Entry tags:
18th-Century Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 33
And, I mean, it doesn't have to be just 18th century characters, either!
(also, waiting for Yuletide!)
(also, waiting for Yuletide!)
I will do a Victor Amadeus write-up, I swear! I'm just aggressively reading the 50 million books I've ordered in the last 5 weeks since I got my full salary back and started doing some part-time work. German is suffering too, although I'm slowly starting to go back to it (and still bitter about Horowski).
Honestly, I wiffled back and forth about making a new post because December is kicking my butt, partially because I have one less week than I usually do because of the way dates and vacations lined up this year. So I'm not going to be around much in salon this month either until after Christmas. And salon has in the past been kind of dead in December anyway because there's so much going on this month. So no hurry! And I can make a new post if we want one after Yuletide anyway :D
Well, good, because my Eugene of Savoy bio is shipping from the UK and thus not due to arrive until sometime in December or January. ;)
Speaking of bios, though, one of the many books I've been reading has pointed me to the scholarly 2-volume bio of Leopold, by Adam Wandruszka, available at Munich Stabi. (Which for some reason the catalog entry says "Sprache: hun", but everything I can find on this says it's in German, so...)
Anyway, I don't know if it's any good, esp with the 1963 publication date, but 2 volumes is promising. So there it is whenever our Royal Reader has time! (I know you also celebrate the holidays, Selena, unlike me.)
December will probably actually end up being the freest month for me, honestly, since despite being nominally being 40 hours/week again, my boss keeps going, "Why are you doing work? No one else is doing work! I don't expect productivity this month unless something urgent comes up," so I'm like, "Okay, guess I'll go read my new 18C history books." :P (I should really take advantage of the time to study German, but there's no German book I'm dying to read rn, and experience tells me that trying to force it when my brain is dying to read 50 other books is counterproductive. Ditto the Peter Keith essay: I think I have enough done that I can pick it back up when my brain gets off this reading kick.)
Speaking of bios, though, one of the many books I've been reading has pointed me to the scholarly 2-volume bio of Leopold, by Adam Wandruszka, available at Munich Stabi. (Which for some reason the catalog entry says "Sprache: hun", but everything I can find on this says it's in German, so...)
Anyway, I don't know if it's any good, esp with the 1963 publication date, but 2 volumes is promising. So there it is whenever our Royal Reader has time! (I know you also celebrate the holidays, Selena, unlike me.)
December will probably actually end up being the freest month for me, honestly, since despite being nominally being 40 hours/week again, my boss keeps going, "Why are you doing work? No one else is doing work! I don't expect productivity this month unless something urgent comes up," so I'm like, "Okay, guess I'll go read my new 18C history books." :P (I should really take advantage of the time to study German, but there's no German book I'm dying to read rn, and experience tells me that trying to force it when my brain is dying to read 50 other books is counterproductive. Ditto the Peter Keith essay: I think I have enough done that I can pick it back up when my brain gets off this reading kick.)
My glancing at bibliographies of books in my extremely long reading list, although it isn't doing the length of the reading list any favors, has been rewarded today by the discovery of a published volume of letters between FW and his BFF Alte Dessauer! (Mostly from FW to AD.)
It's now in the library for any German readers that may be interested.
Some observations:
1. 1905 publication date, with all that entails.
2. 100-page intro on the relationship between FW and Alte Dessauer.
3. The editor takes pity on the reader with heavy use of brackets to spare you FW's spellings, plus spaces between sentences to compensate for the lack of punctuation. You're still on your own with the French, though. Fortunately, there's not much of it.
4. Each letter has a list of topics at the beginning supplied by the editor. Which is good, because it's a thousand pages, and this should help with identifying the interesting letters.
5. The editor seems to be doing a certain amount of summarizing of letter passages that are less interesting and quoting of things that are more interesting to him. *side-eyes*
6. There's a whole section in the intro and at least one letter I saw relating to the Klement conspiracy!
Pleeease someone at least glance at this. :D I'm getting closer, but I'm not there yet.
It's now in the library for any German readers that may be interested.
Some observations:
1. 1905 publication date, with all that entails.
2. 100-page intro on the relationship between FW and Alte Dessauer.
3. The editor takes pity on the reader with heavy use of brackets to spare you FW's spellings, plus spaces between sentences to compensate for the lack of punctuation. You're still on your own with the French, though. Fortunately, there's not much of it.
4. Each letter has a list of topics at the beginning supplied by the editor. Which is good, because it's a thousand pages, and this should help with identifying the interesting letters.
5. The editor seems to be doing a certain amount of summarizing of letter passages that are less interesting and quoting of things that are more interesting to him. *side-eyes*
6. There's a whole section in the intro and at least one letter I saw relating to the Klement conspiracy!
Pleeease someone at least glance at this. :D I'm getting closer, but I'm not there yet.
Okay, not sure when I'll manage to read it all, but I had a very quick look at the preface. Preface writer assures us every single thing FW wrote with his own hands is reprinted here, bad spelling and all. What he summarizes are the early letters which are mostly dictated to the secretary (or phrased by him, even), with a personal sentence or several added in FW's hand writing.
Seems the source for the story of Klement overreaching himself by accusing Old Dessauer, whereupon Old Dessauer hands over his sword and does a "pick up that sword again or pick up me" with FW, plus tearful reunion, is Pöllnitz. Editor doesn't think it ever happened, but will allow Pöllnitz didn't make it up out of thin air, because a vaguely similar story is in one of Manteuffel's letters, but says that proves Manteuffel was Pöllnitz' source, and Manteuffel in this case was only interested in clearing Frau von Baspiel and thus was feeding Pöllnitz nonsense. His main reason for not believing FW ever suspected his pal of pals being that Old Dessauer gets informed via letters by FW about the ongoing Klement affair which editor thinks would not have happened if Klement had named Dessauer as involved or FW suspected him for a moment. Editor does allow FW with his ongoing belief that Klement/Clement must have said the truth was somewhat less than rational, though. I just checked one of the relevant letters, and behold FW telling old Dessauer that the whole trial against Klement was an evil witch hunt, the poor guy! When he risked so much to tell FW of those evil schemes!
Editor has it in for Saxon envoys and thinks both Manteuffel and Suhm were unable to truly understand the greatness and goodness that was FW. (Wilhelmine didn't, either, but she's excused for being a romantic female.) We're not to trust those Sexy Saxons one bit as far as their reporting on FW is concerned!
Completely new to me: there was a father/son crisis between FW and F1 according to the Dessauer letters in the last years of F1's life where someone slandered FW to F1, but they reconciled again. I don't recall either if the F1 biographies or the FW biographies I've read so far mentioning this at all!
There was an almost duel between Old Dessauer and Grumbkow in 1725! Which FW really really did not want to happen. (I hope Grumbkow appreciated the joke a few years later.) This had been a long time coming because while Dessauer and Grumbkow started out as allies while F1 was still alive, as soon as FW became King they started competing for the most influentual bff status with him. Editor honors Dessauer but is a bit more sceptical towards him than he was about FW and will allow he was incredibly touchy and concerned with his own honor, and while being an awesome army man and army reformer didn't understand anything of politics while Grumbkow did. The almost duel seems to have started out as a Leopold scheme to make Grumbkow look cowardly and bad in FW's eyes should Grumbkow refuse to fight him or kill him if they did fight, but it ended up working in Grumbkow's favor.
There are few of Old Dessauer's letters surviving and what few there are are mostly ultra respectful and somewhat impersonal, not intimate like the FW ones to him. (So a bit like the few Frederdorf letters among the many Fritz letters.)
According to the editor, Leopold von Anhalt-Dessau first disgtinguished himself at the battle of Höchstedt/Blenheim, getting much applause from Eugene & Malrborough, but not enough thank yous from F1, which is why the offendend young man wanted to leave and be employed by Team Vienna permanently, only Eugene, correctly concluding Young Dessauer would find Prussia more congenial than Vienna to his temper, calmed him down.
Seems the source for the story of Klement overreaching himself by accusing Old Dessauer, whereupon Old Dessauer hands over his sword and does a "pick up that sword again or pick up me" with FW, plus tearful reunion, is Pöllnitz. Editor doesn't think it ever happened, but will allow Pöllnitz didn't make it up out of thin air, because a vaguely similar story is in one of Manteuffel's letters, but says that proves Manteuffel was Pöllnitz' source, and Manteuffel in this case was only interested in clearing Frau von Baspiel and thus was feeding Pöllnitz nonsense. His main reason for not believing FW ever suspected his pal of pals being that Old Dessauer gets informed via letters by FW about the ongoing Klement affair which editor thinks would not have happened if Klement had named Dessauer as involved or FW suspected him for a moment. Editor does allow FW with his ongoing belief that Klement/Clement must have said the truth was somewhat less than rational, though. I just checked one of the relevant letters, and behold FW telling old Dessauer that the whole trial against Klement was an evil witch hunt, the poor guy! When he risked so much to tell FW of those evil schemes!
Editor has it in for Saxon envoys and thinks both Manteuffel and Suhm were unable to truly understand the greatness and goodness that was FW. (Wilhelmine didn't, either, but she's excused for being a romantic female.) We're not to trust those Sexy Saxons one bit as far as their reporting on FW is concerned!
