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

Løvenørn letters: unknown date

[mildred_of_midgard]

The latest: 4 pages of beautiful handwriting with a lot of crossings out and writing in of words above the crossed-out parts. I did the best I could, but sometimes I ignored the edits squeezed semi-legibly in between lines.

Major General de Ginckel, envoy extraordinaire of His Puissant Highness, having recently received orders from his masters to intercede in their name with His Prussian Majesty in favor of the Royal Prince, found himself very much at a loss to carry it out. Monsieur de Bork, whom he consulted on the matter, informed him that he did not believe that he should undertake to speak to the King about this matter in the present circumstances. However His Majesty having given him permission to come to Wusterhausen a few days ago, he thought he had to take advantage of this opportunity to carry out his orders. Which he actually did, but without knowing what to make of the King of Prussia having spoken to him sometimes as an irritated king, who was thinking of seeking justice on all those who had been involved in this affair, by means of the gallows and the bar, and sometimes as a softened father who looked at the fault of his son like a youthful prank which could easily be forgiven. But this minister stated that he found the king so undecided between these two diametrically opposed feelings in a half-hour window, several times alternately in one and in the other feeling, that it will be impossible for him to be able to send anything to his masters other than he had a confused conversation with the King of Prussia, without having had any positive response from him on this matter, nor can he make any conjectures on the King's true feelings in this regard.

The only thing he understood well was that at the moment, when the King was in moderate feelings, he complained of his son's obstinacy in not wanting to say that he wanted to desert instead of the expression "having wanted to retire elsewhere," and that his son had shown such great spirit in his defense, that he, the king, could no longer be proud of a man who had so much spirit.

Mildred: Google wants that to mean "could no longer be proud of," which makes sense in context, but reading it in isolation, without knowing anything about FW, I would have taken it as "could not be more proud of." The original is "ne se pouvoit plus fier à un homme qui en avait autant," if anyone else wants to weigh in. Does FW actually want to see some spirit in his defeated son? Or does that unnerve him about Prussia's future under Wretched Son?

Resuming...

Finally, this Monarch is in the strangest agitation of mind. he complains that all his blood is so heated that his head is ready to turn.

The gout had him a strangehold for four days, and at the same time he had a fever two nights in a row, which is not a remedy to calm his anxieties. He is watched every night by three of his officers, who are with him at Wusterhausen. He asks everyone who approaches him if they believe in ghosts, apparently he encounters them in the pain of gout.

Mildred: I can imagine Fritz, if he knew about this, thinking frantically, "Has he seen the White Lady yet? Has he seen the White Lady?"

Also, it's entertaining to think that it's *right* at this time that Fritz is having his ghostly encounter that turns out to be rats.

Continuing...

The last time the commissioners went to see the Prince at Küstrin, he did not want to have anything to do with them, claiming to have already said everything there was to say and everything he knew about this affair. However, on an article from Lieutenant Katte's last depositions, which states that the Prince had told him in confidence, that Messieurs de Seckendorff & Gromkow had incessently tormented him to make him change his religion. The Prince declared that he did not know how he could have said such a thing to him, or that at least he did not remember it, and that these gentlemen themselves would know best what was going on.

Mildred: But nothing about marrying an Austrian archduchess, I see. (Also, let's all remember: the reason Crown Prince August III's conversion was finally made public the year of the Klement episode, years after the conversion took place, was so he could marry an Austrian archduchess.)

The only two windows that were left for the purpose of daylight in the room where the Prince is locked up were lined with large iron bars, although this room is on a higher floor. The others were walled up.

Then there are some marginal notes:

In the meantime, I know that the King recently told a certain person that he did not want to produce the second volume of the Czarewitz, but that he would make his son fret away his crime in prison.

The quarrel between the courts of Vienna and Dresden greatly disorients the King of Prussia, he depends all the more at present that it is his duty to see clearly what it what: namely that all these magnificent promises, which Messieurs de Seckendorff and Gromkow have always given him, the powerful help of which the Imperial Court was assured on this side, have been only the beginnings of inventions to engage him more and more with the Emperor. However, I am well assured that these gentlemen will not lack a bandaid, in their way, for this wound.

He [Fritz, I assume] told the officer in charge of grilling the windows that we could spare ourselves this trouble, we would be very mistaken if we thought he was so serious as to want to jump out of the window to hurt himself.

However he [FW] is still entirely handed over to Seckendorff and Gromkow and what is worse is he is left to his own devices.

I think some of these tidbits are new, or at least I don't remember them in Stratemann; Selena may.

Re: Løvenørn letters: unknown date

[selenak]

Mildred: Google wants that to mean "could no longer be proud of," which makes sense in context, but reading it in isolation, without knowing anything about FW, I would have taken it as "could not be more proud of." The original is "ne se pouvoit plus fier à un homme qui en avait autant," if anyone else wants to weigh in. Does FW actually want to see some spirit in his defeated son? Or does that unnerve him about Prussia's future under Wretched Son?

Given this is FW "If my father had treated me this way, I'd have killed myself, but you are too much of a coward" we're talking about, I vote he does want to see some spirit, and the correct translation is "could not be more proud of". That Lövenörn describes him wavering between strict monarch and Dad who could forgive would underline that.


Mildred: I can imagine Fritz, if he knew about this, thinking frantically, "Has he seen the White Lady yet? Has he seen the White Lady?"

LOL. Sounds plausible to me. And you know, Fritz in October - where we also have a smuggled letter to Wilhelmine - sounds pretty defiant. He's reasonably certain FW won't kill him, and it doesn't seem to have occured to him yet Katte might die.

Ha! Lövenörn is the first envoy to mention the EVil Catholic Plot by Seckendorff and Grumbkow which Fritz pitched to Katte as an argument for why he must run away. Go figure that it's the very Protestant Danish envoy. You can almost feel in his lines he wants to believe this is true. Given how utterly counterproductive this would have been to Seckendorff and Grumbkow's goals (which were first and foremost to make FW side with Team HRE NOW, because they'd know FW's reaction to even a whisper of princely conversion, you'd think anyone with a smidgeon of common sense would see through the lie, but if Lövenörn is inclined to buy this, I guess Katte has an excuse.

BTW, I wonder whether Eugene's turnaround on Katte is also influenced by hearing this particular tale?

In the meantime, I know that the King recently told a certain person that he did not want to produce the second volume of the Czarewitz, but that he would make his son fret away his crime in prison.

I wonder whether this is the same lady in waiting to SD who according to Wilhelmine told FW to not let the spirit of Peter the Great and Philip of Spain enter his breast? In any case, it's unsurprising Alexei was on everyone's mind, since that was the most recent example of a royal father first imprisoning and then killing his son. BTW, FW saying "I don't want to publish "The Czarevich: The Sequel" is surprisingly versatile for FW, no?

Re: Løvenørn letters: unknown date

[mildred_of_midgard]

The only two windows that were left for the purpose of daylight in the room where the Prince is locked up were lined with large iron bars, although this room is on a higher floor.

I don't remember any windows being walled off or lined with bars (though later artistic depictions certainly portray them that way), but he is correct about the floor: Fritz was on the second floor. He'd probably survive a jump (a la Joan of Arc), but he wouldn't like the outcome.

Lehndorff AU!

[selenak]

Today's event mail re: Frederician dates reminds me: what do we think would have happened if Fritz had greenlighted Lehndorff's request to go with Charles Hotham Jr. to London? Reminder that this is before Lehndorff inherits the family estate, his older brother is still alive at this point, and it's before his marriage to Marie von Häseler, so he does not have legal obligations to settle (not even for his mother, because see above, older brother still around).

