![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnLast post, along with the usual 18th-century suspects, included the Ottonians; changing ideas of conception and women's sexual pleasure; Isabella of Parma (the one who fell in love, and vice versa, with her husband's sister); Henry IV and Bertha (and Henry's second wife divorcing him for "unspeakable sexual acts"). (Okay, Isabella of Parma was 18th century.)
Re: Leopold II
Date: 2022-11-28 09:40 am (UTC)Mind you, being a working monarch, she had a better excuse than other noble women/consorts of monarchs, not to mention the sheer number of kids. I think Pelham also misses out on one reason for the Big Family Public Picture, which wasn't exactly the post-Victorian "Royal/Imperial Family As Wholesome Model Family" idea of the mid 19th century onwards, but a demonstration of We Are A Big Sound Dynasty Of Many Marriable Members And Will Not Repeat Pragmatic Sanction Emergencies. I.e. MT herself and her sister had been the only surviving children of her father, her uncles had "only" produced a few daughters as well, and we all know how the Spanish Habsburgs had ended up. So within a 18th Century context, I see an important part of the image MT wanted to project was "Hey! No more sick, infertile Habsburgs! Lots of kids! Healthy! Of Sound Mind! A plus future monarchs! Because I'm that good!"
There's also the relative new territory of a female ruler who is a wife and mother at the same time. We already talked about the contradiction between "wifes should be subject to their husbands" (not just a thing for traditional Catholics but also most of the Enlightened Philosphers, though not all) and "being an absolute monarch and thus the ultimate authority", and how FS' unpopularity at the Viennese court after their marriage but before MT's ascension was to a great part caused by the expectation he'd rule through her because of the "natural" wife/husband relationship. Now, "being a mother is the highest calling any woman can have, and nothing and nobody should be more important to a woman than her children" is an even stronger (not just 18th century) dogma that goes into direct conflict with "a monarch should devote themselves foremost to the realm". Of the other contemporary female monarchs, Queen Anne (Stuart) had had lots of dead babies but no more living children by the time she became Queen and was widely seen as dominated by her favourites anyway, Anna Ivanova had no children, Anna Leopoldovna had children but was also seen as weak and in any event didn't reign long, and Elizabeth did not have children. Meaning that in that century, models of how to fulfill expectations of being a good monarch AND a good mother at the same time were none existant, but MT undoubtedly was aware that being seens as a BAD or neglectful mother (not bad parent! Specifically bad mother) would have been nearly as damaging to her reputation as being seen as a weak monarch.
All this said: would not have wanted to be a Habsburg kid any more than a Hohenzollern one. Well, if I had only these two to choose from, Habsburg, because FW, and a greater survival chance for my potential lovers as well as a greater chance to travel. But otherwise....
simply a rose-colored rephrasing of Cochrane's own assessment
I'm also reminded on our medieval podcast's version of young Henry IV's argument as to why he wants a divorce vs wikipedia's. They're not exactly different in content, but podcaster Dirk's phrasing makes Henry sound far more sympathetic. This said, it's of course always possible Peham has Wandruszka's take to back her up on her more Leopold-sympathetic phrasing, and I take it W. did a lot of original research.
Re: Leopold II
Date: 2022-11-28 05:43 pm (UTC)This does make sense!
Of the other contemporary female monarchs, Queen Anne (Stuart) had had lots of dead babies but no more living children by the time she became Queen and was widely seen as dominated by her favourites anyway, Anna Ivanova had no children, Anna Leopoldovna had children but was also seen as weak and in any event didn't reign long, and Elizabeth did not have children. Meaning that in that century, models of how to fulfill expectations of being a good monarch AND a good mother at the same time were none existant
Huh, yeah, that is a really good point. That makes me wonder how Isabella Farnese handled her childrearing. Because while she wasn't a reigning monarch in her own name, she was dominating her husband, or at least perceived as such, and she definitely had her share of living children. (*checks* Six.)
Mostly what she's remembered for is driving an aggressive foreign policy to acquire more territory for her children to inherit. If she was perceived as a "good mother" in other regards, I haven't run across it in my reading. But then I also haven't read a bio of her.
I'll keep an eye out for that, that's interesting.
MT undoubtedly was aware that being seens as a BAD or neglectful mother (not bad parent! Specifically bad mother) would have been nearly as damaging to her reputation as being seen as a weak monarch.
Yep!
All this said: would not have wanted to be a Habsburg kid any more than a Hohenzollern one. Well, if I had only these two to choose from, Habsburg, because FW, and a greater survival chance for my potential lovers as well as a greater chance to travel. But otherwise....
Lol, well, and for me, because FS seems to have been a clear win over SD, even if you're Fritz the favorite. In addition to being a more nurturing dad than MT was a mother (and of course having way more free time), he wasn't driving a marriage policy that meant it was impossible to please both parents and setting up a no-win game for everyone. And you didn't have a 50% chance of being born a gender that meant you would be on the receiving end of abuse from him that would result in a "which parent was worse?" argument with your siblings later in life.
So Habsburgs, but, Fritz and Wilhelmine were allowed to bond to individuals, which is key even if you have two decent parents.
And MT had the Countess Fuchs, that seems a bit hypocritical! I can see Leopold going, "Well, this is all I've ever known, that's how you raise kids," but what the heck, MT?! You had her buried in the Habsburg crypt!
I'm also reminded on our medieval podcast's version of young Henry IV's argument as to why he wants a divorce vs wikipedia's. They're not exactly different in content, but podcaster Dirk's phrasing makes Henry sound far more sympathetic.
That is a great analogy! Same facts, radically different interpretations.
This said, it's of course always possible Peham has Wandruszka's take to back her up on her more Leopold-sympathetic phrasing, and I take it W. did a lot of original research.
True, and that is why I would love to get my hands on Wandruszka! Cochrane relies primarily on W too, btw, which makes their opposite takes even more interesting. We know W is a fan, so Cochrane must be getting his darker spin on Leopold from other, probably Italian (he was an Italian Renaissance scholar) sources.
Also, Cochrane informed me that Leopold had "notebooks full of pungent barbs [at Joseph] in a code that remained unintelligible until Adam Wandruszka broke it in the 1960s." If you told us this, I had forgotten.
Curse out-of-print books!
Well, it took me something like six months, but I got my own copy of Kiekemal by searching regularly, and I will keep searching for Wandruszka.
Re: Leopold II
Date: 2022-11-29 05:24 pm (UTC)And Peham now informs me that that was the "Stato della Famiglia", the "in what ways my family sucks" document that we knew about. And she also says it was written in a "shorthand" that Leopold sometimes used and that Wandruszka figured out, allowing us to gain some insight into Leopold's head.
Interesting!
Re: Leopold II
Date: 2022-12-04 05:07 am (UTC)So this was both extremely informative, thank you! and also made me laugh out loud. Yes, MT, you have good genetics, excellent taste in whose genetics would match well with yours, excellent womb, good job! lol! <3
Meaning that in that century, models of how to fulfill expectations of being a good monarch AND a good mother at the same time were none existant, but MT undoubtedly was aware that being seens as a BAD or neglectful mother (not bad parent! Specifically bad mother) would have been nearly as damaging to her reputation as being seen as a weak monarch.
Oh gosh. That makes a lot of sense.