Completely new to me: there was a father/son crisis between FW and F1 according to the Dessauer letters in the last years of F1's life where someone slandered FW to F1, but they reconciled again. I don't recall either if the F1 biographies or the FW biographies I've read so far mentioning this at all!
There was an almost duel between Old Dessauer and Grumbkow in 1725! Which FW really really did not want to happen. (I hope Grumbkow appreciated the joke a few years later.) This had been a long time coming because while Dessauer and Grumbkow started out as allies while F1 was still alive, as soon as FW became King they started competing for the most influentual bff status with him. Editor honors Dessauer but is a bit more sceptical towards him than he was about FW and will allow he was incredibly touchy and concerned with his own honor, and while being an awesome army man and army reformer didn't understand anything of politics while Grumbkow did. The almost duel seems to have started out as a Leopold scheme to make Grumbkow look cowardly and bad in FW's eyes should Grumbkow refuse to fight him or kill him if they did fight, but it ended up working in Grumbkow's favor.
There are few of Old Dessauer's letters surviving and what few there are are mostly ultra respectful and somewhat impersonal, not intimate like the FW ones to him. (So a bit like the few Frederdorf letters among the many Fritz letters.)
According to the editor, Leopold von Anhalt-Dessau first disgtinguished himself at the battle of Höchstedt/Blenheim, getting much applause from Eugene & Malrborough, but not enough thank yous from F1, which is why the offendend young man wanted to leave and be employed by Team Vienna permanently, only Eugene, correctly concluding Young Dessauer would find Prussia more congenial than Vienna to his temper, calmed him down.
Edited 2021-12-04 09:35 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize you were looking for this, or I'd have linked you before. The other good thing about this volume is that the index is amazingly extensive (starts on page 719) and it'll tell you exactly where to find things. I used it for the Keyserlingk description for example, and skimmed some of the other stuff, including the few letters concerned with 1730 and "dem bösen Menschen" Fritz, the gist of which was kind of familiar from previous secondary sources. Also the 1725 duel stuff Selena mentioned, but it's quite the drawn-out back-and-forth and I kind of gave up at some point tbh. (Although it was somewhat amusing that FW was the one trying to get Old Dessauer to Stand Down Already and stop making things worth, almost throwing up his hands in the process because he wasn't quite getting through.) It's been on my to-read list somewhere, but I haven't gotten to it so far, just kept it around for looking things up, because, as I said, great index. Also, as Selena alludes to, the editor must have had access to the Dresden state archive, because most of the Suhm mentions for example are footnotes that quote his reports for context (all French) instead of actual mentions of him by FW. Oh, and there's exactly one Peter mention in the index, which is the 1728 "send him back here" sentence which has shown up in other sources (Kloosterhuis I think?) as well, so nothing new there.
Recent reading: Petticoat Patronage: elite Scotswomen’s roles, identity, and agency in Jacobite political affairs, 1688-1766 by Anita Randell Fairney (2015)
A Ph D thesis. It had a lot of interesting stuff about the roles of women: the political endogamy that led to new generations of Jacobites being brought up; women using the patronage system to save their menfolk who had been sentenced to death or exile, and also saving their estates; women managing estates; women passing information and being active in plotting; women taking roles as patronesses, raising troops, and doing political hosting.
But honestly the coolest thing I learned from it is the central roles played primarily by Anne Drummond, countess of Erroll, and Elizabeth Howard, duchess of Gordon, in the plotting leading up to the failed revolution of 1708.
Just to show how interrelated everyone was, Anne Erroll was:
- the sister of the Duke of Perth who was James III's governor (and was the grandfather of the Duke of Perth in the '45),
- the sister of the Duke of Melfort, close advisor to James II,
- aunt of the Countess Marischal (George and James Keith's mother)
Obviously her son, her parents and her husband (who died in 1704) were also important Jacobites.
Elizabeth Gordon was married to the 1st Duke of Gordon. She was tied to Anne Erroll through another active Jacobite, Mary Gordon, Duchess of Perth, who was sister-in-law to both women. Also Elizabeth's daughter married Anne's nephew.
Anyway, Anne Erroll seems to have been the main manager of the conspiracy on the Scottish end. Daniel Szechi in Britain's Lost Revolution? : Jacobite Scotland and French Grand Strategy, 1701-8 confirms this (though she seems unsurprisingly to have been ignored by older scholarship):
Elizabeth Gordon was, then, an important actor within the Scottish end of the conspiracy. But Anne Erroll was the most important of all. She was, Hooke told Torcy and Chamillart, ‘a lady of about fifty, with a sound, penetrating mind. All the [Jacobites] have confidence in her.’ 153 Because she was well known to be a strongly committed Protestant Anne Erroll enjoyed a deeper, broader level of trust than Elizabeth Gordon within the Jacobite community in Scotland and beyond and she seems to have assumed responsibility for the practical administration of the conspiracy from 1705 onwards. 154 This probably stemmed from her uniquely strong network within the Jacobite underground. For Anne Erroll not only enjoyed high status, as the wife and then widow of one earl of Erroll, High Constable of Scotland, and the mother of the next, but also directly connected with one of the most senior politicians at St Germain: Perth was her brother, and he, too, trusted her implicitly. 155 It was, in consequence, Anne Erroll to whom all the key correspondence was directed for distribution to the rest of the underground. 156
It seems that the important men were either in exile, or being closely watched, and this is one reason why her role became so large. Also she just seems super competent! The Hooke mentioned is a French agent sent to assess the readiness of Scotland to rise. Here's what Anne's brother wrote to her about Hooke: He will take what shape or figure you please, he will follow your direction absolutely, and so you have but to consult your own measures and give him his. Anne was referred to with more than six different code names in correspondence. She also arranged secret signals with a family connection in the Navy so that he would let ships through with messages and goods; she sounded out and negotiated with important men who might join the cause, and kept in contact with Elizabeth Gordon and other women who arranged meetings and hosted spies and agents in Edinburgh. Elizabeth Gordon, growing impatient, wrote directly to one of the French ministers, saying For God's sake! What are you thinking of? Is it possible that, having ventured all our zeal, we have neither assistance nor answer?
The repercussions of the plotting in 1708 ended with 20-30 Scottish noblement being arrested, but none of the women! Apparently they were not suspected at all.
Well, this may not be directly relevant to the story I'm writing, but it was was very interesting nevertheless! Competent middle-aged women FTW. Would read a novel about Anne Erroll.
(I know I promised you more on the famous Jacobite women of '45, but that will have to wait...)
A Ph D thesis. It had a lot of interesting stuff about the roles of women: the political endogamy that led to new generations of Jacobites being brought up; women using the patronage system to save their menfolk who had been sentenced to death or exile, and also saving their estates; women managing estates; women passing information and being active in plotting; women taking roles as patronesses, raising troops, and doing political hosting.
But honestly the coolest thing I learned from it is the central roles played primarily by Anne Drummond, countess of Erroll, and Elizabeth Howard, duchess of Gordon, in the plotting leading up to the failed revolution of 1708.
Just to show how interrelated everyone was, Anne Erroll was:
- the sister of the Duke of Perth who was James III's governor (and was the grandfather of the Duke of Perth in the '45),
- the sister of the Duke of Melfort, close advisor to James II,
- aunt of the Countess Marischal (George and James Keith's mother)
Obviously her son, her parents and her husband (who died in 1704) were also important Jacobites.
Elizabeth Gordon was married to the 1st Duke of Gordon. She was tied to Anne Erroll through another active Jacobite, Mary Gordon, Duchess of Perth, who was sister-in-law to both women. Also Elizabeth's daughter married Anne's nephew.
Anyway, Anne Erroll seems to have been the main manager of the conspiracy on the Scottish end. Daniel Szechi in Britain's Lost Revolution? : Jacobite Scotland and French Grand Strategy, 1701-8 confirms this (though she seems unsurprisingly to have been ignored by older scholarship):
Elizabeth Gordon was, then, an important actor within the Scottish end of the conspiracy. But Anne Erroll was the most important of all. She was, Hooke told Torcy and Chamillart, ‘a lady of about fifty, with a sound, penetrating mind. All the [Jacobites] have confidence in her.’ 153 Because she was well known to be a strongly committed Protestant Anne Erroll enjoyed a deeper, broader level of trust than Elizabeth Gordon within the Jacobite community in Scotland and beyond and she seems to have assumed responsibility for the practical administration of the conspiracy from 1705 onwards. 154 This probably stemmed from her uniquely strong network within the Jacobite underground. For Anne Erroll not only enjoyed high status, as the wife and then widow of one earl of Erroll, High Constable of Scotland, and the mother of the next, but also directly connected with one of the most senior politicians at St Germain: Perth was her brother, and he, too, trusted her implicitly. 155 It was, in consequence, Anne Erroll to whom all the key correspondence was directed for distribution to the rest of the underground. 156
It seems that the important men were either in exile, or being closely watched, and this is one reason why her role became so large. Also she just seems super competent! The Hooke mentioned is a French agent sent to assess the readiness of Scotland to rise. Here's what Anne's brother wrote to her about Hooke: He will take what shape or figure you please, he will follow your direction absolutely, and so you have but to consult your own measures and give him his. Anne was referred to with more than six different code names in correspondence. She also arranged secret signals with a family connection in the Navy so that he would let ships through with messages and goods; she sounded out and negotiated with important men who might join the cause, and kept in contact with Elizabeth Gordon and other women who arranged meetings and hosted spies and agents in Edinburgh. Elizabeth Gordon, growing impatient, wrote directly to one of the French ministers, saying For God's sake! What are you thinking of? Is it possible that, having ventured all our zeal, we have neither assistance nor answer?
