, I presume.

Historians: G1 kept her locked up forever!

Hatton: Her daughter, SD of Prussia, tried to negotiate for an amnesty in 1725, but SDC refused! She would only agree to leave her house arrest if her name was cleared, it was stated that she had never done anything wrong, and she received compensation for wrongs suffered. Forgiveness would mean acknowledging that she had done anything wrong.

Okay, this is genuinely new. And fascinating! Does Hatton have any explanation for SD not visiting SDC when she was in Hannover, if she was willing to negotiate for her?

From:

luzula

This book was perfect, because it skimmed lightly over things I already know a lot about (the course of the '45, and the Highland clans and their relationship to Jacobitism), and focused on things I didn't. Here's a summary of parts I found interesting (ask if you want more on anything).

It starts with a brief summary of the historiography and various positions different historians have taken. There's a general bit about British society, then an account of the 1688 revolution and the war in Scotland and Ireland. I didn't know much about the war in Ireland, so that was interesting. It looks like James II did not make the most of his Irish Catholic support there. More than anything else the failure of the Jacobite army in 1690–1 is ascribable to a failure of political will. James II and VII does not seem to have taken to his Old Irish subjects.³⁸ They, in turn, were soon disillusioned with him and his inner coterie of advisers, none of whom were Old Irish.³⁹ Also he was not great as a military commander.

It then goes into how the Jacobites communicated within themselves (slooowly and uncertainly, because of the large distances, which made it hard to plot), and the various factions and internal ideological struggles within Jacobitism, and what the formal declarations of the Stuarts actually said. This is the main new thing I learned from the book, and it's very interesting! ...it is interesting to observe in this context the gathering radicalism of the Jacobites’ political agenda. For all the traditionalist evocation of rightful monarchy at the exiled court and the innate social and political conservatism of many of its hard-core supporters in the British Isles, as a political movement Jacobitism was impelled towards greater and greater political radicalism as time went on (see documents 3, 4, 15).

Which makes sense! There's always a struggle over power between the monarch and the parliament (and other power bases), and if the king is actually in exile and not on the throne, he's in a uniquely bad bargaining position. He's dependent on his supporters to get the throne back, and pretty much has to agree to what they want.

This shift begins already in the 1690's. James II's first communications are uncompromising. The Irish Parliament he called in 1689 basically wanted the Catholic majority to be in charge of the country, but they were to lose out in 1693 when the English Protestant faction among the Jacobites won out over the English Catholic one: Parliament was assigned a constitutional position very similar to that already prevailing in England in the 1690s, the religious settlement was to be left virtually untouched (specifically, the privileged position of the Church of England was to be maintained) and there was to be a complete indemnity for all supporters of the Revolution and their heirs. James also found himself caught between the English Jacobite and Irish Jacobite agendas, in that he had to agree to leave the settlement of Ireland to the tender mercies of the first post-restoration English Parliament (see document 3).¹³ In sum, the Jacobite government-in-exile committed itself to leaving the new, post-Revolution political, religious and social order in England (and English ascendancy in the British Isles) virtually intact in the event of a restoration.¹⁴ Must have been bitter for James II...

Then, in 1708, we get the much more radical proclamation of James III, as a consequence of what the Scottish Jacobites wanted. James III promised such things as three-year terms for parliament, all ministers and judges appointed by parliament, religious toleration (but no Catholics in office), the king could not set foreign policy on his own, etc. And they agreed that if the king broke these agreements, then parliament could kick him out. No doubt if any of these kings had actually ended up on the throne, they would've tried to get power back, like William III did after the Glorious Revolution, disappointing the radical Whigs, but they'd be starting from a bad bargaining position.

The exiled Stuarts’ identification with the Scottish national cause and their acceptance of the Juncto’s radical agenda, moreover, boosted the trend towards the adoption of more and more radical commitments by the exiled Stuarts. Their natural allies were the politically alienated and dispossessed, and so they accumulated more and more commitments to alter the status quo in the event of a restoration. The most important and momentous of these was the pledge by the Jacobite government-in-exile (repeated again and again in public statements and propaganda) that as soon as the exiled dynasty was restored it would hold a ‘Free Parliament’. This had been a radical nostrum since the 1650s, produced political revolutions in 1660 and 1688, and was bound to appeal to anyone who felt they had been unjustly treated by the existing order.²⁵ Likewise the Stuarts’ promise from 1715 onwards to institute a complete religious toleration (including full civil rights for religious minorities) augured no less a political and social earthquake.²⁶ To appreciate the potential upset implicit within this proposal it is only necessary to reflect that this was an issue very, very few conventional politicians would touch before the 1770s, that it convulsed British politics in 1780, 1799–1800 and 1825–9, and brought down at least two governments before it was finally passed. In the same vein, from the mid-1720s James promised to roll back the systematic disfranchisement of plebeian Londoners by Walpolean legislation designed to boost the powers of the oligarchical court of Aldermen. This would in effect have given back control of the city to ordinary Londoners and transformed the politics of the English/British capital. And London’s politics were nothing less than crucial on a national scale. The denouement of this process came in the 1750s, when Charles Edward added to these commitments pledges to institute biennial or triennial Parliaments, disband the standing army, cut the number of placemen in Parliament to no more than fifty, and enact legal guarantees of the liberty of the press and the right of the people to resist tyrannical governments (see document 15). It was an agenda a great many late eighteenth-century radicals and revolutionaries would have enthusiastically endorsed.

