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

From:

Which is ironic given that one of the most common complaints about him from his contemporaries was that he wasn't emo enough.

IDK, I can totally see him being very genuine and heartfelt (and awkward in a genuine way) in letters and in close relationships (like with the Five Princesses), and being not-emo-enough and too sarcastic and/or awkward in an offputting way with everyone else, especially when it intersected with his idealism. This is basically just bolstering my view of him as Quintessential Geek :) And this is why I am so fascinated by him, because I totally empathize with the type :D If I were an absolulte monarch and raised as one, I'd totally be like him! (well, probably not as sarcastic, but only because I'm not very good at coming out with sarcastic quips, I would if I could!)

Aaaanyway. What's always worth remembering is that in the last years of his life, FW was in constant physical pain due to his illnesses, and his idea of self medication was to drink, which didn't help his general temper problem. If you're in constant pain and have a hair trigger temper, you lash out at familiar targets. For FW, these were his oldest children, Gundling, G2 and (if she brought up the English marriage project or otherwise argued with him), SD.

:( Yeah, thanks for the reminder -- I don't imagine I'd do well being in constant pain either. Though, ugh.

You won't be surprised that the Marquis d'Aiseau would dare to aspire to a queen, but what's really surprising is that such a well-formed young man would fall in love with such a little monster.

Hee. But seriously, Weber's account has the virtue not only that Louise Elisabeth comes out much more sympathetic, but it also just seems a lot more believable to me!

From:

selenak

Something I forgot to mention in my write up of volume 1: Beales points out that while M T's constant asking in her letters about Marie Antoinette's state of marital relations (and why no grandkid) strike us today as awfully interfering, but for this, and thus Joseph setting out to Paris with strict instructions to figure out what the hell was going on with Louis and Marie Antoinette, there would have been no one daring to talk with the King and Queen about their sex life, which says a lot about their isolation at Versailles even among the society there. Unlike Goldstone, Beales does't think Louis XVI was autistic, but sees the fact he wasn't able to talk to anyone (including his doctors, his brothers and any given courtier) about sex until a fellow monarch and brother-in-law came to town as telling about the status of a French King in the 1770s.

Maria Carolina: well, you know my main criticism of the Maria Carolina sections in Goldstone's book was that "she was loved by everyone in Naples, and those few revolutionaries were basically deluded or paid by the French" is not the takeaway I had of the Neapolitan revolution. I didn't question "the husband was stupid and uselessl, but she had the upper hand and made it work for her" because that was Horowski's take as well. I don't recall either of them mentioning Ferdinand had infected her with STDs, a sore in the vagina, or marital rape in the later 1780s.

Also forgot to mention this, since we've been wondering: there is nothing in either Beales volume about Maria Christina/Mimi showing Joseph Isabella's letters to herself. Unless Goldstone has another source, she must have made it up.

Leopold's secret 1784 memorandum is the Relazione, yes. It's basically "why Joseph sucks, let me count the ways, with some flashbacks to why Mom sucked, too". Beales thinks some of the criticism is valid and earned while other parts are either exaggarated or demonstrably untrue, which he argues by presenting Zinzendorf's diary (Zinzendorf was an MT era veteran and politically very much against Joseph's ideas, so his diary offering counter testimony to some of Leopold's claims is pretty valid), various letters from contemporaries and, with a bit more sceptism, Joseph friendly memoirists like the Prince de Ligne (RPF writer extraordinaire, but he did write about his own life as well) or Lorenzo da Ponte (Joseph was my Emperor and patron! Fuck yeah!).

In terms of sibling Joseph critique, Beales gives the most weight not to Leopold or Maria Christina but to youngest brother Max Ernst. MT had gone to some effort to get him alected as Archbishop and thus Prince Elector of Cologne. In medieval and Renaissance times, this was the most prestigious and important position any German cleric could have, because not only was the Prince Bishop of Cologne part of the Princes Elector who voted the Emperor into power (or not), he was the one conducting the coronation, and his vote usually held the most influence among the clerical Princes. (When we had decades long feudings between noble families as to who would get to be Emperor in the 12th century, getting the Prince Bishop of Cologne on your side was key.) By the time of the 18th Century, and the decline of the HRE, it wasn't this important in terms of international and day to day politics, but it was still an office of incluence, and also, it offered Max Ernst the chance to interact with representatives of other German states on a daily basis and watch inner HRE politics for which neither of his older brothers had much patience. This led Max Ernst to write to Leopold:

Germany was useful to (FS), useless and even dangerous to Joseph. The explanation of the difference is dunbtedly to be found in the two emperors' manner of ruling. Our father, easy, polite, affable, upright, reigned over all hearts. The empress, gracious and generous, supported him marvellously. The princes of the Empire were attracted to Vienna, were amused, flattered, manipulated, and were full of it when they got back. The ecclesiastical princces were treated with the greatest consideration, and the canons found ample satisfaction for their interest and ambition in the chapters and bishoprics of the heritiary lands, in the abbeys of Hungary, in the invariably effective reccommendations made by the Imperial Court to the Pope. Not even the smallest election took place without the influence of the Imperial Court preponderating, and its creatures, finding themselves looked after, remained totally devoted to the House of Austria. The lesser princes and counts were honoured with places in the army (...) or in the civil service. The Theresianum an the Savoy College attracted many noblemen from the Empire, who then dispersed to all parts of Germany, regarding Vienna as their second home, imbued with its principles and keeping up their connections there. It was by all these means that (FS) caused the Empire to act (on his behalf) in the Seven Years War against its own interests.

Whereas Joseph, after his initial attempts at reform had been rejected

absolutely neglected to cultivate individuals and paid more attention to a simple (Hungarian) guard than to a prince of the Empire, and wouldn't give any favours to imperial nobles, considering them mere spongers and intriguers, which was bound to alienate them. Instead of the favours they were accustomed to receive, they came up against a gracious code of regulations. The Hungarian abbeys were suppressed, you could only get a canonry after ten years in a cure of souls. Papal support was cut off, (...) ministers were prohibited form interfering in elections (...) The Colleges were abolished or (effectively) restricted to the local inhabitants. Every military rank above cadet was prohibited to (imperial nobles). And the only hope for promotion was seniority. Moreover, no Court - and therefore no distinction - and French marquises and English milords were feted while I saw canons and knights of true merit relagated to the lower table and the company of imperial agents.(...) This is certainly not the way to win hearts and minds.

Comments Beales: Here speaks the authentic voice of the ancient régime. . He could have added that Max Ernst is a bit rose-eyed re: how far FS was able to make the German princes support Team Austria in the 7 Years War. Yes, Fritz was put into the Reichsacht for invading Saxony, but his hero of the Protestant faith pose certainly mattered more to the Protestant princes in practice. But unlike Leopold, whose resentment always comes with the conviction he'd be able to do a better job in Joseph's place, and who knew he would get that job once Joseph died, Max Ernst didn't have a personal horse in that race.

Mildred:
Also, as I recall, he was writing in invisible ink to his siblings, because he knew Joseph was reading his mail. But, says Beales, he obviously didn't switch to the lemon juice soon enough, because one of his non-invisible ink letters was read by Joseph and was critical enough of Joseph to cause bad feelings/problems/something I don't have time to look up.

This happened in 1789 (a year before Joseph died), but had a 1788 prehistory. Writes Beales.

At the beginning of October, (Joseph) contrived to give grave offence to Leopold on two counts. He first accused him of having revealed to diplomats secret information supplied by Joseph. Leopold denied the charge, but the emperor sent him the evidence for it, which was difficult to rebut. Although they agreed to drop the matter, Joseph evidently remained suspicious and bacme less confiding. Secondly, when Leopold's daughter, Maria Theresa, came to Vienna en route to marry a son of the elector of Saxony in Dresden, the emperor took the occasion to critisize his brother's upbringing of his children. No doubt, wrote Joseph, Leopold's intentions were good. But

all the more defective must be the method or the teachers. (...) The physical side seems to me as neglected as the moral. They don't know what to do with their arms and legs anymore than they know how to make use in society of the pedantic knowledge that has been stuffed into their heads. I can't find in them any sincerity. They think they're clever if they can boast of having conceiled what they really think.

Joseph thought that Leopold's other children needed to come to Vienna to be properly educated - except that Charles, who had epilepsy, "should either find a cure for it or vegetate unobserved in his sad situation, which he can do much better in Tuscany."

Leopold sent a pained reply saying that Francis had been the most difficult and reserved of all his sons and that Charles was actually the most intelligent. Joseph said that he was 'in despair' if what he had said about the children's education had displeased Leopold. But he went on to complain about the state of their teeth. Further, Theresa didn't know how to curtsey. Joseph had found the elder daughters proud, self-satisfied and deceitful. After this appalling display of cruel insensitivity, however, he agreed that Charles could also come to Vienna. The despised epileptic was to become perhaps Austria's greatest general after Prince Eugene.

Unsurprsingly, after this, Leopold stepped up his "Joseph: the worst!" letters to Mimi and Max Ernst. By 1789, when it was clear to Joseph he would likely die within the year or so, writes Beales:

He seemed to have accepted that he could not live much longer, and he knew from intercepts that Leopold's prudent letters to him veiled an aversion to his despotic policies. The emperor told Trautmannsdorff in June 1789 that he was' sure that intrigue goes on between Florence and Brussels' (i.e Leopold and Mimi) and he had a copy of one of Leopold's letters sent on to prove it. The grand duke had good reason to use lemon-jice as an invisible ink when writing to his sister, but he evidently should have taken the precaution earlier. It must therefore have been clear to Joseph that his brother, if he succeeded, would not m aintain all his legislation intact. Yet he set forth on a collision course, reviving and exarbating almost every possible grievance in every province. One can only wonder at the dedication and willpower of the dying emperor in his desperate campaign to bring his policies to fruition. It was magnificent, but it was not politics.

Mildred asked: omeone I was reading recently--I can't remember if it was Beales--was casting Leopold's interest in constitutionalism as lip service, since the Tuscans never actually got a constitution out of him. Thoughts?

Don't recall this from Beales, though maybe I overlooked it, can't comment without a Leopold biography.

Edited Date: 2022-01-14 07:37 am (UTC)

From:

selenak

Mildred asked, re, Pesne the painter (who risked painting rising ~~sons~~ suns in 1739>:

could FW have done anything worse than kick him out? Like lock him up or anything?

On the one hand: Pesne is a civilian, not a member of the army or a civil servant. While he does have an office - court painter - from which FW can dismiss him, painting a sunrise while some dark clouds fade away does not qualify as a crime. I'm also not sure whether Pesne was a Prussian citizen or retained his French citizenship. So I'm tempted to say "no".

On the other hand: being a civilian did Gundling a fat lot of good, and his attempt to leave Prussia was still called "desertion" by FW. So while I don't think FW - if he'd survived - would have locked up Pesne, he might have, if he didn't fire him and bid him leave the country on the spot, resorted to bullying tactics, of which he had many. Though: Pesne had the international acclaim and guaranteed livelihood Gundling lacked. I'd say the first time FW sets his wig on fire or puts a bear anywhere near him, Pesne leaves for France or Saxony or, hey, Vienna or Hannover.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Re Selena asking what grudge FW held against G2, because there's a dearth of obvious legitimate ones.

