Was it really that impossible in 1857 Germany (Hamburg) to write about a Danish king being debauched and his sister having an affair, while apparently the Danes had no problem publishing these things in 1898 about their own king and princess?
Well, mid 19th century Germany isn't 18th century Germany anymore, it's Biedermeier Germany where even a shown ankle is scandalous, the fairy tale of Rapunzel has to be rewritten from the first edition (where it's textual that Rapunzel and her prince get busted because they have sex and she gets pregnant) to the third one (NO SEX! NO PREGNANCY! Though there are two kids mentioned much later), and Hohenzollern historians keep writing essays in which it's said FW would never have treated Gundling the way FW treated Gundling because Christian King, so yeah. Mind you, it obviously depends on the German state and writer even with the 19th century climate. Sex and scandalous reportings of past and present royalty are very much a thing for Heinrich Heine, though then again, Heine does live in Paris in exile for the second part of his life, though his publisher remains in Hamburg. But young Heine had this great page in his "Reisebilder":
German censors ----------------------- ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- -----------------idiots-------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------
What I'm getting at: Germany post Karlsbader Beschlüsse had press and book censorship in all German states, though how strictly it was applied varied from state to state. And after the 1848 revolution and failure of same, there was even more censorship. So I'm really not surprised a book published just four or so years after the failed revolution was extra careful in how it spoke of royals directly related to the German noble houses - I mean, the Oldenburgs were a German noble house themselves originally anyway, right?
Whereas I have no idea about the political situation in mid 19th century Denmark.
it's another historian repeating the claim that Louis was sleeping with girls young enough to be worth mentioning
Not surprising, considering all the pamphlets about the decadent sex lives of French royals making the rounds during and after the French revolution. Plus, let's face it, the rest of Europe in both the 18th and the 19th century will never be as interested in Danish scandals as they are in French scandals. France had its ups and downs in terms of power throughout the 18th century, and the reign of Louis XV wasn't one of the "up" parts, but it was, is, and probably always will be still one of the political heavyweights of the continent - and in the 18th century it was still THE dominating cultural power. So there's always going to be much more material on French historic scandals.
This said, I would like to question again whether "young girl" in 18th century parlage equates "prepubescent" or "barely pubescent", because the young girl we actually have reliable data on (including how she looked) who was one of Louis XV's "lesser" mistresses, (Marie-)Louise O'Murphy, the famous model of the Boucher painting, was 15/16 when he first had sex with her (she was born in October 1737, and became a royal mistress in 1753). She's still refered to as a "little girl" by the Marquis d'Argenson (not the Fritz friend, the other one) in a diary entry that same year. BTW, this doesn't mean I think it wasn't exploitative, or that Old Rich Guy With Absolute Power/ 15 Years Teenager isn't awful, but I think Louis XV liking his women and girls post puberty with fully developed breasts (no matter their age), not with a childish body, is a good bet. Even if you assume the first few long time mistresses, up to and including Madame de Pompadour, were chosen with an eye on them needing to be representative in public, which the girls didn't have to be - the last mistress, Dubarry, was 25 when Louis started to have sex with her, and being a prostitute before that, there was certainly no eye on representation involved.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Danish kings and their favorites: Oettinger's History of the Danish Court
Well, mid 19th century Germany isn't 18th century Germany anymore, it's Biedermeier Germany where even a shown ankle is scandalous, the fairy tale of Rapunzel has to be rewritten from the first edition (where it's textual that Rapunzel and her prince get busted because they have sex and she gets pregnant) to the third one (NO SEX! NO PREGNANCY! Though there are two kids mentioned much later), and Hohenzollern historians keep writing essays in which it's said FW would never have treated Gundling the way FW treated Gundling because Christian King, so yeah. Mind you, it obviously depends on the German state and writer even with the 19th century climate. Sex and scandalous reportings of past and present royalty are very much a thing for Heinrich Heine, though then again, Heine does live in Paris in exile for the second part of his life, though his publisher remains in Hamburg. But young Heine had this great page in his "Reisebilder":
German censors -----------------------
-------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
-----------------idiots--------------------
------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
What I'm getting at: Germany post Karlsbader Beschlüsse had press and book censorship in all German states, though how strictly it was applied varied from state to state. And after the 1848 revolution and failure of same, there was even more censorship. So I'm really not surprised a book published just four or so years after the failed revolution was extra careful in how it spoke of royals directly related to the German noble houses - I mean, the Oldenburgs were a German noble house themselves originally anyway, right?
Whereas I have no idea about the political situation in mid 19th century Denmark.
it's another historian repeating the claim that Louis was sleeping with girls young enough to be worth mentioning
Not surprising, considering all the pamphlets about the decadent sex lives of French royals making the rounds during and after the French revolution. Plus, let's face it, the rest of Europe in both the 18th and the 19th century will never be as interested in Danish scandals as they are in French scandals. France had its ups and downs in terms of power throughout the 18th century, and the reign of Louis XV wasn't one of the "up" parts, but it was, is, and probably always will be still one of the political heavyweights of the continent - and in the 18th century it was still THE dominating cultural power. So there's always going to be much more material on French historic scandals.
This said, I would like to question again whether "young girl" in 18th century parlage equates "prepubescent" or "barely pubescent", because the young girl we actually have reliable data on (including how she looked) who was one of Louis XV's "lesser" mistresses, (Marie-)Louise O'Murphy, the famous model of the Boucher painting, was 15/16 when he first had sex with her (she was born in October 1737, and became a royal mistress in 1753). She's still refered to as a "little girl" by the Marquis d'Argenson (not the Fritz friend, the other one) in a diary entry that same year. BTW, this doesn't mean I think it wasn't exploitative, or that Old Rich Guy With Absolute Power/ 15 Years Teenager isn't awful, but I think Louis XV liking his women and girls post puberty with fully developed breasts (no matter their age), not with a childish body, is a good bet. Even if you assume the first few long time mistresses, up to and including Madame de Pompadour, were chosen with an eye on them needing to be representative in public, which the girls didn't have to be - the last mistress, Dubarry, was 25 when Louis started to have sex with her, and being a prostitute before that, there was certainly no eye on representation involved.