Speaking of the kids, I observed yesterday that one of the sons was born in 1773, when Moltke was 62 and his second wife was 41! I mean, my mother also had her last child at 41, but not in the 18th century and after 8 other kids.
Quite. And even in the 18th century, there were methods to have sex that didn't involve the risk of procreation. Now, MT was nearly that old when she had her last pair of kids (Marie Antoinette in 1755, Max the future Cologne guy in 1756, and MT was born in 1717), number 15 and 16 respectively, but MT was a Catholic monarch with an iron constitution and presumably was the one to make the decision of risking pregnancy. One wonders why it didn't occur to Moltke to try, well, alternate sex methods rather than risking his wife's life at this point. My instinctive guess is that not just family life but marital life, including sex, was his time away from Frederik and he felt he needed the relief in order to be otherwise constantly available, and wasn't the type ot cheat on his wife.
I saw that! So we have SD, Sophie Charlotte ("Figuelotte"), and Sophie von Moltke. Am I missing any?
Not in canon, but in that novel where brothers Thomas and Heinrich Mann collaborate on a Fritz and Heinrich novel which manages to squander this great premise after a promising beginning, Heinrich does think of his childhood bff and current Empress of Russia as "Fieke" at one point when he wonders how she's doing.
Re: Danish kings and their favorites: Frederik V and Moltke
One wonders why it didn't occur to Moltke to try, well, alternate sex methods rather than risking his wife's life at this point. My instinctive guess is that not just family life but marital life, including sex, was his time away from Frederik and he felt he needed the relief in order to be otherwise constantly available, and wasn't the type ot cheat on his wife.
I had more or less the same thought: that like you suspect Caroline Marie Daum was for Fredersdorf during the Fritz/Voltaire explosion, Moltke's wives (and children?) were his haven during his turbulent relationship with Frederik. I keep saying it: Moltke was the only one who thought marriage would solve all of Frederik's problems in 1752, and unlike in 1743, he had a ton of evidence to the contrary, so I take that as reason to believe marriage made *him* feel better. Was Juliana Maria really such a political catch that the marriage couldn't have waited 2 years? By then, Augusta might have been available!
Hmm, actually, maybe the thinking wasn't "Marriage will fix Frederik's drinking and orgies" as everyone keeps saying it was, maybe it was "New wife may be someone I can delegate some emotional availability for Frederik to, so I *don't* have to be available 24/7 and I don't burn out." Huh, that's the first fully rational explanation for pushing a marriage neither Frederik nor the Danish people wanted to happen this soon. I suppose maybe getting a spare to go with the heir, as there was only one (unstable) son at that point and Frederik was clearly drinking himself to death.
Anyway, I still think given Moltke's own life choices: 7-year engagemnt starting at age 18, immediate remarriage, 22 kids going into his 60s, and married until his death, that marriage was his happy place.
Now, I note that 1773 is 7 years after Frederik's death in January 1766, and that there were multiple kids born after Frederik died, but 1) once something is working for you, you tend to hang onto it, 2) mental health issues tend not to occur in isolation, so if Moltke's got that dysfunctional relationship with Frederik for so long, he may have other issues either as cause, effect, or both, and those may still be in play in 1773.
I did independently come to the same conclusion as you that Moltke probably wasn't the type to cheat on his wife, although of course that remains to be seen. (Mind you, with 22 kids plus the rest of his schedule, he would have had to have been taking scheduling tips from Algarotti to fit a mistress or prostitutes in!)
Actually, did Algarotti go to Copenhagen? No, I don't think he did. Well, you weren't missing anything, Algarotti, in either reign.
Thinking about it, it makes sense: 1746 is when Frederik came to power, 1730s is when Algarotti is roaming. Until 1746, "no fun allowed!" Christian VI was in charge, so Copenhagen would not have been the place to look for a job if you were an Algarotti. Either at a personal or a professional level. ;)
Re: Danish kings and their favorites: Frederik V and Moltke
Hmm, actually, maybe the thinking wasn't "Marriage will fix Frederik's drinking and orgies" as everyone keeps saying it was, maybe it was "New wife may be someone I can delegate some emotional availability for Frederik to, so I *don't* have to be available 24/7 and I don't burn out."
