cahn | 18th-Century Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 34

You're viewing

cahn's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

And including Emperor Joseph II!

from Derek Beales: Joseph II, Volume 2: Against the World, 1780 - 1790:

Joseph's alleged comment to Mozart about the Entführung, "Too many notes", has been taken as evidence of his ignorance. But he probably said something like, "Too beautiful for our ears, and monstrous many notes." It is always necessary to bear in mind, when appraising the emperor's remarks, his peculiar brand of humor or sarcasm. He was usually getting at someone. And he did not use the royal "we". The ears in question were those of the Viennese audience, whom he was mocking for their limited appreciation of Mozart's elaborate music.

(though not gonna lie, I think it is a LOT of notes)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

selenak

A succint and well thought analysis. Adding a few points:

- as coincidence would have it, today there's an article in my favourite newspaper about the new publication of the love letters one of the 18th Century Wittelsbach princesses wrote to her brother-in-law through the decades, which looks like it contribute a bit on the subject

- re: expecting to be allowed to marry for love, MT-style, was rare in princesses: And even MT would presumably not have expected to marry FS if he'd not been a Duke with several royal ancestors and relations in his perdigree (remember, grandson of Liselotte and Philippe the Gay). Ditto for daughter Mimi allowed to marry Albert, who might have been a younger son and not a rich one, but was a prince. Now Old Dessauer/The Apothecary's Daughter was a truly class smashing completely unexpected marriage for love, but I'm trying to think of an example where a princess, not a prince, married a non-noble for love in the 18th century and am failing

- in the Renaissance, otoh, you have several high ranking noble ladies after being widowed marrying their stewards for love, who weren't commoners, exactly, but defnitely below rank and thus regarded as unsuitable

From:

mildred_of_midgard

today there's an article in my favourite newspaper...which looks like it contribute a bit on the subject

Anything interesting? Is it paywalled?

And even MT would presumably not have expected to marry FS if he'd not been a Duke

I cannot *imagine* her being allowed to marry a non-ducal FS! She had the good luck of falling in love with someone extremely suitable for her. And that was largely because of a perfect storm of political considerations. Namely, she *wasn't* supposed to leave home and marry the highest-ranked guy she could get, in which case she would never have met him, because Europe would never stand for the highest-ranked guy getting the Holy Roman Empire. So she got to marry a lower-ranked guy who'd been hanging out at her court for years, where she could get to know him before marriage. Highly unusual circumstance here.

I'm trying to think of an example where a princess, not a prince, married a non-noble for love in the 18th century and am failing

Both Elizaveta and Catherine are suspected of having morganatically married non-nobles or petty nobles for love--Razumovsky and Potemkin respectively--but they were Tsarinas, and in both cases the alleged marriage was so secret that to this day it's contentious whether it happened at all.

cahn, I'm not sure if you've met Razumovsky in your reading or watching yet, but he was a peasant who sang in the church choir. His impressive singing voice ended up bringing him to the attention of Elizaveta, who took him as a lover, and possibly married him.

Edited Date: 2022-02-14 04:45 pm (UTC)

From:

cahn

I'm not sure if you've met Razumovsky in your reading or watching yet, but he was a peasant who sang in the church choir. His impressive singing voice ended up bringing him to the attention of Elizaveta, who took him as a lover, and possibly married him.

Ha, yes, Razumovsky is the guy who narrates all the "now we will time-jump seven years" bits. He's actually possibly my favorite character in Ekaterina, although he seems a lot more politically savvy in the show than Massie thought he was. And then there's the TV subplot where Elizaveta secretly marries him (yes, sure, secret marriage seems dramatically plausible) and then she says she's decided he's going to be emperor when she's dead and is writing this in her will.

Me: What?
Razumovsky: What??

I've just got to Elizaveta dying, but Peter is yet to be confirmed, and Razumovsky is all, "Will? What will? No will to see here!"

From:

mildred_of_midgard

He was possibly my favorite too!

Re the discussion of marrying non-nobles, I should add that Elizaveta had the example of her father, Peter the Great, marrying a Lithuanian peasant (mother of Elizaveta and Peter III's mother), who then became Tsarina after Peter died. Will or no will, Razumovsky could have at least made a bid for power. But one thing the show gets right is that he didn't want to play the game of thrones, in which you win or you die.

ETA: forgot to mention her name. That's Catherine I, 1725-1727.

Edited Date: 2022-02-16 05:55 pm (UTC)

From:

selenak

There's one big difference, though, isn't there, between the marriage of Peter the Great and Martha/Catherine the Lithunian on the one hand, and the possible marriages of Elizaveta to Razumovsky and Catherine II to Potemkin on the other. And that's the question of dynasty and succession. Elizaveta may or may not have had illegitimate children, but if she did, she clearly didn't regard them as qualified for the succession, nor did she try to make them this way. (By, saying, marrying them to legtimate high nobility.) Catherine II. definitely had illegitimate children (no matter who Paul's bio dad was), but again, no attempt to give them quasi legitimate status. Whereas Peter the Great definitely wanted any children from his second marriage to be recognized as legitimate and worthy of crowns, and to continue his dynasty in this way. That's something a male ruler could do (well, try at least), but not a female one.