I would say that it doesn't have to be anything nearly as rational as what you were looking for in that post. If they were getting into fistfights as kids, that suggests that they *already* hated each other, probably for childish reasons. Someone as short-tempered as FW would easily have carried that grudge into adulthood. After all, once you hate someone, you're prone to interpreting everything they do in the worst possible light, and heaping up grudges to add to your resentment. And I see no reason that two monarchs already not known for their warm and fuzzy personalities, who disliked each other intensely as children, would have seen their relations improve after becoming monarchs of countries with conflicting political interests.

It could have been as simple as G2, when they were kids, thinking that he should be able to boss FW around because he was older, and Tiny Terror FW, who pushed chamberlains out of windows when not threatening to throw himself out of a window rather than be told what to do, refusing to go along with it. The situation escalated, and thirty years later, they were still hating on each other. Only now they were squabbling over things like political influence in Mecklenburg and forcibly recruited soldiers.

In conclusion: you were an only child as far as I know, but I had siblings. ;)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Since I've been reading a lot more lately, and wish I could share what I've read, but writing up a book is just so much work that it's like pulling teeth:

selenak, do you have any techniques that you use to help you turn a single book or essay into a write-up? Or is it just that doing so comes naturally to you, and you have so much practice that you read a book and a write-up spontaneously forms in your mind, like Athena springing fully armed from the head of Zeus? (Which is what it looks like from here, as I live in awe of both your turnaround time and the quality of the results. :P)

What comes naturally to me is "gather data, process data, draw conclusions, write up conclusions." In order to produce a write-up of a single work, I have to read the work 3 times, taking notes the second and third time, and then polish my notes into something coherent. And it's the "second and third time with notes" that makes me go, "Well, I didn't like it that much." Then I wander off and do something more fun, usually in hopes that you're going to bail me out by also reading the book and actually reporting on it for us.

All this is why you guys get one kind of write-up from me (based around a subject) and not another kind (based around a single work).

Are there any tips you can offer?

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Slowly picking my way through Hinrichs collating the references to Peter Keith for the WIP essay. Can someone check me on this one thing? This excerpt is from one of Fritz's interrogations.

Gefraget: Ob er mit dem Pagen Keith nicht auch davon gesprochen und ihn beredet mitzugehen?

Respond.: Ja, unterweges auf der Reise hätte er mit ihm davon gesprochen, und ihn beredet, mit wegzugehen, auch Pferde zu bestellen. Denn er ihm gesaget, es würde ihm nicht gut gehen, weil sein Bruder mit ihm weggehen würde.

My translation:

Q: Whether he [Fritz] hadn't also spoken about it [the escape] with the Page Keith and talked him into going along?

A: Yes, while the trip was underway, he had spoken with him about it, and talked him into coming along, also into ordering the horses. Since he said to him, it would not go well with him, since his brother would escape with him.

My interpretation of all the "he"s and "him"s in the last sentence: Fritz told not!Robert that when Peter deserted with Fritz, FW would assume that not!Robert was an accomplice of his brother, therefore not!Robert had nothing to lose by helping Fritz out.

Aka basically extortion from the guy who lied to Katte.

Is that the interpretation of the German speakers in salon as well?

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Remember when I said that one of Weber's collections of essays on the Saxon archives contained a chapter on Klement, aka the guy who TOTALLY exposed an Austrian conspiracy to assassinate FW and convert Fritz to Catholicism, that was not at all a scam made up by him? I have finally found time to upload the volume to the library, here. Klement begins on page 167. 75 pages of this font is still beyond me, so I'm hoping one of our German readers has time to take a look and tell us if there's anything good. :)

From:

felis

I had a look at some dog-related items in the box bills, non-exhaustive, as I mostly just glanced at the entries tagged with "keeping of animals", which is not used consistently.

Entries that show up regularly: "Bälle für die Hunde" - payed to the cobbler, so balls made out of leather for them to play with I'd say, always for a couple of Rthl - and monthly salaries for various hunters (Leibjäger) over the years, for raising and feeding the dogs I suspect (there's one 1765 entry that specifies "Futtergeld").

We also find clothes and cushions:

October 1763: for the dress for little Biche, 17 th 4 gr
February 1765: to Füchsel [= the tailor] for a dress for the little dog 5 th, 10 gr
September 1767: six cushions ["Küßen"] for the dogs 46 th 19 gr
Aug 1771: two new cushions ["Kopf Küssen"] made of real carmine taffeta for Thisbe, 8 RTl 2 Gr
February 1784: to the bed girls ["BettMädgens"] for mending the cushions for the Royal dogs, 12 Gr

As you can see, there's a mention of "Biche" in 1763, which has to have been Biche II (which I didn't know existed)? (My other thought was that the people keeping the book might have used the dog names interchangeably, but that's quite an out there theory.)

But speaking of the original and much beloved Biche, I was surprised to see that even two years after her death in December 1751, there was still money to pay:

Nov/Dez 1752: to a musketeer from the Itzenplitz regiment, gifted to him because of Biche 5 th [no further explanation]
April 1753: to cook Hellmundt for expenses during Biche's lifetime 11 th 12 gr
Nov 1753: Kienast can still demand medicinal expenses [Medizingeld] for the deceased Biche [spelled "Bigé"] 6 th 8 gr

And speaking of treating sick dogs, there's more like it as well:
December 1766: to Ruckhafer for curing the dog 11 th 2 Gr

I'll leave all the headstone and burial-related entries for another day, but suffice to say, I'm now even more confused when it comes to the dog names. :P

But while I was checking the "keeping of animals" tag - did Fritz plan a zoo at some point? Because in May 1746, he apparently acquired a rhino (!? - dem Holländer ("Hollender") für das Rhinozeros ("den Rinoceros") 12 Dukaten + 6 Dukaten) and reindeer (dem Oberjägermeister Graf von Schlieben für die schwedischen Leute, welche die Rentiere ("Rent-thier") gebracht 135 thaler).
Also, I seem to remember some mention that he stopped keeping monkeys because they didn't like the cold climate, but if so, it must have been after 1746, because between July 1742 and December 1746, there are several expenses for the feeding and keeping of the "royal monkeys", who had their own keeper called Hillebrandt (who seems to have been responsible for the fires as well, at least he's called a "Stubenhitzer" in one entry).

From:

luzula

Hi salon, I have not kept up with you, but I thought I'd come by and tell you what 18th century stuff I've read. I finally found a good dictation program, so I don't have to hurt my hands by typing anymore! \o/

Britain’s Lost Revolution, by Daniel Szechi (2015)
I was fascinated by the stuff in his other book about how Jacobite policies rapidly became less and less about autocratic kings and more and more about guaranteeing the power of parliament. This book goes deeper into how that shift happened in the early 1700s, and about the failed Jacobite rising of 1708. Apparently the author has dug deep into French archives, so there's a lot about the diplomatic maneuvering between the French court, the Jacobite court, and their British supporters. Queen Mary of Modena seems to have been a skilful politician. It also goes through the important actors in the French court at that time and the motivations of the French as regards the Jacobites. It also has more on Anne Errol, the competent conspirator.

I am currently reading the novel Clementina, by A E W Mason, from 1901. It is a fictionalized version of how James III’s bride Clementina was arrested by the Holy Roman Empire on her way to Italy, and then rescued by a guy called Charles Wogan and three fellow officers of the Irish brigade. I almost stopped reading the book in the beginning when a woman was described as a childlike and fragile flower, because I hate that sort of thing, but I kept reading and luckily it turned out this was unreliable narration and she was an enemy spy. So far the book is about half swashbuckling and half tragically falling in love with the wrong person. It is perhaps not great literature but I'm enjoying it so far. I am grateful to salon for enabling me to understand the offhand references to Sophia Dorothea and Königsmarck. (ETA: Also, it's kind of weird how BPC’s lover Clementina Walkinshaw was actually named after his mother! Apparently there was a trend of Jacobites naming their daughters Clementina around the time when James III got married.)

I also wanted to thank Mildred for digging up that 1740s British parliament act where among other things they attainted the Stuarts (my dictation program cannot spell attainted, or it could not the first time, and learned it the second time! \o/). I am currently writing a story where one of the plotlines is that BPC gets captured at the end of the 45 when he's just about to escape to France, and then executed. I figure he can get to go out in a blaze of glory and hold a defiant speech and martyr himself, instead of slowly descending into abusive alcoholism... The only thing I wonder is whether he would get his head chopped off like a peer, or be treated like a commoner and get the scaffold.

Hmm, what else? I read about 1/3 of Christopher Hill's The World Turned Upside Down, from 1972, about radicals in the English Civil War, before it had to be returned to the library. But that's 17th century. : )

Edited Date: 2022-01-24 06:50 pm (UTC)

From:

felis

In the comments on one of Mildred's journal posts, the topic of a historical podcast called "Bad Gays" came up and since Mildred mentioned that the blurb for their Fritz episode had several big mistakes in only 50 words, I got curious and listened to it. Which turned out to be rather entertaining, but not for the reasons they envisioned I'm sure. Mildred requested that I reproduce my (slightly edited) comment here:

I think the thing that baffled me the most was the insistence that Sanssouci is pink. When I read the blurb I naturally thought it was talking about the Palais, which, yes, arguably pink, but no, the "historian" in the podcast insists that Sanssouci is "pink, pink, pink". Five SECONDS of googling will show you what utter horseshit that is, even if you've never heard of the most iconic YELLOW Hohenzollern castle. Man. Save for some chairs, it's not even pink on the inside (even though he insists on that as well)!

The thing that probably baffled AW and Heinrich most: FW didn't execute Fritz in 1730 because a) it would have "looked too bad", and b) there were no younger brothers to carry on the bloodline.

AW and Heinrich: *baffled*
Ferdinand: You know, I'm kind of used to this.

The thing that might baffle Fritz the most (apart from the Sanssouci blunder): "Like many gay men, he was attracted to a certain kind of powerful woman, that's why he wanted to marry Empress regent Maria Theresia in the early 1730s." . . . Yep.

And the thing that might baffle Biche the most: Fritz rode into battle holding his greyhounds. When I was going to sleep, I realized where that bit must have come from: the Fritz-and-Biche-almost-get-caught anecdote and the iconic illustration where he's holding her while hiding under a bridge. But still, that's quite the leap to "in battle".

OH, also! FW personally held Fritz' eyes open when Katte was executed. No Peter in this, the boyfriends mentioned are Katte (naturally), Algarotti (the orgasm poem gets read in full at the very beginning), and Fredersdorf (who had a "pretty face", as Fritz wrote in his diary (Fritz, you have been holding out on us! Where's this diary? (Lehndorff? Who is that?))). Which is at least a decent selection I guess, something for everyone. :P

From:

cahn

The mod of the Five Figure Fanwork Exchange just contacted me to ask to mention to you guys that there's a pinch hit for the (#74 here) for 18th-C RPF -- Alley_Skywalker, in fact! I haven't paid close attention to how fffx works, but I think the idea is to write and be gifted 10k words, either in one 10k fic or two 5k fics.

Because this is Alley_Skywalker, they're asking for Peter III-ish characters, but not necessarily Peter, as it turns out -- either Peter/Brockdorff (for the Catherine miniseries -- they got this fic at Yuletide ; asked for 5k or 10k) or Brockdorff/Gudovich for 18th-C RPF (asked for 10k only). (A_S's notes on Brockdorff and Gudovich, Peter's chamberlains, are here.)