Could be, and I don't see it as mutually exclusive with "it works for me, so of course it will work for him!"
Mind you, there's one more thing we haven't considered, true for both Moltke and Frederik in different ways. As the unofficial PM, you don't need a wife just for your personal happiness and for the sex. Sure, you're a rich noble who can afford the staff to take care of your kids, but you still have a great representative household and society life to manage, which you really don't have the time for, and that is what the wife of a grand political noble does.
With Frederik, of an uncertain temper, alcolism and emotional instability, I very much doubt he was up to much of the representative side of being a monarch. (Hanging out in brothels does not count.) I mean, our Fritz essentially handed over conventional court life to EC on the one hand and his younger brothers on the other with attending the occasional ball during carnival season. His lengthy meals and concerts were only with his chosen small circle, but that didn't make the court life and the need for aristocratic gladhandling and hospital openings etc. go away, it just meant Fritz wasn't the one to do it. And there, btw, you have another reason why he doesn't get divorced from EC in 1740 immediately when he can do it. (Though I still agree that an even better reason was the fact if he did it, he'd have been pressured to remarry as at that point everyone else's expectations still must have been that he'd continue the dynasty personally, even if his own expectations were already AW would do it for him.) He needed her to hold court and do some of the representing, even if at that point SD was still there to happily hold court and represent.
Which brings me back to the Danes: if Frederik doesn't remarry immediately - is his sister still around and available to hold court for him? Or his mother? Because if not, you have another reason why Moltke was pressing for remarriage. (I bet no one had complaints about Juliana Maria's ability to represent, btw.)
Re: Danish kings and their favorites: Frederik V and Moltke
Sure, you're a rich noble who can afford the staff to take care of your kids, but you still have a great representative household and society life to manage, which you really don't have the time for, and that is what the wife of a grand political noble does.
This is very true! And someone has to manage the staff, and that's the wife. And those 13 Moltke kids probably needed a stepmother even if they had staff!
I still feel like it's not normal to remarry within 6 months, though, for nobles or royals, and everything I'm seeing about "The Danish people thought it was indecent not to have a mourning period and were unhappy" suggests it's not just me.
With Frederik, of an uncertain temper, alcolism and emotional instability, I very much doubt he was up to much of the representative side of being a monarch. (Hanging out in brothels does not count.)
So further research has revealed he did more representation than he gets credit for. He was an extravert, and he liked traveling and hanging out with people, and I suspect he did more representation than Fritz. His parents did almost no representation, and his deal was that starting on day 1 he made himself accessible to people. Like 'being accessible' was apparently his brand by which he differentiated himself.
There's actually one anecdote where he *didn't* attend a church opening, because the people had been complaining about the taxes needed to build the church, and having the monarch present at the opening would make the ceremony even more expensive, so they had a less lavish opening...and people complained that they felt insulted! So that tells me that he normally did handle the representative side of being a monarch. Although I suppose that could also be Louise.
However. Since he was an alcoholic, there's a chance he wasn't *reliable* about showing up on the day, vs. begging off with a hangover or being incapacitated. And maybe that's what Louise had been doing and what Juliana Maria was so desperately needed for.
Btw, I can't remember if we discussed this in salon, but I did at some point come up with the idea that one major reason Fritz kept EC around after 1740 was to handle representation. Unlike Frederik, he was *not* an extravert.
Which brings me back to the Danes: if Frederik doesn't remarry immediately - is his sister still around and available to hold court for him? Or his mother?