The repercussions of the plotting in 1708 ended with 20-30 Scottish noblement being arrested, but none of the women! Apparently they were not suspected at all.
Well, this may not be directly relevant to the story I'm writing, but it was was very interesting nevertheless! Competent middle-aged women FTW. Would read a novel about Anne Erroll.
(I know I promised you more on the famous Jacobite women of '45, but that will have to wait...)
Re: Letters from Soul Mates: FW and Alte Dessauer
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mildred_of_midgard
2021-12-04 04:00 pm (UTC)(link)
Okay, not sure when I'll manage to read it all
Not to worry, I figured a first pass would tell us useful things up front.
Preface writer assures us every single thing FW wrote with his own hands is reprinted here, bad spelling and all. What he summarizes are the early letters which are mostly dictated to the secretary
Ahhh, thank you!
Seems the source for the story of Klement overreaching himself by accusing Old Dessauer, whereupon Old Dessauer hands over his sword and does a "pick up that sword again or pick up me" with FW, plus tearful reunion, is Pöllnitz.
Hmm, interesting. Manteuffel is definitely the more reliable source. But since the editor has a hate-on for Manteuffel, I'm not surprised he doesn't buy it! Does he say who the recipient of the Manteuffel letter was? That might make a difference.
Editor has it in for Saxon envoys and thinks both Manteuffel and Suhm were unable to truly understand the greatness and goodness that was FW.
I figured any German who's publishing this many hundreds of pages of letters from FW to his BFF in 1905 is an FW stan, no surprises there. :P
There was an almost duel between Old Dessauer and Grumbkow in 1725!
I remember this from Wilhelmine!
I have mentioned the enmity of the two favourites of the king. As it broke out in the year 1724, it is proper to give an account of it here. Ever since the disgrace of madame de Blaspil, and the good harmony of the English and Prussian courts, the prince of Anhalt had lost much of his favour. He lived at Dessau, and came but seldom to Berlin. The king, however, had still a very great regard for him, and treated him with distinction on account of his military talents. Grumkow, however, had retained his favour unimpaired. He was entrusted with both the home and foreign affairs.
The prince of Anhalt had stood godfather to one of his daughters, and had promised her a portion of five thousand dollars. As this daughter was about to be married, her father wrote to the prince to remind him of his promise. Dissatisfied with Grumkow’s conduct, who had no longer any regard for him, and possessed alone the king's favour, the prince denied having made any such engagement. Grumkow answered; the prince rejoined; and at last they reproached each other with their villanies. The discourse became so abusive, that the prince of Anhalt determined to settle their quarrel in a single combat. Grumkow, with all his great merits, passed for an arrant coward: he had given proofs of his valour in the battle of Malplaquet, by remaining in a ditch all the time the action lasted: he had also distinguished himself at Stralsund, when he put one of his legs out of joint in the beginning of the campaign, which prevented his serving in the trenches: he had the same misfortune as a certain king of France, who could not see a naked sword without fainting: but still he was a brave general. The prince sent him a challenge. Grumkow, trembling with courage, and arming him self with the laws of religion and of the country, answered that he would not fight; that duels were prohibited both by divine and human laws; and that he was not inclined to transgress either. This is not all: he wished to merit a crown in heaven by suffering insults with patience: he made every possible apology to his antagonist, by which he the more incurred his contempt. The prince continued inexorable. The business at length got to the knowledge of the king, who used all his efforts to reconcile them, but in vain; the prince of Anhalt could not be appeased. It was therefore determined that they should settle their quarrel in the presence of two seconds. The prince’s second was a colonel Korf, in the Hessian service; and Grumkow’s, count Sekendorff, a general in the Austrian service, Grumkow’s intimate friend. The scandalous chronicle reported, that in their youth they had been partners at play, and won considerable sums. Be this as it may, Sekendorff was the living picture of Grumkow, except that he affected to be more religious, and was brave as his sword. Nothing was so laughable as the letters which Sekendorff wrote to Grumkow, to inspire him with courage. The king, however, attempted once more to interfere.
In the beginning of the year 1725, he assembled at Berlin a council of war, composed of all the generals and colonels commanding regiments of his army. Most of the generals were of the queen’s party. The fine promises given by Grumkow, to remain firmly attached to her majesty, dazzled her; she inclined the balance in his favour, or else he was in danger of being cashiered. He got off with an arrest of a few days, which was a kind of satisfaction the king gave to prince Anhalt. As soon as he was released from his arrest, the king clandestinely advised him to fight. The field of battle was near Berlin: the two combatants repaired to the spot, attended by their seconds. The prince drew his sword, using some abusive language towards his adversary. Grumkow cast himself at his feet, which he embraced, soliciting his pardon, and requesting to be restored to his favour. The prince, instead of replying, turned his back upon him. Ever since they were sworn enemies, and their animosity ceased only with life. It caused a total change for the better in the prince; most of whose bad actions have generally been attributed to the detestable counsels of Grumkow. The same might be said of prince Anhalt as was said of cardinal to Richelieu: "He has been guilty of too many bad actions to be well spoken of, and he has done too many good actions to be ill spoken of."
Which FW really really did not want to happen. (I hope Grumbkow appreciated the joke a few years later.)
You know, I'm still wondering if the 1729 almost-duel happened. The only sources we've recorded in Rheinsberg are Lord Hervey and Bielfeld both reporting what they've heard on the rumor mill. I've been reading extensively about foreign policy and diplomacy in the 1715-1731 period, and none of my sources, including an entire dissertation chapter on the 1729 fallout between Prussia and Hanover, mentions any such thing. But I still have some items on my reading list that I haven't gotten to yet, so I'm keeping an eye out.
There are few of Old Dessauer's letters surviving and what few there are are mostly ultra respectful and somewhat impersonal, not intimate like the FW ones to him. (So a bit like the few Frederdorf letters among the many Fritz letters.)
Had gotten this sense in my skimming and had had the same thought. It makes sense.
getting much applause from Eugene & Malrborough, but not enough thank yous from F1, which is why the offendend young man wanted to leave and be employed by Team Vienna permanently, only Eugene, correctly concluding Young Dessauer would find Prussia more congenial than Vienna to his temper, calmed him down.
Did not know this! Yeah, you made the right call, Eugene.
Thank you,selenak! I look forward to when you have time to see if there are any more goodies. (And I hope there are more goodies.) I do not expect a beginning-to-end read-through, by any means!
Not to worry, I figured a first pass would tell us useful things up front.
Preface writer assures us every single thing FW wrote with his own hands is reprinted here, bad spelling and all. What he summarizes are the early letters which are mostly dictated to the secretary
Ahhh, thank you!
Seems the source for the story of Klement overreaching himself by accusing Old Dessauer, whereupon Old Dessauer hands over his sword and does a "pick up that sword again or pick up me" with FW, plus tearful reunion, is Pöllnitz.
Hmm, interesting. Manteuffel is definitely the more reliable source. But since the editor has a hate-on for Manteuffel, I'm not surprised he doesn't buy it! Does he say who the recipient of the Manteuffel letter was? That might make a difference.
Editor has it in for Saxon envoys and thinks both Manteuffel and Suhm were unable to truly understand the greatness and goodness that was FW.
I figured any German who's publishing this many hundreds of pages of letters from FW to his BFF in 1905 is an FW stan, no surprises there. :P
There was an almost duel between Old Dessauer and Grumbkow in 1725!
I remember this from Wilhelmine!
I have mentioned the enmity of the two favourites of the king. As it broke out in the year 1724, it is proper to give an account of it here. Ever since the disgrace of madame de Blaspil, and the good harmony of the English and Prussian courts, the prince of Anhalt had lost much of his favour. He lived at Dessau, and came but seldom to Berlin. The king, however, had still a very great regard for him, and treated him with distinction on account of his military talents. Grumkow, however, had retained his favour unimpaired. He was entrusted with both the home and foreign affairs.