Pinch hits are due Feb 12 though there's probably some leeway. I did tell them that it was unlikely we'd be super helpful this round, but even if that's so, maybe it's worth reading some to potentially poke at it for future rounds, since Alley_Skywalker seems to be very fond of these characters? (I know salon isn't quite as interested in Peter III in general, but I know

selenak learned about Catherine for Yuletide last year,

mildred_of_midgard and I wanted to learn more about Catherine, and I'm rather interested in chamberlain loyalty trope anyway :PP )

Mod also asked if we knew of any good resources on Peter III (for, I think, the purposes of mod possibly having to take the pinch hit themselves :( ) -- I pointed them towards Massie's Catherine bio as the closest thing I knew about (and I might go poke at that myself). Any thoughts there?

selenak, what did you read for your Yuletide fic, I've forgotten?

From:

mildred_of_midgard

You may or may not remember, it's been so long, but when I acquired a copy of Wilhelmine's Italy travel diary in French (the restricted section has the German translation), it came with a hundred or so pages of letters that had at the time of publication (late 19th century) not yet been published. Since then, some of them have made it onto the website documenting Wilhelmine's Italy trip, but since most of the letter in this book are from the Seven Years' War, many of them are not on that site.

Whether or not they're in Volz or anywhere else, I cannot say. But I've finally gotten them Google translated and uploaded here, so we can find out. I haven't read them yet, but just from preparing the translation, I can tell you that the editor is VERY emotional. She fangirls Fritz and Wilhelmine like there's no tomorrow, with words like "noble," tragic," and even "sacred." Opinions on their contemporaries are about what you'd expect, given that.

The original scan, complete with facsimiles, is here. A handful of the pages, especially the facsimiles, are upside down, because my scanner gets confused easily. If that's a problem for anyone, I can easily fix it.

From:

cahn

So, uh, I am watching Ekaterina now. For possible Reasons. (For possible Reasons, I may be a bit scarce for several weeks except for posting about this :P But maybe not. I haven't committed to anything. :P )

selenak, I know you are super swamped right now but um so due to those links Mildred so kindly found for me, I see there ARE English subbed versions available here for those of us whom Amazon Prime is not letting watch because of their super weird and annoying country restrictions. (I would love it if you could watch! Though I absolutely understand being super swamped.) Note that they're not quite in order so I thought at first 1x01 didn't exist, but it does :)

What I don't have is a) time, or quite frankly the patience with TV, to dedicate to watching this, so as usual I'm watching it while washing dishes or doing laundry or whatever; and b) more than tangential knowledge as to what's going on. (Although WOW I can't imagine watching this without at least the tangential knowledge I got from salon! I would be even more completely lost.) So I'm actually lost quite a lot of the time, even if it could be a lot worse.

I was going to say that in particular, in 1x01, I don't really understand the marriage negotiations. (This... is... the story of my life, not understanding marriage negotiations? :) ) Elizaveta (I think?) wants Peter to marry Anhalt!Sophie... why? Peter wants to marry...anyone but Anhalt!Sophie, because she's bossy? Fritz doesn't want Peter to marry Anhalt!Sophie... why? --And then I looked up wiki and it looks like I don't understand it because it is actually kind of complicated :P I think I might... give Peter the Great a rest for a bit (although I'm really happy I have read as much as I have beause it's given me context I didn't have before) and skip to Massie's Catherine, because at least I think Massie can describe things in a way where I'll vaguely understand what's going on, even if it's partially incorrect and he doesn't like (P)Russian!Pete :P

Random reactions:

-Can I just say that in my head she's Anhalt!Sophie, and everyone calling her Princess Friederike is super throwing me off.

-I would not have noticed had Alley not written their shipping manifesto on Peter/Brockdorff, but it really is true that Brockdorff is almost literally everywhere Peter is. Also at the end of the first episode Friederike and Peter and Brockdorff are all eating together?? Can it really be historical practice for the heir to the throne to dine (solely) with his fiance and his chamberlain?? ~~even if it's what Fritz does~~

-although I guess Lehndorff is always talking about supping with the princes and so on, so I guess it's a thing?

-Speaking of Fritz, I am laughing about how many times they have Peter refer to Fritz, lol forever.

-Also speaking of Fritz, I was like "who is this old Prussian dude with dogs? Wait... that's FRITZ?!" IDK, it didn't fit any of my mental images of him! And was he that old? (*looks up* He was not that old!)

From:

cahn

So I'm, uh, reading this now. I haven't yet got to the part where the Lestocq affair is elucidated, but I have comments anyway :) (Actually, I have way more comments about this one than I do about Peter the Great, because I know much less about that era :P )

Ch 1:
[Johanna] did not nurse or caress her daughter... One explanation may be that the process of childbirth nearly cost Johanna her life.

You think?! Maybe?? I give you guys credit that whenever a male historian opines about a woman's dastardly motivations, I'm now automatically "...Or maybe it's that she was a WOMAN. In the 18th century." Maybe she had PPD! I'm not doubting she was terrible to Sophie, and I'm not even doubting that Sophie not being a boy had a lot to do with it, but, like, one's first childbirth can be a pretty awful time even without PPD, and with PPD does a huge number on your brain. I didn't have PPD and may have given my kid over to nurses anyway for a while too (though to be fair I took her back) (also to be fair I had an epidural, omg)

[Catherine] realized that people preferred to talk rather than listen and to talk about themselves rather than anything else.

Hee, Dale Carnegie a couple hundred years before his time!

Attempting to find some release, she sat up in bed, placed a hard pillow between her legs, and, astride an imaginary horse, 'galloped until I was quite worn out.'

...I mean, presumably one of you told me that Catherine's memoirs contained a description of her teenage masturbation, but somehow I forgot?? This was a different age, for sure! :P :D

Romance with Uncle George: I always thought this was creepy; Massie seems to think it was just one of those things, unremarkable except that if she'd married him she wouldn't have become Catherine the Great.

Ch 3 (I don't have anything to say about Ch 2)

Frederick had been a dreamy, delicate boy, often beaten by his father, King Frederick William I, for being unmanly. As an adolescent, he wore his hair in long curls hanging down to his waist, and costumed himself in embroidered velvet. He read French writers, wrote French poetry, and performed chamber music on the violin, the harpsichord, and the flute. (The flute was a lifelong passion; he wrote more than a hundred flute sonatas and concerti.) At twenty-five, [Fritz] accepted his royal destiny and took command of an infantry regiment.

...I know this isn't a Fritz biography, but woooooow way to bury the lede on this one, Massie! (There is no mention before or after this passage of foiled escapes, Katte, or executions.)

Also, is Massie implying that Fritz also played the violin and harpsichord, or is he just saying that he performed chamber music with someone else (Heinrich and Amalie?) playing them? (I would usually read such a phrase as the former, but that surprised me -- I assume he means the latter actually?)

I see now the bit where Fritz and France are working together pro-Sophia, though if Massie explains why France cares I have missed it or haven't gotten to it yet. (He explains why Fritz cares, as

selenak explained earlier.)

Ch 4
okay, Elizaveta is pretty cool
(except for the poor Brunswicks, omg)

Ch 5
I think we can all agree that regardless of what Peter III actually was like, his childhood sucked, poor kid!

But I still don't understand why Elizaveta chose Sophia for his wife. Massie seems to imply that it's because she felt like they were family because her dead fiance was Johanna's brother, but that seems like a pretty shaky reason. He refers briefly to it being a "good political marriage," but I don't really know why yet, and I'm not sure Massie's actually going to tell me. But maybe he will!

Ch 7
Ah -- this incident of Sophia getting pneunomia was what was turned into the poisoning in Ekaterina (and I assume smooshed with the Lestocq affair, which I haven't gotten to yet).

Okay, I will go watch more now (well, tomorrow) and then read more Massie...

From:

selenak

So, at fail fandom anon, they have this "am I the asshole?" meme where a fictional (usually emotionally clueless) character asks this question in universe. I thought this was made for the Hohenzollern (and many of their social circle), so, here we go:

I, m34, was just trying to look out for my bratty younger sibling, m20 - there's this ~~hot~~ guy, total prick tease, whom the brat is swooning about. I might have said the guy has STD and made fun of his everything, and now the brat isn't talking to me anymore, when I was just being concerned for his health! AITA?

I, f55, always wanted the best for my children, especially when it came to their marriages. Now my oldest daughter looks at me as if I'm a madwoman just because I told her she should treat her new husband like her brother and not have sex with him so we can still annul this wretched marriage she should never have agreed to in the first place! She knows how much this means to me, and yet she betrayed me this way, she should be grateful I'm still talking to her at all! AITA?

I should have known this would happen, but: here I am, making some money on the side while providing heroic beta-reading services and writing my own stuff and defending an unfairly attacked guy against a shitstorm - and what happens? The guy who's been hitting on me for 16 years before I finally agreed to move in with him all of a sudden leads the shitstorm, attacks me while he's at it, burns my latest masterpiece and has me arrested while complaining to all our mutual friends that IATA!!!!!

So here I, m, am, having a long term affair with the love of my life (m), procreating in my marriage (with f), having an affair with a bimbo (f) on the side, and mentoring this guy who has admittedly exciting future job prospects in my non existant spare time - and then that utter bastard first has sex with the bimbo, then, when I complain about it, dumps me as an mentor! I'll never get over it! His mother totally agrees with me, but the jerk still refuses to apologize - I don't need to ask whether AITA, because I know I'm not!

Edited Date: 2022-02-08 09:24 am (UTC)

From:

selenak

By now, I've read - well, more like browsed through - both MacKay biographies, the Eugene one and the Great Elector one. Alas, he's just not a good storyteller. (Say about Nancy G. what you want, but she can tell a story.) I was prepared to give him some leaveway for Eugene since he emphasizes most of the private correspondence has been lost, so you're left with political letters and what various envoys say about him. But having read two F1 biographies and Sophie's letter last year, I know there's some juicy stuff to be told in the Great Elector's life, and a more entertaining way to do it. (I just can't call him Friedrich Wilhelm, that's too confusing, though he's completely to blame fo rthe endless variations of later generations of Hohenzollern being named Friedrich, Wilhelm or both). Also, MacKay is given to absolute claims without backing it up. I mean, when the Elector's first wife dies and he remarries Dorothea the founder of the Schwedt line, our author tells us that while Dorothea didn't have Henrietta's intelligence or charm, the Elector was likely happier with her, since she was more fun and Henrietta was so serious. He does not back this up with a quote, either from the Elector himself or from an envoy. (For what it's worth, the impression I had from the two F1 biopgrahies was that the Elector had two good marriages - more than most royals got in the era - in terms of how he related to the wives and they to him; that the second one had a bad effect on his relationships with his children from the first was mostly on him and would have married with any wife unless he'd have remarried one who wasn't interested in fighting for her childern's inheritance and/or didn't produce children with him.

