Historical Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 46

[cahn]

Background: The kids' school has a topic for "Unit" every trimester that a lot of their work (reading, writing, some math) revolves around. These topics range from time/geographic periods ('Colonial America') to geography ('Asia') to science ('Space') to social science ('Business and Economics'). (I have some issues with this way of doing things, but that's a whole separate post.) Anyway, for Reasons, they have had to come up with a new topic this year, and E's 7/8 class is doing "World Fairs" as their new topic.

Me: I know E's teacher is all about World Fairs and I know she is great and will do a good job. But I feel like if we had a different teacher who wasn't so into World Fairs, they wouldn't do such a good job and another topic would be better.
Me: Like... the Enlightenment!
D: Heh, you could teach that! But you'd have to restrain yourself from making everything about Frederick the Great.
Me: But that's the thing! Everyone does relate to each other in this time period! Voltaire -- and his partner Émilie du Châtelet, who was heavily involved in the discourse of conservation of energy and momentum -- well, I've told you Voltaire had a thing with Fritz -- and then there's Empress Maria Theresa, who went to war with him a few times -- and Catherine the Great --
D, meditatively: You know --
Me: *am innocently not warned even though this is the same tone of voice that is often followed by, say, a bad pun*
D: -- it's impressive how everyone from this 'the Great' family is so famous!
Me: *splutters*
D, thoughtfully: But of course there's probably selection bias, as the ones who aren't famous don't get mentioned. You never see 'Bob the Great' in the history books...
Me: *splutters more*

Comments

[hidden_variable]

Everyone from the Great family hates being mistaken for a member of the Grate family. Cheese Grate, Fireplace Grate, Inte Grate...

[cahn]

NOOOOOOOO!

(I laughed. Then I laughed again at "Inte Grate." D thought it was awesome :PPPPPP )

[mildred_of_midgard]

Lol at D!

I like how over 4 years later, he's still hearing about this "the Great" family!

But you'd have to restrain yourself from making everything about Frederick the Great.

:D

[cahn]

I haven't even started telling him about Peter the Great! (As he's not part of the Fredericians and I haven't finished reading Massie yet.)

Maria Theresa needs a "Great" by her name

Money, Money, Money

[selenak]

Okay, I‘ve been waiting for a new post to share this bit of not sexy, but sensational (kinda) information which is how on earth Charles I financed his eleven years of personal rule between basically Buckingham’s assassination and the evening of the Civil War without calling a Parliament. Reminder: one of the biggest problems of both James I and VI and Charles was that Parliament was the one institution allowed to raise taxes, so in theory, they had to call Parliament, which would decide on a budget for the King, in modern parlance. And Parliament increasingly wanted very different things from what the Kings wanted, especially when it came to their faves. James got around this once by doing the „King asks for one time loan from subjects due to national emergency“ thing which basically you‘re allowed to do ONCE as a monarch. Charles did that, too, but he had to figure out other means or cave and call for a Parliament. Once Buckingham was dead, there was one last Parliament, but as the Commons were under the impression that without Buckingham, Charles would give into their demands, while Charles personally blamed one of the most popular leaders of the Commons for Buckingham‘s murder due to the rethoric the guy had employed, things went down from there, and it became the last Parliament for eleven years.

Now, previously I had assumed Charles either took a lot of credits or raised taxes on his lonesome, never mind legalities. But no. Also, I was stunned to discover that Charles actually managed to make the state solvent and get out of the red and into the black in the state household without calling Parliament and raising taxes once. How did he, or rather his financial advisor and Lord Treasurer Weston, accomplish this marvel? Mainly by rediscovering a lot of medieval laws. These included the one featuring in every Robin Hood story, i.e. you weren‘t allowed to hunt in royal forests (unless you paid a fine). And then there was the fact that under James, knighthoods and other titles had been sold like candy (mostly by Buckingham), remember? Well, Weston found a medieval law from Edward III‘s time that said that knights not attending the coronation of a new king and personally swearing loyalty to their new liege could be fined. Not only were most of these new knights from all over the country but there had actually been plague hitting London at the time of Charles‘ coronation, so it really had not been well attended. So now the royal treasury presented the bill. And then there were the royal lands, of which Charles sold quite a lot. Like I said, the most amazing thing is that he managed to get enough money out of all this to not only finance his court (and growing painting collection) but his entire administration for eleven years.

(Ending the war with the Spanish and the trade war with the French which Buckingham had started helped, too.)

(But then he fucked up this pleasing situation by totally misjudging Scotland in his attempt to anglisize its church services for good. Charles had been born in Scotland, of course, but he had only lived there for three years, so to all intents and purposes, he was English, and as opposed to his father completely misjudged the Scots and how far he could go there. Cue expensive war!)

Re: Money, Money, Money

[mildred_of_midgard]

I couldn't have told you this off the top of my head any more, but it is ringing faint bells from high school days. Points for creativity!

Stuarts and Scotland

[selenak]

So what strikes me as one of the oddities of history is how the Jacobites connected the dethroned Stuarts to the cause of Scottish independence and Scottish patriotism. Because:

Mary, Queen of Scots: I left the country as a toddler, was raised in France and came back basically a contintal Catholic Princess in the midst of the Scottish Reformation. The majority of my nobles and much of the commoners kept rebelling against me, and after the death of my no good husband Darnley, they openly called me a murderous whore. Only when Elizabeth executed me two decades later did the Scots suddenly discover they loved me and were indignant on my behalf, though my son was not. Thanks, I guess?

James I and VI: Born and bred a Scot, no one can deny it, and I maintained my strong accent till my dying day. Also, when I left Scotland after Elizabeth's death to take over the English neighbourhood, I promised my Scottish subjects I would be back soon, and would not neglect them. This wasn't exactly the truth. In fact, I only returned once, many, many years later, and it wasn't a long visit. Now, there were good reasons, not the least of which was that my English subjects were absolutely paranoid about my Scottish ones, but nonetheless, I wasn't exactly homesick, and my faraway ordered reforms for Scotland did try to make it more like England, though never to the degree my unfortuante son tried. And of course the whole "King of Great Britain" concept was my idea, even though no one liked it, other than me. Well, given my childhood and youth consisted of abusive bigotted dickheads trying to beat me into their image, feel free to speculate I did not have the fondest memories of ye olde country.

Charles I: I left as a toddler - hi, Grandma! -, and did not show up to be crowned in Scotland for over a decade after I was crowned in England. I did not get the Scots at all, which I proved every time we clashed. Cue two lost Bishops Wars, which forced me to recall Parliament after eleven years, and we all know how that ended up. My belated attempt to switch from solving my Scottish problem via my English subjects to solving my English problem via my Scottish subjects did not work out, either, as the Scottish Covenanters saw the English Junto (yes, Junto, not Junta, and yes, they were called that) as their natural allies and forgot all about hating the English when they could blackmail their King instead. By the time they rediscovered hating the English, it waws too late for me.

Charles II: So here I am in The Hague, a very young man who just learned his father has been executed. Now, the Scots actually proclaimed me as Charles II upon learning of Dad's death, much to Cromwell's disgruntlement, so my advisor Hyde points out that the Scots were who I had to come to terms with if there was any chance of winning the still ongoing Civil War. The idea was to go to Scotland, get crowned there, and then, backed up by Scots, cross the border into England. (High, grandnephew Charlie!) Well, the coronation thing happened. After they made me sign any number of ridiculous terms they and I damn well knew NO King of England could ever follow through with, such as forcing the entirety of England to become Presbyterians. But they were content with this? No. They even made me sign a declaration saying I was ashamed of my executed father and Catholic mother. Look, I'm a cynic in the making and a life long pragmatist and survival expert. But that, months after Dad's execution, was just gratitiously cruel, and my sympathy for Scotland and the Scots sank below zero at this point. So no. I never did like that wretched country, and you bet I stayed away after the Restoration.

James II: Charles made me Lord High Commissioner of Scotland for a while. Luzula would know better whether or not I did a good job there, but when I became King, there was promptly another Scottish uprising, by the Duke of Argyll who coordinated his rebellion with that of my nephew Jemmy of Monmouth. Naturally I crushed both and had them executed. I then followed my policy of freedom of religion. For Roman Catholics, that is, not for Scottish Presbyterians. Scotland reacted predictably. But when I was deposed by my daughters and living in exile in France, I seem to have started my and my descendants careers as icons of Scottish liberty!

=> History is bonkers

Re: Stuarts and Scotland

[cahn]

Haha, people really are... willing to twist things in bonkers way, aren't they :P (Also reminds me of The Worst Fanboys, a bit, although Nazis are of course a different breed than Jacobites...)

Only when Elizabeth executed me two decades later did the Scots suddenly discover they loved me and were indignant on my behalf, though my son was not. Thanks, I guess?

I... guess... it's easier to be sympathetic to a dead woman and not an inconveniently alive one?

My belated attempt to switch from solving my Scottish problem via my English subjects to solving my English problem via my Scottish subjects did not work out, either, as the Scottish Covenanters saw the English Junto (yes, Junto, not Junta, and yes, they were called that) as their natural allies and forgot all about hating the English when they could blackmail their King instead.

Heh. Charles I really did make a lot of problems for himself, didn't he?

They even made me sign a declaration saying I was ashamed of my executed father and Catholic mother.

Aw, yeah, that's a bit much :(

Judgment Day, Stuart Style

[selenak]

Attend the tale of Thomas Wentworth, First Earl of Strafford. I knew about this incident before from various books, but that one podcast elaborates some more on the details. (I also feel like I have to apologize to Mike Walker somewhat - I mean, his The Stuarts is still shamelessly royalist in nature, though entertainingly so, but much as Charles I. isn't a good King, Team Parliament really does not come across well in the Strafford affair. Also he didn't invent Charles I. feeling incredibly guilty for the rest of his life about this particular loyal servant's death and seeing a connection between his own death and Wentworth-Straffords - he literally said that God allowed his execution to happen because he did not save Strafford.

So, Thomas Wentworth: as a young man in James I and VI's reign, is actually somewhat critical of the royal treatment of Parliament, and hanging out with his future killers in the critical Parliamentarians bench. In Charles I's early reign, definitely against Charles arresting MPs in the time of Buckingham, also not a fan of Buckingham. BUT, and this becomes crucial, definitely not a fan of how far Team Junto, led by first Eliot, then Pym, are willing to go, so at some point in the 1630s, he becomes one one of Charles' most important advisors. He's also put in charge of Ireland, which is an important plot point. When things go south with the Scots in the Bishops Wars, Charles calls him back from Ireland, makes him the Earl of Strafford and asks for advice and help. Parliament is recalled after eleven years, first the short one, then the long one.

Meanwhile, the Junto (= bunch of the most radical Parliamentarians, and no, Cromwell isn't one of them, Cromwell in this early stage is not yet a factor at all and living in the countryside), who never forgave Wentworth for switching sides anyway, feels increasingly worried. He has determination, he has the King's ear, and in Ireland, he has an army. They also think, not wronglyl, he is after them and wants to prove that they're secretly corresponding with the rebellious (from Charles' pov) Covenanters in Scotland, which they totally are. (Reminder: corresponding with a foreign power - and while Charles rules both England and Scotland, the countries aren't united yet, so Scotland is a foreign power - which your King is at war with is high treason.) So Pym and the Junto make a preemptive move. They flood London - the country, too, but London is crucial - with pamphlets declaring that Strafford is the worst, he's Black Tom the Tyrant, head of a Catholic Conspiracy (Strafford isn't Catholic, but who cares) and about to bring evil Catholic Irish troops to England to help Charles dissolve Parliament again and turn the Kingdom Catholic once more. Result: not only does Strafford get impeached, there are thousands of riled up Londoners in front of Parliament every day, yelling for Strafford's head.

Charles I. , who thinks he's seen this before when Buckingham was the one impeached, promises Strafford he will never, ever let him die. This whole thing is ridiculous anyway - Strafford is the most loyal of the loyal, how can he be convicted for treason?

Strafford is also an experienced MP himself, and at first, he defends himself ably, and tears the prosecution's evidence into verbal shreds. The big issue are the minutes of a Privy Council meeting where when discussing the second Bishop's War Strafford told Charles "in Ireland, you have an army which can help you subject this country", meaning Scotland, as the war against the Scots was the one under discussion. The Junto claims that no, Strafford was talking about England, which he wanted to evily crush via his Irish troops. There is however the problem that the guy who took the minutes confirms Strafford's version, i.e. that they were discussing Scotland, and that "this country" therefore was Scotland.

Despite the riled up London crowd yelling every day at Westminster - they have been whipped into a fearful frenzy and are absolutely convinced Strafford, if freed, would lead his Irish army against Parliament and then all of England - , the House of Lords refuses to condemn Strafford, the Commons are beginning to waver, and it looks like this whole trial will actually end with Strafford being declared innocent.

The Junto, all of whom have a pretty good idea that while Wentworth won't use his soldiers to make England Catholic again, he definitely will help Charles to undo all the reforms they've just pressured Charles into signing (like the Triannial Act, making it law Parliament has to be called every three years at least, and of course making all of Charles' financial loopholes illegal) with the help of those thousands of people in the streets, and who also know after this stunt, he definitely won't hesitate to put them on trial for treason (with the Scots), decide to go for broke. The Junto member who first plainly says they need to kill the guy is none other than our old acquaintance Bob, the Earl of Essex (never impotent except with Frances!). This is all great for Essex, looking forward to REEEEEVENNNNGE at last.