I also note that "document 15", written by BPC, also mentions his conversion to the Anglican Church, so that's another primary source for that.

Then the book goes through the various attempts at coups and up until the '15, as well as shifts of opinion within England and Scotland. It goes into the '15 in some detail, which makes sense as the author has written a separate book on that. It seems it wasn't as spontaneous as I'd thought before, since it was preceded by plotting between James III, Tory conspirators in England and Jacobites in Scotland. James III explicitly promised to break the 1707 union. The reason the rebellion failed seems the same one I've read before: that Mar was a very bad military commander, and that the English Jacobites didn't rise. But actually he never claimed to be one, he was waiting on James and Berwick (an Irish military commander in French service) to arrive and take over. But the French government forbade Berwick to take part, and James arrived too late to make a difference to the outcome.

I'd thought the government's punishments after the '15 were milder than after the '45, and it seems that they were to the extent that ordinary soldiers in Scotland were not punished. But in other respects they were as harsh. There was plenty of executions of the leaders, the confiscation of estates for all involved, and systematic looting and burning in the Highlands with no separation of guilty and innocent (says nothing about outright killing as after the '45, though). The confiscation of estates did sort of fail in that the Scots Whigs were alienated by the harshness of the treatment of the Highlands, and the whole judiciary establishment in Scotland obstructed the confiscation of estates. The government took 1,000 prisoners in Preston and the majority of the ordinary soldiers were to be transported to the Caribbean, which was basically a death sentence. But that too went awry since most of them were skilled workers and the entrepreneurs who bought the prisoners from the government instead sold them to North America since that paid better.

Then we get developments in England, Scotland and Ireland after the '15, and what the Jacobite court was up to. The most interesting bit for me here was Ireland. Ireland never rose after the 1690's, but that was not for lack of Jacobitism. Even if they'd been disillusioned by James II back then, they really had nowhere else to turn. England was very aware of their discontent, since the Gaelic and Catholic majority basically had no power, and all the power was held by the Protestant and English minority. Because of that awareness, there were plenty of garrisons to keep them down and they were not allowed to have arms. But Ireland contributed in another way: the "Wild Geese" who followed James to the continent in the 1690's formed Irish brigades in France and in Spain that evolved into crack military units. The effect of this on Irish Jacobite morale at home was great: there was a whole culture of songs and stories about it, relating the exploits of these soldiers to old mythical heroes, and illegal recruiting networks that ensured that the units actually remained Irish over time. Also, the commanders of these units had the ears of the kings/ministers in the respective countries. Jacobitism actually clung on the longest in Ireland, into the 1780's, and the transition to Jacobinism seems to have been pretty easy in the sense that both these movements were about trying to get help from the continent to overthrow their English Protestant overlords.

Skipping over the '45, nothing new. Then we get an interesting chapter first motivating why the Jacobites were so tempting to other countries: it gives examples of other countries being taken out of commission by civil wars and how great a way it was of breaking the military deadlock. He goes through various countries one by one and their diplomatic contacts with the Jacobites over time and reasons for why the countries acted as they did. Then there's a last chapter on the Jacobite diaspora.

From:

selenak

LOL on the Italian beauty score, and sigh on Acton, as in his own book, bashing German widows who refuse to be fleeced by Italian wastrels.

Algarotti: Venetian or Florentine, either way, we're more passionate than you northerners!

Various Tsarinas and their lovers would like to doubt that theory. In particular, Poniatowski, Grigorii Orlov and Potemkin in a rare, unparalleled example of unanimous agreement. Catherine just laughs. So do both Annas.