McKay sums up the Elector's relationships with the first marriage children was "loved "Charles Emmanuel" - it startled to find Karl Emil in this form -, didn't think much of future F1, nor did the French envoy, then Ludwig dies and F1's paranoia goes through the roof, but he was fab with the children of the second marriage. And that's it. There are no human details, either good or bad, like there had been in the F1 biographies - good, that the Elector in his "how to teach my sons" instructions wanted them to learn geography via interesting stories about the places in question, for example, and bad, the way he treated both the not Karl Emil sons once Karl Emil was dead, including the refusal to visit the dying Ludwig, which was too much even for the Team Dorothea French envoy. There's a lot of family drama here, and hardly anything makes it into the biography. It's not even mentioned that future F1 being humpbacked and having inverted legs was one big reason why his father didn't think much of him even before Karl Emil died. And we don't learn much about Henrietta other than her being an heiress, well read and "serious" - such details like her being appalled at Danckelmann's Severus-Snape-like teaching style and argueing that gentleness - douceur - is better for children than harsh shoutings just don't exist, and so no one comes to life there. (Same with Dorothea.)

Instead, you have a lot about the various mlitary compaigns and treaties, which without previous human investment isn't where my interest lies. What McKay does get across well is how deeply his 30 Years War childhood and youth imprinted on the Elector (remember, he spent most of his childhood in Küstrin, spelled Polish Kosztryn in this book), and how consequently he saw "defense of the Protestant Faith" as his great mission in life, and consequently deeply distrusted the Habsburg Emperors. Because Richelieu and Mazarin had both allied France with the Protestants against the Habsburgs in that war, the Elector teaming up with Louis was a natural follow-up, though once Louis started to kick out Huguenots, it led to some massive rethinking on the Elector's part. He also was flexible enough in his alliances as needs must, and build up a standing army so that being at the mercy of other people's armies would not happen again, which is one reason why Brandenburg started out as impoverished and ravaged as all the German principalities after the most devasting war in Europe before the 20th century and ended up as the most important Electorate in the HRE. But McKay points out that the only city within the Electorate who really benefited from the Elctor's rule was Berlin - Berlin and Cölln, two towns, became one under his rule -, whereas all the others both in Brandenburg and the duchy of Prussia (for which the Elector swore homage to both the Poles and the Swedes at different points of his alliances) went downhill, especially Königsberg. This was partly because the Elector couldn't tax his nobles for all the rebuilding of the devastated country, so the cities and the peasants bore the brunt of it, but also for religious reasons - Königsberg folk were Lutheran Protestants, and the Elector was a Calvinist. (Who didn't see the Lutherans as as bad as the Catholics, but two thirds of his household and administration officials were all Calvinists, which in a mainly Lutheran realm (especially before the Huguenots arrived from France) isn't exactly representative. There was much mutual suspicion, and one rebellious Königsberg guy tortured to death on the wheel.

Mostly, though, I'm frustrated, because the biography doesn't manage (in my mind) to make the Elector come alive as a human being, nor anyone else in his surroundings. I might have to try Hohenzollern anti Jürgen Luh's biography for that one.

Edited Date: 2022-02-09 01:16 pm (UTC)

From:

selenak

I, m, am a busy CEO responsible for two previously hostile entities who also fights the forces of darkness (who mostly show up in female form) and initializes high stakes translation projects; you'd think my family gives me a break and realizes I need to relax now and then. But instead, my daughter and son-in-law manage to utterly screw up professionally and now want me to bail them out! If you marry off your daughter, you expect that to be the end of the expense, right? Maybe I went a bit over the top with making it clear she can't come home again and if she tries, I'll lock her up, but hey, she's so stubborn that you need to make things crystal clear? Or AITA?

I, f, loving mother and heartbroken widow, only ever wanted what's best for my children, which clearly is to always listen to me, follow the One true CATHOLIC Religion and be exactly like their late sainted Dad. But for some reason, they can't seem to listen. My oldest never listens, he makes oh-so-clever quips instead. I seem to make progress with my seoond boy, religion-wise, but OMG oldest is such a bad role model about having sex with the wrong people! And my youngest son dares to pretend he knows better what his sainted father would have wanted, just because he was there before my late husband joined the martyrs! Now he's sick, but I'm refusing to see him. I mean, his soul is at stake, and if I hold out, he might convert at the last minute! Or AITA?

Look, I, m, believe in live and let live. (And in not going on my travels again. Had enough of that to last a life time.) Why can't everyone else around me be more chill? Instead, my wife refuses to employ my girlfriend, my girlfriend won't budge and accept another office, my brother is set on a course to piss off everyone (he WILL go on his travels again), and my oldest kid shows signs of wanting my job which is just not on, sorry to say. And don't get me started about Mom (thank God she's living abroad). What am I doing wrong? AITA?

Okay, so maybe telling my oldest daughter her hubby is cheating on her wasn't the most tactful move, but how was I to know she and my wretched son-in-law would initialize a hostile takeover of the family enterprise? I'm the most put upon member of my family. First, Big Bro makes me marry the girl I had sex with just because she was pregnant and her Dad works for him, then everyone gets on my case for following The One True Religion, then, when it finally looks like years of selfless restraint will play off in the long term and I'll get the top job, plus I get a young and hot wife I really like for a change, this uppity kid Big Bro produced starts getting delusions of grandeur. So I did what every sensible CEO would, and now everyone whines because the executioner fucked up, but hey, that's not my fault, is it? Not to mention the business with my oldest daughter and wretched son-in-law, who, I'll have you know, were playing footsies with the kid before I dealt with him, so really, my daughter should beg for my forgiveness, not complain about my marital advice! I ask you: am I a martyr or AITA?

From:

selenak

Which I read so you don't have to. Karin F-P has written about most of Fritz' sisters in addition to his mother, but she gets bad reviews by the more Prussian-versed parts of the internet, and after reading the book, I know why. No footnotes, and lots of speculation presented as fact. For example: she imagines little SD and future G2 scared by no one explaining to them what happened to their mother - fair, we don't actually know no one explained anything to the kids, but it's at least very possible - and then declares no one loved the kids at all in their childhood, because Dad could not (due to the bad marriage) and Grandma Sophie clearly prefered the Prussian grandson, FW, so always kept a distance to little SD and future G2 because she could not get over her dislike of their other grandmother (the mistress her brother-in-law had married) and SD the older. This is quite a claim, but she doesn't back it up with any quotes. At all. She just presents it as fact.

(A chapter later, she does quote some Grandma Sophie gushing about child FW, but claims this is representative for Sophie being blind to FW's faults for the rest of her life. Lady, I've read the letters. She did hear about his temper as he grew older, and tried to help, tactfully, but she did try. (It's not her fault the "Eugene as role model" approach did not work.)

Now, leaving Sophie's emotions aside for a moment, presumably SD and G2, like their offspring, had governors and nurses and servants. This doesn't have to mean they were loved by the staff, maybe the stuff was utterly indiffernent or hated their guts, but before making such a general claim as "weren't loved in their childhood and youth at all", I would like to have the possibility discusseed. As for Sophie: like I said, I've read the letters. One of the earliest to SD after her marriage describes G1 and says, paraphrased, see, I told you your Dad does love you, even if he has difficulties showing it, I knew you were concerned re: that, which is why I'm telling you now - he does love you". If Sophie noticed how young SD worried re: Dad, she didn't just raise her froma distance. She also sounds consistently affectionate in her letters herself. Oh, and K F-P accuses her of not writing a single word to SD re: SD's first dead child. Now, she might not have mentioned it in the very next letter - presumably because she did not yet have the news - but she did write plenty to SD about her dead children in later letters, asking for copies of the portraits of the babies which SD had made.

That kind of sloppiness continues. Presumably because sources on SD after Fritz became King are way rarer than before, we get an entire chapter devoted to the AW/Sophie von Pannwitz (later Voß) saga, despite the fact the author herself admits we have no idea whether SD even noticed the entire matter (there's nothing in the memoirs of Madame de Voß to indicate she did), and in said chapter, we learn Wilhelmine made up the story about FW hitting on Fräulein von Pannwitz and getting punched because little Sophie was just a toddler in 1733. Except that Wilhelmine never provides us with a first name for the lady (hence us first assuming it was the wife when it was the sister of Katte's commander) in the memoirs and definitely doesn't give any other indication that she means AW's crush. (If news about said crush even made it to Bayreuth.)

On the Clement/Klement saga, she's only read Pöllnitz and Wilhelmine and thus confidently informs us that not only was Klement the illegitimate son of Philippe d'Orleans the Regent but that this mysterious affair never was REALLY cleared up. Sure, the guy admitted that he made it all up for cash and influence, but that can't be the truth, so maybe it was SD behind the scenes, sponsoring Klement, trying to get rid of her enemies Grumbkow & Dessauer this way. (Now there's a theory I hadn't heard before and which not even FW came up with!)

Gundling: he had two sides, serious, even impressive scholar, and alcoholic, being a weak character, and thus a target for everyone's "rough pranks" including FW's. But FW having him buried in a vine barrel is clearly a false legend, because FW would never.

(The book was published in 2014. She has no excuse, unlike 19th century FW defenders without access to a) Stratemann's reports on Gundling's funeral, and b) the letters of a Pastor about his pleading with FW not to do this and all the pastors' refusal to go along with this.)

A more interesting and vaguely plausible theory of hers is how the SD/Dessauer feud started. Our author thinks that in addition to FW worrying because of SD's mother, ~~Old~~ Young Dessauer is to blame for young FW in his first few years of marriage being paranoid that his Fiekchen might be cheating on him. Dessauer's motive? He was against the FW/SD marriage, wanting FW to marry one of his sisters instead, and for as long as SD and FW had no living son hoped to influence his buddy to the point where the marriage would be dissolved. Here, we even get a quote, of SD decades later when hearing Old Dessauer had snuffed it; she writes to Fritz she's only sorry he didn't die 20 yeasr earlier.

Now, that's still pretty thin, but at least it's a bit more likely than "SD was the woman behind Klement!"

Something that's also not implausible: since the tone of SD's letters to FW changes from alarmed and begging when he is jealous shortly after the marriage to confident and playing on his emotions later on, our author concludes that once SD figured out that FW wants to be loved by his Fieke and his children and does not want to hear anything else, she goes with that, but still our author throws up her hands at SD's repeated assurances little Fritz is totally into the military and a super brave boy, because, says K F-P, she had to know that once FW is back from the Nordic War, and at the latest once Fritz becomes 7 and FW is in charge of his education, the truth will be exposed. Dear author, you just said it yourself - she figured out you do not tell FW anything but what he wants to hear as a marital survival technique early on!

However, I did manage to lodge a few new-to-us facts out of this unreliable mess, which come with letter quotes:

1.) Caroline sent Fritz a ring made of Amalie/Emily's hair (! not the older sister) when Fritz was 3 and the English marriage project was still considered a possibly good idea but the Hannover cousins.

2.) In the summer 1747, i.e. a year after the Marwitz affair, Heinrich discovers even dinner with Fritz is risky, for:

Fritz to SD, June 10th 1747: Yesterday, my brother Heinrich gave me quite a fright. We were at my vineyard, and in the evening, when we wanted to sit down at the table, suddenly a bit of the frame of a painting loosened and hit him on the head. Luckily, he only has a slight scratch, but my dear Mama, you may imagine how afraid for him I was.

SD to Fritz, June 12th, 1747: You, my dear son, have sent me the most beautiful fruit of the world, which taste delicious. I thank you a thousand times, also for informing me of the accident my son Heinrich has had. How fortunate that everything went so well. But my dear son, I am familiar with your good heart and all the kindness you show to him, and I have no doubt that you're taking care of him just like a father.