So what Pym does next is to call for a Bill of Attainder, accusing Strafford of high treason and calling for his execution. The difference to an impeachment is that this that this is not a trial, but also once Parliament has presented the bill, the King has to sign it in order for it to be legal. Now, at first this looks like a drawback. But it isn't. Because the Londoners outside aren't just calling for Strafford's head anymore. There is one obvious suspect even closer to Charles for anyone who believes in an evil Catholic conspiracy to hand England over to the Pope, and this is, of course, Henrietta Maria, the Queen. The Commons are already preparing laws to banish the Catholics in her personal household from the Kingdom as well as one that disallows her to practice her Catholic Faith. (Both is against the marriage contract which explicitly granted Henrietta Maria the right to practice her faith in England and to maintain the necessary clergy in her personal household.) Henrietta Maria, for one, is convinced the Junto is absolutely capable of gunning for her next and for doing exactly what they're currently doing to Strafford, put her on trial under a flimsy pretext and execute her. It's not like this hasn't happened to Queens of England before, is it?

By now, Charles is panicked. He agonizes - he has promised Strafford to never let him die - but eventually gives in and signs the death warrant. Then he sends his oldest son, future Charles II, who is still a child of eleven, to Parliament, begging the MPs for Strafford's life - if they could agree to a change of the sentence to imprisonment, this would fill him, Charles I, with "unspeakable contentment". Fat chance. Unlike FW, the Junto isn't swayed by a pleading kid, and the rest of the MPs is too scared - by now, there are only two bishops left in the House of Lords, because all the others were physically attacked by the mob when trying to attend the sessions, because they are seen as being part of the Popish conspiracy. Strafford is beheaded the next day. William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury who is already arrested and will later also be executed, says about Strafford that he died "with more honour than any of them will gain which have hunted after his life". And Charles I, as mentioned, will feel guilty for the rest of his life and believe God allowed the Parliamentarians victory and allowed his own death in punishment for him not remaining firm and saving Strafford.

Now, Strafford - as Charles' de facto Viceroy in Ireland - certainly was responsible for his share of violence. And Charles really wasn't a good King, or even a good schemer. During Strafford's imprisonment, he allowed one of his other courtiers to try an attempt to capture the Tower and free Strafford, which promptly was fucked up and discovered, thus convincing everyone in London who wasn't already convinced that Charles, Strafford et all intended a military coup against Parliament so he could rule as an absolute monarch again. And of course, in the long term, Parliament embodied the forces of progress. But Strafford's death was still judical murder, and everyone immediately responsible for it knew it, whatever the crowd believed. And it's not surprising that after this, as soon as he could without anyone stopping him, Charles I. took himself and his family out of London and decided he really did need an army not against his Scottish but his English subjects.

Re: Judgment Day, Stuart Style

[cahn]

Whoa! Poor Wentworth. This all sounds kind of awful.

(Reminder: corresponding with a foreign power - and while Charles rules both England and Scotland, the countries aren't united yet, so Scotland is a foreign power - which your King is at war with is high treason.)

Ah, right, thank you for the reminder!

The Junto member who first plainly says they need to kill the guy is none other than our old acquaintance Bob, the Earl of Essex (never impotent except with Frances!). This is all great for Essex, looking forward to REEEEEVENNNNGE at last.

THIS GUY! (Bob, lol. But not of the "Great" family!) Why did he want revenge on Strafford?

By now, Charles is panicked. He agonizes - he has promised Strafford to never let him die - but eventually gives in and signs the death warrant.

Okay, sorry, I need it spelled out even more -- is the issue that he thinks if he doesn't sign the death warrant, that they'll go after his wife? (And what is preventing them from going after her anyway?)

Then he sends his oldest son, future Charles II, who is still a child of eleven, to Parliament, begging the MPs for Strafford's life - if they could agree to a change of the sentence to imprisonment, this would fill him, Charles I, with "unspeakable contentment".

OMG. And did definitely remind me of FW. You had mentioned before that this probably had a major effect on Charles II (another of those things I am glad for repetition to remind me of!) and I'd intended to ask for more details on it but never did -- so thank you for them now!

William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury who is already arrested and will later also be executed, says about Strafford that he died "with more honour than any of them will gain which have hunted after his life".

<3 :(

During Strafford's imprisonment, he allowed one of his other courtiers to try an attempt to capture the Tower and free Strafford, which promptly was fucked up and discovered, thus convincing everyone in London who wasn't already convinced that Charles, Strafford et all intended a military coup against Parliament so he could rule as an absolute monarch again.

*facepalm* Come on, Charles, can't you do anything right?

And Charles I, as mentioned, will feel guilty for the rest of his life and believe God allowed the Parliamentarians victory and allowed his own death in punishment for him not remaining firm and saving Strafford.

Gosh. I can totally understand thinking that, too -- you promised him! Charles, you had one job! (Okay, fine, he had more than one job, but... still!)

Hans Pleschinski: Das Flakon, or, Brühl/Glasow: The Novel

[selenak]

Yes, that's right, the same Hans Pleschinski who translated Madame du Pompadour's letters, the Duc de Croy's diaries and most famously the Fritz/Voltaire correspondence into German and thinks they thoroughly deserve each other has written a novel starring the Countess Brühl as its central character, set in 1757, and revolving around the bonkers Glasow affair (sorta).

This is one the one hand a very entertaining book, paying homage, among other things, to Sachsens Glanz und Preußens Gloria, which the author confesses he's imprinted on when young, though the Brühls are the good guys here and devoted to each other, as opposed to the show. In fact, among the bibliography is the very same Brühl biography by the Hungarian Habsburg loyalist I reviewed this very year, and basically, that's his Brühl image. (Though the main character is the wife, as mentioned. Brühl and his King only have cameo appearances first on Königstein and then in Warschau, though these include some Sachsens Glanz und Preußens Gloria gags/homages.) Other characters include Marwitz (yes, that one! He's one of the main characters, in fact!), a fictional sister to Lessing's titular heroine Minna von Barnhelm (= classic and one of the earliest great German language theatre plays, also the first using the 7 Years War as a backstory for its main characters) who is serving the Countess, Luise Gottsched (the Émilie fan and one of German's first female literati) and her husband, the other best known German writer of the era, Gellert, and a guy whom I don't know whether he's invented or historical but whom Pleschinski ships with Marwitz. Lehndorff gets quoted from both as the motto of the book (from his early 1756 visit to Saxony after his heartbreak of not being permitted to leave with his Englishman - it's basically great praise for what a fine lady Countess Brühl is and how lovely Dresden) and at the end (his summary of the Glasow affair). Fritz shows only up in cameos, Heinrich not at all, but both are often discussed.

Basically, the plot, such as it is: After Fritz invades Saxony, the Countess is determined to save her country. Originally she vaguely wonders about negotiations but once Fritz has started to strip everything bare, destroying Brühl property and clipping coins of Saxony's currency, she realises hardcore measures are asked for. After a chance encounter with Marwitz in Dresden, who is nice and charming and a fan of Saxon splendour but not Prussian warring and immediately expositions to her about how Fritz and Heinrich keep tearing him apart between them and how he's heartily sick of being in and out of favour with both of them and basically the bone they're contantly snapping for, she gets him to escort her and her maid (the fictional Baroness von Barnhelm) to Leipzig, where she hopes to persuade either Gottsched or Gellert or both - who are known to be in for a personal audience with Fritz - to help her assassinate him. She doesn't tell Marwitz the last part, of course, she tells him about a petition, but honestly, Marwitz is awfully gullible if he buys that. En route, they also encounter the guy whom I'm not sure whether he's fictional or not and whom Marwitz flirts with and much prefers to his two royal suitors and their fraternal strife. (He doesn't hate them, but being in a triangle with Fritz and Heinrich is just so stressful! Especially since in this reality, it's ongoing, because Pleschinski has pushed its start from the post Silesia2 phase to the previous year. Heinrich's actual current fave Kalkreuth does not exist. Glasow, when he finally shows up, is the portly guy from "Sachsens Glanz...", not the hot red Porsche of hussars. So Marwitz has to fulfill both Fritz' and Heinrich's sexual and emotional needs, and he's just TIRED of it.

Anyway, when the gang finally has arrived in Leipzig (no explanation as to why Marwitz during a war can absent himself from his job to hang out with the Countess), there are some fun scenes with Luise Gottsched, Gottsched and Gellert, during which there is much Fritz discussion, but also discussion as to which future for Germany we want, with ominous forshadowing about what a Prussianized Germany would be like, as opposed to a modernized HRE because yay, Federalism. In fairness, Pleschinski also has some characters point out to the Countess that Fritz himself a) doesn't want all the German states to become Prussia like, b) doesn't want to be the Emperor, and c) would be a super fun witty and smart intellectual if only he wasn't King; Fritz without power would be great. There's the requisite flashback to the Katte saga.

Anyway, both Gottsched and Gellert turn the Countess down, much as they abhorr Fritz' treatment of Saxony, but we've met Glasow who is massively in debts, and it's very clear the Countess is approach him next. And then... the novel is over. We get an epilogue with the Lehndorff quote about how the Glasow affair went down and a short "where are they now?" summary of the historical characters' fates afterwards. And then an afterword where Pleschinski talks about his sources which include Poniatowski's memoirs, Lehndorff's diaries, the Hungarian Habsburg fan's Brühl biography, a newer biography of the Countess Brühl and some Fritz bios, but not, it seems, any of the other Glasow related original material we've found. The review which alerted me to the existence of this book seesm to think Pleschinski thinks that if the Countess had succeeded and Fritz had died in the spring of 1757, it would have been far better for Germany and the world (essentially the Hungarian's theory from his preface, renember?), but I'm not so sure, because there is a passage in the novel where someone points out to the Countess that even if Fritz dies, it's entirely possible that AW or Heinrich continue his politics and history will unfold accordingly.

I found the abrupt ending and Pleschinski choosing not to describe the actual assassination attempt (which in his version happens) unsatisfying for the book as a novel, and while it's entirely possible Marwitz inwardly had reached a "a plague on both your houses" point with Fritz and Heinrich, I very much doubt he'd have talked about his love triangle with Saxony's First Lady (after the Queen) upon a chance encounter. Also, there is some deliberate (on the part of the author) historical alteration - as he says in the afterward, he's moved up the sacking of Hubertusburg, which historically took place much later in the war, to 1757. (Finding Hubertusburg is what makes the Countess decide on poison.) But there are also some clearly not deliberate mistakes - good old Katte gets shot, not beheaded, and Fritz is equally for a time threatened by a excution via shooting. Also, the phrasing makes it sound as if they were running away together, as in physically together. And Fritz at one point makes a Romeo and Julia comparison - which our Fritz, who I very much doubt has read Shakespeare (I'm not even sure whether there was a French translation - Voltaire did read Shakespeare, but in the original), and definitely didn't know the Renaissance Italian collection from which Shakespeare had the story, just wouldn't have made. Not to mention Marwitz earlier references D'Artagnan is the examply of a dashing hero. While D'Artagnan actually did exist in history, I very much doubt a Prussian officer in 1757 would have known who he was, unless he was really super into obscure Louis XIV history. It was Dumas' Three Musketeers which made D'Artagnan a household name, and that novel wasn't published for another century.

Anyway, it's an entertaining book with some witty scenes, though I was a bit disappointed that Heinrich doesn't get even a cameo and is only ever talked about in terms of how he and Fritz are stressing Marwitz out with their rivalry. (I mean, it's clear Pleschinski has read Ziebura's biography, because he lets Marwitz mention the Fritz letters to Heinrich about him in detail, and those letters aren't quoted from anywhere else.) Also, I'm all for Brühl rehabilitation and Fritz criticism, but he didn't invade Saxony in 1756 just because he felt the itch to go to war again and had become bored by peace, which is how the characters in the novel see it - he was caught off guard by the Diplomatic Revolution and responded to that. It doesn't take away from Fritz' ruthlessness to state he would have been fine with no war in 1756, he wanted to isolate MT diplomatically and hadn't counted on her countermove.

But of course a novel in 2023 which deals with with an absolute ruler invading his neigbouring state and declaring it's just to protect himself against NATO everyone else's intentions has certain contemporary echoes to consider. I mean, the Fritz characterisation isn't that of a Putin avatar, in terms of personality, and it's made very clear he doesn't go for the developing dumb nationalism some of his fans go for, but still, I do think the current situation is probably one reason why the novel positions Fritz unquestioningly in the wrong and as the only one who wanted that war. (BTW, it helps that the novel is from the Saxon pov, of course. There is MT criticism - at one point the Countess and her entourage encounter refugee Jews who have been expelled from Prague by MT, which I don't think happened during the 7 Years War, but the Austrian anti Jewish actions did happen earlier - but the Saxons are presented as cultured and fun loving and prefering peace to war and the Germany that wasn't because as the reader knows Prussia will take over instead.

Glasow, as mentioned, is only in the one scene. His age isn't mentioned, nor his good looks, just that he put on weight through the years, is in debts and completly stressed out (him, too) by having to serve Fritz. (As a valet. No mention of anything more.) Fredersdorf is not mentioned at all. Katte and Voltaire are the sole Fritzian objects of affection namechecked. (Other than Marwitz, and Marwitz is basically a pretty distraction and something to argue with Heinrich over, not a boyfriend.)