The prince of Anhalt had stood godfather to one of his daughters, and had promised her a portion of five thousand dollars. As this daughter was about to be married, her father wrote to the prince to remind him of his promise. Dissatisfied with Grumkow’s conduct, who had no longer any regard for him, and possessed alone the king's favour, the prince denied having made any such engagement. Grumkow answered; the prince rejoined; and at last they reproached each other with their villanies. The discourse became so abusive, that the prince of Anhalt determined to settle their quarrel in a single combat. Grumkow, with all his great merits, passed for an arrant coward: he had given proofs of his valour in the battle of Malplaquet, by remaining in a ditch all the time the action lasted: he had also distinguished himself at Stralsund, when he put one of his legs out of joint in the beginning of the campaign, which prevented his serving in the trenches: he had the same misfortune as a certain king of France, who could not see a naked sword without fainting: but still he was a brave general. The prince sent him a challenge. Grumkow, trembling with courage, and arming him self with the laws of religion and of the country, answered that he would not fight; that duels were prohibited both by divine and human laws; and that he was not inclined to transgress either. This is not all: he wished to merit a crown in heaven by suffering insults with patience: he made every possible apology to his antagonist, by which he the more incurred his contempt. The prince continued inexorable. The business at length got to the knowledge of the king, who used all his efforts to reconcile them, but in vain; the prince of Anhalt could not be appeased. It was therefore determined that they should settle their quarrel in the presence of two seconds. The prince’s second was a colonel Korf, in the Hessian service; and Grumkow’s, count Sekendorff, a general in the Austrian service, Grumkow’s intimate friend. The scandalous chronicle reported, that in their youth they had been partners at play, and won considerable sums. Be this as it may, Sekendorff was the living picture of Grumkow, except that he affected to be more religious, and was brave as his sword. Nothing was so laughable as the letters which Sekendorff wrote to Grumkow, to inspire him with courage. The king, however, attempted once more to interfere.
In the beginning of the year 1725, he assembled at Berlin a council of war, composed of all the generals and colonels commanding regiments of his army. Most of the generals were of the queen’s party. The fine promises given by Grumkow, to remain firmly attached to her majesty, dazzled her; she inclined the balance in his favour, or else he was in danger of being cashiered. He got off with an arrest of a few days, which was a kind of satisfaction the king gave to prince Anhalt. As soon as he was released from his arrest, the king clandestinely advised him to fight. The field of battle was near Berlin: the two combatants repaired to the spot, attended by their seconds. The prince drew his sword, using some abusive language towards his adversary. Grumkow cast himself at his feet, which he embraced, soliciting his pardon, and requesting to be restored to his favour. The prince, instead of replying, turned his back upon him. Ever since they were sworn enemies, and their animosity ceased only with life. It caused a total change for the better in the prince; most of whose bad actions have generally been attributed to the detestable counsels of Grumkow. The same might be said of prince Anhalt as was said of cardinal to Richelieu: "He has been guilty of too many bad actions to be well spoken of, and he has done too many good actions to be ill spoken of."
Which FW really really did not want to happen. (I hope Grumbkow appreciated the joke a few years later.)
You know, I'm still wondering if the 1729 almost-duel happened. The only sources we've recorded in Rheinsberg are Lord Hervey and Bielfeld both reporting what they've heard on the rumor mill. I've been reading extensively about foreign policy and diplomacy in the 1715-1731 period, and none of my sources, including an entire dissertation chapter on the 1729 fallout between Prussia and Hanover, mentions any such thing. But I still have some items on my reading list that I haven't gotten to yet, so I'm keeping an eye out.
There are few of Old Dessauer's letters surviving and what few there are are mostly ultra respectful and somewhat impersonal, not intimate like the FW ones to him. (So a bit like the few Frederdorf letters among the many Fritz letters.)
Had gotten this sense in my skimming and had had the same thought. It makes sense.
getting much applause from Eugene & Malrborough, but not enough thank yous from F1, which is why the offendend young man wanted to leave and be employed by Team Vienna permanently, only Eugene, correctly concluding Young Dessauer would find Prussia more congenial than Vienna to his temper, calmed him down.
Did not know this! Yeah, you made the right call, Eugene.
Thank you,
selenak! I look forward to when you have time to see if there are any more goodies. (And I hope there are more goodies.) I do not expect a beginning-to-end read-through, by any means!Re: Letters from Soul Mates: FW and Alte Dessauer
mildred_of_midgard
2021-12-04 04:04 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, I wasn't looking for it in the sense that I consciously wanted it and couldn't find it. It's just that as soon as I saw it existed, I thought it must contain at least something relevant to our interests!
You're right, that index is great! Hmm, gonna have to check that out myself.
most of the Suhm mentions for example are footnotes that quote his reports for context (all French) instead of actual mentions of him by FW. Oh, and there's exactly one Peter mention in the index, which is the 1728 "send him back here" sentence which has shown up in other sources (Kloosterhuis I think?) as well, so nothing new there.
Haha, thank you for predicting my interests. :P And yeah, that's in Kloosterhuis, who's more cautious and says, "If the 1728 mention is referring to Peter, then probably the 1729 mention of a Keith is the younger brother."
You're right, that index is great! Hmm, gonna have to check that out myself.
most of the Suhm mentions for example are footnotes that quote his reports for context (all French) instead of actual mentions of him by FW. Oh, and there's exactly one Peter mention in the index, which is the 1728 "send him back here" sentence which has shown up in other sources (Kloosterhuis I think?) as well, so nothing new there.
Haha, thank you for predicting my interests. :P And yeah, that's in Kloosterhuis, who's more cautious and says, "If the 1728 mention is referring to Peter, then probably the 1729 mention of a Keith is the younger brother."
Wow, this is great stuff! She sounds super cool. (I love competent people, and it's nice to see ignored women getting some credit.)
He will take what shape or figure you please, he will follow your direction absolutely, and so you have but to consult your own measures and give him his.
Nice!
The repercussions of the plotting in 1708 ended with 20-30 Scottish noblement being arrested, but none of the women! Apparently they were not suspected at all.
Ha! That's what you get for underestimating women.
Thanks for sharing, look forward to more whenever you have time!
He will take what shape or figure you please, he will follow your direction absolutely, and so you have but to consult your own measures and give him his.
Nice!
The repercussions of the plotting in 1708 ended with 20-30 Scottish noblement being arrested, but none of the women! Apparently they were not suspected at all.
Ha! That's what you get for underestimating women.
Thanks for sharing, look forward to more whenever you have time!
So this is what I know about rumps:
* The word starts out meaning "buttocks".
* From there, it evolves a second meaning of "remnant".
* The parliament that remains in 1648 after the members opposed to trying Charles I were removed was called the Rump Parliament, i.e. the remnant parliament.
* The phrase "rump parliament", "rump government", "rump senate", "rump state", or just "rump" entered the language as a generic term for what's left over of a political body after a large purge/pruning. E.g. the rump state of Poland after the first and second partitions.
What I have deduced from that bookluzula linked:
* Because the Rump Parliament of 1648 was linked in Stuart supporters' minds with the execution of C1, it became linked with their anti-Stuart enemies in general.
* It seems the Stuart supporters started renewing the word with its buttock meaning to lampoon their enemies, viz. the Hanovers.
* Other non-Stuart supporters also started doing the same when they wanted to complain about the Hanovers.
Wikipedia tells me:
The Golden Rump is a farcical play of unknown authorship said to have been written in 1737. It acted as the chief trigger for the Theatrical Licensing Act of 1737. The play has never been performed on stage or published in print. No manuscript of the play survives, casting some doubt over whether it ever existed in full at all. The authorship of the play has often been ascribed to Henry Fielding, at that time a popular and prolific playwright who often turned his incisive satire against the monarch George II and particularly the "prime minister" Sir Robert Walpole. Modern literary historians, however, increasingly embrace the opinion that The Golden Rump may have been secretly commissioned by Walpole himself in a successful bid to get his Bill for theatrical licensing passed before the legislature.
Plays, prints, pamphlets and journal articles attacking the King, Walpole and the extended Whig faction were not an uncommon feature of early 18th century London. Plays were subjected to the greatest displeasure from royal authority, and individual works like John Gay’s Polly (1729) and Fielding's own Grub-Street Opera (1731) had earlier been prevented from reaching the stage. However the trend itself survived through the 1720s and 1730s, and a number of these satirical works used the devices of physical, sexual and scatological humour to mock the persons of Walpole and George II. Both the king and the prime minister were men of short, corpulent build; George II being the unfortunate possessor of a disproportionately large posterior and an affliction of piles, to which he had acquired a fistula by early 1737. All these personal deficiencies were mercilessly lampooned by Opposition satirists of the period.
Did not know this, thank you for pointing me to that book!
* The word starts out meaning "buttocks".
* From there, it evolves a second meaning of "remnant".
* The parliament that remains in 1648 after the members opposed to trying Charles I were removed was called the Rump Parliament, i.e. the remnant parliament.
* The phrase "rump parliament", "rump government", "rump senate", "rump state", or just "rump" entered the language as a generic term for what's left over of a political body after a large purge/pruning. E.g. the rump state of Poland after the first and second partitions.
What I have deduced from that book
luzula linked:* Because the Rump Parliament of 1648 was linked in Stuart supporters' minds with the execution of C1, it became linked with their anti-Stuart enemies in general.
* It seems the Stuart supporters started renewing the word with its buttock meaning to lampoon their enemies, viz. the Hanovers.
* Other non-Stuart supporters also started doing the same when they wanted to complain about the Hanovers.