Now, given that Hotham Jr. never seems to have contacted Lehndorff again after they tearfully parted once Fritz had refused permission to Lehndorff, I'm tempted to go with "they'd have split in GB as well eventually", but that doesn't have to be the case - maybe Hotham very sensibly decided against a long distance affair and did not want to settle in Prussia (I don't blame him in the slightest). Maybe he even realised Lehndorff still had unfinished business with Heinrich. All of which still doesn't exclude the possibility that their infatuation of early 1755 could have turned into something permanent IF Lehndorff had gone to GB with Hotham (thereby proving his commitment and priorities). Since in mid 1756, the 7 Years War kicks off, it's unlikely Lehndorff would have had the chance to go back to war-torn continental Europe in the next few years, thus solififying his British existence. Post War, he might have returned because his brother would have died either way, thus making Lehndorff the heir of Steinort, and that's an independent income, but it's also possible he could have found a position at the Georgian court, or been made an envoy, a career he fancied.

OR: it's also possible Lehndorff quickly finds out Hotham isn't the love of his life after all once they live together, the Brits are snobs looking down on German courtiers, and Heinrich is now in danger, OMG, and in a gallant romantic gesture (aided by disillusionment with Albion) he goes back with the next courier bringing mail to Mitchell.

Votes?

Re: Lehndorff AU!

[cahn]

Yeah, I also think the second option is probably more likely, but because I love Lehndorff I'd rather plump for the first option! I imagine Lehndorff going to GB for the 7 Years War, learning English, writing diaries in English just as a lark and for his darling Hotham, and tripping into a writing career and eventually being assigned high school reading for the American members of salon :D (I know, I know, wildly improbable historically, and it's not like he had a writing career in German until they were published in -- wasn't it the first half of the 20th century by then? -- but I can dream!)

Re: Lehndorff AU!

[mildred_of_midgard]

BTW, when I saw this comment, the first thing that came to mind was your Lehndorff: The Musical! from, omg, almost 4 years ago. Worth a reread!

Jordan letter: February 22, 1744

[mildred_of_midgard]

From Jordan to Peter Keith.

Charles Etienne Jordan, as a reminder to cahn, was a close friend of Fritz's, part of the Rheinsberg circle, and Fritz's librarian and secretary after he became king. Jordan is the one who wrote to Fritz on behalf of Peter when Peter wanted to join the army in 1742, and he will die in 1745.

His handwriting is reasonably good, not as good as Løvenørn's at its best, but orders of magnitude better than Maupertuis's! This represents my first pass at it, without an attempt to decipher anything I couldn't get on the first go.

This morning I saw Capitane de Blumenthal: curious to know news of the fugitive. I asked about him, he assured me that he was not in correspondence with him; that he had received letters dated [something], to which he had not responded. I'm supposed to have dinner at his house this evening, and see his wife for the first time. I am impatient, Sir, to [several legible words that neither Google nor Mildred can figure out how to interpret]. I play or rather, I try to play chess, I read, I drink, I eat, I [something]; and I do all this, to deceive my poor mind, which often gets bored. In Berlin, I do the same thing if you want, but all that makes it more economical [Mildred: costs more money?]; and I end my day better than I did here. The King is coming back today for dinner after the little trip to Rhinsberg. My respects to Madame de Cnyphausen; I am impatient to learn news of his health, and that of your kind wife, Monsieur your son, does he still cry in the same tone, and does he continue to speak? I recommend that the frail Hedewig carefully collect the first words he utters. I present my very humble duties to these ladies. The Latin country will please receive my assurances of friendship. I have the honor to be, Monsieur and very respectable friend, with all the dedication possible,

Your most humble and obedient servant
Jordan

My duties to M. de Kraut.

February 22 1744
Potsdam

So! Jordan appears to be an actual friend of the family. This letter is much more personal than the Maupertuis letters, and the Algarotti condolence letter reads like a a letter of obligation. (I've written condolence letters with similar strings of cliches, just modern-day cliches instead of Rokoko cliches.) Jordan is like, "Collect your kid's first words!"

Note that this is Carl Ernst, born November 1743; Friedrich Ludwig will not be born until August 1745. Given that Carl Ernst is less than 3 months old, I assume "continue to speak" means continue to babble 'Ma! Ma!' and the like.

Interesting that Hedewig is frail; I haven't been able to find any other meaning for "frêle". She will get married and live until 1804, so it can't be too serious. Also worth noting that Peter and Ariane lived with Ariane's mother until her death, so presumably all the unmarried Knyphausen siblings, or at least the girls, are living with them. Unsurprisingly, Auntie Hedwig has been roped into nanny duties!

Not sure about the Latin country; I *think* I've deciphered that right. Mostly the handwriting is clear enough if I've got context to back my readings up; if a reading comes along making no sense, I start second-guessing whether I deciphered it correctly. It does look like "le pays Latin", though.

Finally, not sure who M. de Kraut is.

Unrelated: Løvenørn has pretty good Kurrent, too! Enough for me to sight-read to determine when a letter isn't relevant to our interests, and enough that when something interesting comes along, I can get at least the gist in one pass (so far). I'm glad most of his stuff is in French, though, it's definitely going a lot faster than otherwise. (Why, Germans, why??)

Re: Jordan letter: February 22, 1744

[selenak]

I am again impressed by Peter's ability to make friends. You're right, this letter does sound personal, and further fleshes out Peter's family and young family life. Jordan, because he dies so young, is another kind of enigma/question mark among Fritz' friends, not least because he was a theologian. (I may recall wrongly, but I think Des Champs was either jealous or thought he was the only decent guy of Fritz' friends at Rheinsberg or both?)

Kraut: don't know about Monsieur, but Lehndorff I think mentions "little Kraut" (female) a few comes at being a loose woman and hot stuff.

Le pays Latin: possibly he means the scholarly friends/the Academicans?

1764-1772 Foreign policy: Poland: 1768-1772

[mildred_of_midgard]

Less entertaining than the first part, but hopefully that laid enough groundwork that you can follow what's going on.

In their quest to get the full extent of the dissenter legislation passed, the Russians are recruiting among all the Poles who isn't happy with the current government: local malcontents, Poles who are now living in exile and want to come back, etc. This is a good short-term strategy, but turns out to be not the recipe for the most stable government ever, long-term. Creating a government on the basis of "everyone who's unhappy with the current government, for whatever reason," doesn't lead to a united program or a lot of great teamwork.

At the very end of 1767, thanks to the Russian army, which is camping outside Warsaw and even in Repnin's very own garden, the Protestant and Orthodox dissenters get unrestricted freedom of worship and the right to occupy any public office, except the king still has to be a Catholic. And lest you think Catherine is super motivated by enlightened considerations, Catholics still won't be allowed to convert to Orthodoxy or Protestantism. If they try, they will be exiled. Why? If there are enough Orthodox believers in Poland, Russian serfs are going to desert across the border en masse to escape their terrible lives in Russia. And if there are enough Protestants in Poland, there might be a Protestant enlightenment! And enlightenment makes for stronger kingdoms! And we can't have that.

Yes, the so-called defenders of the Enlightenment specifically want to make sure the religions they're nominally trying to protect remain a minority so there's no widespread Enlightenment.

Realpolitik, I tell you.