Re: Hans Pleschinski: Das Flakon, or, Brühl/Glasow: The Novel

[cahn]

and most famously the Fritz/Voltaire correspondence into German and thinks they thoroughly deserve each other

<3 :D

Lehndorff!! :DD <3

and immediately expositions to her about how Fritz and Heinrich keep tearing him apart between them and how he's heartily sick of being in and out of favour with both of them and basically the bone they're contantly snapping for

ahahaha! Aw, Marwitz, we love you.

Heinrich's actual current fave Kalkreuth does not exist. Glasow, when he finally shows up, is the portly guy from "Sachsens Glanz...", not the hot red Porsche of hussars. So Marwitz has to fulfill both Fritz' and Heinrich's sexual and emotional needs, and he's just TIRED of it.

I am DYING here.

(no explanation as to why Marwitz during a war can absent himself from his job to hang out with the Countess)

Hee!

but we've met Glasow who is massively in debts, and it's very clear the Countess is approach him next. And then... the novel is over. We get an epilogue with the Lehndorff quote about how the Glasow affair went down and a short "where are they now?" summary of the historical characters' fates afterwards.

Oh nooooo! but the putative assassination is the most interesting part

(btw, I am going to be swamped with RL stuff for the next couple of weeks so I'm not sure how much I'll be able to salon, if any, during that time -- but will be back after that!)

Sex and Murder, Stuart Edition: New Media

[selenak]

Mes amies, it seems I providede the lowdown on the early stuarts just in time, for lo and behold, there's a new movie or series coming out (I couldn't tell from the advertisement which one), titled "Mary and George", which goes all in with the Favorite treatment of power games, cursing, sex and snark. The George of the title is young Buckingham (as in the fave of James and Charles, not any of the other Buckinghams). The Mary is his mother, whom the podcasters never mentioned but wiki tells me was a big influence, as in, despite the Villiers clan not being rich at all pre his rise she got him the courtier education which helped making him such a hit with James, is said to have arranged his marriage with a rich heiress by tricking said heiress into spending the night under the same roof as George (so she had to marry him to salvage her reputation), and being the source for the home remedies Buckingham provided James with in the week before his death.

Googling also tells me that this film/series is based on a book called "The King's Assassin", in which, you guessed it, the author takes the accusation Essex & the Parliamentarians came up with to justify impeaching Buckingham (because Buckingham sucking at being a Lord Admiral and at foreign policies in general despite what he and Charles think is actually not a traitorous action, and back then Parliament hadn't hit yet on the Bill of Attainder idea they used with Wentworth), i.e. that Buckingham poisoned James. Now, the trailer gives me the impression that they'll use both the Robert Carr downfall (that's the previous fave, Frances' second husband whom she divorced Essex for with James help) downfall and the murder case there (reminder: Frances and Carr being accused and condemned for murdering Robert Carr's former advisor, and Frances admitted to it, but James commuted their sentences from death to imprisonment) which was the start of Buckingham's career as James' fave and James' death which will be by poison in this version, but probably not Buckingham's own death years later though wiki says Mary actually outlived him, and give Mary the Livia (from I, Claudius treatment as making her the mastermind villainess who plots her son's rise to power and removes all the obstacles in between, only with added orgies (one of the clips shows King James with not one but several pretty man having an orgy) and leaving nothing to the imagination. It could be fun - The Favourite is a hilarious black comedy though manages to be feel tragic in the end re: how each of the three female main characters end up, and NOT because any of them die - , and Julianne Moore looks like she's having a fabulous time, plus the young Buckingham (Nicholas Galitzine) does look appropriate hot for a character whom even his enemies describe as the 17th century equivalent of sex on legs.

But precisely because this era and these people are not osmosed by pop culture so far (as opposed to the thousands of Tudor fictionalisations), I feel a bit frustrated that it will be introduced to the public at large this way. (Well, okay, Buckingham is already a regular in most adaptions of The Three Musketeers, but that's in his later life during Charles' reign, shows him solely via the "is involved with Queen Anne/Wants to relieve siege of La Rochelle and hence Richelieu orders Milady to get rid of him" angle, and doesn't include his bisexuality, nor his rise to power, nor James I and VI's gayness.) Because I can't believe I'm saying this, since I used to strongly dislike James in my younger days (because of his witch hunting encouragement), but presenting him as the passive plaything of his favourites led by his prick is unfair. Both the podcasts point out that while of course the favourites were influential, they didn't set political trends, James did, his policies were consistent no matter whom he was currently faovuring, and also, he was right in considering going back to war with Spain a stupid idea which would not benefit England at all (as Charles and Buckingham found out).

As to whether or not Buckingham (or his mother?) would/could have killed James: I am of course influenced by the podcasters, but sure, you can say he had motive (he had just successfully bonded with Charles, thus ensuring his position as the King's Favourite would not die with James, plus because he had just reinvented himself as a champion of the Protestant cause and the cause of Elizabethan cosplay, "let's go to war with Spain, fuck yeah!", and he might have assumed even with Parliament (cheering on Charles and Buckingham for the first and last time in either's lives) being all pro war, James would still not go for it, and he had opportunity. But there's also the fact this accusation came from his enemies who were desperate for an accusation that would make it impossible for Charles to either protect Buckingham from it by saying he gave the orders (which he did with all the others) or to commute his sentence later (again, impossible in the case of regicide since that would have made Charles look guilty), and James' doctors despite pressure from these guys did not support it and stuck to their original complaint, that they thought these were quack remedies and not helpful, but also not lethal. And you can just as well question the whole "motive" theory - having just secured himself Charles' friendship and thus safety for his future, would Buckingham have risked it by doing the one thing Charles would and could not have forgiven him for, regicide? After having seen how easily murders could come to light even if arranged by the King's faves, as in the Robert and Frances Carr case?

And that's discounting Buckingham might actually have cared for James. I mean, I don't think he was as crazy about James as James was about him, and if James had not been King, I doubt young George would have hit on him to begin with. But that doesn't mean he didn't feel any affection for James at all, and that all the loving letters still existing were fakes. James wasn't an idiot. One reason why he had a fallout with Robert Carr long before any murder accusations raised their heads was because Carr had made it increasingly clear he wasn't into James as a lover anymore. And Buckingham was James' favourite for years and years. I think James would have noticed if it had been all power hungry calculation. And wasn't like there was a lack of competition, i.e. other pretty young men pushed at him. But he stuck to Buckingham. In conclusion, I'm team "Buckingham was a lousy politician, and favouring him as much as they did means James and then Charles inadvertendly contributed to the path towards Revolution, because seeing Buckingham accumulate so much wealth and fucking things up without ever suffering for it pissed off so many people through the ranks, but no, he wasn't a murderer".

(I'll still see the movie/series, of course.) (And hope they include Essex shouting "I'm not impotent!" at everyone.)

Re: Sex and Murder, Stuart Edition: New Media

[cahn]

is said to have arranged his marriage with a rich heiress by tricking said heiress into spending the night under the same roof as George (so she had to marry him to salvage her reputation)

omg!

and being the source for the home remedies Buckingham provided James with in the week before his death.

okay, I lol'ed at this :)

But precisely because this era and these people are not osmosed by pop culture so far (as opposed to the thousands of Tudor fictionalisations), I feel a bit frustrated that it will be introduced to the public at large this way.

Yeah, that's super fair. And, I mean, yes to Buckingham, but, like, you realize that I was sufficiently confused that I assumed Three Musketeers Buckingham was not James' Buckingham until you explicitly said so!

Because I can't believe I'm saying this, since I used to strongly dislike James in my younger days (because of his witch hunting encouragement), but presenting him as the passive plaything of his favourites led by his prick is unfair.

*nods*
I also do wonder if part of this is because the one thing that the average American will know about James I is that he sponsored the King James Version of the Bible.

But that doesn't mean he didn't feel any affection for James at all, and that all the loving letters still existing were fakes. James wasn't an idiot.

*nods* Like you say, there's a distinct difference between "I might not have worked nearly as hard to be close to that person if they hadn't been rich" (or whatever) and "I don't actually feel any affection for that person."

Heh, I will probably not see it, but please report back when you do!

(And hope they include Essex shouting "I'm not impotent!" at everyone.)

YES.

You knew it was coming: James VI and I and his boyfriends: the emoji version!

[selenak]

A Tale of Two Favourites

King James VI and I: 🤴

Robert Carr, later Earl of Somerset: 🧔

George Villiers, later Duke of Buckingham: 🧔🏻‍♀️

Frances Howard, first Lady Essex, then Lady Somerset: 👩🏻‍🦱

Rob(ert), Earl of Essex: 🧌

Sir Thomas Overbury, Mentor of Somerset: 🧓🏼


Team Howard, Uncles of Frances: 👥
Archbishop of Canterbury & Earl of Pembroke (The Anti Somerset Alliance): 🤵🏻👨🏻‍🎓

🧔: 🏇🤕 🛌
🤴: 😍 💐💰
🧔🤴: 💑
🧔: 🤑
👩🏻‍🦱: 😏🫦
🧔: 💕
🧌: 🤬
👩🏻‍🦱: 🧌😶‍🌫️😰
🧌: 😖💪🗣️
🤴: 🦶🧌
🧔: 💍 👩🏻‍🦱
🧓🏼: 🤯⁉️🤮
👩🏻‍🦱:🖕
🤴🧔: 🧳🧓🏼🇷🇺
🧓🏼: 🗣️😤🚷
🤴: 🤯 ➡️🏰🧓🏼
🧓🏼: 🤒⚰️
🤵🏻👨🏻‍🎓: ‼️ 🤢 👥 👩🏻‍🦱🧔
🤵🏻👨🏻‍🎓: 💡
🤵🏻👨🏻‍🎓: 🔎 🧔🏻‍♀️
🧔🏻‍♀️: 🕺🏻🏆😏🤴
🤴: 😋
🧔: ❓🛏️ 👎
🤴: 😿
🧔🏻‍♀️: 💞😘
🤴: 💝🧔🏻‍♀️
🤵🏻👨🏻‍🎓: 😆
🤵🏻👨🏻‍🎓🧔🏻‍♀️: 👩🏻‍🦱🧙☠️🍄🧓🏼📜
🤴: 😮‍💨👩🏻‍🦱🧔🏰
🧔👩🏻‍🦱: 🧳😥🏞️
🧌: 🤣💪💪💪
🤵🏻👨🏻‍🎓: 🥳🎉
🤴🧔🏻‍♀️: 👨‍❤️‍💋‍👨
🤴: 💰💰💐🌹🎁 ♥️
🧔🏻‍♀️: 🥇⭐️☄️😁
🧌🤵🏻👨🏻‍🎓: 🤔😒🧐

Re: You knew it was coming: James VI and I and his boyfriends: the emoji version!

[mildred_of_midgard]

Emojis! I laughed so much. Bob of Essex will never not be hilarious (to the point where I had to share key excerpts with my wife), and you've picked the perfect icon!

Brava!

1764-1772 Foreign policy: Overview

[mildred_of_midgard]

Okay, it's the 1768-1772 write-up that absolutely nobody asked for! I'm going to focus on Polish history and how that affected Poland's neighbors. Because it's over 25k words and nobody has that kind of time, I'm going to be posting in installments spread out over several days.

Today, I'll just post an overview. Please let me know if you can see this map, because I'm going to be including it over and over again:



It's a map of Europe from 1783 to 1790, which is slightly different than 1768-1772, but it's the best I could do, and we'll talk about the differences in detail in a later installment.

First, in order to understand 1768-1772, we're going to have to go back in time to 1764, but we'll only cover events to give us context for the First Polish Partition. There's going to be a lot of repetition, and that's by design to help retain some complex events that aren't always as exciting and memorable as the high-quality gossipy sensationalism content that salon usually delivers. :D

Our background is that the Seven Years' War has just ended in 1763. Nobody wants another war. Not Britain, not France, not Austria, not Russia, and certainly not the "hung on by the skin of my teeth" King of Prussia. Toward end of the year, August III (he who lost the posthumous PR war massively), king of Poland, dies, leaving Catherine in the best position to put a candidate on the throne.

In 1764, Catherine gives the job to her ex Poniatowski, thinking that he will be a nice obedient puppet king. Unfortunately, he has his own ideas about how to reform the country that differ from hers. His maternal family, the Czartoryskis, also have their own ideas about reforms. Then there are the conservatives with a different set of ideas.

Then there's Fritz, whose opinions will be relevant, because he and Russia end up in an alliance. Even as Catherine's junior partner, he can cause trouble for her in Poland, so there are times when he gets things his way by throwing his weight around.

In 1768, Catherine's ambassador Repnin (the one who treats Poniatowski like shit to undermine P's position) drives a bunch of unwanted reforms through the Sejm (senate/parliament of Poland). Immediately, riots break out, and are inflamed into civil war in Poland. This is the period of the Confederation of Bar, named after the group of people who confederated at the town of Bar in 1768 to resist the reforms. The civil war will last from 1768-1772.

Poland's semi-powerful neighbor the Ottoman Empire doesn't want their neighbor Russia de facto taking over Poland, so they start threatening war. Once the blood of Ottoman subjects is shed on Ottoman territory, the Turks declare war on Russia. This Russo-Turkish War will last from 1768 to 1774.

Russia will be massively victorious, crushing Turkish armies and navies and conquering territory wherever they go, especially in 1770. This will freak the heck out of Austria and to a lesser but still significant degree, Prussia.

In particular, Russia has just conquered Wallachia and Moldavia, which border on Habsburg territory. None of the Austrian triumvirate (MT, Joseph, Kaunitz) want to trade a weak Ottoman neighbor for a powerful Russian neighbor.