From:

selenak

I should say that the nonfiction Monmouth biographer (whom I read after having read the novel) disagrees with Jude Morgan, novelist, on how bad the James/Jemmy relationship was early on, i.e. the non fiction biographer thinks they got along well for some years until Monmouth was starting to have followers of his own and the rumors that Charles would legitimize him and/or that he was the product of a secret marriage and thus legitimate to begin with were becoming not idle but an actual political weapon. Whereas in Morgan's novel they go from mild dislike to active hatred. But for the most part, both authors agree on James as a person.

The non fiction biographer, btw, thinks the reason why Charles while acknowledging all his bastards did have such a close relationship to Monmouth in particular and did more for him than for any of the others wasn't just because Jemmy was the oldest (Charles had been only 18 when getting him), but that all the other children had their mothers to fight for them and care for them. Whereas Charles had kidnapped this oldest son from his mother, and then she had died, so there was no other parent/champion. For good or ill, anything that this oldest child became was on Charles.

From:

selenak

By God, Holmes, that's amazing!

I think there were very few people FW didn't have quarrels with regarding the last one.))

Ha, yes. In the AU where William adopts FW and FW thus becomes King of GB, I foresee a sudden dearth of all Irish and Scottish tall men in addition to the English and Welsh ones...

It's fascinating that on the one hand we have a rumor that Fritz reacted badly to Peter's return this early, even though it is mixed with the demonstrably false reason that he came back without being asked to, and on the other hand he's supposed to have gotten a personal confidential audience. I'm with Mildred that maybe both are true, and Peter did get a personal audience but it didn't go as well as he expected (no wonder, after ten years and Fritz set on making it clear he wouldn't be the favorites-depending replica of Grandpa-as-perceived-by-him his father had predicted). Presumably the lingering fever didn't help.

Re: Eversmann - you know, I had not wondered what happened to FW's personal staff, but yes, makes sense they'd retire or be dismissed. (As opposed to the ministers and secretaries like Eichel, who were very much kept employed.) And I'm amused at the title "Bettmeister" for Fredersdorf, which I hadn't heard before. Now there's a neat double entendre!

yes, we are going to Silesia, but not to invade but to protect MT against Bavaria and Saxony!

Someone clearly has read Fritz' letter to FS. :)

LOTS of mentions that Fritz had revues for all the regiments and pulled all the prettiest people for his new guard regiment.

:) A good reminder to people arguing no one ever suspected Fritz of m/m inclinations before evil Voltaire slandered him. (By which I don't mean just 19th century historians but also annoying 20th century ones of the no homo! inclination.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Presumably the lingering fever didn't help.

Exactly what I was thinking.

I was kind of glad you stopped my RMSE fic before the unsatisfying reunion, and now I'm reminded again to be glad. :/

A good reminder to people arguing no one ever suspected Fritz of m/m inclinations before evil Voltaire slandered him.

Didn't Manteuffel produce the "he prefers good-looking soldiers, not tall ones" line in ~September 1730, nearly verbatim the same line Voltaire would later use in his memoirs?

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Which historians: British historians, yes. Hatton was a Norwegian expat working at a university in London, specializing in Continental politics, writing in English for an English-speaking audience, and constantly frustrated with British historians who refused to familiarize themselves with Continental sources, whereas she was reading as many archives as she could. And so she's trying to set the record straight.

Some excerpts for you:

Excerpt 1: English anti-Hanoverian propaganda after 1714 blamed Sophia Dorothea's imprisonment (usually thought much harsher than it was) on George I; it was assumed that the divorce had been at his insistence and that Königsmarck's disappearance must be laid at his door, whether the wife's lover had been murdered and laid under the floorboards at the Leineschloss or plastered into a niche or whether – as other stories had it – he had been allowed to flee the country.

Excerpt 2: Anti-Hanoverian propaganda took advantage of British ignorance of the roles played by Ernst August and Georg Wilhelm in the divorce proceedings to make George the central figure; on Königsmarck's presumed fate it could utilize sensational manuscript and printed material circulating in Germany from 1695 onwards, for an analysis of which see Schnath, A.B., Königsmarck, 68–74.

Excerpt 3: See e.g. Jordan, Sophia Dorothea, 206–08, lending support to these accounts ‘sanctioned by tradition’ by her choice of endpapers: the drawings by Rex Whistler for A. E. W. Mason's Königsmarck; and Trench, George II, 3–4, who takes for gospel at least some of the stories related in Horace Walpole's Letters I and Memoirs III.

Does Hatton have any take on Platen's role in this?

She does, and she's with wiki.