Meanwhile...

Turks: You said something about "the Russian army camping outside Warsaw and evem in Repnin's own garden"?? We were not aware Poland belonged to Russia.

Russian ambassador to Constantinople: Yeah, the occupation is just a temporary measure to pass this one bit of legislation. Russian troops will evacuate Poland as soon as they can.

Turks: We're waiting…

Russian ambassador: Any minute now!

Russian ambassador: Catherine, psst, things are getting pretty hot here. The Turks are very worked up about those 40,000 troops on supposedly sovereign territory.

Catherine: Okay, fine. Troops will be withdrawn in the spring. Even though it means we won't be able to enforce these new laws very well.

On March 5, 1768, the laws have been successfully rammed through the Sejm, and the Russians start organizing the pulling out of troops.

But!

On February 29, the Confederation of Bar had just been formed. This is an alternate government to the establishment, i.e., a rebellion, made up of conservatives who don't want these new, unpopular laws. Their goals are:
* Annul the alliance with Russia
* Drive out the Russians
* Defend the Catholic Church
* Defend the constitution
* Free prisoners held by Russians (bishops, senators)

Russians, when they find out: Well! Guess we can't pull those troops out of Poland after all.

So a civil war breaks out in Poland. The Poles are not very organized. Spontaneous uprisings burst out across the country, with no effective leadership, and they're doing guerrilla warfare. However, spontaneous uprisings doing guerrilla warfare across a large country are actually kind of hard to put down, so the civil war lasts 3 years. It's impossible for Poniatowski and the official government to rule the country, but the Bar confederates are also not doing it. So lots of chaos.

Now, Poniatowski doesn't *want* a civil war, he wants to find some way of resolving this peacefully, but Repnin says either Poniatowski puts down the rebels, or the Russians will, and the Russians will take no prisoners. So Poniatowski reluctantly agrees.

Plus, Poniatowski still sees his political program as necessary to keep Poland alive, and he still sees Russia as the support he needs to put his program through. So he cooperates with Russian military forces, though he refuses Repnin's insistent request that he put himself at the head of a new, Russian-backed Confederacy, 'independent' of both Bar and the Czartoryskis. Poniatowski's desire to make peace and not crush his own subjects at all cost is part of the reason the Russians have so much trouble putting down the Hydra-like uprisings by or in support of the Confederation of Bar.

Meanwhile, the Czartoryskis, who have abandoned the Russian party and joined the anti-Russian party, are not happy with their supposed puppet king's behavior. What they want is no Russian guarantee of the Polish constitution (meaning the Russians will fight to keep the liberum veto), not so many concessions to the dissenters (like no political office), and also the liberum veto has to go.

Poniatowski: So on the one hand, I have the Russians occupying Poland, which I don't like, but they're giving me the support I need for my political program.

Poniatowski: On the second hand, there are my Polish subjects, whom I feel God has called me to protect, but I have to suppress them because they're in revolt.

Poniatowski: And because things are so bad that we need a third hand, my uncles and cousins are trying to put through their own reformist political program with the help of their own conservative anti-Russian supporters, in opposition to my liberal reform program that I'm trying to put through with the help of the Russians.

Poniatowski: And you wonder why this civil war doesn't get resolved except with a partition!

Poniatowski: Omg, it's getting worse?!! Russian Cossacks have just crossed into Turkish territory, committed a massacre, and the Ottomans have declared war on Russia. This kicks off the Russo-Turkish war, 1768-1774.

Poniatowski: And an outbreak of plague in 1769? Who wrote this episode? I demand a rewrite!

Due to all this chaos, it's very easy for the neighbors to use the fighting as an excuse to start moving *their* troops in. Austria starts, in 1768 already.

MT/Joseph/Kaunitz: We just want to keep the plague out! And keep the war from coming across our borders, so what happened to the Turks doesn't happen to us! And reoccupy some territory that we suddenly realized we have claims to.

Fritz: Yeah, same! If the Austrians are doing it, I'm in!

In hindsight, this is the first step of the Polish Partition. Fritz uses the Austrian decision to occupy part of Poland as a reason to escalate and excuse his own behavior, and as a way of dragging the Austrians into the partition. "I'm only doing it because they're doing it!" "Now that we've all done it, you can't object to what I did after what you did!" "You've already taken a piece of the cake; want a bigger one so you don't begrudge me mine?"

MT: No!

Joseph: Yes!

Kaunitz: Maybe, but can we get Silesia back instead? That would rock.

Joseph: You know he's never gonna go for that.

Fritz: You know I'm never gonna go for that.

So out of the many, many, *many* (Mildred had not realized there so many) proposed partitions of different countries and land exchanges, Russia, Prussia, and Austria eventually settle on everybody getting a piece of Poland.

Fritz: Austrians, don't worry about it. It's super easy to dredge up claims to neighboring territory. Dig through your archives and you'll find something!

Austrians: Did you find any claims to the part of Poland that you want?

Fritz: Not really convincing ones, but again, as long as Russia doesn't object, who cares?

The final step of the partition was to get the Polish Sejm to sign off on it, for PR reasons in the eyes of the rest of Europe. It took seven tries, lasting until 1775, because there was a small minority of Poles committed to futile resistance. The delays, of course, meant more time for the Austrians and Prussians to go, "Wait, we want to add in this bit of land too!"

Russia cares less about territory; their goal is to get Poland to be more compliant. Compliance will benefit them more in the long run than acquisitions (it's like unofficially annexing the whole country). Catherine drops the demands for dissenters to get the right to hold state office; all they get is freedom of worship. Which, as has been noted, is the most dissenters have in the rest of Europe anyway, in the most liberal countries (Britain, Netherlands)

So after all that posturing, the Enlightenment pretext has been dropped, and Fritz and Catherine unmasked as a pair of gangsters.

Next up, we'll get to see Russia's perspective on all this.

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Poland: 1768-1772

[selenak]

Just one note: It might be useful to explain the Turkish interest here, and why Russian troops in Poland are an issue to the Turks, given today's borders of Turkey are very different...

The Austrian Quaranteene because of the plague thing is mentioned in the conversation where "Let's partition Poland" is first brought up as a "joke", as reported by Heinrich to Fritz in a secret letter, which I used as the basis for the same scene in You should see me with a crown".

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Poland: 1768-1772

[cahn]

idk, gangster shenanigans are pretty entertaining actually :P

Creating a government on the basis of "everyone who's unhappy with the current government, for whatever reason," doesn't lead to a united program or a lot of great teamwork.

Huh. Who would have thought :)

Catholics still won't be allowed to convert to Orthodoxy or Protestantism. If they try, they will be exiled. Why? If there are enough Orthodox believers in Poland, Russian serfs are going to desert across the border en masse to escape their terrible lives in Russia. And if there are enough Protestants in Poland, there might be a Protestant enlightenment! And enlightenment makes for stronger kingdoms! And we can't have that.

...wow!

Poniatowski: And an outbreak of plague in 1769? Who wrote this episode? I demand a rewrite!

GAH. I can see why Polish people hate this guy -- I mean, things really fell apart, didn't they -- but it doesn't seem to have been his fault at all, he was just given a completely impossible job :(

MT/Joseph/Kaunitz: We just want to keep the plague out! And keep the war from coming across our borders, so what happened to the Turks doesn't happen to us! And reoccupy some territory that we suddenly realized we have claims to.

Fritz: Yeah, same! If the Austrians are doing it, I'm in!