His mother is around and in fact outlives him*, but she and her husband were both introverts who alienated the population by never wanting to interact with people unless they had to. They would ride through a carriage with the windows closed, and there was a heavy iron chain on the palace doors. I think it was the palace, anyway, there was a chain. When sociable, extraverted, hard-partying, alcoholic Frederik became king, he immediately gained popularity by riding in an open carriage and waving at people, and ordering the chain taken down to signal that people could come in and meet him. And I think when he traveled he sometimes ate in public so people could see him, and that was good PR. (Eating in public and letting people see you was a big thing in France, cahn.)
* Her death is only when Struensee's in power, and, at least according to Barz, was the trigger for a scandal: Caroline Mathilde visited her mother-in-law's deathbed with Struensee at her side and acting like her consort, instead of Christian.
(I bet no one had complaints about Juliana Maria's ability to represent, btw.)
I bet!
Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
Eating in public and letting people see you was a big thing in France, cahn.
In the first Angelique novel, after her husband got arrested and when she tries to find help, going to one of those public meals is one of the ways she tries to get access to the King. (Which predictably does not work: eating in public does not equate letting just anyone approach you.
On a less fictional front, Charles II. did the eating in public thing as well, not least because if your father has been beheaded for, among other things, being perceived as an arrogant tyrant only listening to Evil Catholics (tm) and not to the people, it was one of the ways to signal the opposite.
Brushing up on Louis has also reminded me of the following incident, for which, as a reminder, you need to keep in mind both the Kings of England and the Kings of France were supposed to have the ability to heal people with their touch, the laying of hands. cahn, you might recall that's what the title The King's Touch refers to - Charles II did this a lot, despite being a sceptic, again as a way to signal to the people his approachability, and one of the ways our hero Jemmy gets into trouble and seen as a rebel is when he does the laying of hands as well, because only true Kings of England are supposed to have that ability. The last English monarch to practice the laying of hands was Anne, I believe, as there's a famous anecdote of Dr. Samuel Johnson the dictionary guy and Boswell biography subject, who was suffering from the scrofula, being taken to be touched by Anne as a small child. (It didn't help.)
Now, as you know, when the Stuarts went into exile, Henrietta Maria the wife/widow of Charles I, as a daughter of France, sister of Louis XIII, together with toddler Minette went to Paris and basically stayed there until the Restoration. Whereas young Charles the only technical II ended up spending most of his time in the Netherlands but kept making the rounds at different courts, including the Spanish and the French one, always in need of money and support. On one particular occasion, he was in France with Mom, and cousin Louis, this is important, was of course already King (he became King when his father Louis XIII had died), but not yet a consecrated King, he hadn't been officially crowned yet. Meanwhile, Charles had been consecrated - in Scotland, not in England, as part of the deal he'd made with the Scots to get their support for the last battle of the English Civil War - but of course wasn't governing anything. Which according to Antonia Fraser put a sick noble lady who wanted the laying of hands in a bind as to which King she wanted to touch her. What counts more - being God's literally Annointed but without a kingdom, or being with a kingdom but not yet with the consecration?
Incidentally, depending on whether you read a French or an English historian, either the Brits or the French copied this royal ability. Meanwhile, bear in mind neither the Byzantine Emperors nor the HRE Emperors ever claimed they were able to do this.
Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
I know BPC did the eating in public thing as well, during his month or so of holding court in Edinburgh, and the book where I read it commented that it was not something the Georges did. But don't have the book to hand...
Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
Wouldn't be surprised, I don't recall this being a German tradition at all, but Caroline as Princess of Wales made some considerable effort to come across as publically approachable to the Brits by regularly promenading with her children and future G2 in the London parks, by attending festivities where they danced English country dances (which she made future G2 learn), attending church services instead of sticking to royal chapels etc. Of course, all those public strolls by the Prince and Princess of Wales with their children (well, those children they were allowed to bring to England anyway) was also a demonstration that the new regime had a secured dynastic future, in contrast to the last few Stuarts like poor Anne with her dead babies. Plus whatever Caroline and future G2 had done in the South would not have mattered to the people in Edinburgh who never saw them.
Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
Ahaha, I did know about the healing power of the king's touch! (I -- probably? -- first saw this in Tolkien and then had a template for when I saw it later in some sort of historical fiction, I can't remember exactly where.) I only knew about it for English kings, though -- I didn't know it was a French king thing as well! That's hilarious that both sides think the other copied it, and the Byzantine and HRE emperors never claimed this at all.
What counts more - being God's literally Annointed but without a kingdom, or being with a kingdom but not yet with the consecration?
Hee! That's also interesting to me because I would have guessed that the healing would have had a religious flavor, i.e., be connected primarily with the consecration, but this seems to indicate that it wasn't considered (just?) a religious thing, that there may be something about the kingdom itself that confers the ability.
Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
Yesterday when Selena said Anne was the last, I thought Hatton had said that G1 did not adopt the practice, so I checked to confirm, and yes: Anne was the last, and she had revived the practice after William III declined to continue it. Hatton cites an entire interesting-looking book called Les Rois Thaumaturges (at my rate of 100 pages per week, I will not be writing this up for salon any time soon), and I was able to find an English-language summary in an online review here.
How it started:
The earliest written reference to a French king’s possession of this power Bloch cites from a manuscript of one Guibert, an ecclesiastic, who writing early in the twelfth century stated that he had seen cures of scrofulous ulcers wrought by the touch of Philippe i and his son Louis vi. Bloch quotes a statement from a contemporary manuscript that Robert n, the grandfather of Philippe i, was so saintly a man that his touch possessed healing properties, but the faculty is attributed more to Robert’s saintliness than to his royalty. The first English king to whose mystical medical powers there is contemporary written testimony was Henry ii, of whom Pierre de Blois, a French monk at his court, wrote that he had seen him touch and cure strumous ulcers; but the popular tradition credits Edward the Confessor as the first English sovereign to exercise his therapeutic powers in this manner, and there are many statements made by early English chroniclers to the effect that Henry i and other English sovereigns were wont to cure by their royal touch.
How it ended:
Bloch infers from the famous allusions in Macbeth that James i undoubtedly essayed to cure by his royal touch. Louis xiii and Louis xiv in France, and Charles i in England touched their subjects right royally. After the Restoration Charles ii continued the practice which had, of course, not been attempted by Cromwell. Queen Anne was the last English sovereign to exercise the royal prerogative and we have the account of her having done so to the illustrious Samuel Johnson in the lexicographer’s own words. In France Louis xv and Louis xvi both touched for the king’s evil. Louis xviii was wise enough not to attempt it, but his successor, Charles x, in 1825 revived the ceremony but did not continue it owing to the ridicule and opposition he aroused. He was the last claimant to the privilege.
That's also interesting to me because I would have guessed that the healing would have had a religious flavor, i.e., be connected primarily with the consecration, but this seems to indicate that it wasn't considered (just?) a religious thing, that there may be something about the kingdom itself that confers the ability.
Historically yes, but much like FW with his East Frisia title, once you don't meet the strict criteria for something you want, you have an incentive to see how far you can stretch the definition.
Re: Danish kings and their favorites: Frederik V and Moltke
but in that novel where brothers Thomas and Heinrich Mann collaborate on a Fritz and Heinrich novel which manages to squander this great premise after a promising beginning
Gosh, I'm even more annoyed about this now than when you first brought it up. It seems like such a GREAT premise!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Danish kings and their favorites: Frederik V and Moltke
Quite. And even in the 18th century, there were methods to have sex that didn't involve the risk of procreation. Now, MT was nearly that old when she had her last pair of kids (Marie Antoinette in 1755, Max the future Cologne guy in 1756, and MT was born in 1717), number 15 and 16 respectively, but MT was a Catholic monarch with an iron constitution and presumably was the one to make the decision of risking pregnancy. One wonders why it didn't occur to Moltke to try, well, alternate sex methods rather than risking his wife's life at this point. My instinctive guess is that not just family life but marital life, including sex, was his time away from Frederik and he felt he needed the relief in order to be otherwise constantly available, and wasn't the type ot cheat on his wife.