Tradition has ascribed a prominent share in a plot to murder Königsmarck to countess Platen and, as in all aspects of the whole affair, the few known facts have been embroidered with sensational details...Klara von Platen's influence over Ernst August. The general awareness of this influence, and rumours of great tension between Sophia Dorothea and her father-in-law's mistress who was assumed also to have seduced Philipp Christoph are at the base of stories which — though interesting as ingredients of popular mythology – would not be worth mentioning here but for the fact that one or more of them are still repeated in recent British books touching on George I: countess Platen, jealous because Königsmarck has deserted her bed for Sophia Dorothea's, determines to kill him, hires some officers to intercept him in the Leineschloss, grinds her heel in his face as he lies dying on the floor; Ernst August being informed only after the deed is done.

These tales derive, with a host of others, from contemporary treatments of Königsmarck's life and death circulated in manuscript or print, with which the anonymous author of the Histoire secrette de la duchesse d'Hanovre (published in 1732 with many later editions and translations) spiced his concoction. His main source, volume seven of duke Anton Ulrich's Römische Octavia, was so discreet that it did not even hint at Königsmarck's murder. In the first version (1707), the book ends with Aquilius leaving court of his own will so as to save the reputation of his beloved; in the second version (1712), Petilius Cerealis (a clearer pseudonym for the Königsmarck figure) returns to free his beloved from unjust imprisonment and then nobly disappears from her life. In both versions the lovers are innocent, the romance totally chivalric in tone.

The unlikelihood of the countess Platen figure of tradition does not need much labouring. For anyone moderately familiar with the historical background to the Königsmarck affair, the myth's lack of political content renders it suspect. On the personal level it would seem improbable that the countess would have risked her position with Ernst August by a love affair with Königsmarck; though she may, before the extent of the young man's financial inaptitude was known, have considered him a suitable bridegroom for her daughter by Ernst August. And it is incredible that she should have organized Königsmarck's murder without the elector's previous consent, given Ernst August's firm control of his entourage. It would be a reasonable assumption, however, that Ernst August discussed with her possible countermeasures, as an elopement scandal seemed imminent, and she may therefore have been an accessory to a murder plan. But the throwing of all blame on the countess, thus postulating Ernst August's innocence, may also point to an inspired story meant to divert attention from the person of the elector.

Footnote: It should be noted that Professor Schnath, for whose work I have the greatest respect, deduces from the Königsmarck-Sophia correspondence and from diplomatic reports that the count had been Gräfin Platen's lover and that the Gräfin was extremely jealous of Sophia Dorothea. He therefore allocates more responsibility than I am inclined to do to the Gräfin for the Königsmarck murder.

Okay, this is genuinely new. And fascinating! Does Hatton have any explanation for SD not visiting SDC when she was in Hannover, if she was willing to negotiate for her?

Refreshing myself instead of going by memory, it seems SDC approached her daughter via messengers before the Hanover visit, SD thought negotiating for amnesty would be a great idea, SDC said "No amnesty, I want a complete clearing of my name and compensation for damages, or else I'm going with the Jacobites!" SD was like, "Uh, yeah, so, it turns out I'm busy with this other thing, Mom, byyyyeeee."

SD being more politically realistic than the other party for once. :P

I don't see Hatton explicitly mentioning the failure to visit SDC, but extrapolating from her account of SD's priorities in 1725, it seems SD was trying to stay extremely on G1's good side until she'd gotten what she wanted (double marriage), and staying on G1's good side meant not visting SDC. And since SD never got the double marriage she wanted, that would be consistent with never visiting SDC. Especially since SD thought she was always on the verge of making it happen, and presumably thought she could always advocate for and/or visit her mother afterwards. And then her mother died before her father.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

sigh on Acton, as in his own book, bashing German widows

It's even worse than that. This isn't Acton, this is his buddy Norman Douglas who wrote an introduction to the volume for him. Anna Maria Franziska can't catch a break! (So far, Alberto Bruschi's not a big fan of her either, but I haven't yet read his bio of her.)

ETA: And I forgot to add that when I looked up Norman Douglas when I was first trying to track down a copy of this book, I discovered that he fled England on bail in 1917 because of child rape accusations, went to Italy, fled to France in 1937 for the same reason. But ugly Germans are the worst, amirite?

Catherine just laughs. So do both Annas.

Hee! But did any of them ever have an Italian for comparison, Algarotti and Alberto Bruschi ask?

Gian Gastone: Speaking as an Italian with extensive experience of both, I thought northerners, especially Germans, were totally passionate when they were in the Ruspanti. Just not my wife.