LOL! I also laughed at the resulting Joseph/Fritz exchange :)

Fritz: Not really convincing ones, but again, as long as Russia doesn't object, who cares?

Hee!

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Poland: 1768-1772

[luzula]

Don't worry, it's still entertaining!

If there are enough Orthodox believers in Poland, Russian serfs are going to desert across the border en masse to escape their terrible lives in Russia.
Why don't they desert anyway? I mean, if enough of them do there will be more Orthodox believers in Poland...

Poor Poniatowski, he's really not having a good time!

Fritz: Austrians, don't worry about it. It's super easy to dredge up claims to neighboring territory. Dig through your archives and you'll find something!
*snorts* Why do they even bother fabricating claims?

ETA: Catherine drops the demands for dissenters to get the right to hold state office; all they get is freedom of worship. Which, as has been noted, is the most dissenters have in the rest of Europe anyway, in the most liberal countries (Britain, Netherlands)
Actually, Scotland has more than this. Although IDK if you want to count dissenters within Protestantism as actual dissenters--Scotland does not give Catholics the right to hold office. So in the 17th century Restoration, Anglicanism/Episcopalianism was imposed on the whole of Britain, and required of all state officials. Then in the Glorious Revolution the Presbyterian Kirk gained ascendancy in Scotland, so that all officials had to be Presbyterian there. But in 1712, the Toleration Act changed this (but only in Scotland!), so that it was okay for government officials to be either Presbyterian, Episcopalian, or Anglican (and perhaps further Protestant denominations, I don't know how far it stretched). Scotland having toleration but Ireland and England not having it caused some problems for example when regiments moved across borders. For example, there was an incident where a Presbyterian army chaplain was fired when his regiment was deployed to Ireland. He tried to fight this legally, but lost.

Løvenørn letters: Oct 21, 1730

[mildred_of_midgard]

Nothing worth reproducing in full here, but I was amused enough to summarize: he's writing to Sölenthal again, and complaining that he hasn't heard a word from Sölenthal in the last month, even though he has been delivering complete reports on Hotham, FW, and everything happening here in Berlin. Løvenørn would be "very mollified" to learn that Sölenthal's silence is because of some illness, or maybe the letter got lost.

I just like how he put those in that order and jumped straight to, "I hope you're sick!" :'D

Oh, hey, the next letter, also on the 21st, says there's been no change in the state of affairs regarding the Crown Prince, unspecified people ("on") are upset at what's already happened, and seek to drown their chagrins in wine.

Ha!

Oh, gosh, there's a scribbled out bit that mentions Guy Dickens, and I think is FW announcing he's not giving any of his kids to England, ever.

Yes, FW, we know. The double marriage and the single marriage are off.

Re: Løvenørn letters: Oct 21, 1730

[selenak]

The amazing thing is that SD still hasn‘t given up, and won‘t until Fritz of Wales ties the knot. Just think of her telling Wilhelmine to live with Bayreuth Friedrich like brother and sister so the marriage can be dissolved… Imagining any scenario under which FW would agree to an English marriage at this point just wrecks my brain, but then, that‘s true obsession for you, only rivaled by Marguerite Louise‘s „I want to return to France!“ goal when married to a Medici.

1764-1772 Foreign policy: Russia: The Northern Accord, 1764-1767

[mildred_of_midgard]

Okay, in this post, we're going to talk about Russian foreign policy concerning Poland up to the beginning of Catherine's reign.

Here's the map again; pay particular attention to the Ottoman Empire borders again:



From the moment Peter the Great started having a foreign policy (ca. 1700), it involved keeping Poland weak. Poland was the once powerful Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth that had kicked Russian butt a hundred years earlier, and it was in Russia's best interests to make sure that didn't happen again.

Remember when Karl XII kicked August the Strong off the Polish throne, in favor of Stanislaw Leszczyński, and Peter used his troops to put August back? In order to keep the throne, August had to get the agreement of his Ottoman neighbors. One of their conditions was for him to kick the Russians out. Because the Ottomans don't want their neighbor Russia de facto ruling Poland. (Nobody wants a strong neighbor, that's going to be the leitmotif of this entire set of posts.)

But there was no way August could push out the Russian troops, like lol, that was never going to happen.

During his son August III's reign, he was pretty hands-off, and the country was ruled by two factions: the French-allied (-bribed) Potockis, and the Russian-allied (-bribed) Czartoryskis.

When Catherine comes to power, she puts her son's tutor, Nikita Panin, in charge of foreign policy. (Well, you know, "in charge", i.e., she still has the final word.)

Which is not what Panin wants, he wants a strong senate to prevent her from becoming an autocrat, but, well, tough luck, Panin.

As for foreign policy, his first plan for Russia is called the "Northern Accord": peace with Denmark, Prussia, Britain.

Historically, Austria was always Russia's "natural" ally, but France has always been the main enemy, and with the Diplomatic Revolution, Austria no longer looks like a natural ally. France has historically been encouraging (bribing) Poland, Sweden, and the Ottoman Empire to form their "barrière de l'est" (barrier of the east) against Russia; that's why Louis XV and the Comte de Broglie are always *so* interested in what's going on in Poland. (The fact that Poland's first king was a Frenchman, future Henri III, doesn't hurt either).

So if not Austria, then Russia needs new allies. The first goal is to make sure Poland stays weak, though the Russian ministers are divided over whether that means "weak as possible" or "strong enough to be useful, still too weak to be a threat").

When Catherine takes power, August III's death is impending. She knows she wants to put her ex-boyfriend (or failing that, a different Pole) on the throne, but she needs an ally. France isn't going to go for this. Austria isn't going to go for this. Britain might, but they've been at war with France for so long that allying with France's ally Russia is not a thing they're ready to do until Europe is at peace.

That leaves Fritz. He's been courting Catherine as an ally, because of the 5 main European superpowers, Austria's obviously not an option, France is allied with Russia and showing its weaknesses, he's pissed off at Britain over the subsidy cancellation, and Russia has massively shown its strength in the war. Better to have Russia as an ally than an enemy.

Catherine starts talking alliances with Fritz in 1763. August III will die in a few months. Nobody knew that at the time, of course, but they did still have a feeling the clock was ticking.

But Catherine doesn't need Fritz as badly as he needs her. Unlike Panin, she doesn't want a "system" of alliances, where there's one consistent foreign policy, like "anti-Bourbon" or "anti-Habsburg." This is a very popular way of managing foreign policy in 18th century Europe, but Catherine just wants to play it by ear and be opportunistic in her alliances.

So despite Panin's commitment to "anti-Bourbon" policy, Catherine's holding out on actually signing a treaty with Fritz. She's trying to get the British interested in Russia, so that she doesn't need Fritz. So Fritz follows an approach often used on the dating scene, and he starts acting interested in someone else in front of her. Namely, he starts flirting with the Ottomans. Now, during the war, you may remembered he had tried unsuccessfully to get them as allies. But now that it's November 1763, the war is over, and August III is dead, Fritz is hosting the Turkish delegation in Berlin, spending a lot of money to impress them, and watching the Russians out of one corner of his eye.

Russians: Fritz is spending money??! He must be serious! We must beat the Ottomans to the punch.

Catherine: *signs*

So it is that in March 1764, Russia and Prussia make an 8 year pact of mutual defense. The secret articles concerning Poland are:
* Maintain peace in Poland.
* Get a native Pole elected king.
* Defend Poland militarily.
* Don't change the constitution.
* Sponsor toleration for Orthodox and Protestants.