I saw that! So we have SD, Sophie Charlotte ("Figuelotte"), and Sophie von Moltke. Am I missing any?
Not in canon, but in that novel where brothers Thomas and Heinrich Mann collaborate on a Fritz and Heinrich novel which manages to squander this great premise after a promising beginning, Heinrich does think of his childhood bff and current Empress of Russia as "Fieke" at one point when he wonders how she's doing.
Re: Danish kings and their favorites: Frederik V and Moltke
I had more or less the same thought: that like you suspect Caroline Marie Daum was for Fredersdorf during the Fritz/Voltaire explosion, Moltke's wives (and children?) were his haven during his turbulent relationship with Frederik. I keep saying it: Moltke was the only one who thought marriage would solve all of Frederik's problems in 1752, and unlike in 1743, he had a ton of evidence to the contrary, so I take that as reason to believe marriage made *him* feel better. Was Juliana Maria really such a political catch that the marriage couldn't have waited 2 years? By then, Augusta might have been available!
Hmm, actually, maybe the thinking wasn't "Marriage will fix Frederik's drinking and orgies" as everyone keeps saying it was, maybe it was "New wife may be someone I can delegate some emotional availability for Frederik to, so I *don't* have to be available 24/7 and I don't burn out." Huh, that's the first fully rational explanation for pushing a marriage neither Frederik nor the Danish people wanted to happen this soon. I suppose maybe getting a spare to go with the heir, as there was only one (unstable) son at that point and Frederik was clearly drinking himself to death.
Anyway, I still think given Moltke's own life choices: 7-year engagemnt starting at age 18, immediate remarriage, 22 kids going into his 60s, and married until his death, that marriage was his happy place.
Now, I note that 1773 is 7 years after Frederik's death in January 1766, and that there were multiple kids born after Frederik died, but 1) once something is working for you, you tend to hang onto it, 2) mental health issues tend not to occur in isolation, so if Moltke's got that dysfunctional relationship with Frederik for so long, he may have other issues either as cause, effect, or both, and those may still be in play in 1773.
I did independently come to the same conclusion as you that Moltke probably wasn't the type to cheat on his wife, although of course that remains to be seen. (Mind you, with 22 kids plus the rest of his schedule, he would have had to have been taking scheduling tips from Algarotti to fit a mistress or prostitutes in!)
Actually, did Algarotti go to Copenhagen? No, I don't think he did. Well, you weren't missing anything, Algarotti, in either reign.
Thinking about it, it makes sense: 1746 is when Frederik came to power, 1730s is when Algarotti is roaming. Until 1746, "no fun allowed!" Christian VI was in charge, so Copenhagen would not have been the place to look for a job if you were an Algarotti. Either at a personal or a professional level. ;)
Re: Danish kings and their favorites: Frederik V and Moltke
Could be, and I don't see it as mutually exclusive with "it works for me, so of course it will work for him!"
Mind you, there's one more thing we haven't considered, true for both Moltke and Frederik in different ways. As the unofficial PM, you don't need a wife just for your personal happiness and for the sex. Sure, you're a rich noble who can afford the staff to take care of your kids, but you still have a great representative household and society life to manage, which you really don't have the time for, and that is what the wife of a grand political noble does.
With Frederik, of an uncertain temper, alcolism and emotional instability, I very much doubt he was up to much of the representative side of being a monarch. (Hanging out in brothels does not count.) I mean, our Fritz essentially handed over conventional court life to EC on the one hand and his younger brothers on the other with attending the occasional ball during carnival season. His lengthy meals and concerts were only with his chosen small circle, but that didn't make the court life and the need for aristocratic gladhandling and hospital openings etc. go away, it just meant Fritz wasn't the one to do it. And there, btw, you have another reason why he doesn't get divorced from EC in 1740 immediately when he can do it. (Though I still agree that an even better reason was the fact if he did it, he'd have been pressured to remarry as at that point everyone else's expectations still must have been that he'd continue the dynasty personally, even if his own expectations were already AW would do it for him.) He needed her to hold court and do some of the representing, even if at that point SD was still there to happily hold court and represent.