Fritz also doesn't want Russia getting out of control. Russia may be his ally, but one, he has to pay subsidies, and two, he lives perilously close to Russia (even if he never goes to East Prussia any more, lol, he still wants to keep it), and has had problems with it before (Zorndorf, Kunersdorf).

So for quite some time, different partition ideas are tossed around. I will go into those in more detail in the Austrian section, but suffice it to say that divvying up Poland was settled on to keep Russia from making Moldavia and Wallachia into nominally independent Russian satellites right on MT's doorstep.

Amazingly, on paper, Fritz has the weakest hand to play, but he (with Heinrich's help) manages to play his cards so well that he ends up with the best outcome of the First Polish Partition. Smallest territory, most strategic and economic value. And he doesn't even have to fight a 3.5 front war!

Having completed this overview, in subsequent installments we'll look at these events from the perspective of different countries, what motives drove each country, and how it reacted to developments.

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Overview

[cahn]

Amazingly, on paper, Fritz has the weakest hand to play, but he (with Heinrich's help) manages to play his cards so well that he ends up with the best outcome of the First Polish Partition. Smallest territory, most strategic and economic value. And he doesn't even have to fight a 3.5 front war!

Ha! Well, that's great for Fritz :)

1764-1772 Foreign policy: Poland: 1764-1767

[mildred_of_midgard]

Background on Poland: The elective monarchy means the neighbors interfere a lot. First in competing to get themselves/their puppet elected, then in trying to make sure that pays off. During our period, the two main interfering neighbors are France and Russia.

France is not a neighbor, you point out?




This is true, but France 1) has a long history in Poland, going back to the very first elective monarch of Poland, who would subsequently become Henri III of France, and 2) has a foreign policy consisting of what they call "Barrière de l’Est": The barrier of the east. It was originally conceived to encircle the Habsburg empire, by turning Sweden, Poland, and Turkey into allies/areas of influence, but French ministers hung on to the idea as a way of countering Russia even after the Diplomatic Revolution meant anti-Habsburg policy was no longer needed.

Poland also has a liberum veto: any representative at the national diet, the Sejm, can veto any legislation. This on the one hand, it's very hard to get legislation you want passed, on the other hand, it's very easy for you, whether you're a member of an internal faction or a foreign power, to bribe a representative to veto anything you want. (Michael Müller says it's more complicated than that, but Michael Müller wrote his book in a combination of German, Polish, French, and Latin, and thus will have to deal with the fact that I haven't been motivated to force my way through it.)

In Poland, the nobles are basically in a state of anarchy where they have private armies, way bigger than the king's army, more money, more land, etc. They can carry out private feuds with each other, conduct their own foreign policy, etc. It's basically like the Middle Ages in other places in Europe. And like the nobles in those countries back then, most of the nobles in this country are very invested in keeping their "golden liberty", aka right to do whatever they want.

The most powerful family in our period is the Czartoryskis, known as the Familia (the "Family"). They have traditionally been pro-Russian (their opponents being pro-French). They are Poniatowski's family on his mother's side.

They do want reforms. They want to modernize the state by making these changes:
* abolish liberum veto
* limit the power of the senate by forming a supreme executive council
* military and fiscal reform
* abolish private armies
* increase taxes and tariffs

This is not selfless; the Czartoryskis think they can strengthen their own standing by driving these reforms. Once Poniatowski becomes king, they basically see him as an executive figurehead of the Family, not as an independent king.

Yes, Poniatowski has Catherine on the one side thinking he'll be a good puppet, and the most powerful family in Europe, led by his uncles, thinking he'll be a good puppet, and they both want opposite things. Truly, he was set up to fail.

Then there's Russia. Catherine's opinions are being represented by her envoy Repnin (abuser of Poniatowski) in Warsaw, but there's some disagreement internally in Russia amongst her ministers too. But to simplify:

When she puts Poniatowski on the throne, she's thinking:
* Get Poland in an alliance with Russia against Turkey.
* Keep it from getting too strong.
* Retain the liberum veto so she can use it against Czartoryski legislative attempts.
* Religious toleration.

I'll go into those in more detail in another post, but for now, these are her wishlist items.

The Czartoryskis don't want an alliance with Russia against Turkey, it will be costly and wildly unpopular in Poland. They're also trying to loosen ties with Russia, since Catherine's heavy-handed approach to putting a king on the throne and dictating policy is making them nervous. They're suspicious that instead of the old quid-pro-quo arrangement whereby they were the core of Russia's power base in Poland and got goodies from Russia, Russia is now moving toward relying on the Russian army plus Polish Protestants and Orthodox Dissenters to get things done in Poland. So the Czartoryskis start changing tack, aiming to consolidate their support among the rest of the country by presenting themselves as impeccably patriotic and not at all pro-Russian. This means the former reform party is now siding with the arch-Catholic party, on the grounds that "my enemy's enemy is my friend."

Poniatowski thinks an alliance could fit into his plans: get Catherine's support for reforms in Poland so that Poland can be a stronger, more modern country and therefore a better ally, and he can be her junior partner and be independent but valuable.

Catherine, though, is not down with "independent but valuable." It's "dependent satellite or else a personal betrayal of her trust."

But the most exciting part is the religious toleration issue.

Catherine: I'm widely suspected of having killed my husband. I definitely took over a throne I was supposed to hold in trust for my son. I need some good PR.

Catherine: I know! Religious toleration is a good, enlightened cause that will get the philosophe propaganda machine working in my favor.

Catherine: Poland! You are now to grant full rights to Orthodox and Protestant inhabitants, including rights to hold political office.

Conservative Poles: You mean, Poland? More-Catholic-than-the-Pope Poland? You have got to be kidding.

Czartoryskis: We are up for looking the other way and not persecuting Protestant and Orthodox Dissenters. But political office? No way.

Poniatowski: Uh, Catherine, I'm still head over heels for you, and I want to help you out here, like I really do, but that is *never* going to fly. But you're so wonderful and reasonable I'm sure we can work out a nice compromise!

Poniatowski (to an English visitor): My Catherine is soooo amazing and would never authorize any unjust use of force. I just trust her so much!

English visitor: Um. Hmm. How do I put this? You should see her in a crown.

Poniatowski: Lalalala! Catherine is the best. So anyway, no legislation allowing Dissenters to hold political office. I will lose my crown if I try to force this legislation down my subjects' throats. She'll understand.

Catherine: I see my ex has personally betrayed me. Men.

Catherine: Fritz! Fellow enlightened monarch of Europe and fellow ruthless meddler in Polish affairs to keep our mutual neighbor weak! You're with me on this, right? I *know* I can count on you.

Fritz: So I like playing defender of the Protestant faith as much as the next PR-hungry gangster, and yes to the enlightened religious tolerance thing, but...this particular idea is going to backfire. I'm nothing if not into realpolitik. Also, have you considered that Poland is *already* tied for most tolerant nation in Europe? Not even the Brits or the Dutch allow Catholics full rights, including political office. And if the French were to march into the Netherlands to insist that Catholics be admitted to office, all of Europe would be up in arms! I hate to say it, but you're going to have to moderate those demands.

Repnin (Russian ambassador in Warsaw): On that note, I have good news, Catherine! It's 1765, and Poniatowski and I have just put together a compromise treaty, in which the Dissenters can worship publicly, but we've put off addressing the political office question for the indefinite future. We're not saying no, mind you! We're just proceeding incrementally.

Catherine: OMG am I talking to a brick wall? You are to make the Czartoryskis accept the complete set of religious rights for dissenters, or you are to overthrow their government and form a new one out of their opponents.

Repnin: Has she lost her ENTIRE MIND? I'm her biggest supporter, and I even I think she's lost her entire mind!

Historians: *debate*

Some historians: She had no framework for understanding how strongly the Poles felt about religion. A child of the Enlightenment, she was willing to adopt and respectfully observe the local dominant religion so as not to alienate her supporters, but she had no emotional attachment to it. And in her country, Russia, the church was subordinate to the state (courtesy of Peter the Great). She had no experience with countries like England, where the monarch was the head of the church, or Poland, where the church was a strong governing force.

Other historians: Oh, she understood all right. This was her cunning plan to trigger a revolt in Poland so she'd have an excuse to intervene using armed force.

Mildred: Huh. I am agnostic about the issue, but the cunning plan is intriguing and not something I would have thought of.

Polish reformers: *try to pass a bill to get rid of the stupid liberum veto*

Catherine: I can let you have that, just not the religious tolerance issue. If we strengthen Poniatowski's position a bit, he can increase the Polish army and turn the country into a more useful ally for me. That'll help with the war with Turkey I'm expecting any day now.

Fritz: Red alert! Red alert! I do not want a Polish neighbor without a liberum veto. Even if we think we can manage Poniatowski, Catherine, you never know what a future king will do. Plus I do not like the sound of a potential war breaking out with you and Poland against Turkey that I might get sucked into. I veto the abolition of the liberum veto.

Catherine: I am so annoyed that you're my main ally and I have to let you have your way on some issues. Especially since you won't back me on the extreme religious tolerance position, ungrateful bastard. FINE. The liberum veto stays.

Repnin: Attention, Poles, you will block this bill abolishing the liberum veto or Russian troops will tear down Warsaw stone by stone.

Benoit, Prussian minister in Warsaw: And the Prussian troops will help.

Poniatowski: We should hold out! Stand our ground!

Czartoryskis: Look, we used to want to get rid of the liberum veto too. But if you haven't noticed, Poland has a much bigger problem now, and her name is Catherine.

Czartoryskis: Fine, Catherine, we will not die on this hill. We'll keep the liberum veto.

Poniatowski: *face in hands*

Poniatowski: Okay, new idea! We can all agree on the fact that Poland needs some minor bureaucratic reforms, though, right? Boring stuff about the budget? Great! Vote on this bill, please.

Maria Amalia Mniszchówna: Hi, I'm Brühl's daughter, and I'm only going to show up for this one line, but it's going to be a corker of a line. Repnin, I have some inside info, and you might want to have a closer look at the fine print in Poniatowski's latest bill.

Repnin: OMG, the fine print's got a clause that's tantamount to abolishing the liberum veto in most cases! Vetoed!

Poniatowski: It is a miracle I am not clinically depressed. Okay, Catherine, we gave you what you wanted. The liberum veto stays. Now you can compromise with us on the dissenter issue!

Repnin: Per Catherine's instructions, I am now kidnapping and arresting senators and bishops who oppose the full extent of her reforms around dissenter toleration, up to and including public office. We are going to pass this legislation!

Madame Geoffrin, Poniatowski's Madame Camas, aka surrogate mother, visiting from France, in a letter to d'Alembert: "It is a terrible condition to be king of Poland. I dare not tell him how unhappy he seems to me."

Mildred: Clinically depressed, would you say?

Poniatowski: My faith in Providence and predestination will keep me going through the bleakest moments.

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Poland: 1764-1767

[luzula]

I really have no prior interest in 18th century Polish politics, but I have to say that you did an A+ job of making it entertaining to me! I laughed out loud multiple times.

With the liberum veto, how did Poland have ANY legislation at all?

Poniatowski (to an English visitor): My Catherine is soooo amazing and would never authorize any unjust use of force. I just trust her so much!
English visitor: Um. Hmm. How do I put this? You should see her in a crown.
Heee!

Repnin: OMG, the fine print's got a clause that's tantamount to abolishing the liberum veto in most cases! Vetoed!
I can't believe he didn't read the actual bill himself! That's his job, right?

Get thee to a nunnery!

[mildred_of_midgard]

Continuing with the theme of:

selenak: The scriptwriters made this up!
mildred_of_midgard: Yes, but based on something real!

selenak told us about this Marie Antoinette series:

So the series heightens the stakes by diclaring the French wouldn't let MA return to Vienna post annulment, she'd be forced to enter a convent instead.

Now, that's rubbish. I mean, there's precedent - Philippe II. Auguste did that to his first wife, I believe, and also Louis XII - but those were different (medieval) times. Louis XVI wasn't that kind of jerk. MT and Joseph wouldn't have stood for it, either. (Not just out of familial sentiment - MA at this point was just 21 years old and eminently marriagable.) And why would Louis' ministers come up with such an idea? The script can't come up with anything better than MA being told "she knows too much" to be allowed to leave France, which is ridiculous.

Well, I'm getting close to the end of Stollberg-Rilinger, and she does report that MT threatened her daughter Amalia, married to Ferdinand-the-failed-pedagogical-experiment of Parma, with being locked up in a convent in Parma and not allowed to come back to Vienna, if she doesn't start behaving herself. This is 1772, only 5 years before the supposed MA episode in the show.

Now, obvious differences:
- Amalia and Ferdinand have already consummated their marriage and had a daughter (whom MT threatens Amalia with never allowing her to see when she's locked up for life in the convent) at this point, so remarriage would be trickier. So MT had less of an incentive to bring Amalia home and marry her off to someone else.
- This threat is coming from MT and not from the daughter's husband or husband's ministers, which makes it a different case from the Philippe Auguste and Louis XII examples. Plus it means MT is not going to be outraged at the family honor being impugned, etc., etc.

...but I think it still shows that "problematic wife gets locked up in a convent" is still a thing in the 1770s, and that there exists at least one circumstance in which MT would go along with it (albeit not the MA/Louis XVI circumstance).

I also agree, it goes without saying, that Louis XVI was not that kind of jerk. Louis XV did apparently tell MA that he might have to send her back to Vienna, but nothing about putting her in a convent that I'm aware of, no.