As a result, Panin is able to start developing his "Northern System". His goals are a Russian hegemony, consisting of:
* Peace in the north.
* Alliance with Prussia.
* Extend the peace to include Denmark and Britain.
* Keep Sweden, Poland, and Saxony inactive.
* Bribe pro-Russian factions in Poland and Sweden to vote according to Russian wishes and not French wishes.
* Agree to trade Holstein territory and Schleswig claims in return for Oldenburg+Delmenhorst, so as to get peace with Denmark. (This is the thing Prussian!Pete wanted to drag Russia into war with Denmark over.)

For the last point, Catherine thinks it's good for Paul not to have an independent power base when he comes of age, so she's on board. In 1765, Russia and Denmark sign a defensive alliance. In 1767, they sign the agreement that the territorial exchange is going to happen, but not until Catherine's son Paul, who actually owns the territory, reaches his majority and can consent on his own behalf, by which we mean do what his mother tells him.

As a reminder, 1764-1768 is when Bernstorff is in power, Frederik V dies in 1766, and Moltke is in and out of power. Struensee won't come to power until 1770.

But Britain is a much harder nut to crack. There's a sticking point in the negotiations, namely that Russia is trying to establish peace in the north largely so they can focus on territorial gains in the south (see the map), and so they want allies in case of war with the Ottomans. So an absolute must-have for them is that their ally must consider an Ottoman attack on Russia as an act of war that invokes the treaty. Prussia and Denmark have already agreed to this, in 1764 and 1765 respectively, the Brits are remarkably uninspired to get involved in a land war in Asia war with the Turks. Specifically, this is because the Brits have a good navy and a world-wide trading empire, and it's not in their best interests to go to war against a power they trade a lot with.

So the most Britain and Russia manage in the 1760s is that their respective diplomats in Stockholm cooperate with bribery and politicking so that neither of the Swedish political parties, the Hats or the Caps, can gain enough of an edge over the other that the Swedes can make any progress or pursue any policy. Remember, one of the goals of Panin's Northern Accord is to make Sweden into an "inactive" power, one that can't get anything done.

The British do manage to get the Swedes into an alliance in 1766, contributing to an anti-France bloc in the North.

Now, every time anyone tries to negotiate with Russia, they try to bring Fritz into it, but Fritz's goals are:

1. Do not get sucked into any alliances with anyone but Russia. They might lead to commitments that would drag him into another war he can't afford.

2. Do not let Russia ally with anyone other than him, that will give him less leverage over Russia.

But between Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, and reasonably good terms (if friction) with Britain, Russia has gotten the hegemony in the north they want.

But things are going to take a turn for the worse, because of the way events play out in Poland.

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Russia: The Northern Accord, 1764-1767

[luzula]

So Fritz follows an approach often used on the dating scene, and he starts acting interested in someone else in front of her. Namely, he starts flirting with the Ottomans.
Hee. I do hope they're not going to import their foreign policy approaches to dating, though...

1764-1772 Foreign policy: Russia: The Russo-Turkish War, 1768-1774

[mildred_of_midgard]

Now that Russia has that hegemony it's been angling for, and a supposedly puppet king on the Polish throne, everything is looking good for Russia. Then Catherine decides to die on the hill of "full equal rights for Polish dissidents." In 1768, civil war within Poland breaks out, which triggers a war with the Ottoman Empire the same year.

For an alliance system that was supposed to lead to peace, the Russians weren't expecting almost immediate war on two fronts.

But here they are.

Map comparisons
This is where we're going to take a compare-and-contrast look at two maps. I'm sorry I don't have one of 1774, because the difference between 1740 and 1783 includes two sets of changes that affect us here, but I'll talk you through it.

Here's 1740:


Here's the 1783-1792 map I've been showing you in the last few posts (which is slightly inaccurate for the Turkish borders during the 1768-1772 period):



Differences between 1740 and 1774:
* Fritz has Silesia.
* Fritz has his land bridge to East Prussia (First Polish Partition).
* Austria-Hungary has Galicia (First Polish Partition).
* The border between Russia and Poland is a bit farther west (First Polish Partition).

Differences between 1774 and 1789:

Check out the south of Russia: Taurida and Crimea. That change happened in two steps, the Russo-Turkish War that we're talking about now, and some follow-up conquests in the 1780s.

At the end of the Russo-Turkish war in 1774, Russia gets a bit of territory, some ports, and the right to sail the Black Sea, which had been denied to them in the Treaty of Belgrade in 1739 (the war where FS was supposed to demonstrate his military prowess and instead demonstrated that you should probably keep him far away from waging a campaign).

Russia does *not* get Wallachia and Moldavia, despite having conquered and occupied these territories, because Austria freaked out and the First Polish Partition happened instead, as described elsewhere in this write-up. But Russia retains the right to interfere in the provinces (as Poland shows, the ability to interfere in another country is almost more valuable than annexing the country, because people will start war with you when you annex territory. Fritz: tell me about it).

Similarly, the region of Crimea goes from being Ottoman territory to a nominally independent territory that is de facto under the control of Russia, but then in 1783 gets annexed.

History of Russian involvement in Crimea
Peter the Great had conquered some Crimean territory, most importantly the port of Asov, back in 1696, but he wasn't able to hold it. The Ottomans won it back. Among Peter's number one goals in life was building up the Russian navy. He was one of the most navally inclined rulers Europe saw in this period (as you will know if you've gotten that far in Massie, cahn); he worked in a shipyard, because Russia had so little ship-building technology.

Remember that the Great Northern War was fought by Russia to gain access to the Baltic sea via the territory of Livonia, which had been conquered by Sweden in the 17th century. Peter's attempt to take Asov was the same deal: Black Sea access. No ports, no navy, no trade empire.

Catherine has the same goals: she wants Russia to control the Black Sea. Thanks to the peace terms of 1774, she's mostly got it. The Turks still "control" it, but with a much diminished navy. No Russian warships are allowed to sail there, but commercial ships can carry guns. They Russians are allowed to construct a battle fleet in port. So Catherine succeeded at Peter's goals here. As the epic rap battle says, "Pickin' up where Peter the Great left off."

Then in 1783, she decides that having a nominally independent Crimea is more trouble than it's worth, and Russia just annexes the whole thing.

A few years later, in 1787, there's the legendary trip down the Dnieper, in which Catherine and Joseph go to inspect what Potemkin has done with the newly conquered territory. This is the trip that gives rise to the term "Potemkin villages", the idea that Potemkin swindled Catherine into thinking he'd actually populated and economically stimulated the area, because western Europe couldn't/didn't want to believe what he'd accomplished in such a short time. But they were very much real; Joseph didn't want it either, but he was there and he was a close observer who would have noticed if it was all fake.

The Crimean peninsula will remain in Russian hands until 1914, and Russia will invade it again in 2014. Then we all know what happens with further Ukraine invasions. The idea that this territory belongs to Russia goes back to the 1774 conquest and 1783 annexation.

Russo-Turkish War
Meanwhile, back in 1768-1774, Catherine wants to conquer Constantinople. She named her second grandson Constantine for this reason, in hopes that he could be the new emperor there.

Alexei Orlov, brother of her lover Grigory, (this is the end of Grigory's tenure and just before the start of Potemkin's) also wants to get the Greeks as allies and start a revolt. After leading the Russian navy around the Baltic, down to Portugal, across the Mediterranean, and east to Turkey, he attempts to coordinate an uprising in Greece. As the Russians don't speak the language or understand the locals, and look down on them a lot, the locals are not super into being "liberated" by this obnoxious superpower and decline to help. Orlov concludes the Greeks are too stupid to be useful.