Which brings me back to the Danes: if Frederik doesn't remarry immediately - is his sister still around and available to hold court for him? Or his mother? Because if not, you have another reason why Moltke was pressing for remarriage. (I bet no one had complaints about Juliana Maria's ability to represent, btw.)
Re: Danish kings and their favorites: Frederik V and Moltke
This is very true! And someone has to manage the staff, and that's the wife. And those 13 Moltke kids probably needed a stepmother even if they had staff!
I still feel like it's not normal to remarry within 6 months, though, for nobles or royals, and everything I'm seeing about "The Danish people thought it was indecent not to have a mourning period and were unhappy" suggests it's not just me.
With Frederik, of an uncertain temper, alcolism and emotional instability, I very much doubt he was up to much of the representative side of being a monarch. (Hanging out in brothels does not count.)
So further research has revealed he did more representation than he gets credit for. He was an extravert, and he liked traveling and hanging out with people, and I suspect he did more representation than Fritz. His parents did almost no representation, and his deal was that starting on day 1 he made himself accessible to people. Like 'being accessible' was apparently his brand by which he differentiated himself.
There's actually one anecdote where he *didn't* attend a church opening, because the people had been complaining about the taxes needed to build the church, and having the monarch present at the opening would make the ceremony even more expensive, so they had a less lavish opening...and people complained that they felt insulted! So that tells me that he normally did handle the representative side of being a monarch. Although I suppose that could also be Louise.
However. Since he was an alcoholic, there's a chance he wasn't *reliable* about showing up on the day, vs. begging off with a hangover or being incapacitated. And maybe that's what Louise had been doing and what Juliana Maria was so desperately needed for.
Btw, I can't remember if we discussed this in salon, but I did at some point come up with the idea that one major reason Fritz kept EC around after 1740 was to handle representation. Unlike Frederik, he was *not* an extravert.
Which brings me back to the Danes: if Frederik doesn't remarry immediately - is his sister still around and available to hold court for him? Or his mother?
His mother is around and in fact outlives him*, but she and her husband were both introverts who alienated the population by never wanting to interact with people unless they had to. They would ride through a carriage with the windows closed, and there was a heavy iron chain on the palace doors. I think it was the palace, anyway, there was a chain. When sociable, extraverted, hard-partying, alcoholic Frederik became king, he immediately gained popularity by riding in an open carriage and waving at people, and ordering the chain taken down to signal that people could come in and meet him. And I think when he traveled he sometimes ate in public so people could see him, and that was good PR. (Eating in public and letting people see you was a big thing in France,
* Her death is only when Struensee's in power, and, at least according to Barz, was the trigger for a scandal: Caroline Mathilde visited her mother-in-law's deathbed with Struensee at her side and acting like her consort, instead of Christian.
(I bet no one had complaints about Juliana Maria's ability to represent, btw.)
I bet!
Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
In the first Angelique novel, after her husband got arrested and when she tries to find help, going to one of those public meals is one of the ways she tries to get access to the King. (Which predictably does not work: eating in public does not equate letting just anyone approach you.
On a less fictional front, Charles II. did the eating in public thing as well, not least because if your father has been beheaded for, among other things, being perceived as an arrogant tyrant only listening to Evil Catholics (tm) and not to the people, it was one of the ways to signal the opposite.
Brushing up on Louis has also reminded me of the following incident, for which, as a reminder, you need to keep in mind both the Kings of England and the Kings of France were supposed to have the ability to heal people with their touch, the laying of hands.