Re: Get thee to a nunnery!

[selenak]

I would be very surprised if the scriptwriters were aware that Amalia and the failed pedagogical experiment existed, whereas it's reasonable to suspect the MT scriptwriters did come across an FS biography where he sells arms supplies to the Prussians, so I don't think this is on the same level. :)

Louis XV did apparently tell MA that he might have to send her back to Vienna, but nothing about putting her in a convent that I'm aware of, no.

Something I didn't mention is that Louis XV - presumably on a "he was a dirty old man and he did have sex with a bunch of teenage girls as we know!" - rationale gets a bit handsy with young MA, nothing undeniable, i.e. you can pass it off as grandfatherly attention, but at one point he shows up in the middle of the night at her bedroom door, only our young heroine has been warned and thus isn't there, and then old Louis XV gets back to putting pressure on future Louis XVI to consummate the marriage and no longer considers solving the continuation of the Bourbon line problem by molesting his granddaughter-in-law.

Now, as opposed to the threat to put her into a French convent as opposed to sending her home to Vienna, I thought this was a bit more plausible an invention. So, do we think Louis XV would have? I'm mostly inclined to say no, because MA wasn't just any teenage girl, she was his grandson's wife, and for a believing Catholic, which Louis XV was, this would have been incest. (Also terrible power abuse etc., but not many absolute monarchs pay attention to that part.)

Chevalier d'Eon I: Russia

[mildred_of_midgard]

This is the first installment of my write-up on the Chevalier d'Eon based on the biography by Gary Kates' Monsieur d'Eon Is a Woman. The book was an informative read, but veeeery much a product of its time, which is 1995 (preface added in 2001). The author is actually surprisingly liberal for that period, but, well, here's his take:

At first, I thought that d'Eon must have been Europe's first transsexual, the victim of a disorder that certain psychiatrists label gender dysphoria. I assumed that today he would have been a prime candidate for sex reassignment surgery. Indeed, since the 1920s communities of transsexuals and transvestites have thought of d'Eon as their patron saint. However, several conversations with a psychiatrist who had worked in a gender identity clinic convinced me that d'Eon was not sick. He did not hate himself. He did not hate his body. He did not think that he was trapped in the wrong body. But if d'Eon was not a transsexual, then, well, what was he? Of course, my book argues that d'Eon came to a cognitive decision that it was best for him to live life as a woman.

Kates then uses that argument to conclude that he doesn't need to respect d'Eon's pronouns, and decides the most useful approach to writing about d'Eon is to use masculine pronouns, in order to emphasize to the reader that the subject of this bio was not a transgender ("transsexual") woman, but a man, full stop.

Now, I was certainly not any more well informed than this in 2001, but since it's 2023 and discourse has moved on, I had to decide what to do about pronouns. At first I was going with what the Mob AU fanfic author did, which was conclude that we have no idea what the Chevalier d'Eon would have wanted, because we're not in a position to ask the right questions, so she uses they/them. But after reading this book (I think the Mob AU author has only read Wikipedia), it seems like–assuming this book is more accurate than Wikipedia–the Chevalier d'Eon did not go back and forth between presenting as a man and a woman, but switched from presenting as a man to presenting as a woman, and subsequently lived and died as a woman. So I'm going to use "she/her" pronouns.

However, since I've told this story using dialogue, characters are going to use whatever pronouns they would have used at a given time, both for accuracy and because their decisions make no sense if you don't understand how they were perceiving this individual.

I'm also, because Kates presents the Chevalier d'Eon as an unreliable narrator who was consciously refashioning her narrative to her advantage, going to allow Kates to argue with the Chevalier in this write-up. I will also be interrupting the narrative a lot myself. :D

Here goes! The story of the Chevalier d'Eon (1728-1810).

*********

Chevalier d'Eon: We'll begin in medias res. The most interesting part of my story is when I was sent as a French secretary to the envoy in St. Petersburg in 1756. The head of the King's Secret, the Prince de Conti–

Mildred: Salongoers may remember him as the Comte de Broglie's unofficial boss, who gave him orders that contradicted the orders from his official boss, the French foreign minister. Conti was the guy who wanted the Polish throne after August III died, and the King's Secret was invented to try to put him there.

Chevalier d'Eon: The Prince de Conti wanted Elizaveta of Russia's help getting the Polish throne, but Russia and France had always been rivals for influence in Poland.

Mildred: As you may recall from the first installment of my 1764-1772 write-up.

Chevalier d'Eon: So Conti proposed that Louis and Elizaveta should strike up a correspondence to overcome their mutual suspicion. Elizaveta was down with this, but her command of French was weak. So she asked Conti to send her a young lady "neither too young, nor too old, [but ] honest, well-informed, prudent, and discreet" to act as her tutor, and to encipher the letters with a secret diplomatic code.

Chevalier d'Eon: The Prince de Conti, who knew I was a woman in disguise as a man, realized I had all the qualifications, so he asked me to readopt my feminine identity and interact with Elizaveta as a lady. I thus had two trunks of clothes during my diplomatic stint in Russia, one for my masculine presentation, and one for my feminine presentation.

Kates: Lies! You invented that story in the 1770s, when you decided you wanted to be able to live as a woman in France but still wear men's clothes and participate in the military and diplomatic service. So you needed to make up a story about how the government had authorized you to do it before.

Chevalier d'Eon: How dare you call my honesty into question?

Kates: There is no record of any gender shenanigans in any of the correspondence for the King's Secret in the 1760s. Nor did you mention it in any of your writings from the 1760s.

19th century Duc de Broglie: Yeah, I reviewed all the documents when the French foreign ministry made the papers available and I was writing my book, and there is no contemporary evidence for this episode, though later historians will uncritically cite it as fact.

Kates: Now. Begin your story at the beginning, Chevalier.

Chevalier d'Eon: Well, my father wanted a son, but he got a girl instead. So he decided to raise me as a boy–

Kates: More lies! You got your mother and sister to cover for you out of love, once you decided you wanted to present as a woman, but when you wrote to your doctor, who had seen you naked, you didn't even pretend you were a woman to him. You even joked about impregnating his wife.

Chevalier d'Eon: No chance I was intersex?

Kates: Nope. Later historians notwithstanding, that was all unfounded rumors. How do I know? When you died in 1810, your flatmate, an old lady who thought you were female too, was washing your body for burial and was shocked to discover you were a man. So she brought in the authorities, who sent a dozen people, including a professor of anatomy, two surgeons, a lawyer, and a journalist, to inspect your corpse. They signed testimonies affirming that you had a perfectly normal penis! In fact, all your anatomy was within the range of normal for a man, even if your Adam's apple didn't protrude.

Kates: Now. Begin again.

Chevalier d'Eon: Fine. The interesting part of my story begins with the King's Secret. My biggest patron was the Comte de Broglie, who ran the King's Secret for a while, before he got in trouble and got exiled. I really was sent to St. Petersburg as a secretary in 1756, as the Seven Years' War was breaking out, and I really did help Elizaveta with her correspondence with Louis XV. In fact, I made many daring trips between St. Petersburg and Paris, carrying secret correspondence concealed inside a copy of Montesquieu's De l'esprit des lois. I didn't disguise myself as a woman, although Elizaveta was famous for her cross-dressing balls.

Kates: And what was unusual about her balls was that normally in the 18th century, if one cross-dressed at an event–

Mildred: Like when Fritz dressed up as a widow for Carneval in 1733!

Kates: –one wore a mask. One was in disguise as someone else, and half the fun was trying to guess who was who. Elizaveta, in contrast, just made people cross-dress as *themselves*, unmasked. That may have given you some ideas, Monsieur Chevalier. But it's not true that you had one trunk of women's clothes and one trunk of men's clothes in Russia, and you operated out of one to consistently present as female to Elizaveta and the other to present as a man when acting as a spy and diplomat.

Chevalier d'Eon: At any rate, I remained in Russia through most of the Seven Years' War, and became so recognized as an expert on local affairs that when Elizaveta died, the Comte de Broglie and Louis XV asked me to explain the political situation.

Re: Chevalier d'Eon I: Russia

[cahn]

Ah, fascinating!

Salongoers may remember him as the Comte de Broglie's unofficial boss

Well, I do now :P Thanks for the reminder!

Chevalier d'Eon: Well, my father wanted a son, but he got a girl instead. So he decided to raise me as a boy–

Is this the Chevalier telling her story in memoirs? Or some other documentation?

Chevalier d'Eon II: England and the King's Secret

[mildred_of_midgard]

Chevalier d'Eon: In 1762, after Peter III and Catherine happened in short succession, and France was no longer allied with Russia, the war with England was going badly enough that the French were ready to make peace. I got sent to England to be. Then this happened:

Broglie: Holy cow, one of the best spies in the King's Secret is doing a bang-up job in England! I see a golden opportunity here to two-time the English and plan an attack on them while we're making peace! Plus, I'd love to do what we did in Poland and Sweden: bribe one of the parties in Parliament to be our voting minions. Let's make sure we don't tell our ministers about this plan, because, to quote Kates, "Even an unprincipled Machiavellian like Choiseul would never have approved a plan for a direct attack on England at the very moment a peace treaty was being signed by the two kings."

Chevalier d'Eon: Great, I can again be in the position of having to please two sets of masters. As we know, that always goes well.

Kates: This is one reason people were so willing to believe Chevalier d'Eon was actually a woman. Every time anyone learned anything about what was really going on with French diplomacy, it was at least that weird.

Mildred: Like the time when I announced I was engaged to my shocked coworkers, and that was considered so implausible that one of them joked that he was pregnant.

Chevalier d'Eon: So here I am, in England, bribing everyone with wine. So much wine. Hey, I'm from Burgundy, we have the best wines! In fact, I import so much wine that the British government starts protesting diplomatic immunity and the prime minister threatens to impose tariffs. I make a big enough stink to win this round, and wine becomes my trademark.

Chevalier d'Eon: Unfortunately, this, and other efforts that contribute to my success as a diplomat and spy, add up to a lot of expenses, which the French government is not happy with. I write increasingly testy letters. They're even less happy with testy letters.

In 1763:

French foreign minister Praslin: You're fired! Come back to France, but not to court.

Chevalier d'Eon: You mean my political career is at an end? Well, I'm not coming back to France, and you can't make me.

Louis XV: Oh, yes I can! I have written to the British, and they will extradite you for me.

British: Uh, actually, we can't do that.

Louis: ???

British: He hasn't broken any laws. This is a free country. We won't treat him as an ambassador anymore, but he's a private citizen not doing anyone any harm, so we can't arrest him or deport him or anything.

Chevalier d'Eon: Neener neener neener!

French ministers: This is treason!

Broglie: Eh, I don't know, I pulled similar stunts when I was a diplomat and y'all gave me orders I didn't want to follow. I will write a letter explaining that he's being obnoxious, yes, but forgivably so.

Louis: Are you seriously defending this guy and his pissy letters to his monarch?

Broglie: Psst, Louis, remember, he's got all the papers about the secret invasion of England we're planning. Do you want to provoke him into selling those papers to the English and starting a war?

Louis: I don't think they'll go to war even if they find out.

Broglie: International incident? Reputational damage for us?

Louis: Yeah, I see your point.

Broglie: May I propose that we leave him in England and pay him to continue spying for us?

Louis: I suppose I can live with that.

French foreign ministry: He still owes us money from all those expenses he wasn't supposed to run up, though!

Chevalier d'Eon: No, you owe *me* money for all the expenses I advanced out of my own pocket for *your* foreign policy!

Everybody: *writes anonymous pamphlets trashing each other*

Meanwhile, in 1764:

Pompadour: *dies*

Broglie: Now that my most powerful enemy is dead, can I come back to court? Maybe run the King's Secret?

Louis: Sure!

Chevalier d'Eon: Oh, wow! My most dedicated patron is now super influential! Surely this means good things for my career.

Broglie: *crickets*

Chevalier d'Eon: …I feel like I'm being scapegoated for the latest failures in French policy. Those anonymous pamphlets trashing my name are making me nervous. If no one promises me that I'm in good standing, then I'm sorry but I'm going to have to start selling secret papers to the British.

Chevalier d'Eon: Just to prove I'm not bluffing, I've published 200 pages of the least sensitive but still secret diplomatic correspondence already.

Kates:

The book naturally sent shock waves through the French government and transformed the nature of the affair. For weeks, diplomats on both sides of the Channel could talk of little else…It is impossible to overstate the sensational reception this book received. Within five days of its publication even King George III could talk of little else. "When Mr. Grenville went to the King," the British Prime Minister wrote about himself, "he found him very uneasy, and expressing great eagerness upon the publication of M. d'Eon's book." Indeed, Guerchy's prediction that it would become the topic everywhere in London was proven to be entirely too restrictive; it became the topic of conversation anywhere in Europe where politics was discussed…

The publication of the Lettres transformed d'Eon from someone known primarily among the intelligentsia and in diplomatic circles to a household name- at least in aristocratic households. Infamous or otherwise, few statesmen were as well known as d'Eon after the spring of 1764. Within a few months of its publication, d'Eon's book wasn't simply debated by powerful men at court, or even by the bourgeoisie in their cafés and newspapers, it was even discussed at home between mothers and daughters, as this fascinating excerpt from a letter from a sixteen-year-old
aristocratic girl to a teenage friend testifies. (Because so many of us in the twentieth century would doubt that teenage girls during the eighteenth century would be interested in politics and intellectual life, the reader will forgive me for including such a lengthy citation. [Mildred: the reader will forgive me as well, because I thought this passage was cool.])