Wikipedia tells me:
The Golden Rump is a farcical play of unknown authorship said to have been written in 1737. It acted as the chief trigger for the Theatrical Licensing Act of 1737. The play has never been performed on stage or published in print. No manuscript of the play survives, casting some doubt over whether it ever existed in full at all. The authorship of the play has often been ascribed to Henry Fielding, at that time a popular and prolific playwright who often turned his incisive satire against the monarch George II and particularly the "prime minister" Sir Robert Walpole. Modern literary historians, however, increasingly embrace the opinion that The Golden Rump may have been secretly commissioned by Walpole himself in a successful bid to get his Bill for theatrical licensing passed before the legislature.
Plays, prints, pamphlets and journal articles attacking the King, Walpole and the extended Whig faction were not an uncommon feature of early 18th century London. Plays were subjected to the greatest displeasure from royal authority, and individual works like John Gay’s Polly (1729) and Fielding's own Grub-Street Opera (1731) had earlier been prevented from reaching the stage. However the trend itself survived through the 1720s and 1730s, and a number of these satirical works used the devices of physical, sexual and scatological humour to mock the persons of Walpole and George II. Both the king and the prime minister were men of short, corpulent build; George II being the unfortunate possessor of a disproportionately large posterior and an affliction of piles, to which he had acquired a fistula by early 1737. All these personal deficiencies were mercilessly lampooned by Opposition satirists of the period.
Did not know this, thank you for pointing me to that book!
Great, thanks for digging into it more! And I haven't read that book at all, it just turned up when I searched for rumps... : )
Modern literary historians, however, increasingly embrace the opinion that The Golden Rump may have been secretly commissioned by Walpole himself in a successful bid to get his Bill for theatrical licensing passed before the legislature.
Ha ha, wow, talk about manipulation.
And interesting about Fielding. I knew he was an anti-Jacobite, nice to see he turned his satire on both sides...
Modern literary historians, however, increasingly embrace the opinion that The Golden Rump may have been secretly commissioned by Walpole himself in a successful bid to get his Bill for theatrical licensing passed before the legislature.
Ha ha, wow, talk about manipulation.
And interesting about Fielding. I knew he was an anti-Jacobite, nice to see he turned his satire on both sides...
Back when selenak read Dennison's First Iron Lady, she found it to be very factually solid, with only one ?? that made her wonder if maybe Dennison was right after all.
The questionable point was whether the double marriage project was meant to marry Fritz to older daughter Anne or younger daughter Amelia/Emily. All of our sources, including contemporary primary sources from parties who should know, pointed to Amelia, so we concluded that Anne was a case of mistaken identification.
However! Detective Mildred reporting in with newly uncovered facts.
From my reading in the last week, I've come across Anne's name twice in this connection. Between those two sources, I might know what's going on.
One is Jeremy Black's dissertation, British Diplomacy 1727-1731. Now, he is not some random music or art history student, like some of our dissertation writers, but a reputable historian and professor who's published something like 100 books, most of them having to do with 18th century British foreign policy (yes, there is a lot of overlap in his 100 books). And he writes:
Noises were made in Berlin about the projected marriages between George's eldest son Frederick, now Prince of Wales, and Frederick William's eldest daughter Wilhelmina, and between the Prussian Crown Prince Frederick and the British Princess Royal, Anne.
He doesn't give me an exact citation for this claim, but he has 4 footnotes to other sentences on this page, and those 4 footnotes look like this:
1. Despite Waldegrave's-appointment, the Austrians did not name an envoy for Britain, St. Saphorin to Tarouca, draft, Aug. 1727. PRO. 80/61; O'Rourke reported that the Austrians wanted a reconciliation with Britain, O'Rourke to Graham, 1 Oct. 1727, Vienna, England, Varia, 8; Fonseca pressed Waldegrave to go to Vienna, 24 Sept. 1727, Waldegrave Journal, Chewton.
2 Charles Du Bourgay, British Envoy Extraordinary in Berlin, to Townshend, 28 June, 12 July 1727, PRO. 90/22. The Saxon envoy in Berlin, Sühm, reported that Prussia wanted a reconciliation with Britain and France, Suhm to Augustus II, 21 July 1727, Dresden, 3378, Vol. IV, f. 127.
3 Wallenrodt was suspected of being anti-British, Horatio Walpole to Tilson, 26 July 1727, BL. Add. 48982, f. 62,64.
4 Townshend to Du Bourgay, 14 July (OS) 1727, PRO. 90/22; Suhm to Augustus II, 22 Aug. 1727, Dresden, 3378, IV f. 171-2; Le Coq to Augustus II, 23 Sept. 1727, Dredsen, 2676, Vol. 18a. f. 242-3.
In other words, 9 unpublished envoy reports and letters from foreign ministers in various archives. On the one hand, that means I can't cross-check him; on the other, it means he might know what he's talking about.
I checked Dennison, and Black is indeed in his bibliography (something like half a dozen of his books, including the one on foreign policy from 1714-1727, which, yes, I am currently reading).
So I'm betting Dennison got this from Black.
But what about all those reliable contemporary sources that say Amelia? Brendan Simms, author of Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, 1714-1783, has an explanation.
First, note that all those citations in Black's footnotes are from 1727. Simms, who relies very heavily on several of Black's books (though disagrees with him politically), duly reports that Anne was the object of the marriage negotiations in 1727, but when Hotham was sent in 1730,
Hotham was instructed to push for the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Princess Wilhelmina, by now a very old chestnut, and that of Crown Prince Frederick to George’s daughter, this time Amelia.
Emphasis mine. All of the sources we've turned up are talking about the 1730 negotiation (or even later), the more famous and memorable one whose failure led directly to the escape attempt.
So I think our mystery is solved, and Dennison's reputation redeemed, if we assume Black is getting reliable info from the archives, and that the marriage plans changed between 1727 and 1730.
The Simms book, btw, might be useful to you,luzula, if you care about Britain's relationships with other European countries and how they affected domestic politics, including Jacobitism, during the 18th century. The book is popular rather than scholarly, which on the one hand pays off in terms of readability, but on the other, means it relies entirely too much on secondary rather than primary sources, and furthermore, too much on British sources. I've caught Simms in some mistakes, and I really don't agree with his interpretation of everything, but it's 800 pages chock-full of useful information that also manages not to be a chore to read. (More readable than Black, for one thing.) And sometimes, that's what you need.
Besides, I haven't caught Simms in as many mistakes as, for example, Massie, and considering I know way, way more about the subject matter here, that probably means he's not the most unreliable popular author ever!
Anyway, recommended for you with mild caveats.selenak, you're probably better off with the drier and more reliable texts; cahn, not enough anecdotes to be of interest to you. ;) This is just politics.
selenak read Dennison's First Iron Lady, she found it to be very factually solid, with only one ?? that made her wonder if maybe Dennison was right after all.The questionable point was whether the double marriage project was meant to marry Fritz to older daughter Anne or younger daughter Amelia/Emily. All of our sources, including contemporary primary sources from parties who should know, pointed to Amelia, so we concluded that Anne was a case of mistaken identification.
However! Detective Mildred reporting in with newly uncovered facts.
From my reading in the last week, I've come across Anne's name twice in this connection. Between those two sources, I might know what's going on.
One is Jeremy Black's dissertation, British Diplomacy 1727-1731. Now, he is not some random music or art history student, like some of our dissertation writers, but a reputable historian and professor who's published something like 100 books, most of them having to do with 18th century British foreign policy (yes, there is a lot of overlap in his 100 books). And he writes:
Noises were made in Berlin about the projected marriages between George's eldest son Frederick, now Prince of Wales, and Frederick William's eldest daughter Wilhelmina, and between the Prussian Crown Prince Frederick and the British Princess Royal, Anne.
He doesn't give me an exact citation for this claim, but he has 4 footnotes to other sentences on this page, and those 4 footnotes look like this:
1. Despite Waldegrave's-appointment, the Austrians did not name an envoy for Britain, St. Saphorin to Tarouca, draft, Aug. 1727. PRO. 80/61; O'Rourke reported that the Austrians wanted a reconciliation with Britain, O'Rourke to Graham, 1 Oct. 1727, Vienna, England, Varia, 8; Fonseca pressed Waldegrave to go to Vienna, 24 Sept. 1727, Waldegrave Journal, Chewton.
2 Charles Du Bourgay, British Envoy Extraordinary in Berlin, to Townshend, 28 June, 12 July 1727, PRO. 90/22. The Saxon envoy in Berlin, Sühm, reported that Prussia wanted a reconciliation with Britain and France, Suhm to Augustus II, 21 July 1727, Dresden, 3378, Vol. IV, f. 127.
3 Wallenrodt was suspected of being anti-British, Horatio Walpole to Tilson, 26 July 1727, BL. Add. 48982, f. 62,64.
4 Townshend to Du Bourgay, 14 July (OS) 1727, PRO. 90/22; Suhm to Augustus II, 22 Aug. 1727, Dresden, 3378, IV f. 171-2; Le Coq to Augustus II, 23 Sept. 1727, Dredsen, 2676, Vol. 18a. f. 242-3.