Edited Date: 2021-11-20 04:53 pm (UTC)

From:

felis

You know what I'm stuck on? Peter's presence at the parade the next day. Unfortunately, there's no way to tell from the phrasing how and why he was there - did he show up on his own, maybe in hopes of seeing Fritz again and Fritz got annoyed? (If so, it can't have been visibly or Schultzer would have said so IMO.) Or did he show up as part of Fritz' entourage, invited, which would actually speak against a conflict at that point, on the contrary? It's a bit of a mystery, not least because he's singled out here - it's the only time parade attendance is mentioned at all I think - and I have no idea why. If Schultzer was someone who suspected he'd become important because of backstory (which isn't mentioned either), he doesn't say so.

"Bettmeister" for Fredersdorf, which I hadn't heard before. Now there's a neat double entendre!

Ha. That reminds me - Fredersdorf is involved in the "picking the prettiest people" for the King's service part! On October 25th, the report says that "die Zahl derer Königl. Laquais auf 70 in allen vermehret werden solte, wozu der Herr Frederstorff die hübscheste Gesichter zu choisiren, und deren Mundirung gegen den 1. Dec. fertig zu halten, Commißion habe." So he and Fritz seem to have had an understanding there. :P

From:

selenak

Clearly so, if Frederdorf is supposed to pick the prettiest faces for him. :)

Giuliano Dami: How come I got the bad press for the same job?

You know what I'm stuck on? Peter's presence at the parade the next day.

It could also be that Fritz invited him/told him to come to the parade right at the start, before the actual encounter. Moreover, I don't expect the whole thing to have gone badly in the sense that they quarelled. Not least because you don't argue with newly crowned Kings. Even Wilhelmine took the care to address Fritz as "Sire" in her first post ascension letter until he told her she could continue addressing him as her brother. (Heinrich: Mom told us to treat him as the future king in the previous year already, but I still kicked him under the table!)

No, what I think happened was something perfectly polite, but given that when last they met, in January 1730, it was presumably all youthful passion and intensity, and now, ten years and a lot more trauma later, it's polite sovereign and subject looking for cues of how to behave, it's almost bound to have left both parties somewhat dissatisfied. I don't think Peter, from what we know of him, would have been the type to take the initiative, do something like offer a hug. He may have been more informal than your avarage Prussian courtier as Lehndorff noted later - with other courtiers. But with the new King, whom he hasn't seen in ten years? I don't think so. Though of course in his dreams Fritz would have dismissed everyone and hugged him. And if his looking for cues of how to behave with this new version of Fritz came across as poentially calculating to Fritz the paranoid, it would have made him even more formal.

I mean, yes, Fritz wrote to Algarotti (and Duhan!) a passionate "come now to me!" type of letter, but he'd seen Algarotti only the previous year and Algarotti had never known Fritz the abused, while Duhan was his old teacher and not a likely candidate to a power grabbing favorite. Given how Fritz reacted when Peter was suggested by the Brits as a potential envoy a few years later, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd wondered whether Peter was now working for England, so to speak. Which, btw, would have made sense from Team Hannover Cousins' pov! (To use him as a spy, that is. After all, Caroline had shown him considerable favor, he owed them.)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

It's fascinating that on the one hand we have a rumor that Fritz reacted badly to Peter's return this early, even though it is mixed with the demonstrably false reason that he came back without being asked to, and on the other hand he's supposed to have gotten a personal confidential audience. I'm with Mildred that maybe both are true, and Peter did get a personal audience but it didn't go as well as he expected

Well, the thing is, that's exactly what later sources claim. I'm blanking on whether there's a reliable one that says the had an unhappy first meeeting in person, as opposed to that one by nineteenth century editor of Thiebault's memoirs, in a passage particularly rife with mistakes, but I have seen this claim before.

Peter Keith's son, writing in 1820, has them exchanging letters in which they get more and more frustrated with each other, before Peter's return:

Mein Vater legte dem König vor Augen eine schriftliche Versprechung, die der König als Kronprinz ihm gegeben hatte, und die in starken Ausdrücken ausgefertigt war. Der König nahm dieses besonders übel, und das Resultat war, das mein Vater als Oberstleutnant und Stallmeister mit 1.200 RTl Pension nach Berlin zurückkam.

My father made the king aware of a written promise which the king as crown prince had given him and which was made out in strong terms. The king took this particularly badly, and the result was that my father came back to Berlin as a lieutenant colonel and stable master with 1,200 RTl pension.

I was never quite sure how much credence to give this, since 1820!son also thinks his father left Wesel because he was warned that Fritz had been arrested, when as we know, Fritz was arrested because Peter had left Wesel several days earlier.

But now that we have an extremely contemporary account of both an in-person meeting and a lack of favor on Fritz's part, I'm kind of inclined to think Peter *did* keep a letter from Fritz all those years, remind him of it (maybe even in person), and make a defensive Fritz double down on "I am not ruled by my favorites! I'll show everyone!"