Mildred: Yes, I'm sure that attitude was super helpful in trying to inspire the Greeks to help you out, Russians.

The good news (for the Russians) is that in 1770, they manage to destroy the Ottoman fleet. Partly in pitched battle, but mostly by setting it on fire and watching the flames spread. This was the battle of Chesme, and it freaked Europe out a bit. It was supposed to be good that two major powers were duking it out, that was supposed to weaken them both and distract them from [insert your own country here], but instead one of them is winning too easily!!

The Russians also win other major battles that year. They're basically on a 1770 stampede through Ottoman territory, and it freaks Europe out. Fritz and the Austrian triumvirate (MT/Joseph/Kaunitz) start pushing Catherine to make peace, give up some of her conquests, agree to moderate terms, and let Prussia and Austria help mediate in the negotiations. (This may sound generous, btw, but throughout this period, mediating between other warring powers is a thing that gives you major political capital with your neighbors. It means you're powerful enough to be taken seriously and have the ability to help enforce the agreement. Fritz is thus constantly offering to mediate, because it's a political step up for Prussia from "insignificant power" up through F1 to "growing" under FW to "We MADE it!" under Fritz.)

Catherine, though, as we'll see, is drunk on victory and doesn't want to make concessions or moderate peace terms. That's part of the reason Prussia and Austria are like, "...Maybe we should just partition Poland to distract her from conquering THE ENTIRE OTTOMAN EMPIRE. Because that seems worse."

We'll get into that in more detail; stay tuned!

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Russia: The Russo-Turkish War, 1768-1774

[luzula]

She named her second grandson Constantine for this reason, in hopes that he could be the new emperor there.
Wow, talk about having ambitions! What happened to him later?

Historians and their No-Homo'ing: the Stuart Version

[selenak]

Because I just read an article which gave me some eerie flashbacks to both how historians handled this with Fritz and to Mildred's amusing summing up of same. According to one Michael B. Young in his essay "James VI and I: Time for a Reconsideration", things went down thusly:

Contemporaries hostile to James: Yep, he definitely did it with at least three of those guys. Poor England, getting not only a bloody Scot but a Sodomite for a King! And Anne his wife is a spendthrift, too!

Contemporaries positive about James: All hail our bible-translation-commmissioning learned and religious King who is the new Salomon! (Private life not mentioned.)

English Civil War Time writers: Yep, the trouble started long before Charles. James had those icky faves and threw money at them!

19th Century: If Anne hadn't argued with James about wanting to raise their oldest son, thus ruining what was the first few yeas a perfect marriage, and hadn't been so interested in masques and clothing, maybe he wouldn't have been driven into the (platonic) arms of those icky faves (though nothing sexual happened!!!!). Bad Anne. She put James off the het by being a period-atypical noble mother who wanted to raise her own kids.

1967 (the year male homosexuality becomes legal in GB): Yeaaaaaah, we guess he did fancy them boys. But only in a homosocial, not actively homosexual way. There's no proof he actually did the physical deed! Yes, there's the letter to Robert Carr where he complains Carr doesn't want to sleep with him in the same bed anymore and wants him back in said bed "a thousand times", and then there are the letters from and to Buckingham where Buckingham says they won't be able to pry his fingers away from James' bedpost upon their reunion, but look, sleeping in the same bed as the King was a ceremonial honor and a sign of distinction that had nothing to do with sex! The very fact that James and the boys can talk about it so openly and that James is described by contemporaries as kissing and hugging them in public proves they had nothing shameful to hide! Anyone raised in Presbyterian Scotland the way James was would have been ashamed! ALSO, we now don't consider James as a weak King anymore but as a smart guy who kept England out of the Thirty Years War, therefore, he can't have been a sexualy active gay man!

1980s: Enter Caroline Binham, first biographer to say that of course he had sex with the lot of them. (Essay writer: go figure it was a woman, presumably not as threatened.) For the next two decades, there are more and more male historians coming around to the idea that sex was going on. Then!

2000s: Backlash: some of those guys who previously said "yeah, could see it, probably sex" are now all "nah, no proof, he was super religious and thus would have stopped himself from doing the actual deed, and also he had seven kids with Anne and therefore must have been bi, not gay, and also another proof that he probably didn't do the deed with his faves is that Anne was among those pushing young future Buckingham at him! She even initialized it!

Michael B. Young: You, fellow historians, are falsifying source material if you claim Anne initialized it or was leading. Abbot the Archbishop of Canterbury and the others from the Anti-Somerset-Team had to do some considerable work before Anne reluctantly agreed to promote future Buckingham and ask her hubby to knight him, and she only did it because she disliked Somerset that much. Here are source material quotes x, y, and z to prove it. And speaking of Anne, having sex with your wife to produce offspring has never been proof of anyone's orientation! Oh, and check out my earlier essay XYZ where I show that yet another passage from a letter from Buckingham to James is clearly an allusion to the two of them having enjoyed mutual masturbation, which you, you turncoats, even agreed with before the end of the millennia and this new trend to shove James back into the closet!

Selena: ...at least no one theorized James had his penis broken after he and Anne stopped with the marital relations? Which they did in 1607. Anne had given birth to babies 7 times - only three of those kids made it beyond weeks - and had additional miscarriages, and she just did not want another dead baby and risk to her life, so she put her foot down at that point.

19th Century: Anne was clearly a shallow woman only concerned for her looks and masques and fashion. And that drove James away!

Tracy Borman: I am a previously respected Tudor historian, and my theory, voiced in the online essay "Killer Queen", is Anne was behind the Gunpowder Plot!

Selena: Say what?

Tracy Borman: Hear me out. Sure, Anne grew up a Lutheran. But once she and James started to drift apart over her wanting to raise Henry, there were rumors she'd secretly converted to Catholicism. These were so insistent that even Queen Elizabeth I. asked her about it in writing, and Anne had to lie, err, reassure her? Everyone was talking about it! Even the Pope!

Selena: The other sources I've started to read say the Pope said he had no idea whether she was a Catholic or not and that he was totally confused by these rumors.

Tracy Borman: the rumors went into overdrive when Anne during her coronation as Queen of England at James' side refused to take communion. In an Anglican service. Clearly because she was a secret Catholic!!!!!!

Selena: I could see other reasons, but okay, it's not impossible.

Tracy Borman: By this time, she had had it with James and his boyfriends. So clearly she teamed up with other Catholics like Guy Fawkes & Co. to kill her gay husband by blowing up Parliament. Via middlemen, I'm not claiming she did so directly, but I'm sure she was the mastermind.

Selena: ....so, she could think of no other way to kill James than to blow him up with Parliament AND her oldest son? That same son Henry whom she had fought tooth and nails with James about and whom she finally, once the family moved from Scotland to England, was allowed to live with?

Tracy Borman: Yep. She had it with men, full stop, and wanted to make her daughter Elizabeth Queen. And since Elizabeth later produced Sophia who produced G1 and whose bloodline pushed the Stuarts from the English throne for good, Anne did have her long term revenge!!!!

Selena: You and Nancy Goldstone should have a drink.

Re: Historians and their No-Homo'ing: the Stuart Version

[mildred_of_midgard]

Lol to all of this!

a smart guy who kept England out of the Thirty Years War, therefore, he can't have been a sexualy active gay man!