And this, mes amies, is why Heinrich never asked SD for help when things went beserk between him and Fritz. Not that K F-P says so. (She quotes the passage just to demonstrate SD and Fritz getting along fine when he's King, despite SD not having any say in politics.) Heinrich otherwise shows only briefly, described as ugly, as much into the military as FW, and "probably" gay, in any event not interested in his poor wife. Cultural interests of his aren't mentioned, but then, this is an SD biography, and kid No.13 really did not figure large into her life, not compared with the first borns. Anyway, behold SD, of all the people, writing without any irony or sarcasm that Fritz takes care of Heinrich just like a father. You can't make this people up.

Sidenote: though clearly Fritz expected her to care that Heinrich got hit on the head, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it, which proves she did pay some attention to the young 'uns.

3.) Charles XII (of Sweden)' Über minister Görtz briefly pursued the cunning plan of getting Prussia out of the anti Swedish alliance by offering marry Wilhelmine to Charles. Which is when six years old Wilhelmine wrote to Dad on April 29th, 1716: I take the liberty to urgently ask my dear Papa not to marry me to the King of Sweden, since I believe he does not love me and fear distress. When we know when my dear Papa finally returns, my brother and myself will receive him with trumpets like King David. Now, I think K F-P is probably right to conclude that letter was dictated by SD to her daughter, but otoh it amused me we have another indication Wilhelmine did want to be loved in marriage, despite this not being par the course for princesses. Also, the idea of a Wilhelmine/Charles match is... something.

4.) Another marriage project which never happened, this one initialized by Peter the Great in 1718: his niece Anna Ivanova (future Czarina and ice palace builder, at this point 25 and single) and Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg-Schwedt, nephew of Old Dessauer on his mother's side and of FW by being the son of FW's half brother. This is the Schwedt cousin who ends up married to poor Sophie (thus becoming Ferdinand's father-in-law), but in 1718, when SD is sent by FW to talk Old Dessauer's sister Johanna Charlotte (who is indeed designed as "die Markgräfin Philipp") into this match, Johanna Charlotte bursts into tears and says no way is her boy going to marry Anna Ivanova, the age gap is just too much... but how about him/Wilhelmine instead?

SD: ....
FW: That's actually a great idea! I'll keep it in mind.
SD: NO SCHWEDT COUSINS FOR MY DAUGHTER EVER. BRITANNIA RULES THE WORLD.

Edited Date: 2022-02-11 05:30 pm (UTC)

From:

selenak

Mes amies, I've come across one of the nuttiest ocnspiracy books (historical-musical edition) I've ever read, "Mozart und seine Kaiser" by one Harke de Roos. Aside from the sheer entertainment theory of the bizarreness, of which more in a moment, it actually exhonorates Nancy Goldstone on one particular important point: she did have a source for the "Mimi showed Joseph Isabella's letters" claim, which unlike her de Roos mentions by name, to wit: Caroline Pichler's memoirs, Denkwürdigkeiten aus meinem Leben (to be found here.) Since Caroline Pichler was born in 1769, well after Isabella's death (and after Mimi supposedly showed the letters), I assume she heard about it second hand, and hence Derek Beales didn't regard it as inclusion worthy, but at least Nancy G. didn't make it up. Otoh Caroline Pichler's mother had been MT's maidservant and reader (she was the one cutting MT's hair after FS had died on her orders), so she does have some source plausibility. Naturally, I had to look up the passage in question, which comes in an overall portrait of Joseph after he's died. Ms Pichler narrates how he loved Isabella and was desperate after her death, but:

During (Isabella's) short life at (Joseph's) side, her heart had turned towards one above all others, one of his sisters, the beautiful Archduchess Christina, later governor of the Netherlands. With her, the dearly departed had created a bond of friendship, and had exchanged many letters with her in which she opened her heart and presented the true state of her emotions faithfully. Now, when Christina saw her beloved brother in the depths of despair, she, who knew best that he mourned for something which he in reality had never possessed, for Isabella's love, she considered it her duty out of compassion and a sense of justice to reveal the truth to the deceived man and thus moderate his fierce pain. She showed him the letters of the departed.
It turned out to be a mistake, an unfortunate idea, and it did not miss its target. Joseph saw his bleeding, devoted heart spurned, his high opinion of the departed destroyed. His tears for the lost one may have ceased, but embitterement and loathing against the entire female sex took hold in his breast, of which his better sense only excepted a few, while he saw the rest as mere dolls or objects of sensuality. Still, in later years he liked to visit some older ladies, a Princess Liechtenstein, a Kaunitz and others, and enjoyed talking to them, who were clever, well educated matrons.

(Older ladies: methinks here Caroline Pichler is going by her own impressions of the surviving princesses, who certainly were old by the time she was an adult. But Eleonore Liechtenstein and her sister Leopoldine Kaunitz were Joseph's own age. Two of the other princesses were about a decade older, I think, not sure about the fifth.)

Now, I'll tell you the convoluted and breathtaking theory de Roos developed based on this passage in a separate comment, and leave this one for us to debate the story itself. Caroline Pichler doesn't say who her source for this story was - her mother? The princesses? someone else? Viennese gossip? -, and she was of course a novelist by profession. Also, her memoirs appeared after her death, and I think Albert (Mimi's husband) published the slightly bowlderized version of Isabella's letters to his late wife before that point (i.e. no erotic references left, but it's clear whom Isabella loved and whom she didn't love), so Ms Pichler knowing about the letters per se is not proof the story is real. Otoh: she doesn't have a motive for invention. Her overall portrait of Joseph is positive, btw, and her own biography makes her sound like an interesting woman.

Otoh: without looking it up again, I seem to recall positive references to Isabella in the letters written after their daughter died, which if Mimi showed the letters to Joseph in the year after Isabella's death would have been definitely after he knew. Mildred, queen of index, could you check the Beales pdfs for "Pichler", in case I have overlooked something, in a footnote maybe?

Edited Date: 2022-02-12 02:05 pm (UTC)

From:

selenak

Now, about the bonkers conspiracy theory book "Mozart and his Emperors". It came on my radar when I searched for Leopold biographies at the Stabi, and I thought, why not? And here's what our good author wants to sell:

- Leopold died a few weeks after Mozart; COINCIDENCE? not so! Both were murdered by their doctors at the behest of some Viennese aristos

- after Maria Christina showed Isabella's letters to Joseph, he started his demonic revenge quest to destroy the female sex by seducing and leaving them; he didn't even shy away from incest or almost incest, since he all but seduced Marie Antoinette when visiting Paris (proof: his later "would have totally married her if not my sister" comment, and Austrian envoy Mercy's report to MT about how galant and kind Joseph treated his sister) and surely seduced Elisabeth von Würtemberg as well (why else would she have been the favorite relation of his later years?)

- in case you didn't guess it now, Almaviva and Don Giovanni = both portraits of Joseph, whose list of conquests included both Constanze (= Zerlinetta) and her older sister Aloysia Weber (= Dona Anna; the Komtur is their father Fridolin, not Leopold Mozart) (proof for Joseph having a go at either woman: for Aloysia, the fact she was one of the main singers in Vienna, and Joseph with his interest in the theatre and opera and his ruthless womanzing ways therefore would have wanted her, and Constanze, well, there's that one Mozart letter from when they are engaged where he's upset with her joining in the tigh-measuring game, but that's all cryptic talk, because what really happened was clearly Joseph summoning her to him at the Hofburg

- Mozart first tried to avenge himself for the seduction of Constanze via Figaro's Wedding, but Joseph either didn't get it or didn't mind, he even had the opera performed repeatedly, so Mozart composed Don Giovanni to really bring the point home, and all of Vienna understood that Giovanni = Joseph

- why isn't a single reference to this in anyone's letters, memoirs etc? Because the contemporaries were THAT shocked by Mozart's audacity! Also, Mozart despite being on the musical revenge path did foresee one positive quality of Joseph's in the midst of all the bad, namely, that he faced his death without fear (Don Giovanni doesn't show fear, either)

- why does Lorenzo da Ponte, who wrote the libretti for both Figaro and Giovanni, not mention any of this in his memoirs, written decades later (and in the US, thus without having to fear any Habsburg retaliation), and on the contrary has a lot of praise in said memoirs for Joseph (and in fact writes way more about Joseph and Salieri than he writes about Mozart)? Because da Ponte clearly was an idiot. Mozart didn't tell him who was truly meant by Almaviva and Giovanni, and must have rewritten the libretto or inserted lines!

- Leopold was the ideal reformer, see Tuscany, and would have changed Austria and the HRE into a large scale Tuscany, which is why some nobles, fearing he would take all their privileges away, struck first; aided and abetted by a very old Kaunitz, who didn't forgive Leopold for firing him, err, accepting his resignation, and for allying with the Prussians

- Leopold = Tito in La Clemenza di Tito, obviously, and look! Mozart was already alert to Leopold assassination plots, carried out by supposed friends, as proven in this libretto (which he didn't write, but the librettists for Tito were just like da Ponte, clearly) , and so HE TOO HAD TO DIE!

Edited Date: 2022-02-12 02:09 pm (UTC)

From:

cahn

So I finished S1 of Ekaterina, and the corresponding chapters of Massie! I will keep going in Massie, not particularly motivated to keep going on Ektaterina at this point.

-I meant to comment on this when I watched it a week ago and the last week has just been... a thing: In Ekaterina, not only do they go with the line that Paul is probably Saltykov's kid (Saltykov himself, btw, comes off in TV canon as a kind of sweet architecture nerd, which is definitely not the impression I got from Massie, who describes him more as an ambitious playboy) -- though they do keep it a bit intentionally obtuse whose kid Paul is -- but also they have Elizaveta hinting extremely heavily to Ekaterina that she wants her to have a kid and she doesn't care that much whose kid it is and she should just find a father for the kid already. That was the other "Plot twist I totally didn't expect!!" moment I had with the series, besides the "Now you, Razumovsky, are the heir!" moment.

-Per

selenak's recent comment about legitimizing kids, they also have Elizaveta saying that if she has a kid by R. that she'll marry him publicly (as opposed to secretly) and legitimize the kid and make him her heir, etc. She was just reeeeally into trying to find some heir that wasn't Peter in the TV series!

-I guess I should go look up something else on Peter III so I can see a different account ~~not wholly based on the memoirs of his ex~~. Ekaterina may be nicer to him than Massie, but that... isn't saying much?

-Though even Massie had to admit that Peter actually did try when he was tsar. I mean, for a value of "try" that means "rather more clueless than Vienna!Joe." And Ekaterina, similarly, has him becoming a little less, hm, immature than he was at the start of the series. (Though I felt like he looked exactly the same even after putatively aging almost twenty years, which was a bit offputting.)

-Now, the person who does come across much better in Ekaterina (besides Razumovsky) is Liza/Elizabeth Vorontsova. Massie doesn't say much about her, to be fair, just repeats various people who answer "hot or not?" with "definitely not." But in Ekaterina I thought they both made Liza likeable (if in a certain awkward way that showed why not everyone did like her) and showed why Peter might be attracted to her. (Though I thought the show also pushed the explanation that Peter was bound to dislike anyone his aunt pushed on him, which... well, does make sense to me, although it seems like there were a lot of other reasons.)