In other words, 9 unpublished envoy reports and letters from foreign ministers in various archives. On the one hand, that means I can't cross-check him; on the other, it means he might know what he's talking about.
I checked Dennison, and Black is indeed in his bibliography (something like half a dozen of his books, including the one on foreign policy from 1714-1727, which, yes, I am currently reading).
So I'm betting Dennison got this from Black.
But what about all those reliable contemporary sources that say Amelia? Brendan Simms, author of Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, 1714-1783, has an explanation.
First, note that all those citations in Black's footnotes are from 1727. Simms, who relies very heavily on several of Black's books (though disagrees with him politically), duly reports that Anne was the object of the marriage negotiations in 1727, but when Hotham was sent in 1730,
Hotham was instructed to push for the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Princess Wilhelmina, by now a very old chestnut, and that of Crown Prince Frederick to George’s daughter, this time Amelia.
Emphasis mine. All of the sources we've turned up are talking about the 1730 negotiation (or even later), the more famous and memorable one whose failure led directly to the escape attempt.
So I think our mystery is solved, and Dennison's reputation redeemed, if we assume Black is getting reliable info from the archives, and that the marriage plans changed between 1727 and 1730.
The Simms book, btw, might be useful to you,
luzula, if you care about Britain's relationships with other European countries and how they affected domestic politics, including Jacobitism, during the 18th century. The book is popular rather than scholarly, which on the one hand pays off in terms of readability, but on the other, means it relies entirely too much on secondary rather than primary sources, and furthermore, too much on British sources. I've caught Simms in some mistakes, and I really don't agree with his interpretation of everything, but it's 800 pages chock-full of useful information that also manages not to be a chore to read. (More readable than Black, for one thing.) And sometimes, that's what you need.Besides, I haven't caught Simms in as many mistakes as, for example, Massie, and considering I know way, way more about the subject matter here, that probably means he's not the most unreliable popular author ever!
Anyway, recommended for you with mild caveats.
selenak, you're probably better off with the drier and more reliable texts; cahn, not enough anecdotes to be of interest to you. ;) This is just politics.Edited 2021-12-05 02:35 (UTC)
And I haven't read that book at all
Disclaimer: same! I've only read the page or two dealing with rumps. (Truly, salon research leads to unexpected places.)
Disclaimer: same! I've only read the page or two dealing with rumps. (Truly, salon research leads to unexpected places.)
Congrats on solving this mystery, Detective Mildred! Dennison seemed so solid otherwise that this one big slip-up really was befuddling.
For a moment, I wondered whether the change from Anne to Amelia was because she‘d suffered from small pox in between and had been left with very noticable facial scars, but a) looking up the date, Anne had small pox in 1720 already - Caroline joined Lady Mary‘s campaign and.had her younger children inocculated two years later -, and b) Wilhelmine had contracted small pox in the late 1720s, and surely if FW had said he wanted a younger princess for his oldest because of the small pox scarring, G2 would have retaliated by wanting a younger princess as well? (Especially since he actually wasn‘t in a hurry to get Fritz of Wales married and procreating, due to his hate-on for his oldest and dreaming of Cumberland as successor.)
Considering Anne famously said about her 1734 husband, yet another William of Orange, that she‘d marry him even if he looked like a babboon, because she really really REALLY wanted to get married (and he was the last Protestant prince available), I doubt she was thrilled to get dropped from the Prussian marriage project. I wonder whose idea the switch of princesses was?
For a moment, I wondered whether the change from Anne to Amelia was because she‘d suffered from small pox in between and had been left with very noticable facial scars, but a) looking up the date, Anne had small pox in 1720 already - Caroline joined Lady Mary‘s campaign and.had her younger children inocculated two years later -, and b) Wilhelmine had contracted small pox in the late 1720s, and surely if FW had said he wanted a younger princess for his oldest because of the small pox scarring, G2 would have retaliated by wanting a younger princess as well? (Especially since he actually wasn‘t in a hurry to get Fritz of Wales married and procreating, due to his hate-on for his oldest and dreaming of Cumberland as successor.)
Considering Anne famously said about her 1734 husband, yet another William of Orange, that she‘d marry him even if he looked like a babboon, because she really really REALLY wanted to get married (and he was the last Protestant prince available), I doubt she was thrilled to get dropped from the Prussian marriage project. I wonder whose idea the switch of princesses was?
Edited 2021-12-05 05:28 (UTC)
Dennison seemed so solid otherwise that this one big slip-up really was befuddling.
You were right to want to trust him, it seems!
Considering Anne famously said about her 1734 husband, yet another William of Orange
Forcahn, just to show the connections: Anne and William IV's son, William V, marries yet another Wilhelmine, the daughter of AW and Luise. Wilhelmine got along with Uncle Fritz, who was always like, "Allowing women power is *terrible*, except when they're related to me and can steer their country in the direction I want (hi, Juliana), so make sure you stay politically influential, niece! Don't let your husband run the Netherlands!"
Presumably to his pleasure, Wilhelmine was in fact very ambitious and politically influential while her husband was nominally in power.
because she really really REALLY wanted to get married (and he was the last Protestant prince available)
Worth also noting forcahn that when Anne of Hanover married her William of Orange, he was Prince of Orange but not Stadtholder of the Netherlands. During their Republic days, starting with the revolt from Philip II and the Duke of Alva, the Netherlands/Dutch Republic veered back and forth between whether they wanted to be run by a committee or a prince of Orange. There were two parties that took turns getting control. (Basically, every time the economic or military situation got bad enough, every few decades, enough people would decide that the current powers that be were to blame, and the opposite party would achieve dominance, and you'd either gain or lose a prince of Orange as stadtholder.)
So between 1702 and 1747, there was no Stadtholder of the Netherlands, and it was ruled by a committee called the Regents. (Whitworth would complain that negotiating with a committee was next to impossible, since 1) you couldn't get them to agree on anything, 2) nothing could be kept secret.)
Why 1702 and 1747? Well, William III (this is William of William-and-Mary of England) died in 1702, and he had spent enough time waging war on Louis XIV and had just gotten the country into yet *another* anti-Louis war (the War of the Spanish Succession), that a majority of influential people decided it was time to take a break from the house of Orange lest they turn themselves into hereditary tyrants.
But then the War of the Austrian Succession happened, and the French were overrunning the Netherlands, and the Dutch economy had tanked after the War of the Spanish Succession, so eventually everyone got fed up and there were riots by the Orangist party in 1747. This brought William IV, Anne's husband, to power, and the stadtholderate officially made hereditary.
The son of William IV and Anne of Hanover, was William V, future husband of Fritz's niece, and he was born in 1748.
William IV died in 1751.
Anne of Hanover got to be regent for her son William V from 1751 until her own death in 1759.
In 1767, Wilhelmine of Prussia married William V. Note that she was 16, her brother Karl Emil had died as an infant in the 1750s, her 19-yo brother Henricus Minor had just died of smallpox in May 1767 (this is the favorite nephew Fritz was devastated over and also wrote a terrible condolence letter about to Ulrike), and of course her brother FW2 had long since been taken away from Mom and was being raised by Fritz's minions as the heir to the throne. So when 16-yo Wilhelmine left home to get married in late 1767, she was the last kid left to grieving mom Luise, and so if I'm remembering correctly, Luise was devastated by the separation.
Then the Patriot Revolution, in part inspired by the American Revolution, starts in the 1780s, with the Patriot democrats trying to get rid of the hereditary Orange stadtholderate. Fritz obviously wanted to keep his niece in power, and gave support, but for balance-of-power-in-Europe reasons was not inclined to go to war over it.
Then, shortly after his death, Wilhelmine gets captured/arrested by the Patriots. Brother FW2, who has no problem going to war over this, marches to his sister's rescue with an army and puts her and her husband back in power...at least until the French Revolution.
I doubt she was thrilled to get dropped from the Prussian marriage project. I wonder whose idea the switch of princesses was?
No idea, but I bet if we stick around long enough, we'll find out! :D (I am always pleased by the number of mysteries that eventually get solved in salon.)
You were right to want to trust him, it seems!
Considering Anne famously said about her 1734 husband, yet another William of Orange
For
cahn, just to show the connections: Anne and William IV's son, William V, marries yet another Wilhelmine, the daughter of AW and Luise. Wilhelmine got along with Uncle Fritz, who was always like, "Allowing women power is *terrible*, except when they're related to me and can steer their country in the direction I want (hi, Juliana), so make sure you stay politically influential, niece! Don't let your husband run the Netherlands!"Presumably to his pleasure, Wilhelmine was in fact very ambitious and politically influential while her husband was nominally in power.
because she really really REALLY wanted to get married (and he was the last Protestant prince available)
Worth also noting for
cahn that when Anne of Hanover married her William of Orange, he was Prince of Orange but not Stadtholder of the Netherlands. During their Republic days, starting with the revolt from Philip II and the Duke of Alva, the Netherlands/Dutch Republic veered back and forth between whether they wanted to be run by a committee or a prince of Orange. There were two parties that took turns getting control. (Basically, every time the economic or military situation got bad enough, every few decades, enough people would decide that the current powers that be were to blame, and the opposite party would achieve dominance, and you'd either gain or lose a prince of Orange as stadtholder.)So between 1702 and 1747, there was no Stadtholder of the Netherlands, and it was ruled by a committee called the Regents. (Whitworth would complain that negotiating with a committee was next to impossible, since 1) you couldn't get them to agree on anything, 2) nothing could be kept secret.)