Yes, because intelligence and sexually active gay men could never go together!

Ghost of Alan Turing: *has a coughing fit*

Selena: You and Nancy Goldstone should have a drink.

Maybe they did!

Lady Grange: Her story

[mildred_of_midgard]

I'm here to summarize The Prisoner of St Kilda, by Margaret Macaulay (2009), for salon.

So remember Lord "Bobbing John" Mar, Jacobite leader and apparently shitty husband to Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's sister Frances? Lord Mar's younger brother, Lord Grange, managed to be an even shittier husband!

He married Rachel Chiesley, a headstrong woman. Think Marguerite Louise. Rumor had it Lady and Lord Grange had a shotgun wedding, in that she held a pistol to his head. Biographer Macaulay doesn't think this is true, but let's just say that Lady Grange's later behavior made her contemporaries inclined to believe it.

The Granges lived in Edinburgh. Lord Grange was often away on business in London, and Lady Grange was left as "factor" (like regent but when you don't have a kingdom) of all his affairs in his absence. This was really, really important to her: she liked running things.

Things went fine for a short while, but she started noticing her husband was having affairs and was probably a Jacobite. She threatened to come to London, confront him and his mistress, and expose his treason to the authorities if he didn't come home and resume being a faithful husband.

He retaliated by demoting her from factor, locking his study away from her, etc. Matters escalated. Her son "was awakened by shrieks and cries, which at first he thought came from the nearby Cowgate. But it was his mother, crying 'Murder, murder', threatening to run naked out into the street or to kill herself by throwing herself out the window.'"

Her husband plays himself off as the victim and shows all his friends and acquaintances a razor he says she keeps under her pillow.

He pushes for a separation. She keeps trying to reconcile with him: "Come home, abandon the mistress, reinstate me as factor, and abandon the treasonous Jacobite activities, and it'll be fine!"

Lord Grange: Make me.

Lady Grange: Watch me.

Lady Grange is further accused of accosting her husband in the street and attempting to disturb him in church when the minister was in the pulpit. On one occasion, when Grange emerged with one of the children she pursued them through the crowd which had gathered, 'raising so great a clamour that they were compelled to take refuge in a tavern in the Writers' Court where she imprisoned them for more than two hours, by waiting for their reappearance at the head of the close. [A close in Edinburgh is an alleyway.]

Macaulay says these accounts may be exaggerated, but her temper was clearly providing ammunition for her husband and his allies.

Armed with this ammunition, what does Lord Grange do?

He activates his network of old boys' club friends and fellow Jacobites, and has his wife kidnapped from her home in 1732 and taken north to the Monach Isles in the Hebrides.

Lady Grange spent the rest of her life trying to communicate her plight to the outside world, to no avail. During the trip through the Highlands, her captors were careful to make sure to stay only in places where their hosts spoke no English, only Gaelic. Oral legend has it that her captors took her to visit a pool where the local saint was supposed to cure madness, in order to convey to the locals that this desperate-to-escape woman was not a kidnap victim but a poor madwoman who was being carted away for her own good.

Furthermore, Lord Grange kept his wife in the territory of Scottish clan chiefs who were on his side. In particular, Lord Lovat, though he indignantly denied it, is widely suspected of having helped out his "worthy friend":

They said ten times worse of me when that damn’d Woman went from Edinburgh than they can say now; for they said it was all my contrivance, and that it was my servants that took her away; but I defy’d them then, as I do now, and do declare to you, upon honour, that I do not know what is become of that Woman, where she is, or who takes care of her; but if I had contrived, and assisted, and saved my Lord Grange from that devil who threatened every day to murder him and his children, I would not think shame of it before God, or man, and where she is, I wish and hope that she may never be seen again, to torment my worthy Friend. 

In 1734, Lady Grange was moved to the most remote spot anyone could think of: St. Kilda, because the Monach Isles just weren't remote enough.



St. Kilda is a tiny rock in the Atlantic, currently uninhabited, and home to just 42 people in 1728, 70 in 1739. The poverty and living conditions were unbelievable, the weather cold, wet, and dreary. Even today, the sea is so stormy that it's difficult to land a ship there. Quoting Wikipedia:

When Martin Martin visited the islands in 1697, the only means of making the journey was by open longboat, which could take several days and nights of rowing and sailing across the open ocean and was next to impossible in autumn and winter. In all seasons, waves up to 12 metres (40 ft) high lash the beach of Village Bay, and even on calmer days landing on the slippery rocks can be hazardous. Cut off by distance and weather, the natives knew little of the rest of the world.

St. Kilda would be Lady Grange's prison until 1741. Her house would have looked something like this storage hut:



In the same year as his wife arrived on the barren rock of St. Kilda, Lord Grange, living the good life in London, succeeded in getting elected to Parliament.

In Edinburgh, none of Lady Grange's friends or family seem at all concerned by her disappearance. Her adult children were sick of her antics, and everyone was apparently willing to believe she was a madwoman. And the network of Lady Grange's husband's friends was sufficient for a long time to keep her from getting any word of her plight out.

A glimmer of hope dawned in 1739. A Presbyterian minister assigned to St. Kilda had sympathized with her, and when he returned to Edinburgh, he carried two letters from her and tried to launch an investigation. But Lord Grange's friends and allies promptly countered with a successful smear campaign against the minister to undermine his credibility.

A ship named the Arabella was sent to St. Kilda to look for Lady Grange, but her husband had already activated his network to have her removed to a different island. She died on Skye, unrescued, in 1745, aged 66.

Her husband outlived her by almost a decade, and faced no consequences whatsoever for his actions. Apparently his political downfall was caused only by his firm belief in witchcraft and passionate desire for legislation to seek out and punish witches, which made him an embarrassment to everyone in the mid 1700s.

Lord Grange did not, as far as I know, ever accuse his wife of being a witch, but, you know. The misogyny is strong with this one.

On a historiographical note, Macaulay points out that we have no unbiased contemporary takes on Lady Grange, the accounts being almost entirely 1) her own, and 2) her husband's and his allies'. She had every incentive to paint the worst possible picture of her treatment and the best possible picture of her own behavior; he and his allies had every incentive to paint the worst possible picture of her behavior. So who actually did what is not really clear.

But lest you think all descriptions of her hysteria were made up after the fact by her husband, it was her son who wrote a letter to his father going, "Mom kept threatening to run around naked in the street or throw herself out a window last night, and we had to put her to bed. If she had threatened a fourth time, I would have let her do it." (Yes, this is one of the children who won't protest her abduction or question why they haven't seen her in 13 years. And yes, one of the non-protesters was a daughter.)

And lest you think Lady Grange is an utterly reliable witness, she denied having signed the paperwork for a legal separation between her and her husband, but we have the paper and it looks like her signature in other places.

So while we know enough to sympathize with Lady Grange and blame Lord Grange, when it comes to reconstructing the details of events, we have to add a bunch of caveats. 

*

Addendum on Lady Mary's sister, to the surprise of NO ONE, Lord Grange is siding with his brother. In fact, one of the reasons he's worried that his wife may be able to turn his enemies in London against him is that he's caught up in this scandal:

The main problem there is the situation of his sister-in-law, Frances Pierrepoint, Lady Mar, the second wife of his exiled brother, who has been declared ‘lunatick’ and is in London in the care of her sister, the redoubtable Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. There is little love lost between Lord Grange and Lady Mary. Grange expands at great length on the difficulties he has with Lady Mary. Lady Mar is now quite well, he informs Thomas. She should no longer be detained as a lunatic, but is obstinately averse to appearing in chancery to have the detention order removed. Grange suspects this is the work of Lady Mary who would lose not only the custody of her sister but also the £500 which she gets yearly from the Mar estates, if the order were to be lifted.