If the first part of Keith son's account is correct, that they had argued by letter, that would be consistent with people realizing Peter wasn't in favor already by Oct 14, before the supposed in-person meeting. But then there's the question of why the meeting, if he's already out of favor?

Since right at this time, Wilhelmine comes to visit Rheinsberg and hardly gets to see him, and afterward Fritz writes a letter apologizing that he wasn't a very good host because he was sick, Fritz might have been both a) not in his best mood that week or two because sick, b) super defensive about his past Crown Prince self having been so influenced by the people around him, without it necessarily meaning he was displeased with the people in question. Just not giving them the kind of favor they expected. And then, of course, he was super busy with the invasion shortly thereafter.

From:

selenak

Norman Douglass: yikes. Reading both English and German wiki, I see his mother was a von Pöllnitz (!). Who remarried after his father's death (an Austrian painter), so maybe his beef with German widows is autobiographical and Hamletian? German wiki doesn't mention the 12 and the 10 years olds, only the 15 and 16 years olds, but otoh it has this detail English wiki has not:

1897 kaufte er am Posillipo bei Neapel, Italien, eine Villa (Villa Maya). Er begann ein Verhältnis mit dem 15-jährigen Bruder seiner damaligen 16-jährigen Geliebten.

Okay then. Also, in his later divorce he got the two kids, because his wife's infidelity. At least he didn't lock up his wife? But yeah. I bet Giuliano Dami's age when meeting Gian Gastone wasn't a problem for him...

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Giuliano Dami: How come I got the bad press for the same job?

Exactly what I was thinking when I read

felis's finding!

I don't think Peter, from what we know of him, would have been the type to take the initiative, do something like offer a hug.

100% agree. This is the kind of thing Katte and Keyserlingk would have been more likely to do. (Though after 10 years in exile, I doubt Katte offers the hug up straightaway--but I think he's more overt in displaying his enthusiasm and affection, which maybe gives Fritz some warm and fuzzies, which gets them into a positive feedback loop. Where I think Fritz and Peter got into a negative feedback loop, where the less enthusiasm they see from the other person, the more likely they are to assume the worst and to dial down their own enthusiasm accordingly. :()

But as we've seen, there may have been some friction from the beginning. Especially since these are the same two that will lead to Fritz saying, just a year and a bit later, "Okay, give him a raise and then maybe he'll give me some peace."

Peter Keith: Reserved, maybe, but not your doormat.

(Also, this is part of what I'm working into my account of how Katte and Peter in AU!exile hit it off: Peter, like Fritz, craves affection and warmth from the other party, and is too reserved/insecure enough to be the initiate radiating warmth without knowing how it's going to be received. But he responds well once it's given, and Katte gives it.)

And if his looking for cues of how to behave with this new version of Fritz came across as poentially calculating to Fritz the paranoid, it would have made him even more formal.

Also very true, and in keeping with the bad feedback loop.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

so maybe his beef with German widows is autobiographical and Hamletian?

Ha, I had missed that. Perhaps!

I bet Giuliano Dami's age when meeting Gian Gastone wasn't a problem for him...

Ah, but this is one of the things I was going to talk about today! GG has been exonerated! For lo, this happened:

Bruschi: The anonymous manuscript claims, and other historians repeat, that Giuliano accompanied GG on his way to his wedding in Bohemia, meaning GG arrived with his lover in tow (and therefore wasn't committed to his marriage from the get-go). But nobody has ever asked how old Giuliano was at the time!

Mildred: Me, me! I asked! And was appalled by the answer.

Bruschi: The anonymous manuscript, while it gives all sorts of juicy (and unreliable, slanderous) details about Giuliano's origins, leaves out the most basic fact: when was he born? And I can tell you that he was born in 1683, meaning he would have been 14 when the wedding took place. Now, first of all, nobody takes a 14-yo as a companion on a trip like this.

Me: Your faith in human nature exceeds mine. Also, they don't necessarily have had to have been sexually involved at the time. Giuliano could have just been one lackey in a sizable retinue that wasn't necessarily hand-picked to consist 100% of people having sexual relations with the prince. But go on.

Bruschi: And second of all, I have documentary evidence showing that Giuliano was still in Italy, employed by an Italian noble, in 1703, meaning when he was 20. He didn't enter GG's service until his early 20s.

Me: Woot! Must tell salon and clear GG's name!

ETA: I must add that Bruschi is attempting to clear GG's name of having entered an arranged marriage to a complete stranger with no intention of being sexually faithful to her. I, who heartily disapprove of the double standard toward women but am reluctant to condemn human beings for finding emotional and sexual satisfaction outside of a cold-bloodedly arranged marriage, am more concerned about whether he was RAPING a CHILD or not.