"After lunch I took my design lesson, finished Locke and started Spinoza. After the lesson , I finished my writing assignment, and we took a walk on the rampart where we go practically every day. Yesterday, after Mass, unhappy at not having seen you, I practiced writing in Spanish and Italian, and then came lunch. I stayed in my mother's apartment until five o'clock. When everyone started to play, I retired. I worked on a play about the power of education and read [Montesquieu's] Spirit of the Laws until six o'clock. ... This morning I took my Italian and Spanish lessons and read twenty-three pages of Plato. We ate lunch, and now I am taking the most comforting recreation in writing to you. At this moment my mother is reading the memoirs of M. d'Eon. What insanity! Or even more, what treasonous impudence! This work is forbidden and can't be found in Paris; one is obliged to order it from England. He promises five volumes, of which the first has appeared. There he limits himself to mocking the conduct of M. de Guerchy, but they say that in the other volumes he clearly divulges state secrets."

John Wilkes, British radical: I too am having problems with my government due to publications in which I criticize the King and leading ministers. Let us become best friends, and maybe you can help out me and my colleagues in the British opposition with your secret papers.

Louis XV: On the one hand, traitor!

Louis XV: On the other hand, I've been interested in this radical Wilkes guy for a while now, as I'd love to start a rebellion in England. D'Eon, why don't you stay BFFs with him and play double agent for us? I notice you didn't actually publish anything incriminating against us, just critical.

Chevalier d'Eon: Can do!

Louis XV: None of which is going to stop me from continuing to extradite you, though. I'm very confused about how a MONARCH can't do something as simple as this. I'm a monarch, I know how these things work. You can't fool me about it not being possible, George III!

Kates:

Over supper one evening in Paris, Broglie talked for hours with David Hume, then secretary to the British ambassador to France, about why the British government could not simply deport d'Eon. In France, Broglie argued, nothing could stop the will of the King in a matter of this kind. The famous philosopher reminded Broglie that in England the King was not sovereign, the laws were, and while everyone who lived in the kingdom was subject to those laws, no one could be held against his will unless there was evidence that some law had been violated. Broglie went home that night amazed that a monarchy could develop strong political institutions based on such strange notions.

Mildred: Yeah, this is why I was always convinced BPC *was* risking his neck with that invasion. This isn't the Continent, where the royal bro code takes precedence. I'm also reminded of how Philip the Frog in the 1720s could never be convinced that G1 wasn't just playing with him when he said he couldn't give back Gibraltar to Spain. "I'm a monarch! I know monarchs can do this sort of thing!" "I'm not an absolute monarch, you idiot. Parliament makes the rules."

Louis XV: So failing extradition by the wilfully defiant British king, I'm going to try to have you kidnapped.

Guerchy: I, the French ambassador in England who replaced you, am furious at you trashing me, d'Eon, and I am going to try to have you assassinated!

British government: We will indict you for attempted murder, Guerchy!

Kates:

For the French, everything about the indictment was insulting that the official representative of the French king could be tried for attempted murder seemed a clear violation of diplomatic immunity. Besides, in France, where indictments were controlled by the crown, the prosecution of a diplomat could happen only if the monarch intended it as an act of war. David Hume again patiently explained to a skeptical Broglie that the English political system was different from the French. Laws in England were immutable. If a law was violated, Hume boasted, the government had the obligation to prosecute the criminal, no matter his status. In contrast to France, whose Old Regime was based on the notion of privilege–literally, private law–in England, no one, at least in theory, was above the law.

George III: Okay, but this is still awkward, I get that. Louis's taking it as a personal insult, whether we mean it that way or no. Let's maybe dial down the publicity on this trial a little?

Louis: *Meanwhile*, I want my spy and his papers back!

Broglie: I agree the papers are necessary, but I really think we should keep d'Eon in England and make use of his contacts and skills for our nefarious purposes.

1765-1766:

Louis: FINE. He can have a pension. But you can't come back to France, d'Eon, you hear?

Chevalier d'Eon: I hear you. And I'm not too happy about permanent exile. The whole point of getting prestigious appointments abroad is to parlay them into even more prestigious ministerial appointments at home. I like England's system of government, and I think ours sucks, and the more I see of the sausage-making the more I realize how *much* it sucks, but I don't want to be stuck here forever. I wish I could come home again, but without being arrested.

Re: Chevalier d'Eon II: England and the King's Secret

[selenak]

Everybody: *writes anonymous pamphlets trashing each other*

Why should Fritz and Voltaire have all the fun?

Great write-up. Does the biography mention the show duel D'Eon had with Joseph Boulogne, Chevalier St. George (= mixed race genius composer, violinist and master duelist, a generation younger) when the later was visiting England?

re: John Wilkes: Boswell, because he's Boswell, managed to befriend Wilkes, too, when making his European grand tour in the mid 1760s (aka the one where we have the German and Swiss part quotes from), which was especially dicey because Wilkes was anathema to beth Boswell's real Dad and to his chosen mentor Dr. Johnson.

Chevalier d'Eon III: Genderswap

[mildred_of_midgard]

1770:

Rumors break out about the Chevalier d'Eon being secretly a woman. They spread across Europe like wildfire. People start *placing bets*, and bankers are acting as bookies.

Chevalier d'Eon: This is an outrage! Who told you I was a woman? How dare you bet on my sex? I hereby challenge you to a duel!

Banker: Sorry about that, but you have to remember that in England, it's legal to place bets on anyone except the King, the Queen, and their children.

Chevalier d'Eon: A DUEL, SIR. Duels for everybody placing bets on the state of my genitalia!

Everyone: No one is going to fight you. Calm down.

Chevalier d'Eon: "Calm down." My honor is at stake here! And next thing I know, I'm going to be kidnapped so people can determine my sex. I am a victim of slander.

Kates: Ahem. While as a historian I cannot document the origin of rumors, by definition, all evidence points to you as the one who started them.

Chevalier d'Eon: That's nonsense! The only person I confided my true sex to was the Princess Dashkova, one-time BFF of future Catherine the Great, when I lived in Russia. She must have told someone!

Kates: Much like the correspondence of the King's Secret from that time contains no reference to you being hired to work as a woman and a man, Dashkova's memoirs make no reference to this. All evidence from your own correspondence points to you making this story up in the 1770s.

Chevalier d'Eon: Why would I do something as silly as that??

Kates: Because you wanted to go back to France, but you didn't want to be arrested and thrown in the Bastille when you got there. You figured this would both drum up some sympathy for you and give you a reason to leave England, as well as give you so much notoriety that Louis couldn't just throw you in a deep dark dungeon and expect the public to forget about you. Look, you were a double agent. You were one of the best damn double agents France ever had. Starting rumors without letting on that they came from you was part of your day job! You had both motive and opportunity, is what I'm saying.

Kates: Plus, don't forget the signed testimonies about the state of your penis upon your death.

Ghost of Fritz: *waves*

Kates: PLUS, even late in life, when you were dressing in women's clothes and presenting as a woman, random observers kept commenting on how masculine your body was. People would not have spontaneously looked at you, living as a man in England, and gone, "Oh, hey, must be a woman!" You made this up.

Chevalier d'Eon: *grumbles at future historians and their detective work*

Chevalier d'Eon: Anyway, it worked. In 1776, Louis XVI finally acknowledged I was a woman, and in 1777, after 15 years in England, I finally got to return to France safely.

Louis XVI: Well, Madame Chevaliere, now that you are a woman, you will obviously wear women's clothes and retire from the military and diplomacy.

Chevalier d'Eon: What?! I wanted to come back to France safely, not give up everything that made life worth living! I will be a woman wearing men's clothes and a man's life.

Louis: I will arrest you if you do that!

Chevalier d'Eon's fellow dragoons: We protest! Not because we want women in the army, but because wearing the uniform of a captain of dragoons is an honor! You're supposed to wear it every time you go out in public for the rest of your life. If the King can violate one of his own laws, he's a tyrant who can do anything. None of us will be safe!

Louis: I have the arrest warrant right here in my hand…your call, Chevalier.

Marie Antoinette: Don't worry, you can borrow my dressmaker, the famous Rose Bertin! We'll teach you how to be a lady again.

Chevalier d'Eon: *banging head against wall*

Chevalier d'Eon: FINE. I guess it's better than the Bastille, but not by much. The stays hurt my
shoulders, stomach, and groin. “I find women's clothes too complicated for dressing and undressing promptly. Full of inconvenience, unseasonable for winter, impractical for all occasions except those uniquely suited for embodying vanity, luxury, and vice." Also, narrow high heels are the worst; I'm going to keep wearing low rounded heels.

Mildred: More proof that men had stopped wearing high heels by mid-century. The Chevalier d'Eon was born in 1728.

Chevalier d'Eon: Also, I'm afraid that if I put on women's clothes, everyone's going to treat me like a woman, and if there's one thing I value in life, it's liberty.

Kates: I will talk a lot about Joan of Arc in this book. I will dedicate an entire chapter to Joan of Arc. But bizarrely, I will not mention the drama around her wearing men's clothes at all. There will be one passing reference to the Chevalier d'Eon pointing out that Joan refused to wear women's clothes, but I am apparently completely ignorant of the role it played in her trial and condemnation, leading Mildred to google me to see if I'm a serious historian at all.

Mildred: History professor at Pomona College. Not to be a snob, but meh. Research profile also meh; I wouldn't be surprised if he never picked up a medieval history book in his life. It was just weird to see ~75 mentions of Joan's name in the book and nary a discussion of the cross-dressing battle.

Chevalier d'Eon: Meanwhile, I have a fantastic track record in both the military and diplomatic services; that means I can continue to serve, right?

Louis: No. You are a woman. Please to be behaving like a woman.

Chevalier d'Eon: I knew it! I knew dressing like a woman would limit me to a woman's life. At the very least, I'm going to continue acting like a man in terms of body language, chivalry towards ladies, etc.

Chevalier d'Eon: And in the meantime, I haven't given up on the military idea. The American Revolution has started, I'm a huge fan of liberty, and more than anything I want to go to America and fight for the cause! I will begin a letter-writing campaign in which I bother everyone with any power or influence at all, to try to get myself a post with the French troops in America!

Louis XVI: OMG WTF. I hereby order you to leave Versailles and return to your hometown in Burgundy and stop making a nuisance of yourself.

Chevalier d'Eon: *is still in Versailles, complaining about boredom*

Louis XVI: Fine, arrest her.

Chevalier d'Eon: This is just like the time Joan of Arc was arrested for wearing a military uniform, an episode on which Kates will not elaborate at all!

Chevalier d'Eon: Like any good French noble, I think life in the provinces sucks. If I can't have Paris, I want London! Please can I go to London, pretty please?

French ministers: No, you idiot, we're at war with England. That American Revolution thing? Ever heard of it? In France you stay, at least until the war's over.

Re: Chevalier d'Eon III: Genderswap

[selenak]

Kates: Plus, don't forget the signed testimonies about the state of your penis upon your death.

Ghost of Fritz: *waves*

LOL. At least d'Eon didn't have Dr. Zimmerman theorize about said penis being broken as a mixture of a botched operation, STD and psychology?

I will talk a lot about Joan of Arc in this book. I will dedicate an entire chapter to Joan of Arc. But bizarrely, I will not mention the drama around her wearing men's clothes at all.

That is really weird. It's not like this was a minor part of her persona! Incidentally, does Kates mention Julie D'Aubigny? (Not that she tried to save France, but she did wear men's clothing, did duel and cause lots of scandals, so...)

Chevalier d'Eon IV: Here at the end of all things

[mildred_of_midgard]

1783:

Chevalier d'Eon: Okay, now that the war's over, can I go to England? I have a lot of creditors there, and I need to straighten out my finances.

French ministers: No.

Mildred: Evidence that French nobility weren't allowed to travel abroad without permission either? It's not just you, Lehndorff!

1785:

Chevalier d'Eon: This is becoming critical! My creditors are about to sell the books and papers I left behind! Do you want my books and papers in the hands of the general public?

French ministers: FINE. I guess that would be the worst possible outcome here. Go.

Chevalier d'Eon: Sweet! I may have supported the Yankee tax dodgers against England, but the English political system is at least better than the stupid French one.

1789:

French revolution: *breaks out*

Chevalier d'Eon: Score! Now France will become more like England. I will write a letter to the National Assembly offering to help fight against Austria!

National Assembly: *laughter and applause when the letter is read aloud*

Some people: Yeah, let her come! She can be our new Joan of Arc!

1793:

French government: Okay, yeah, get her a fake passport so she can leave England and come here.

Chevalier d'Eon: Shit, I have no money! Even selling off all my books won't cover all my debts. I am forced to enter fencing tournaments for money, and become known as the world's best swordswoman. Even the Prince of Wales will watch me.

Chevalier d'Eon: Alas, the 1790s were not a good time for me: plagued by money problems, hitting my 70s, and getting injured and forced to discontinue fencing.

Kates: It's probably for the best you never made it to France. The Terror started shortly after you would have come, and you were nobility after all. "Someone with d'Eon's flair for the dramatic would have had difficulty maintaining a low profile."

Mildred: *choke*

Mildred: Understatement of the year!

1810:

Chevalier d'Eon: *dies, aged 81*

*********

So this was an interesting book. Despite the fact that the whole Joan of Arc treatment made me question everything about his credentials, the book is jam-packed with more information about the 18th century and the Chevalier's life than I could report here.