Now, as you know, when the Stuarts went into exile, Henrietta Maria the wife/widow of Charles I, as a daughter of France, sister of Louis XIII, together with toddler Minette went to Paris and basically stayed there until the Restoration. Whereas young Charles the only technical II ended up spending most of his time in the Netherlands but kept making the rounds at different courts, including the Spanish and the French one, always in need of money and support. On one particular occasion, he was in France with Mom, and cousin Louis, this is important, was of course already King (he became King when his father Louis XIII had died), but not yet a consecrated King, he hadn't been officially crowned yet. Meanwhile, Charles had been consecrated - in Scotland, not in England, as part of the deal he'd made with the Scots to get their support for the last battle of the English Civil War - but of course wasn't governing anything. Which according to Antonia Fraser put a sick noble lady who wanted the laying of hands in a bind as to which King she wanted to touch her. What counts more - being God's literally Annointed but without a kingdom, or being with a kingdom but not yet with the consecration?
Incidentally, depending on whether you read a French or an English historian, either the Brits or the French copied this royal ability. Meanwhile, bear in mind neither the Byzantine Emperors nor the HRE Emperors ever claimed they were able to do this.
Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
Wouldn't be surprised, I don't recall this being a German tradition at all, but Caroline as Princess of Wales made some considerable effort to come across as publically approachable to the Brits by regularly promenading with her children and future G2 in the London parks, by attending festivities where they danced English country dances (which she made future G2 learn), attending church services instead of sticking to royal chapels etc. Of course, all those public strolls by the Prince and Princess of Wales with their children (well, those children they were allowed to bring to England anyway) was also a demonstration that the new regime had a secured dynastic future, in contrast to the last few Stuarts like poor Anne with her dead babies. Plus whatever Caroline and future G2 had done in the South would not have mattered to the people in Edinburgh who never saw them.
Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
What counts more - being God's literally Annointed but without a kingdom, or being with a kingdom but not yet with the consecration?
Hee! That's also interesting to me because I would have guessed that the healing would have had a religious flavor, i.e., be connected primarily with the consecration, but this seems to indicate that it wasn't considered (just?) a religious thing, that there may be something about the kingdom itself that confers the ability.
Re: Detour about royals and public eating (and touching)
How it started:
The earliest written reference to a French king’s possession of this power Bloch cites from a manuscript of one Guibert, an ecclesiastic, who writing early in the twelfth century stated that he had seen cures of scrofulous ulcers wrought by the touch of Philippe i and his son Louis vi. Bloch quotes a statement from a contemporary manuscript that Robert n, the grandfather of Philippe i, was so saintly a man that his touch possessed healing properties, but the faculty is attributed more to Robert’s saintliness than to his royalty. The first English king to whose mystical medical powers there is contemporary written testimony was Henry ii, of whom Pierre de Blois, a French monk at his court, wrote that he had seen him touch and cure strumous ulcers; but the popular tradition credits Edward the Confessor as the first English sovereign to exercise his therapeutic powers in this manner, and there are many statements made by early English chroniclers to the effect that Henry i and other English sovereigns were wont to cure by their royal touch.
How it ended:
Bloch infers from the famous allusions in Macbeth that James i undoubtedly essayed to cure by his royal touch. Louis xiii and Louis xiv in France, and Charles i in England touched their subjects right royally. After the Restoration Charles ii continued the practice which had, of course, not been attempted by Cromwell. Queen Anne was the last English sovereign to exercise the royal prerogative and we have the account of her having done so to the illustrious Samuel Johnson in the lexicographer’s own words. In France Louis xv and Louis xvi both touched for the king’s evil. Louis xviii was wise enough not to attempt it, but his successor, Charles x, in 1825 revived the ceremony but did not continue it owing to the ridicule and opposition he aroused. He was the last claimant to the privilege.
That's also interesting to me because I would have guessed that the healing would have had a religious flavor, i.e., be connected primarily with the consecration, but this seems to indicate that it wasn't considered (just?) a religious thing, that there may be something about the kingdom itself that confers the ability.
Historically yes, but much like FW with his East Frisia title, once you don't meet the strict criteria for something you want, you have an incentive to see how far you can stretch the definition.
Re: Danish kings and their favorites: Frederik V and Moltke
Gosh, I'm even more annoyed about this now than when you first brought it up. It seems like such a GREAT premise!