Son of ETA: Oh, and in conclusion, Norman Douglas may or may not have known how old Giuliano would have been when he allegedly accompanied GG to his wedding, since Giuliano's name and age aren't in the manuscript that Acton published, nor, I think, in Acton's book?, and Bruschi hadn't published yet, but I think we can safely say Douglas wouldn't have minded if he did know. Ugh.

Edited Date: 2021-11-20 06:32 pm (UTC)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

3. Called "boys", but the ages of the other "boys" that are given in the text as GG's prostitutes are around twenty, so not necessarily pedophilia here.

I wrote "not necessarily pedophilia" here, because Wikipedia told me that Giuliano Dami was born in 1683, and Acton told me that he was picked out by GG for his sexual attractiveness sometime before the 1697 marriage, i.e. when he was 12-14 and GG was 24-26. But now that I've read further in the Dami bio and discovered that there's documentary evidence that Giuliano was not picked out for his sexual attractiveness until sometime between 1705 and 1707, i.e when he was 22-24, I retract my concerns.

Given that even the tabloid-y anonymous manuscript doesn't mention any ages younger than 19 or 20 that I recall (and I'm not perfect, but I was keeping an eye out), it's looking like GG's preferred age for starting a relationship with a hot young man was the same as Heinrich's: about 19-23. Like Heinrich, he didn't necessarily drop them once the age of peak beauty had been passed, but could keep an emotional relationship going for decades (Giuliano was with GG for 30 years, until GG's death), and he wasn't sexually faithful.

Sorry, Heinrich, but the age of attractiveness made you the natural comparison. I'm not comparing you in any other respect!

Edited Date: 2021-11-20 06:29 pm (UTC)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Ha, yes. In the AU where William adopts FW and FW thus becomes King of GB, I foresee a sudden dearth of all Irish and Scottish tall men in addition to the English and Welsh ones...

Let's not forget that one of the tallest kidnapped tall guys, James Kirkland, was Irish even in our universe! As Felis told us, "Which cost FW 8862 thaler! Even Förster called that wasteful spending."

:D

Per Wikipedia:

It is claimed that he was accompanied in the regiment by other tall soldiers from Ireland.

I believe it!

As for people he *didn't* have conflicts with over recruiting, I don't remember any with Peter the Great, but there may have been some. (I still love our never-written AU where Peter's incognito trip across Europe overlaps chronologically with FW's kidnapping of tall soldiers--in reality,

cahn, FW became king some 15 years too late--and nobody believes Potsdam Giant Peter when he claims to be the tsar of Russia!)

Edited Date: 2021-11-20 08:02 pm (UTC)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

This is fascinating, thank you! Much of it was new to me.

It seems it wasn't as spontaneous as I'd thought before

Oh, good lord, no. No matter whose side you were on, everyone knew the Hanover succession was going to happen, and everyone was making their plans well in advance. How much the specific details of the '15 were worked out in advance, I don't know, but the part where the Jacobites knew there were going to be protests at the Hanoverian accession and planned to take advantage was understood for years was kind of inevitable. Kind of like how everyone knew starting in about 1661 that the War of the Spanish Succession was going to happen, and planned for it until it finally happened in 1701; and everyone knew the Medici line was dying out by the 1720s, so they were laying their plans until 1737...Military and political details obviously had to respond to current events and couldn't be planned 40 years in advance, but if a succession crisis could be anticipated years in advance by anyone with half a brain, it was, and the maneuvering via correspondence, diplomatic negotiations, and treaties would go on.

Berwick (an Irish military commander in French service)

For

cahn, not just any Irish military commander in French service, but James II's illegitimate son, and thus James III's half-brother! Berwick had already proven himself a very capable commander in the War of the Spanish Succession, and Philip V basically owed his throne to him (that and the fact that most of the Spaniards were fine with keeping Philip and reluctant to support the Habsburg claimants).

Prior to this, Berwick had fought for his father, James II, in Ireland, as he tried to get his throne back. He was present at the Battle of the Boyne, and he stayed in Ireland even after James had fled to France. (I'm not sure how much Berwick is himself "Irish", but he definitely had commanded troops in Ireland, and since he ended up going from there to France, he may have been called "Irish" because he had arrived as the head of Irish troops. He was born to English parents in France and raised in France, though.)

As we've pointed out before (

luzula, you weren't here for this), Berwick's mother was Arabella Churchill, sister of the Duke of Marlborough. Horowski, predictably, makes a lot out of the tight family connections on both sides of the War of the Spanish Succession.