Why 1702 and 1747? Well, William III (this is William of William-and-Mary of England) died in 1702, and he had spent enough time waging war on Louis XIV and had just gotten the country into yet *another* anti-Louis war (the War of the Spanish Succession), that a majority of influential people decided it was time to take a break from the house of Orange lest they turn themselves into hereditary tyrants.
But then the War of the Austrian Succession happened, and the French were overrunning the Netherlands, and the Dutch economy had tanked after the War of the Spanish Succession, so eventually everyone got fed up and there were riots by the Orangist party in 1747. This brought William IV, Anne's husband, to power, and the stadtholderate officially made hereditary.
The son of William IV and Anne of Hanover, was William V, future husband of Fritz's niece, and he was born in 1748.
William IV died in 1751.
Anne of Hanover got to be regent for her son William V from 1751 until her own death in 1759.
In 1767, Wilhelmine of Prussia married William V. Note that she was 16, her brother Karl Emil had died as an infant in the 1750s, her 19-yo brother Henricus Minor had just died of smallpox in May 1767 (this is the favorite nephew Fritz was devastated over and also wrote a terrible condolence letter about to Ulrike), and of course her brother FW2 had long since been taken away from Mom and was being raised by Fritz's minions as the heir to the throne. So when 16-yo Wilhelmine left home to get married in late 1767, she was the last kid left to grieving mom Luise, and so if I'm remembering correctly, Luise was devastated by the separation.
Then the Patriot Revolution, in part inspired by the American Revolution, starts in the 1780s, with the Patriot democrats trying to get rid of the hereditary Orange stadtholderate. Fritz obviously wanted to keep his niece in power, and gave support, but for balance-of-power-in-Europe reasons was not inclined to go to war over it.
Then, shortly after his death, Wilhelmine gets captured/arrested by the Patriots. Brother FW2, who has no problem going to war over this, marches to his sister's rescue with an army and puts her and her husband back in power...at least until the French Revolution.
I doubt she was thrilled to get dropped from the Prussian marriage project. I wonder whose idea the switch of princesses was?
No idea, but I bet if we stick around long enough, we'll find out! :D (I am always pleased by the number of mysteries that eventually get solved in salon.)
Wilhelmine’s description: 100 percent more snark than editor’s, but way more comprehensive. As Felis says, this goes on and on and ooooon, and even for the entertainment value of FW being Rational Guy for once, it’s too much.
BTW, I think Horowski alludes this when saying Wilhelmine was unfair when implying Grumbkow was a coward in battle, how would she know, but that it was understanble she hated him for contributing to ruining her life.
You know, I'm still wondering if the 1729 almost-duel happened. The only sources we've recorded in Rheinsberg are Lord Hervey and Bielfeld both reporting what they've heard on the rumor mill.
Yes, but they report it independently from each other and in different countries. Their social circles didn’t overlap back then. Hervey was dead by the time Fritz became Frederick Superstar and Bielfeld’s book became a bestseller. In his life time, he didn’t talk to non-royal Germans if he could possibly avoid it. Conversely, Hervey’s memoirs weren’t published, so Bielfeld can’t have read them. So if Hervey has heard this story from top British politicians and Bielfeld has heard it from Prussian courtiers, and they both name the same occasion as the trigger for the almost duel, I would say there must have been some gun to cause this bit of smoke.
One more thing about Hervey, 1729 was the year he came back to GB from his Grand Tour, so it’s understandable he didn’t witness the event, if it happened, himself, or rather the aftermath, since it would have happened while G2 was in Hannover and Caroline was regent in GB. But he became quickly familiar with all the players, and as you’ve found out, even the bits in his description that I thought were meant as satire (“haystack”) were in fact among the items G2 and FW argued about in 1729, so he must have talked about the affair with someone who was in the know.
BTW, I think Horowski alludes this when saying Wilhelmine was unfair when implying Grumbkow was a coward in battle, how would she know, but that it was understanble she hated him for contributing to ruining her life.
You know, I'm still wondering if the 1729 almost-duel happened. The only sources we've recorded in Rheinsberg are Lord Hervey and Bielfeld both reporting what they've heard on the rumor mill.
Yes, but they report it independently from each other and in different countries. Their social circles didn’t overlap back then. Hervey was dead by the time Fritz became Frederick Superstar and Bielfeld’s book became a bestseller. In his life time, he didn’t talk to non-royal Germans if he could possibly avoid it. Conversely, Hervey’s memoirs weren’t published, so Bielfeld can’t have read them. So if Hervey has heard this story from top British politicians and Bielfeld has heard it from Prussian courtiers, and they both name the same occasion as the trigger for the almost duel, I would say there must have been some gun to cause this bit of smoke.
One more thing about Hervey, 1729 was the year he came back to GB from his Grand Tour, so it’s understandable he didn’t witness the event, if it happened, himself, or rather the aftermath, since it would have happened while G2 was in Hannover and Caroline was regent in GB. But he became quickly familiar with all the players, and as you’ve found out, even the bits in his description that I thought were meant as satire (“haystack”) were in fact among the items G2 and FW argued about in 1729, so he must have talked about the affair with someone who was in the know.
Re: Letters from Soul Mates: FW and Alte Dessauer
mildred_of_midgard
2021-12-07 06:00 pm (UTC)(link)
As Felis says, this goes on and on and ooooon, and even for the entertainment value of FW being Rational Guy for once, it’s too much.
Fair, I do not expect a write-up! It's enough to know that FW was being the Rational Guy, I'm entertained just by that! :)
I think Horowski alludes this when saying Wilhelmine was unfair when implying Grumbkow was a coward in battle, how would she know, but that it was understanble she hated him for contributing to ruining her life.
Ah, yes, now that you remind me, I remember Horowski saying this.
Yes, but they report it independently from each other and in different countries. Their social circles didn’t overlap back then.
Fair, though Bielfeld was legation secretary to Hanover and London during Hervey's lifetime, so I can't be sure his sources are completely independent. POV-wise, the most detail Bielfeld has is supposed to come from "Baron von Borck, who had been the Prussian minister at London, and who had been dismissed from that court in a most ungracious manner," and who claims to have been the one who talked sense into FW. Borck could have been both Bielfeld's source and the source of the London rumor mill, since even if Hervey didn't talk to non-royal Germans, Borck presumably talked to some non-royal Englishmen who might have talked to Hervey. And Borck might have had an incentive to make the affair sound like it went a lot further than it did in order to make himself, recently dismissed and disgraced minister, look good.
But also there could be fire behind this smoke! Not disagreeing! (I really hope there was. :D)
Fair, I do not expect a write-up! It's enough to know that FW was being the Rational Guy, I'm entertained just by that! :)
I think Horowski alludes this when saying Wilhelmine was unfair when implying Grumbkow was a coward in battle, how would she know, but that it was understanble she hated him for contributing to ruining her life.
Ah, yes, now that you remind me, I remember Horowski saying this.
Yes, but they report it independently from each other and in different countries. Their social circles didn’t overlap back then.
Fair, though Bielfeld was legation secretary to Hanover and London during Hervey's lifetime, so I can't be sure his sources are completely independent. POV-wise, the most detail Bielfeld has is supposed to come from "Baron von Borck, who had been the Prussian minister at London, and who had been dismissed from that court in a most ungracious manner," and who claims to have been the one who talked sense into FW. Borck could have been both Bielfeld's source and the source of the London rumor mill, since even if Hervey didn't talk to non-royal Germans, Borck presumably talked to some non-royal Englishmen who might have talked to Hervey. And Borck might have had an incentive to make the affair sound like it went a lot further than it did in order to make himself, recently dismissed and disgraced minister, look good.
But also there could be fire behind this smoke! Not disagreeing! (I really hope there was. :D)
Edited 2021-12-07 18:35 (UTC)
No clues yet who switched the princesses, but I did find Black quoting FW on the William of Orange + Anne of Hanover marriage yesterday in my reading:
In January 1733, the ministry was able to intercept and decipher an instruction from Frederick William I to his envoy in London to thwart the intended marriage of William IV of Orange and Anne, the Princess Royal. Frederick William was in bitter dispute with William IV over the Orange inheritance, and also wished to keep marital choices in Protestant princely society focused on his family. To that end, Frederick William sought to play on animosities which were clearly no secret:
the jealousy which Robert Walpole has conceived against Lord Chesterfield may be improved by you, if you dextrously insinuate to the former what an overmatch of credit the effecting of that proposed marriage would give to the said Chesterfield with the King and Queen.
Frederick William I to Degenfeld, 17 Jan. (ns) 1733, NA, SP 107/8.
Who's who forcahn:
Robert Walpole is unofficial prime minister of Great Britain.
Chesterfield is:
* Semi-famous man of letters, author of Letters to His Son on the Art of Becoming a Man of the World and a Gentleman to his illegitimate son.