-Massie's description of Catherine's coup is really compelling and honestly a LOT more dramatic than Ekaterina's "so Ekaterina was sort of caught up by events and then whoops! now she's the empress of All Russia" take on it. And I wish they'd showed more of what Massie was saying because I think it would have made really exciting TV. But I think they were really bending over backwards to make Catherine a sympathetic protagonist and I think that meant they didn't want to show her nakedly plotting or ambitious. (Even though Massie's version didn't really have her planning for a very long time -- but yes, realizing what was in the wind and planning before an order was given for her to be arrested!)

-Massie thinks Catherine didn't know that Peter was going to be killed. I know enough to know I shouldn't trust him to tell me everything :P (I also thought it was hilarious that he cites Henry II/Becket, because, uh. I realize that like everything else it is probably More Complicated Than That, but making me think of that historical parallel doesn't incline me to trust that Catherine didn't know!)

-Razumovsky continues to be my favorite! His plotline at the very end where he burns the marriage certificate and the will is awesome.

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.

Me: You are the only sane person on this show!

Edited Date: 2022-02-18 04:01 pm (UTC)

From:

selenak

I've now read both Jürgen Luh's biography of the Great Elector and the collection of essays (including one by Luh) published in 2020 when the Elector had his big anniversary, edited by Michael Rohrschneider, Michael Kaiser and Luh himself. The essays include one each on the two wives, Louise Henriette of Orange and Dorothea the mother of the Schwedt line, by female essayists, and one on the big father/son clash by our old acquaintance Frank Göse (good F1 biographer, somewhat partisan FW biographer). Luh's biography of the Elector is deconstructionist as is his want (see also: his Fritz biography), i.e. in many parts an argument with previous historians, but it does contain stuff I hadn't known or had overlooked before. The essay collection due to its variety of authors and different aspects is so far the best I've read on the topic of the Elector. (I'll keep calling him the Elector, because, as mentioned previously, "Friedrich Wilhelm" is just too confusing.

A few topics adressed of interest to yours truly (i.e. no campaigns, sorry, Mildred):

- childhood (seven years all in all) in Küstrin: was mostly perceived by young future Elector as dead boring and somewhat claustrophobic (well, it would! Küstrin the town was small and deeply provincial, and he wasn't often allowed to leave the fortress or it anyway because war). Future Elector hated Latin, wasn't a fast learner and had a temper. No prices for guessing these traits will show up further down the bloodline. That he refused to speak French, however, is a 19th century nationalistic legend. Documents at the time prove he spoke and wrote it. Not exactly on a native speaker level, but avarage for the nobility of his time. (Remember, this is before the Huguenots get into the country. No French nurses for little Elector.) Having now read my share of biographies, including the F1 ones, I feel confident to say the intellectual streak doesn't show oup in the Hohenzollern clan until Sophie Charlotte marries F1, and in no children before Wilhelmine and Fritz. The Elector and his own kids aren't stupid, don't get me wrong. And teenage future Elector, being sent to the Netherlands to study, gets acquainted with religious and political pamphlets there and spots their potential usefulness way before most German princes do. But reading for reading's sake and havng discussions with philiosphers is definitely something that Sophie Charlotte brought into the family.

- Because young Elector didn't have an abusive Dad trauma like Fritz did yet ended up The Great, old school Hohenzollern historians were fond of declaring he got toughened up by the 30 Years War instead, though he only perceived it at a distance, growing up. Luh doesn't think so, but then, he doesn't think either the Elector or Fritz are All That. He will concede it left Young Elector with a massive chip on his shoulder, especially since Brandenburg and his father Georg Wilhelm were at everyone's mercy, with no cash and no army.

(Recall for

cahn: Georg Wilhelm wanted to remain neutral, for which there was zero chance. His wife, Young Elector's mother, was the sister of the ill fated Winter King (thus sister-in-law to Elizabeth Stuart the Winter Queen) , and his sister was married to Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden himself, "The Lion of the North". Gustav Adolf, as we call him in German, to his brother-in-law when Georg Wilhelm said "but I wanna remain neutral! I don't want to fight the Emperor!": "Was ist ds doch vo ein ding: neutralität? Ich verstehe es nicht". ("What Kind of thing is this 'neutrality'? I don#t understand it!") With the net result that part of the Mark Brandenburg was still under Swedish occupation when young Elector took over, and he had to pay homage to the King of Poland for the Duchy of Prussia, and then there was this:

Young Elector: Hey, fellow Protestant Princes of the HRE! Wow, that decades long war, am I right? Now, when this mess started, the highest ranking Protestant Prince of the HRE was the Prince Elector of the Palatine. Who got himself voted for as King of Bohemia instead of a Habsburg and lasted all of one winter. There's his oldest surviving son Karl Ludwig now, future Dad of Liselotte, but Elizabeth Stuart his mother hasn't managed yet to get the Electorate back for him, so clearly, there needs to be another leaderof the German Protestants. Which should be me! I'm an Elector and Protestant!

German Protestant Princes: You'e a Calvinist. Most of us are Lutheran. Like, for example, the Prince Elector of Saxony. Saxony is the birthplace of Protestantism, meaning, of Luther. Its Prince Elector was Luther's first protector back in the day. Yes, the Elector of Saxony should definitely be leader of the German Protestant Princes.

Young Elector: That's Calvinist discrimination, for which you'll be sorry. Not least when I marry the most important Protestant Princess of Europe. Hey, cousin Chistina of Sweden, how about it?
Christina, daughter of Gustav Adolf, sixteen years old: I'm a future bisexual icon, will be played by Greta Garbo, and have both a hot countess and a hot Catholic Cardinal in my erotic future. Way out of your league.
Young Elector: Hey, Christina's chancellor, Oxtierna, take my bribery money, think again.
Chancellor Oxtierna: Young man, I have enough income of my own not to need any money from foreign princes. Also, you don't offer nearly enough, no wonder with your poor country.

Young Elector: Grrrr. Argh. Okay. Life goals:
1.) Money, 2.) Standing Army, 3.) Respect #HohenzollernPriorities

Young Elector: Looking at the bridal market, the richest bride currently available seems to be Luise Henriette, sister to William II. of Orange.

Luise Henriette's mother: But I just managed to marry my son off into the Stuart family - he's married the oldest sister of future monarchs Charles and James, Mary. I don't know yet he'll die young and leave behind only one child, future William III who'll marry another Mary Stuart and become King of England. But I do know I love the sound of an English Double Marriage Project. Luise Henriette/Charles sounds like a dream pairing!

Luise Henriette's father: I somehow sense we start a karmic cycle here, but no. I'm fading fast, the English negotiations are taking forever, I'll give her to the Young Elector instead. At least we're related, and also he's spent some years in this country.

Luise Henreitte's mother: Young Elector sucks! He's ugly and pear-shaped!

Diary of a Dutch noble whose dead brother was engaged to LH when they were children and who therefore gets to hang out with the Orange family, reporting tihs family concersation with the insult and, has teen LH then say: I wish I was dead or a farmer, then I could take someone I know, who was to my taste and whom I could love!"

Marriage: proceeds. LH gets a dowry of 120.000 Reichstaler and jewelry worth an additional 60 0000 Gulden. Also, if her brother William II, who has just married into the Stuart family, dies without an heir, she inherits the House of Orange's possessions.

Elector: Now we're talking!

Jürgen Luh: The marriage was unhappy and didn't pick up until she produced Karl Emil, because their first baby died.
Cordula Bschoff: Not true. She mostly travelled with him before that, and wrote that she missed him when she did not. With those kind of put downs from her mother, of course she thought he was awful before the marriage! But once they lived togethe and got to know each other, things were okay. Unlike you, I emphasize that LH was very much into starting and leading model agricultural estates, like grandson FW (but without his temper), founded orphanages and schools left and right and in general they were a team at reabuilding Brandenburg. Which so needed rebuilding. That forms a bond!

Back to the Elector and the House of Orange, because that has Stuart crossover fun potential. As mentioned, William II dies young, and future Willliam III. is just a baby.

Elector: Hey, I totally should be this kid's guardian and regent! I would run the country for you, I'm just that generous and gifted.

Dutch people: We're starting to get suspicious of the House of Hohenzollern. Who do you think you are, Protestant Philippe D'Orleans? No way. The kid has his mother, his grandmother and his aunt, and also some staunchly Republican manly men to do the actual governiing. Stay away!

Fast forward to:

Adult William III: *meets the Elector's sons, future F1 and Ludwiig*

William III: Hey, Elector, me and Mary haven't produced a kid yet, so I was thinking... how about I adopt your boy Ludwig? You have an heir, Karl Emil, and a spare, F1, so you can give me Ludwig. I like Ludwig. And I was always told you have ambitions for your family get your hands on the Netherlands.

Elector: I do, but I am also incredibly insulted at the implication that MY SON, even if it's the son I care least about, should have another guardian than myself. No way!

William III: I'm serious about this, and to prove my honorable intentions, I'm making Ludwig honorary commander of a Dutch infantry regiment. Which even gives him additional income.

Elector: You're up to something else. No one likes Ludwig that much.

William III: I do like Ludwig, but I also want you to end your alliance with my arch enemy Louis XIV and start one with me.

Elector: I knew it! Also, no. Louis hasn't kicked out the Huguenots yet, so he and I are bffs.

Willliam III: I have just discoverd that my grandmother left a last will where she says that the male heir, which is me, should be the guardian of any male related prince he's related to by blood who is still a minor. Which is your son Ludwig. Send him over.

Elector: WTF? That will clearly only accounts for DUTCH PRINCES. I am his father, and you will never get him! Though feel free to leave him the Netherlands.

William: Fine.

Elector: Fine.

Ludwig: I die tragically at age 20 without having ruled anything. And with Dad refusing to see me. Should have gone with cousin William.

The Louise Henriette essay quotes the same letter of hers that the F1 biographies quote, where she says she doesn't want Danckelmann, aka Prussian Severus Snape, yell at Fritzchen but that kindness and gentleness is the way to go. There's also an extra essay on the family life, special emphasis on the first family, which has even more details. In many ways, the instructions of how to educate the princes from the Elector set the role model for future generations. We have the diary of Schwerin (many of the later names show up here, there's even a Lehndorff hanging out with Karl Emil later!). Schwerin was the governor, Danckelmann (Snape) the teacher of F1, Stephani the one of Karl Emil. Schwerin writes inhis diary:

At six I got the princes used to rise willingly and without complaints. (...) Then I knelt beside the princes to pray. (...)n At seven, Herr Stephani made the beginning with the Institutio, first with reading, (...) then with vocabulary and little questions from the catechism, then again with some reading, and then the prince (Karl Emil) is taught in the maps of Europe. After nine, the prince gets taught in writing, andn then until lunch in dancing. After lunch, the prince is allowed to spend the time until 2 with playing, but I have taken care to arrange it so that he only plays games where he learns something at the same time and which drill both his mind and his body. (...) From 2 to 3 o'clock, the prince writes; afterwards, he studies what is given to him until four, half to five or five. (...) At half to nine or nine I bring both princes to bed after having prayed with them once more.

"Playing" usually meant Karl Emil and "Fritzchen" playing with each other, and/or with Schwerin's children. Later when Karl Emil got older, he was also allowed to play chess with Dad. Unfortunately, though, Karl Emil turned out to hate Latin. And have temper trantrums. These led to the following events: with nine years, Tiny Terror Karl Emil hurt a page with bow and arrow, at Christmas 1668, he threatened a Kammerjunker with a gun, then he beat up his page, and in 1671, Karl Emil threatened a gentleman with a pistol.