But the French government forbade Berwick to take part

The timing is critical here. The War of the Spanish Succession has just ended. The Peace of Utrecht has just forced France to recognize the Protestant Succession and banish James III from France.

Per Wikipedia (pay attention to the dates I've bolded):

Believing the great general Marlborough would join him, on 23 August James wrote to the Duke of Berwick, his illegitimate brother and Marlborough's nephew, that; "I think it is now more than ever Now or Never".

27 August: The Earl of Mar holds the first council of war, in Scotland.

September 1: Louis XIV dies. Philippe d'Orleans becomes regent.

6 September: The Earl of Mar raises the standard of James III/VIII.

This means that by the time Berwick needs permission to leave France, the big Jacobite supporter and personal friend of James II Louis XIV is dead. The new regent is Philippe d'Orleans, son of gay Philippe. If anything should happen to child Louis XV, Philippe d'Orleans is next in line to the throne. Except that Philip V of Spain, who had renounced the throne of France, is making it pretty clear that promise wasn't worth the paper it was written on. If anything happens to Louis XV, he's invading with his Spanish army and claiming the throne. The two Philip(pe)s are thus complete enemies.

It's also becoming increasingly clear that Philip V is going to try to get back the lost Spanish territory he just signed away. So Philippe the Regent needs an ally to try to force Spain to adhere to the terms of the Peace of Utrecht. The ally he wants is England. (This is why Rottembourg and Whitworth are working together in Berlin.) This will lead to the 1716-1731 Anglo-French alliance, in which they will fight on the same side against Spain in 1718-1720, which will thus lead Spain to try to put James III on the throne in 1719.

So up until September 1, 1715, the sympathies of the French monarch were with the Jacobites. Post September 1, the French regent has every reason to support George I against the Jacobites. Hence Berwick being refused permission. (Berwick will later be sent back into Spain to fight against Philip V, thus on the opposite side of the war that he just finished, where he was fighting *for* Philip V. Berwick was not happy about this.)

Berwick will eventually die at the Battle of Philippsburg, getting his head ripped off after a "Do you know who I am??!!" exchange with the guards who tried to save him from himself. See my write-up here.

it gives examples of other countries being taken out of commission by civil wars and how great a way it was of breaking the military deadlock.

I would love to see these examples.

He goes through various countries one by one and their diplomatic contacts with the Jacobites over time and reasons for why the countries acted as they did.

Ditto, I'd be interested in that. Diplomatic history of the 1700-1730 period is apparently of great interest to me (pace Blanning :P).

Edited Date: 2021-11-20 11:57 pm (UTC)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Also,

luzula, I want to welcome you to salon and signal my appreciation of your contributions by adding you to the salon word count generator!

User	Words	Comments
selenak	1,202,248	2,940
mildred	1,146,871	4,416
cahn	273,264	2,481
felis	88,284	367
prinzsorgenfrei	14,777	76
luzula	14,100	73
gambitten	13,116	36
Everyone else	7,931	67
Total	2,760,591	10,383

Numbers are not exact because html tags have to be stripped, and that's not an exact science. But it's approximately correct. And I'm a numbers person, so it makes me happy. :)

From:

cahn

Okay, I lol'd hard at both this entire comment and the title (having had to read If You Give a Mouse a Cookie approximately seventeen billion times to the kiddos).

Mildred: This narrative isn't very reliable, is it?

GG and Giuliano Dami, in unison: God no. Please treat this anonymous manuscript like the National Enquirer of the 18th century and don't believe anything you read about us in it. Unlike Harold Acton, who took it as gospel in his book.

Heeeee! ~~or like the Voltaire of Italy~~ (well, my current hypothesis is that Voltaire always starts from a grain of truth -- he wouldn't make up things wholesale, oh no not him -- and then makes up whatever details around it make the better story, or is very careful about selective truth :P )

FW: My bears are the best attested!

Mildred and Gundling: ...That's not exactly a point in your favor.

Yeah. (I admit I forget a lot of things from salon, but not forgetting Gundling and the bears.)

From:

cahn

Yeah, fair enough! I really like Voltaire, after all :D (Although I think part of what I like about Voltaire is that he combines being a really terrible person with being a really great person, and the paradox of those both coexisting in the same person is what I like. But really I will take ALL THE OTPs of trickster teamwork! ...is this a fandom thing? I mean, there are heist shows, which are trickster teamwork and which I love, but I can't think of any trickster-pair examples and I want this now!)

- Abandoning the French as soon as he had Silesia and leaving them to duke it out with Austria.
- SNARK.
- Writing the Anti-Machiavel right before invading his neighbors and being a dick about it.

Gotta say those are pretty awesome for me too.