* Husband of Melusine Petronella, illegitimate daughter of George I and Katte's aunt Melusine.
* Such a gambler that he was afraid to admit to his mother-in-law Melusine how much he'd lost on one occasion and pretended he hadn't played at all. She later made sure he couldn't touch any of the money she left to Melusine Petronella in her will.
* Ancestor of the fictional narrator of Zeithain.
* British envoy to the Netherlands. His staff gave Peter Keith asylum in 1730 and smuggled him to England, although Chesterfield apparently wasn't present on the occasion.
* Author of this quip in a letter in 1730: The King of Prussia in the oath he prepared for the Prince to swallow, among many other things, has made him swear that he will never believe in the doctrine of Predestination! A very unnecessary declaration in my mind for any body who has misfortune of being acquainted with him to make, since he himself is a living proof of free-will, for Providence can never be supposed to have pre-ordained such a creature!
In 1733, he returned from the Netherlands to Britain and started intriguing against Walpole. So that's the animosity FW is trying to play on there.
As for FW vs. the House of Orange, I've been dipping into the (excruciatingly detailed, 1200 page) The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806 in the last couple weeks, and the Dutch and the Prussians have been at loggerheads for decades. The Great Elector, F1's father, married a princess of Orange, and the Hohenzollerns had been claiming the Orange inheritance ever since it came up for dispute. The Dutch have been nervous around Prussia because Prussia has territory on their border (remember that this is why Peter is so easily able to escape over the border from Wesel) and are always claiming more.
So by 1733, the House of Orange, the Netherlands, and Prussia are all looking somewhat askance at each other.
And speaking of intrigues, 1733 is when Fritz marries EC, and also when the Brits, due to shifting alliances in Europe, suddenly they decide they might want to go through with Fritz-Amelia after all, while Fritz is on the verge of getting married. FW explodes in fury about how perfidious Albion is trying to make him break his word!! and the Fritz-EC marriage goes through as planned.
In January 1733, the ministry was able to intercept and decipher an instruction from Frederick William I to his envoy in London to thwart the intended marriage of William IV of Orange and Anne, the Princess Royal. Frederick William was in bitter dispute with William IV over the Orange inheritance, and also wished to keep marital choices in Protestant princely society focused on his family. To that end, Frederick William sought to play on animosities which were clearly no secret:
the jealousy which Robert Walpole has conceived against Lord Chesterfield may be improved by you, if you dextrously insinuate to the former what an overmatch of credit the effecting of that proposed marriage would give to the said Chesterfield with the King and Queen.
Frederick William I to Degenfeld, 17 Jan. (ns) 1733, NA, SP 107/8.
Who's who for
cahn:Robert Walpole is unofficial prime minister of Great Britain.
Chesterfield is:
* Semi-famous man of letters, author of Letters to His Son on the Art of Becoming a Man of the World and a Gentleman to his illegitimate son.
* Husband of Melusine Petronella, illegitimate daughter of George I and Katte's aunt Melusine.
* Such a gambler that he was afraid to admit to his mother-in-law Melusine how much he'd lost on one occasion and pretended he hadn't played at all. She later made sure he couldn't touch any of the money she left to Melusine Petronella in her will.
* Ancestor of the fictional narrator of Zeithain.
* British envoy to the Netherlands. His staff gave Peter Keith asylum in 1730 and smuggled him to England, although Chesterfield apparently wasn't present on the occasion.
* Author of this quip in a letter in 1730: The King of Prussia in the oath he prepared for the Prince to swallow, among many other things, has made him swear that he will never believe in the doctrine of Predestination! A very unnecessary declaration in my mind for any body who has misfortune of being acquainted with him to make, since he himself is a living proof of free-will, for Providence can never be supposed to have pre-ordained such a creature!
In 1733, he returned from the Netherlands to Britain and started intriguing against Walpole. So that's the animosity FW is trying to play on there.
As for FW vs. the House of Orange, I've been dipping into the (excruciatingly detailed, 1200 page) The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806 in the last couple weeks, and the Dutch and the Prussians have been at loggerheads for decades. The Great Elector, F1's father, married a princess of Orange, and the Hohenzollerns had been claiming the Orange inheritance ever since it came up for dispute. The Dutch have been nervous around Prussia because Prussia has territory on their border (remember that this is why Peter is so easily able to escape over the border from Wesel) and are always claiming more.
So by 1733, the House of Orange, the Netherlands, and Prussia are all looking somewhat askance at each other.
And speaking of intrigues, 1733 is when Fritz marries EC, and also when the Brits, due to shifting alliances in Europe, suddenly they decide they might want to go through with Fritz-Amelia after all, while Fritz is on the verge of getting married. FW explodes in fury about how perfidious Albion is trying to make him break his word!! and the Fritz-EC marriage goes through as planned.
Also from my recent reading, this portrait by Jean Huber, titled Voltaire's Morning, was brought to my attention:
Catherine the Great--remember, she was a Voltaire fangirl and correspondent who never got to meet him in person--had in her collection, currently in the Hermitage Museum:
Jean Huber's series of intimate paintings of Voltaire engaged in everyday activities at his estate of Ferney. By Catherine's own account, she "burst out laughing" when she saw Huber’s portrayal of Voltaire rising from bed, getting dressed, and dictating a letter all at the same time. To see the lord of Ferney furiously multitasking reminded her that "the vivacity of his character and the impatience of his imagination give him no time to do one thing at once."
I admit, I laughed too. I had to share this.
Catherine the Great--remember, she was a Voltaire fangirl and correspondent who never got to meet him in person--had in her collection, currently in the Hermitage Museum:
Jean Huber's series of intimate paintings of Voltaire engaged in everyday activities at his estate of Ferney. By Catherine's own account, she "burst out laughing" when she saw Huber’s portrayal of Voltaire rising from bed, getting dressed, and dictating a letter all at the same time. To see the lord of Ferney furiously multitasking reminded her that "the vivacity of his character and the impatience of his imagination give him no time to do one thing at once."
I admit, I laughed too. I had to share this.
Preface writer assures us every single thing FW wrote with his own hands is reprinted here, bad spelling and all..
Wow. (I'm gonna hazard a guess that it was way less than Fritz wrote :PP )
His main reason for not believing FW ever suspected his pal of pals being that Old Dessauer gets informed via letters by FW about the ongoing Klement affair which editor thinks would not have happened if Klement had named Dessauer as involved or FW suspected him for a moment.
But didn't that happen at the very end?
There was an almost duel between Old Dessauer and Grumbkow in 1725! Which FW really really did not want to happen.
Hee, I did not remember this from Wilhelmine, man.
Wow. (I'm gonna hazard a guess that it was way less than Fritz wrote :PP )
His main reason for not believing FW ever suspected his pal of pals being that Old Dessauer gets informed via letters by FW about the ongoing Klement affair which editor thinks would not have happened if Klement had named Dessauer as involved or FW suspected him for a moment.
But didn't that happen at the very end?
There was an almost duel between Old Dessauer and Grumbkow in 1725! Which FW really really did not want to happen.
Hee, I did not remember this from Wilhelmine, man.
Okay, Anne Erroll sounds awesome! And I love that she was in charge of everything and was so competent and that she, and all the other women, were never even suspected at all. (Like mildred says, that's what you get for ignoring the women... :) )
She also arranged secret signals with a family connection in the Navy so that he would let ships through with messages and goods; she sounded out and negotiated with important men who might join the cause, and kept in contact with Elizabeth Gordon and other women who arranged meetings and hosted spies and agents in Edinburgh.
Wow, she kept busy. I also would read a novel about her!
She also arranged secret signals with a family connection in the Navy so that he would let ships through with messages and goods; she sounded out and negotiated with important men who might join the cause, and kept in contact with Elizabeth Gordon and other women who arranged meetings and hosted spies and agents in Edinburgh.
Wow, she kept busy. I also would read a novel about her!
Oh, yeah, right, as of course you know, Jude Morgan covers (if sometimes somewhat elliptically) the Louis-Minette stuff, both affair-ish and political (and de Guiche gets a couple of paragraphs too, though I don't think I realized quite the portent of it). I guess though that I hadn't realized that Minette was trusted more than Philippe politically speaking! (Though given the way he was portrayed in the book, that was clearly a conclusion one was supposed to draw.)
Was the Chevalier gone for all of Philippe's marriage with Liselotte? I had the vague idea from some vid of Versailles (...that you probably linked me, lol, I don't know who else would be linking me vids of Versailles) that he was around for some of it, but I'm probably extremely mixed up :)
(I don't think you linked me to the correspondence! Or at least not when I had any inkling of who these people were :) Heh, I could see menstruation horrifying Philippe... and not Charles :P )
Was the Chevalier gone for all of Philippe's marriage with Liselotte? I had the vague idea from some vid of Versailles (...that you probably linked me, lol, I don't know who else would be linking me vids of Versailles) that he was around for some of it, but I'm probably extremely mixed up :)
(I don't think you linked me to the correspondence! Or at least not when I had any inkling of who these people were :) Heh, I could see menstruation horrifying Philippe... and not Charles :P )
Page 1 of 13