He - and future F1, if he joined in - was immediately punished. Not with beatings, though. Punishments usually came in the form of the princes losing access to their toys and pets, which were taken away for a few days, and they got house arrest. When Karl Emil threatened Schwerin's daughter, Frau von Blumenthal, with a knife, said knife was broken apart in front of him and thrown out of the window. Moverover, both Karl Emil and future F1 were not allowed to visit their parents. F1 burst into tears and write immediately apologetic letters, Karl Emil needed three days until he asked pardon on his knees (and was admonished by the Elector for an hour), after which all was forgiven.

While the princes did live in a separate household from their parents, they saw them often, otherwise, and when friightening things happened, like a fire of the stables in 1665, they didn't calm down until Schwerin allowed them to go to Luise Henriette who comforted them, and remained with little F1 till he fell asleep. When Luise Henriette died, all three of her surviving sons - Karl Emil, F1 and Ludwig - would not stop crying, and Schwerin took them to his country seat Altlandsberg.

Edited Date: 2022-02-18 05:26 pm (UTC)

From:

selenak

The Elector, who all his life had bouts of depression which only got worse with the years, freely confessed he could not bear to be alone, and apparantly wasn't the type for mistresses, so he remarried within six months. Here's the interesting thing, though: Dorothea, his second Misses, was already 32 years old, and had been married and widowed as well. In the years of that first marriage, which had lasted 12 years (!), she had never become pregnant. Now, obviously at a time where women were primarily looked at to be fertile in any type of royal marriage, this is highly unusual, and shows the Elector really married for company rather than in the hope of additional children to secure the succession. Dorothea, btw, was a Schleswig-Holstein-Glücksburg. (Making her related to both Prince Philip, the late Duke of Edinburgh, and a great many other people,

cahn.) Both the writer of the essay about her and Jürgen Luh plead her case for having been a good wife and a good Duchess, joining her husband on campaigns, getting ihm out of his bouts of depressions (though not always), and as a former Lutheran (who had to convert when marrying) being popular with the majority Lutheran Brandenburg population. However, against all expectations, she did become pregnant, repeatedly, and most of her children survived. And once they were there, she wanted them to get equal portions of the heritage.

Neither writer thinks she poisoned anyone, but between the Elector's behaviour to his older sons alienating them (espeically F1) more and more, and his reaction when Sophie Charlotte got pregnant (reminder, it was the same Caroline would later have in England: declare it couldn't be his son's because said son was clearly impotent), and then the death of Ludwig, who unlilke F1 had never been sickly before, AND the big scandal at Versailles, it's really not surprising F1 jumped to certain conclusions. What I hadn't known before is that F1 was not the first to make assassination allegations. Because you see, the first few years of the Young Elector's governing years had been less than successful. Later, when he had achieved success, he rewrote history and declared this all to be the fault of the mighty minister Schwarzenberg whom he had inherited from Georg Wilhelm, and not only that, he claimed that Schwarzenberg had tried to kill him, and that he, the Elector, had caught and defeated the wannabe assassin sent by Schwarzenberg in his bedchamber. However, when the Elector told this tale (years after Schwarzenberg's death), no one called him paranoid or ridiculed him the way it happened with F1.

=> This was one paranoid family.

Now, Fritz and all the subsequent historians influenced by him declared the Great Elector the true founder of Prussia. This left them with having to explain why he did something every antiproductive to founding Prussia, to wit, make a will where it gets paritioned into tiny tiny principalities among his sons. If that will had been listened to as written, there would not have been any Prussia-as-a-German-power, never mind as a European superpower, and only by F1 going against it and settling with his half brothers so they'd get estates but only as his vassals did it happen. Fritz & Co. either blamed F1 for the Elector's last will (i.e. said that the Elector must have seen him as too weak to succeed him) or blamed Dorothea (subsequent historians), except for Leipnitz, who was a contemporary and famousl remarked the epitaph "Great" should be taken away from the Elector for that last will, showing himself acting backwards and not forward looking (as opposed to Leipnitz' bosses the electors of Hannover, who made primogeniture the law in Hannover, thus uniting the many Hannovrian principalities and making it a power just in time to take over Britain. Luh thinks what the Elector's will proves isn't just that he was depressed and angry (despite the sort of, kinda official reconciliation with son F1) but that this whole modern idea of the national state that began to emerge was indeed not in him. He thought, like the previous century, in dynasties, and that's where all the sons came in, plus he probably did regret he couldn't by pass F1 altogether and make Margrave Philip the main heir.

re: religious tolerance, the thing other than winning the battle of Fehbellin the Great Elector is famous for, Luh the deconstructionist points out this mainly meant "tolerance for Calvinists", i.e. while the Elector did make issue a declaration for toleration, all the examples quoted therein which were not to happen anymore were of Lutherans discriminating Calvinivists. Three quarters of his staff were Calvinisists, which was in ino way representative of his subjects. He actually had more Catholic subjects than he had Calvinist ones (before the big immigration of Huguenots), but he had laws to ensure the Catholics were not able to get in any administrative positions, like in England, because NO POPERY. However, between Brandenburg direly needing immigrants after the devastation of the Thirty Years War and the Elector needing more Calvinisits, those Huguenots truly were a gift from God (or rather from Louis) and changed Brandenburg & Prussia forever.

Edited Date: 2022-02-18 05:19 pm (UTC)

From:

selenak

Preface by Adam Wandruszka: Leopold is the coolest! I don't know why more people aren't stanning him. Smartest and most modern Habsburg ruler ever. Now I can't complain about the lack of attention my own biography of Leopold has received - I got lots of attention - but I'm so glad Helga Peham joins the cause of Leopold appreciation! May her book about our Leopold - he really writes "our" Leopold - also become successful and further the cause. Leopold Forever!

Main book: solid biogrophy with some double standard tendencies, but not many, and nothing in a big 19th century Fritz stan or Nancy Goldstone category. It does its job of presenting Leopold as very competent indeed, though I'm afraid I'm still not a fan, and I do have a suspicion as to why there are way more Joseph and MT biographies than there are Leopold ones, and no, it's not that he only got to rule the Empire for two years. (There are more Italian books about thim as Grand Duke of Tuscany than there are German ones, though.) But in order.

Leopold: born as the ninth kid of MT and FS in 1747. MT worked till shortly before labor, as was her want. This was when Austria was trying to get buddies with Russia, so Leopold was named Peter Leopold, Peter after Elizaveta's Dad, and Elizaveta herself was made his godmother. In Italy, he's still called Pietro Leopoldo for that reason, but the family only used "Leopold" when referring or addressing him. Like all his siblings, he got a tight teaching schedule and started out close with his next oldest brother, Karl. Karl alas died as a teen, and since Joseph was six years older and the next brother, Ferdinand, seven years or so younger, Leopold was never really close to a brother again. (Joseph thought he was close to Leopold. Leopold did not return the feeling.) He also had massive middle child syndrome. While most of his secret writings are about how Joseph sucks, there is some page time devoted to how everyone else sucks as well, including the sister he was closest to as an adult, Maria Christina (Mimi), and he's constantly frustrated that his mother doesn't appreciate him enough. Much as our author stans his competence, she does say with laudable openness in her opinion Leopold has a big case of sibling jealousy.

Now MT is to blame for some of her kids' jealousies in that she had clear favourites, and Leopold wasn't wrong about being the most competent ruler among her children. Certainly some, though not all, of his criticism of Joseph in particular was well founded. But when trying to decide why I feel very different about Leopold's "Joseph sucks, Mom sucks, Mimi sucks, everyone sucks but me!" than I do about Heinrich's life long "Fritz sucks!" complex, which he wasn't shy of voicing, either, I think the difference is that with Heinrich, a) Fritz gave him good cause for resentment over the decades, starting with the Marwitz affair and building up to the AW heartbreak, with a steady accompagnment of Fritz condemning him to a life on the leash and unable to use the gifts he had except in the 7 Years War and in the negotiations with Russia, whereas Leopold's big reasons for Joseph resentment were insistence of using FS' money for the war debts and the tactless criticism of his children late in Joseph's life, whlie Leopold had a rich fulfillled life as Grand Duke of Tuscany, able to do all those things Joseph could only dream of doing while Mom lived, and b) we have plenty of examples of Heinrich feeling positive about non-Fritz siblings (and, well, other people) . With Leopold, we have two letters to one of his mistresses as an example of his having a positive relationship with someone outside the family. While according to outsiders, his marriage was a good one, too, the biography doesn't quote any letters between him and wife (probably because they usually lived together) to make me warm up to that relationship. And while there are quotes from his letters to Maria Christina from the time they were allies (i.e. the decade of Joseph's rule and later), these are mostly either Joseph critique or policy matters, they don't give me the impression of Leopold caring about Mimi as a person, especially keeping in mind the quote about her from one of his "everyone sucks but me" writings. There's nothing comparable to Heinrich's relationships with AW and Ferdinand, is what I'm saying, over even his up and down stormy relationship wiht Amalie. Now I could have warmed up to Leopold the devoted Dad, because this biographer and, come to that, Beales the Joseph biographer, assume he was, but I'm told so in a tell, not show manner, without stories to illustrate him as a father.

Which leaves me with Leopold as something of a cold fish, and nothing to truly offset all the negativity. Again, it's not that he's not right when, say, responding to Joseph's offer to make him fellow regent in Joseph's last year of life by telling Maria Christina no way is he going to do that, because then he'll be held co-responsible for the mess the Empire is in and Joseph's failed reforms. Whereas when he swoops in after Joseph's death, he has a fresh start and a clean slate and can do a proper salvage operation. This is the right, the smart thing to do from a ruler pov. But at the same time, there is something chillling here when you read it with not an ounze of compassion for dying Joseph voiced (and of course Leopold carefully doesn't arrive in Vienna until Joseph is already dead, pretending sickness in order not to get there earlier). Or: he's correct in dragging his feet with Marie Antoinette, and "I may have a sister but Austria does not" is true, plus as his son Franz will find out when Austrian and Prussian armies do team up to invade France, everyone is in for a nasty surprise when it comes to revolutionary French armies. Plus Leopold and Marie Antoinette hadn't seen each other after her early childhood since he left Austria to rule Tuscany in the later 1760s. As opposed to Joseph, he never saw her as an adult. Of course there's no real human relationship there. But then you imagine the increasingly isolated woman in France who has only a short time to live and desperately needs help, and well, it's chilling. Leopold in general had no time for all the French emigrés who thought that hey, their Queen's brother's territory surely was an ideal sanctuary and regrouping and reconquering spot. They were anathema to him politically in their backwardsness; he still was a constitutionalist, after all, and the last thing he thought was desirable was bringing back the French monarch as it has been. So he was as distant and as unkind to them as he could be.

Again, here we have a difference to Heinrich who also remained a constitutionalist and was more in sympathy politically with the French Revolution than with the French emigrés - but who was personally kind and generous and offered his help to all the emigrés he came across, not just those who were hot counts, despite having far less money and power than Leopold did.