In particular, if you want to read the book, there's a ton on how 18th century society and intellectuals understood gender roles, and how that differed from the 19th century. There's also a lot on the Chevalier's intellectual and spiritual life, the books she read and what she wrote, her experience as a born-again Christian, and how both of those things led her to believe women were morally superior to men in a way that must have contributed to her desire to live life as one.

There's also a lot more on how famous figures interacted with her, what she thought of them, and what they thought of her, such as Voltaire, Rousseau, Benjamin Franklin, John Wilkes, and this entire ~dramatic~ episode with Beaumarchais. It's worth a read even if it's not the most rigorous history ever. cahn, you might like this one.

Oh, and final note from our 19th century Duc de Broglie, he is predictably not a fan of the Chevalier d'Eon and gets eyerolly at the whole "I'm a woman!" thing, and thinks of it as shenanigans that just made it harder for the Comte de Broglie to focus on important things, like the First Partition of Poland. (Note that the rumors about the Chevalier being a woman started in 1770, and the First Partition was playing out in 1771-1774, so these two events overlapped.)

Re: Chevalier d'Eon IV: Here at the end of all things

[selenak]

The Terror started shortly after you would have come, and you were nobility after all. "Someone with d'Eon's flair for the dramatic would have had difficulty maintaining a low profile."

Hey, maybe D'Eon and Prussian Trenck could have been beheaded together. Reminder to cahn that Trenck did get it into his head to visit Paris at just that time and promptly got executed, thus concluding his flamboyant life in dramatic style.

Løvenørn letters: August 1, 1730

[mildred_of_midgard]

Having promised selenak and cahn to get back to work on my essays after finishing my write-ups, I have been attempting to practice French handwriting on the Løvenørn letters from the Danish archives, which are easier to read than Peter's memoirs and which are more likely to contain new stuff (the memoirs being pretty much the same as the eulogy).

Conclusion: this would be a million times easier if my French were better. But if I practice handwriting, maybe I'll get there anyway.

So I semi-deciphered one letter by making a first pass at it, without going back and attempting to puzzle out anything I couldn't figure out, and this is my summary, subject to change as I puzzle more things out.

First and foremost, this letter is to (French) Count Rottembourg! Who is "my very dear Count" several times, and at the end, "my very dear Count Rottembourg whom I love and whom I will love eternally."

The date is August 1, 1730, meaning Rottembourg hasn't been in Berlin for 3 years, and Løvenørn is still writing to him.

Even accounting for 18th century hyperbole, I did not know they were close enough (either personally or professionally) to have kept in touch 3 years later! We did, of course, know that they were both pro-Fritz and anti-FW, and I'm hoping to see more of that as the correspondence develops.

Anyway, not *too* much of interest in letter 1, though I'm amused it opens with sth like "I haven't written because a lot of things have been happening here." Dude, it's August 1, the escape attempt will happen in 4 days, and once you find out about it, you'll learn what "a lot of things" really is!

Most interesting thing has something to do with sending copies of letters Grumbkow wrote to someone (the resident?) in London, and the letters are just like the author: full of lies. Especially on the subject of the poor prince, who (something interesting-looking here about the ugliest and most abominable person in the world--is this what Fritz thinks of Grumbkow?--but I'm missing a key verb, so will hold off on interpreting).

I *think* Løvenørn's saying that if FW doesn't do anything about Grumbkow, one can only hope that God will recompense Grumbkow according to his merits. But take that with a grain of salt.

Wrapping up the letter, Løvenørn wants to see Rottembourg face to face again, but such is not his fate. He can see that he will spend all his days without ever seeing his very dear Rottembourg again. [He is correct; Rottembourg will die in 1735, shortly after returning to Paris from Spain.]

That is all. I'll try to improve my French and handwriting to where I can get an actual transcript for you, but for now I wanted to share this bit. I think I'm just going to poke at interesting-looking letters to try to get some momentum back before I start wrestling handwriting. But this has been a good exercise in reminding me how rewarding the pains of deciphering can be! Thank you for the prodding by email, Selena and Cahn!

Oh, hey, look, September 2, we get Løvenørn's description to Rottembourg of Fritz's escape attempt! I see the names Katt and Keith. I think maybe I'll skip ahead and do this one next.

Stay tuned!

Also, now I'm tempted to order Løvenørn material from before August 1730; I had no idea he was writing to Rottembourg! I knew English envoy Whitworth really liked Rottembourg--he was one of the few diplomats Whitworth could stand to work with--but I don't know if they kept in touch when at different posts. Whitworth died in 1725, so no Katte-related material from him, but, you know, if I ever *do* get my French reading speed up...the French archives have a ton of Rottembourg material! Maybe we could even learn more about Philip the Frog! (Although Rottembourg had left Spain a few months before that happened, I bet the envoy who replaced him wrote a WTF letter to his predecessor. "Excuse me, was His Majesty a frog when you were here? Do you have advice? HALP." Rottembourg: "Ribbit.")

Re: Løvenørn letters: August 1, 1730

[selenak]

Lövenörn/Rottembourg: would this be our first envoy/envoy ship? (As opposed to envoy/royal family member or someone else?) Nifty discovery, in any case.

Most interesting thing has something to do with sending copies of letters Grumbkow wrote to someone (the resident?) in London, and the letters are just like the author: full of lies. Especially on the subject of the poor prince, who (something interesting-looking here about the ugliest and most abominable person in the world--is this what Fritz thinks of Grumbkow?--but I'm missing a key verb, so will hold off on interpreting).

I dimly recall the ultra nationalist German historian who analyzed the English marriage negotions debacle and entirely blamed perfidious Albion in general and Charles Hotham in particular saying something about the big showdown involving Hotham presenting a Grumbkow letter to the Prussian resident to FW (complete with being SHOCKED that the holy secrecy of diplomatic letters would be comopromised, which of course Prussian monarchs would NEVER)? With it backfiring.

Anyway, not that any lie is beneath Grumbkow, of course - see also G telling Fritz in 1731 that he needs to set boundaries with Wilhelmine to win FW's favour, while simultanously telling Wilhelmine that FW is very displeased to see false Fritz being so cold to her -, but I don't recall him lying in 1730 about anything in particular. I mean: the big things which set FW's temper off, like Fritz writing to Caroline he will not marry anyone but one of her daughters, really did happen, Grumbkow did not invent them, and if anyone is to blame for this one, it's SD for pressuring her children to regard the English marriages a zero sum game and that they needed to do everything to make that happen, including said letter. And both Fritz and Katte did talk to the English envoy(s) behind FW's back, so if Grumbkow said this (no idea whether he did, but it would have been in his interest to in 1730, so I assume he did), again, he wasn't lying.

Løvenørn letters: Sept 2, 1730

[mildred_of_midgard]

Okay, I deciphered most of this one! Either the handwriting is slightly better, or I'm slowly getting the hang of the handwriting.

Most of it is stuff we already knew, and as I'd expect from our Danish envoys, the information is pretty sound. The stuff that I don't recognize is:

- Katte is thrown in prison with irons on his hands and feet. Did we know that? It's very plausible, but I know Wilhelmine has him writing a poem on the windowsill.

- Somebody whose name I haven't deciphered yet got arrested for a night, but released the next day because of the intercession of his protector Grumbkow. Will try to decipher that name when I get around to puzzling out things I can't read at first pass.

- Nobody knows for sure where Fritz is; some say he's been taken to Küstrin, others say that Seckendorff took him to Vienna. Our guy Løvenørn says he has difficulty believing that one, but quotes Ovid in Latin to say that nothing is impossible.

Your instincts were correct, Løvenørn.

- Løvenørn is hearing from everybody that Grumbkow is going to try to drag him into this affair. But if he tries, Løvenørn says, he will find that he won't do so with impunity.

Stuff that we know but is still worth reporting: there's some gossip about other people who are out of favor, like Knyphausen, and a note that the Queen is depressed. No kidding.

This is fun, I'm being reminded why I enjoy deciphering unpublished archival material! Now everyone just remind me of this when I start dragging my feet on Kurrent.

Re: Løvenørn letters: Sept 2, 1730

[selenak]

Katte is thrown in prison with irons on his hands and feet. Did we know that? It's very plausible, but I know Wilhelmine has him writing a poem on the windowsill.

Wilhelmine isn't the only one, and I'm not talking about other memoirists. Remember Braunschweig envoy Stratemann? Unless I recall wrongly, he even gave us the same text of the poem, minus two lines. So allow me to doubt the irons on his hand and feet. I don't think the guy Nicolai talked to - the one who gave us the "the tyrant wants to see blood" quote, from Katte's regiment - mentions Katte being shackled, either. Now I know FW's gonna FW, but being clapped in iron would be extremely atypical for a prisoner of the nobility. (Unless he's Trenck after a previous successful escape, and the Trenck story in any version lives from Fritz being extra harsh there.) Allow me therefore to file this under the same type of rumor Guy Dickens reports of Fritz some weeks later, where he has him with wild growing hair and beard and getting starved, all incorrectly.

BTW, of course Stratemann is the Disney envoy and sole FW fan among envoys, but him in every report insisting Katte's pardon by the King and release is imminent until Katte loses head is a fascinating contrast to Dickens and Lövenörn insisting Fritz and Katte are in the dungeons and what not. Or in Vienna, which cracks me up. Of course it's the Protestant Danish envoy who's heard the rumor of evil Catholic Austrians taking Fritz to Vienna. (As if FW would have let them, or any other foreign nation who'd take punishment control from him.)

Lövenörn hating on Grumbkow: him and most people, though I think that as opposed to, say, Guy Dickens and Sir Charles Hotham the elder, I don't recall Grumbkow bothering with any face off/intrigues in the Danish direction.

Løvenørn letters: Aug 17, 1730

[mildred_of_midgard]

I've read a couple more letters, and nothing interesting except this:

I certainly heard that Seckendorff had asked to fight with Monsieur Hein, but the subject of their dispute was unknown to me. What I knew was that the former had said that there were no honest men at the court of Saxony except Messieurs Manteuffel and Wackerbarth. You must admit that the term is a bit strong. Manteuffel, according to what I have just learned, has received his dismissal from court, the reason is not known to me. Behold a great friend that Monsieur Seckendorff is losing.

Does anyone know who Hein is? Maybe under a different spelling?

It's August 17, and Løvenørn's in Schleswig, so news of the Great Fritzcapade hasn't reached him yet (Katte's only just been arrested on the 16th in Berlin). I'm hoping things get more exciting soon.

Re: Løvenørn letters: Aug 17, 1730

[selenak]

At a guess, for 1730? Hein = Hoym. As in former envoy to Paris, then called back to be minister in the cabinet, in which function he overtakes and ousts Manteuffel, who however has used the intervening months to remove any compromising paperwork. Manteuffel retires to Sorgen, Frey for a while, then moves to Berlin, Hoym can‘t enjoy his time in the sun for long because he gets defeated by Brühl, and accused of conspiring with Fritz.

Løvenørn letters: Aug 21, 1730

[mildred_of_midgard]

This one's to von Johnn, the legation secretary who's stationed in Berlin and who will remain the Danish point of contact after Løvenørn's recall in November. He will be the author of the well-informed envoy report on Katte's execution that reads suspiciously like a certain pamphlet published in Cologne.

A little context from previous letters: Løvenørn's in Schleswig because the king of Denmark (Fredrik IV, the guy who kicked off the Great Northern War by trying and failing to gang up on Karl XII of Sweden) is extremely sick*. Monsieur Stahl is, I gather from context, a doctor who's been sent from Berlin to Schleswig to tend to the sick king.

* We salongoers know he will die in October; in these letters, Løvenørn's still hoping he might recover.

Løvenørn writes to Johnn:

I have just received from Monsieur the Grand Chancellor an order from H.M. the King Our Master to return a thousand thanks to H.M. the Queen of Prussia, for the kindness she had in consenting to Mr. Stahl's trip to here, and to pray for her to be willing to allow him to stay here a few days longer than he wants. (Between us, Mr. Stahl allowed himself to be persuaded to stay a few more days, but he wants us to write to Berlin that he is kept here in spite of himself.)...One imagines here that I can write directly to the Queen, but you, Monsieur, who know the lay of the land there, can judge otherwise.

Okay, it's not super exciting, but I'm amused by the hint of drama around SD.

ETA: Oh, and I forgot to mention, he's discussing finances in this letter, and the inevitable mention of Mssrs. Splitgerber & Daun, and the need to repay them, makes an appearance. :D

Løvenørn letters: Aug 21, 1730

[mildred_of_midgard]

Ooh, he's just learned about the Fritz escape! This letter is addressed to a Monsieur de Plessen.

Your Excellency will see via the report of Mr. de Johnn that the Prince Royal of Prussia has been placed under arrest at Wesel for having wanted to escape to France. For a long time, I've expected an outcome like this from this fatal project, which he wanted to execute already in the time when we were in the camp of X* and he made this unfortunate confidence to me. I had the good fortune of talking him out of it then, by pointing out to him the unhappy outcome of his plan in the event it's discovered and the deplorable state in which it would put the poor queen his mother. I'm afraid that time will justify my predictions.

* I can't fully decipher this, but it looks something like "Badewitz". It must be the Zeithain camp, which went by various names.

On my return from the camp, I shared with the queen the plan of the poor and unhappy prince. She was very obliged to me for the good advice I gave her son, and she's said to me since that she hopes he won't think about it any more.