Now, as a ruler, Leopold undoubtedly kicked ass. He took over a backwards duchy which, as a reminder, had been run down by Cosimo the ultra bigot for fifty plus years, and Gian Gastone had changed the worst laws but had done notihng constructive to rebuild Tuscany while spending his rule in bed. And FS had only spent three months in Tuscany when taking it over and had mainly seen it as a personal revenue. Whereas Leopold moved there with his wife, and four visits to Vienna in the subsequent years not withstanding, remained there, being a model Duke. He got the economy going again, started a modern education program which also ended the church monopoly but not as radically (and church-infuriating) as Joseph did it back home, and had a modern constitution written for Tuscany, though he never implemented it. For this, our biographer blames Joseph, saying that since Joseph intended for Tuscany to join the Empire once either he or Leopold died, there was no point, and that as soon as Joseph was dead, Leopold immediately reestablished secundogeniture for Tuscany, makng his oldest son, future Emperor Franz, swear off his rights to Tuscany and appointing his second son, Ferdinand, as the next Duke... but he still didn't introduce the consitution into practice then. Also, while Leopold had abolished the death penalty in Tuscany early on, he reintroduced it as Emperor because there was a Tuscany uprising during his two years of Imperial rule, which he could not understand - hadn't he been a model Duke? And now they were turning against him?

Both Hungary and Belgium had been on the brink of revolt when Joseph died, and Leopold managed to calm everyone down, though that entailed handing privileges back to the Hungarian and Belgian nobility at the expense of the farmers, who were less than happy. Still, as the biographer said, it probably saved the monarchy at this point, and if he'd lived, he'd gotten around to improving the lives of the peasants, too. In Tuscany, he had made a gigantic improvement compared to most of the rest of Italy when making it law that mental illnesses are to be treated as illnesses, not demonic possessions, and by dismantling what had remained of the Inquisition since the Cosimo days for good. In the Empire, he steered a good middle way between soothing ruffled clerical feathers by reinstating school prayer and some church privileges but keeping such Josephinian reforms as the fact priests who taught at schools and universities had to qualify on an academic (non clerical level) first. He generally seems to have been on a good way to keep as much progress as was possible at the time and win over some of the forces of reaction (nobility, parts of the church) so they weren't such staunch obstacles anymore but more willing to work with him. But alas, death was waiting.

And now we're getting to a bit of double standard, which goes thusly:

Leopold, in his big anti Joseph rant: Joseph is into prostitutes and other lowly women, I just know it. Ugh.

Biographer: This big rant is as interesting in what it says about Leopold in what it says about Joseph, but he probably was mostly right.

Later:

Biographer: re: Leopold's private life: All his life, there was much gossip and people claimed he shagged everything that moved. That was clearly slander! One should not rely on hostile sources when it comes to people's sex lives.

Also:

Biographer: Leopold hated Joseph's despotism. He himself believed in the limitation of royal power and in a firm constitution, instead of one guy dictating from above what's good for everyone.

Self: With you so far.

Leopold, in one of the rants: And another thing, Joseph wants applause for all his "reforms" and that's why he's being "progressive" . He just wants to be told how wonderful he is!

Biographer, somewhat later: Leopold also believed in a good secret service. Within the country, that is, not abroad, i.e. spies telling him what people thought of him and his reforms. There was that time Marchese C. made fun of Leopold's many girlfriends, and before he knew it, he got orders not to stay in Florence but remain on his countryside estates, because Leopold's spies were that efficient. But that doesn't mean he was against criticism, per se!

You get the idea. But as I said, in general, it's mild case, and the biographer does not try to sell Leopold as flawless anyway.

Habsburg facts I hadn't known or had forgotten before:

On August 6th, 1753, one Chevalier Balde tries to assassinate MT. He slightly wounds the chamberlain in charge his sword and proceeds to the cabinet where MT is working with her cabinet secretary since early morning. At the noise of swords, she notices and withdraws to the cabinet of the Emperor. The chamberlain of Archduke Joseph, Marchese Poul, who has been chatting with some other nobles at a window in the Antichambre is alerted, hurries inside and overwhelms the wannabere assassin; with the help of some guards, he gets disarmed. He's declared to have acted in a bout of insanity, brought to a hospital and from there to the monastary Rein in Styria where he's nursed for his remaining life. This makes newspaper headlines, which is how we know about it, and I can't help but think it would have had a very different ending if that knd of thing had happened in FW's Berlin...

During the War of the Bavarian Succession, MT for the first time has Leopold (this is one of his four visits back home) read into some government business; she also keeps him updated to what's going on in the war. Presumably this is because despite the fact there was, in effect, no real battle in that war, there could have been, Leopold was Joseph's successor, and a scenario where he would have to take over in the event of Joseph dying was quite possible.

MT about 14 years old Leopold to his governor Franz Thurn who takes over from the previous guy:

There must not be (...) petty arguments, nor tauntings, neither physically nor in words. If one allows tauntings, all politeness disappears and one gets ashamed to say something endearing. You need to pay attention at this point. He's quite receptive for prejudice and he has a hard time giving it up, since he has a very high opinion of himself and doesn't like to ask for advice or to follow it. Leopold does have a generous , good and compassionate heart by nature. He is eager for knowledge and wants to learn more about abstract matters. He's quite adroit at doing his tasks, but he also has a false embarassment which damages him a lot. He seeks to accomplish his goals via tricks and short cuts you must not permit him to. I wish that he should come across more liberally, more open and more secure in his expression and attitude, less rough in his voice and pronnounciation, more winning in his behavior and vocabularily.

Leopold in his "everyone sucks but me!" rant, titled "stato della familiglia", about Joseph and youngest brother Max(imilian):

He loves Maximilian a lot and keeps distinguishing him, he does like him, because (Max) is completely at his disposal and does what he wants, with no expression and without ever talking back, and because (Joseph) sees that (Max) will always be a secondary human being and will never be as brilliant as to overshadow him or give him cause for jealousy, which is a vice (Joseph) keeps suffering from since he alone wants to be the one doing everything and who has all the honor.

(Our biographer points out this is massively unfair towards Max, who very much was his own man and talked back re: Joseph a lot later as Prince Elector of Cologne, and Leopold is probably doing a lot of projecting here.)

Leopold about Maria Christina in the same rant (and again, Mimi was actually the sister he was closest alligned to against Joseph): She chides everyone with great haughtiness aind indeed, despite the fact she's done some people favors, she's universally hated and feared, because she badmouths everyone and keeps telling on people to the Empress; and often she has caused injustice and disadvantages for many people. She's full of ambition and avarice, she always wants to be better served and distinguished than the rest of the family, she spends money in the name of the Empress and uses the Empress' servants as if they were her own, and she makes a big deal of how important her patronage could be to people. Outisde of the family, she interferes with state business and schemes (...) If she hates someone or distrusts him, she's capable of anything!

From:

selenak

And now have a excerpt of the big Joseph rant:

The Emperor has a lot of talent, ability and vivacity, he easily comprehends and has a good memory and has the gift of rethoric, since he can talk well and can express himself well in writing. (...)n But he's a harsh, violent man, full of ambition, who does everything and says everything in order to be praised and to make himself known in the world. He doesn't know hat he wants and is easily bored and isn't busy at all but hates work.

(Sidenote: Beales says that of all of Leopold's critique, this is most easily dismissed, because we have Joseph's daily schedules and more than enough paper proof that he kept them. He was a hard worker.)

He doesn't allow for resistance and is full of wild, spontanous princples and the strongest, most violent and harsh despotism.(...) He doesn't love anyone and only thinks of himself and doesn't give audiences and doesn't receive anyone other than when walking where his servants under everyone's eyes let all the lowest, most shameful and infamous peopole to him, where everyone passing can see in front of his door every day the most dirty whores and pimps since he's drawn to that kind of low and dirty women whom he pays very well. He actually believes this scum and based on their conversation is able to go up against everyone. (...)
Due to his character and taste he enjoys talking back no matter what one says and do everything what one doesn't want him to do, and to hurt everyone in small matters, and especially the Empress, and that's why they keep arguing with each other, and he always says angry things and threatens her with going away and giving up the co-regency and similar things.

As Helga Peham says, this is as telling about Leopold as it is about Joseph. Basically, the impression I had is that if there was one life long thought in Leopold, it was "It should have been me!" - not just that he should have had Joseph's job as the successor, co-regent, Emperor, but that he should have been the most loved, not one of many siblings - and that it ate him up that it just wasn't. That he was admired for his rule of Tuscany, that his own wife and children were devoted to him doesn't appear to have helped there, nor that Mimi teamed up wit him against Joseph in the later years. He still was seething.

As mentioned earlier, one of the few examples of Leopold sounding positive about someone comes in the two preserved letters to Olivia Raimondi, who was one of his mistresses, a dancer and the daughter of a Roman servant. We know a bit more about her than the others because a) she had a son from him, Luigi, and b) Leopold wanted her to come with him to Austria after Joseph's death. In Florence, he'd given a her a palace, and a list of the entire interior still exists, so we know Leopold was very generous there. So this is Leopold, trying to persuade his mistress to come with him to Austria (despite not speaking the language):

..Come freely and without fear to Vienna, and you will never receive slights there, you will be satisfied in all the points you've made to me, and I will have the happiness and the immense satifsfaction for me to have Livia and Luigi near me, two human beings to whom I owe so much and who are so near my heart. You may be sure that with no thought at nowhere in the world I will ever cause you grief again, and believe me, that I will always be thinking of the affection, friendship and devotion I love with you with and will love you till my death, as my dear and best Livia, for whom I am and will always be in devoted love your faihtful lover, I embrace you.

So she came. Bad decision. Not only did he have local lovers as well (such a Bohemian countess), but she didn't really like Vienna. So she planned to move back, which we know from the second letter of his that still exists ("Farewell! You believe you'll find pleasure, but maybe you willl find neither the calm nor the friendship you had with me!"), but then he died. Next thing you know, a servant shows up to fetch Luigi from Livia. She will never see him again. Instead, she gets ordered by Leopold's legal son Franz to leave the country, which she eventually does. Livia gets into written contact with her son many years later when he's an adult fighting against Napoleon. 42 letters from Luigi to his mother exist, and what we know about him comes from this letters. (He had the Habsburg fondness for music and spoke French, Italian, German and Bohemian.) But alas he died of pneumonia before they could reunite in person. One of the last things he wrote to was sending her a lock of hair from himself and asking her for more of her hair, because the lock she had already sent to him wasn't enough to make a ring of. And that's the story, basically.

So, in conclusion, why there's no large Leopold fandom,

selenak speculation: because, while he deserves all the accolades for his governing competence, he exudes as much human warmth and passion as a fridge. Joseph might have fucked up many of his relationships, but no one (other than Leopold) can deny he was passionate - in his attempt to create a reformed state, in his personal relationships. Yes, he and MT drove each other crazy, but they deeply cared about each other at the same time, and that makes the relationship compelling to write about. Ditto him and his few friends. Whereas Leopold had either relationships that were one sided (he/his siblings) or ones we don't have enough good material from to get invested in (him/his children and wife, and him/his mistresses) . There isn't enough of a human hook in Leopold to latch on to beyond his succesful Tuscany reforms, and while memoirists writing trashy tell alls bad mouthing everyone (or almost so) have fandoms of their own (and lots of study, see all the ink written about Wilhelmine's memoirs, say, or Liselotte's letters from Versailles) , Wilhelmine and Liselotte also have strong positive emotions along wiht the negatives in their written utterings, which you just don't get in those quotes from Leopold's secret "Everyone sucks me but me" memoranda. So there's no fannishness there, either.