There's more, but it will have to wait.

Re: Løvenørn letters: Aug 21, 1730

[cahn]

Gosh. I mean, he's right, but at the same time yet another incident where Fritz isn't getting helped...

Candyhearts?

[selenak]

Mes amies, how about it? Do we nominate? If so, whom? This one allows 10 X 10, and has no size demands, so there are many possibilities. Last year I did Émilie/Voltaire, this year I feel a bit Stuarts inclined and would try out James VI and I/ some of his boyfriends, and given the tv show starring Buckingham is due, there might be additional interest. Also, cahn, how about nominating The King's Touch which has the advantage of being a novel and thus a more easily accessible canon than "history, do your own research", and some of the relationships and characters, like Minette, but also Jemmy/Mary II/William of Orange as an almost threesome?

Going back to our lot, the Algarotti/Lady Mary/Lord Hervey triangle seems to be made for something bittersweet in glimpses, starting with the two Brits being wowed by Algarotti and wooing him only for him to ditch them for Fritz, and ending with Lady Mary and Algarotti meeting again in exile, toasting Lord Hervey's memory.

Speaking of all things Hervey: since we now know about the equally wild and entertaining descendants: Frederick Hervey (the Bishop) tries to marry his kids to the Hohenzollern! Bess/Georgiana OTP!

And lastly, for Mildred: Suhm - Fritz - Manteuffel, for I haven't given up the Two Saxon Envoys, One Crown Prince idea entirely.

Candyhearts and Yuletide

[cahn]

ahhhhhh I am feeling pretty short on time here! But I guess it's only 300 words... and I don't have to commit yet... so, sure, go ahead! I like the idea of Stuarts and King's Touch. Definitely Jemmy/Mary II/William of Orange!! I think we could give the Fredericians a rest for this one unless you really want to write it?

Also will you be nominating B5?

Re the Other Exchange:

-I see there is a "Slice of Life" 18th C fic with Fritz, Heinrich, and Fredersdorf :DD In other news, I have a present!

-I continue to find it deeply hilarious and awesome that 18th C / 18th C Frederician RPF continues to be an example the mods give for how to use the existing canonical. :DD

Løvenørn letters: Sept 26, 1730

[mildred_of_midgard]

Okay, this one is *really* hard to read. It's clearly a draft, with one unfinished column that has a line through it, and a parallel column that contains the same content in different words, and is finished. And the handwriting is some of his worst. However, the gist is clear: FW is PISSED.

The letter is addressed to a Mr. de Söhlenthal, and the only reason I can read that name is that the first tutor of future Frederik V (unhinged alcoholic) was a Söhlenthal. Since that Söhlenthal was appointed in 1730 (when Frederik turned 7, usual age for boys to be taken away from women and handed over to men), this could be the same guy, or a close relative.

Løvenørn writes, and I'm going to make some of my best guesses here:

I protest to you, Sir, that those who imagine that they will be able to do something with the King of Prussia in the future through gentleness are very much mistaken. He's in a mood, of which it's impossible to paint a picture, and I must close the curtains on any attempt to do that, apart from the fact that he is animated to the utmost degree against all those who appear to be affected by the present state of the Prince and the rest of the court, and Your Excellency can be well convinced that in the situation in which affairs are at the moment, the court of England could not give the King a greater pleasure than to make him new proposals either for the double or for the single marriage, so that he would have the opportunity to reject them entirely and that with contempt.

I was reading along and got to "the court of England could not give the King a greater pleasure than to make him new proposals either for the double or for the single marriage," and I thought, "I must have read that wrong, surely that's the last thing he wants. I'll go back when I'm done and see if I missed a negative or something." Then I kept reading, and I was like, "Aha, no, I had it right all along!" Also, that's hilarious.

There's another sentence, but I can't decipher it (without a lot more effort than I'm willing to put in). It seems to be something along the lines of Løvenørn going, "I'm doing the best I can here."

Algarotti to Ariane von Keith

[mildred_of_midgard]

Ariane's mother, the Baroness von Knyphausen, died in April 1751. Algarotti wrote to Ariane:

You will certainly have no doubt, Madame, of the infinite part that I take in the loss that we have just suffered in the person of your mother. The king, Madame, repents her as much as you and Monsieur de Keith. I will not undertake, Madame, to console you, as I need consolation myself. What can soften such a loss for me will be the continuation of your kindness, Madame. I will find in you, Madame, what I lost in her.

I have the honor to be, with all respect, Madame, your very obedient servant, Algarotti.

Maupertuis continues to have the worst handwriting, even with my improved French skills, but if I stare at the screen with my eyes slightly unfocused, some sense-making words and phrases seem to emerge. So I'm going to give one of his letters a shot. Wish me luck!

Re: Algarotti to Ariane von Keith

[selenak]

. I will not undertake, Madame, to console you, as I need consolation myself.

I'm trying to decide whether to count this as Rokoko rethoric or a bad condolence letter. Or whether Algarotti actually did have a relationship with the Baroness. BTW, didn't she have an illegitimate kid, or am I confusing her with another Prussian noble lady?

Maupertuis, my nemesis

[mildred_of_midgard]

In one of my favorite books, the main character is learning French, and this happens:

Madame Martel had left a book of stories for Anna to read, and she sat down in the dining room and struggled with for a while. But it was meant for children much younger than herself and it was depressing to sit working away with the dictionary by her side, only to discover that Pierre had thrown a stick at his little sister and that his mother had called him a naughty boy.

That's sort of how I feel about all this effort I've put in to deciphering Maupertuis's handwriting, and I've only managed to get one sentence to make sense:

I had planned, Monsieur and dear friend, to sup with you this evening, or to see you sup at my house, I am sorry that these plans prevented you from doing so.

The rest of this letter looks a bit more interesting, but I'm making a lot of guesses and missing a key phrase:

I will let you know you early in order to have you at the Academy on Thursday for the judgment of my trial which has been postponed until today. I [...] to find you there; as the man in the world most filled with justice, enlightenment, and friendship for me. My respects to Madame de Keith.

I'm assuming he's hoping to find Peter there, but the ellipsis contains 3 or 4 words I can't read.

There are three longer letters from Maupertuis that I've been struggling with; wish me luck.

Re: Maupertuis, my nemesis

[mildred_of_midgard]

Two more letters that I at least have the gist of now:

Thursday evening, the 23rd, there will take place an event in the Academy that [affects me]; I hope Monsieur and dear friend will find himself there. I have wanted to warn you in advance, so that nothing can prevent you from rendering me this service, not in the countryside, not at court, and not in town. I would very much like to see you Wednesday or Thursday morning; I would go to your place if I dared to go out, but my chest does not permit it.

[You have informed me?] of the politeness with which Monsieur de Tyrconnell has received your packet. Farewell. My respects to Madame de Keith and to [all your dear ones?].

cahn, reminder that Tyrconnell is the French envoy.

ETA: Oh, I should also point out that the chronology tells us this is right around the time of the principle of least action, and I'm assuming that the affair at the Academy that Maupertuis reeeeally wants Peter there for, is the vote on König's document claiming to be from Leibniz and whether it's a forgery or not. Peter, as we know, read Maupertuis's letter aloud to the gathering and collected the vote.

Though interestingly, salon chronology tells me the vote took place on April 13, 1752, and Wikipedia tells me Tyrconnell died March 12, 1752. And this is dated "Lundy 20". So either Tyrconnell is dead and Maupertuis is referring to someone who died a week ago, or else it's February and the vote got pushed off over a month, to April. Well, bureaucracy: my performance review with my boss was supposed to take place in early November, and is now scheduled for next week. :P And Maupertuis did say his has been postponed already.

Next letter:

I have carried out your commission, and if you send the letter [and want?] the king to take it well, I will say to you that your cousin will surely pay court to the king in writing in French; and we do not finish our letters [as if to an equal, but by a respectful formula that is at least a little respectful]. To the king, it's necessary to show very profound respect. You understand, of course, that this remark doesn't come from our monarch, who is of all the kings in the world the one who pays the least attention to these things; it is the advice of a friend that I give to your relative; more for the public than for the king.

You are very lucky to be at Britz with your wife and children, very lovable and who love you. Enjoy, dear friend, this good fortune and [...]. My respects to everyone, and give a little friendship to them from me.

Britz is the Knyphausen estate that Ariane inherited from her mother, and which was sold soon after, but remained in the family.

So! I wonder which cousin this was. Clearly Peter's relatives are minor nobility who write in German and don't know how to address a king (remember Peter's mother writing in German).

Btw, the bit about Fritz not caring is probably Fritz caring, or at least Maupertuis wanting to be on the safe side. From everything I've read, Fritz made a big show of not caring about ceremony, but then wasn't totally consistent on that point. He didn't care, except when he did.

P.S. The trick to reading his handwriting is to stare at the page directly above the word you're trying to read and look at that word with your peripheral vision. This forces your brain to parse it holistically, and then sometimes the shape of a whole word that makes sense in context emerges. Whereas individual characters are so indecipherable that they would never add up to a whole word. This technique is responsible for about 50% of the words I deciphered, and is basically the exact opposite of the way I read Kurrent, where I go character by character.

TL;DR: I am asking everyone to be impressed with my dedication to the cause. :P

P.P.S. And a shout-out to cahn for holding me accountable to my daily French quota the last few months; I would not have gotten this much a few months ago when I got my hands on these documents. "Chest" in particular, "poitrine", was a recently acquired piece of vocabulary. Luckily (for me), the medieval kings of France and dukes of Burgundy are always getting sick in the chest. :D

Løvenørn letters: Sept 26, 1730

[mildred_of_midgard]

This one is to Monsieur de Berckentin, it's a draft with a lot of scratching out, sentence fragments, and veering from the most beautiful handwriting in the world to giving Maupertuis a run for his money (except Maupertuis actually *sent* his letters like that; Løvenørn's are drafts).

It's four pages, and I'm not wrestling with the semi-legible parts, so I'm just going to give highlights.

FW is hunting at Wusterhausen, in the worst temper of his life, and that's saying a lot (says Løvenørn, lol).

SD has left with the third daughter, and the oldest daughter has still not recovered from her indisposition. [Mildred: cahn, remember that Wilhelmine was locked up in house arrest, and without being able to take communion, under pretense of being indisposed.)

Fritz is at Küstrin, and never sees anyone except the guard officer on duty, the guy with the keys who opens and closes his door, and the lackey who dresses Fritz and brings him food. The officer in question sleeps in the antechamber with two sub-officers, they are armed to the teeth, and they have to swear an oath not to speak a word to Fritz. Fritz gets 8 groschen for food at midday and the same in the evening.

[Mildred: I'm not going to look it up, but we have the details in FW's orders, and I think that's correct.]

Katte hasn't been judged yet, but he and Fritz are still being interrogated and giving depositions.

Nobody knows how this said story will end, but it puts all right-thinking men in a state of desolation. FW is planning a manifest on his treatment of Fritz, but hasn't published it yet.

*handwriting deteriorates, lots of scratching out*

Something illegible about Hotham and the English.

*handwriting gets good again, albeit with scratching out*

The English court certainly did not approve Fritz's plan. The English ministers in Berlin haven't done anything but report Fritz's complaints about his father's treatment of him and his intentions to put an end to it.

*handwriting deteriorates*

Katte told Løvenørn that Fritz often complained to him about his father?

Something about Fritz and Katte and their respective depositions about their roles in this affair. Sorry, not deciphering this bit, doesn't look like it'll tell us anything new.

Re: Løvenørn letters: Sept 26, 1730

[selenak]

FW is hunting at Wusterhausen, in the worst temper of his life, and that's saying a lot (says Løvenørn, lol).

Lövenörn, you just weren't present for most of his life, so say all the veterans who were. Though certainly the aftermath of the escape attempt is a very special time in that way.

SD has left with the third daughter, and the oldest daughter has still not recovered from her indisposition. [Mildred: [personal profile] cahn, remember that Wilhelmine was locked up in house arrest, and without being able to take communion, under pretense of being indisposed.)

Stratemeann the Braunschweig envoy gives us the same report (i.e. Wilhelmine is sick) right until very very briefly before she's allowed out again. Otoh I think Guy Dickens doesn't, but then he gets his news from SD's chapel. The second daughter presumably is not mentioned because that's the one who has already been married, to Ansbach. (Where she'll be absolutely miserable and go from a spirited girl cheeking FW about what kind of food he allows his family to a depressive woman. Thanks to her husband.)

Nobody knows how this said story will end, but it puts all right-thinking men in a state of desolation.

Sad story, I presume. Fontane points out that all the fretting among the envoys and at foreign courts was done for as long as Fritz' fate and Katte's fate were linked in that people did have genuine fears FW would go hardcore on Fritz, but that as soon as it was clear Fritz would survive, no one bothered with Katte anymore because he was guilty for conspiring with the crown prince against the sitting monarch and of attempted desertion, and therefore his sentence, while harsh, was not seen as unduly unfair. Now that doesn't quite jive with those December reports by Dickens of FW's reaction to hearing how Katte is lamented and symphatized with in GB, but I am curious whether Lövenörn will change his attitude as soon as it's clear that while it's death for Katte, Fritz' life is no longer at stake.


FW is planning a manifest on his treatment of Fritz, but hasn't published it yet.

That's an interesting rumor. I could see him intending to do so and being talked out of it by Grumbkow & SEckendorff, because seriously, he would not do himself or the reputation of the Prussian royal family any favours no matter how much he insists on being in the right and everyone conspiring against him.