Re: Lady Grange: Her story

[selenak]

That claim (that Lady Mary keeps her sister as mad for the money) was something used against her in the vicious custody fight she had with her dastardly in laws, and inevitably her other enemies picked up on it, Which ignores Frances and Mary were both heiresses (and that was why Mar had married Frances to begin with), and Edward Wortley-Montagu was no financial slouch himself, i.e. as opposed to those dastardly brothers, Mary not only wouldn't lock up a sane woman as insane but had no financial motivation to. Like you, I'm entirely unsurprised Grange sides with his brother!

Apparently his political downfall was caused only by his firm belief in witchcraft and passionate desire for legislation to seek out and punish witches, which made him an embarrassment to everyone in the mid 1700s.

Good grief. It would be. Also, to the utter disbelief of many, the last witch on German territory was executed in the 18th century, so I hope Grange didn't get a poor woman killed for real.

Anyway, the whole thing reminds me that one reason why Wilkie Collins' novel The Woman in White resonated so much with readers was that it was even in the 19th century so damn easy get a woman institutionalized as mad. :( :( :(

Lady Grange: Her father's story

[mildred_of_midgard]

In terms of sensationalist gossip, Lady Grange's father delivers! If she had a temper and a bad marriage, she came by it honestly. Her parents separated, then her mother took her father to court for alimony and child support (the children may have been starving). Sir George Lockhart of Carnwath, Lord President and presiding judge, awarded her alimony. Rachel's father, John Chiesley, was furious. He threatened to attack Lockhart.

Alas, Lockhart didn't take the threat seriously. He was walking home from church one day, accompanied by his brothers, Lord Castlehill and Daniel Lockhart, when John Chiesley walked up to him and shot him in cold blood, in front of everyone.

Richard Augustin Hay has left us a vivid account of the assassination and the events leading up to it. It would appear that Chiesley had been stalking his victim. In a manuscript penned eleven years after the events described, Hay writes that the day before the murder Chiesley had been seen following Lockhart from the Duke of Hamilton’s apartments at Holyroodhouse. The next day, outside the New Church (one of the smaller churches contained at that time within St Giles Kirk), Chiesley had offered money to the ‘bedler’ for a place in the seating area belonging to Lord Castlehill, the Lord President’s brother, which would have positioned him strategically just behind his intended victim. 

It is hard to credit that Chiesley actually intended to shoot Lockhart while he was at worship in a crowded church, yet that does seem to have been his intention. Yet, informed that the particular seat he wanted was not available, Chiesley refused any other, reportedly pacing up and down till the sermon was over and walking out of the church ahead of Lockhart. He then stationed himself at the close entrance which he knew led down to the Lord President’s house.

...At the entry to Hope’s Close, Chiesley saluted the Lord President and was acknowledged in return. Lockhart was a courteous man. He had discounted Chiesley's threats as idle bluster, even though friends had warned him to take care. His companions walked part-way down the close with him, engaging in a few last moments of conversation before bidding him farewell and walking back up towards the street. Lockhart had a second thought and called back to them. Daniel was returning when he encountered Chiesley.

'I thought you had been at London,' said Daniel Lockhart.

'I’m here now,' was the terse rejoinder.

Chiesley brushed past Daniel, who had put out his hand to greet him, caught up with Lockhart and discharged his pistol into his back. The bullet passed through Lockhart's body, fatally wounding him, before being battered on the close wall. Lockhart had time only to turn round and look his murderer in the face, before falling back against the wall. Too late, his companions rushed to his aid. 'Hold me, Daniel, hold me,' were the Lord President's last words.

John Chiesley was immediately arrested and put on trial. His defense was that Lockhart had pronounced an unjust sentence against him. Unsurprisingly, this was not considered a convincing defense, and he was executed for murder.

If Rachel Chiesley really didn't hold a pistol to Lord Grange's head and tell him they were getting married, and that was just an urban legend, I'm betting her father's actions played a significant role in the development of that urban legend.

Re: Lady Grange: Her father's story

[luzula]

Oh wow.

His defense was that Lockhart had pronounced an unjust sentence against him. Unsurprisingly, this was not considered a convincing defense, and he was executed for murder.
What a defense. One wonders if Chiesley actually thought he was going to survive committing this public murder, or not...

Daniel Szechi, three of whose books on Jacobites I've enjoyed, has written a book about Lockhart of Carnwath, but I haven't read it.

Lady Grange: Fix-it fic?

[mildred_of_midgard]

So! We have a woman who is the victim of the men around her, and who attempts to fight back. She is declared mad and sent north to live in isolation. She is unable to communicate her plight to the people around her. The ship that's sent to rescue her is named the Arabella.

Is this giving anyone else flashbacks to Lady Pole in Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell? There are obvious differences:

- She actually shot Mr. Norrell in revenge, instead of threatening to shoot her husband to get him to marry her.
- She was treated well in captivity.
- It was a spell rather than monolingualism that kept her from talking about her plight.
- She does get rescued.
Etc.

But honestly, JSMN reads like a fix-it fic for Lady Grange to me!

Re: Lady Grange: Fix-it fic?

[selenak]

I can see it! I bet Susanna Clarke did a lot of research that didn't start in her exact era (i.e. the Regency) but predated it, and she very well could have come across the case.

Back when I marathoned the "History of Byzantium" podcast, I thought at one point "okay, previously I thought "House of the Dragon" mostly uses the Anarchy (Stephen versus the Empress Maude) and what led to it as its historical template (in the same way Game of Thrones is vaguely War of the Roses based), and that's probably the case, but Daemon Taegeryen clearly isn't based on Geoffrey Plantagenet, he sounds way more like Andronikos Komnenos! Only the leather trousers, fixit version of Andronikos...

And John Ford wrote (among other things) a Richard III fixit in "The Dragon Waiting", so clearly, more than one fantasy writer did it...:)

Essex Erections: The Original

[selenak]

As Mildred has been wondering how this was originally phrased: I've come across what is likely the original phrasing. It shows up in Abbot's anti Somerset & Frances, pro Essex write up of the divorce case. Reminder: Abbot was Archbishop of Canterbury. He also, together with Pembroke and Southampton (both of them candidates to be Mr. W.H. from Shakespeare's sonnets), headed the Arch Protestant WAR WITH SPAIN NOW! faction, which did woe Somerset for his influence on James as long as Somerset was still directed by his pal Thomas Overbury, but the moment Overbury was out and Frances was in, turned against him, because Frances was the niece and daughter of Howards, and the Howards, specifically Dad Suffolk and Granduncle Northampton, were the leaders of the Pro Spain, We're Also Crypto Catholics faction and as such anathema to Abbot.

Anyway, Abbot assures his readers that Essex was an upstanding manly man and Frances an evil hussy. And yeah, Essex did say he never had sex with her in the three years they lived as man and wife together after his return, but that was totally not his fault, it was Frances' fault for being such a bitch. For verily, one morning Essex was visited by five or six "captains and gentlemen of worth" , his friends, who teased him about not getting it up with one of the most beautiful women of the realm, whereupon Bob of Essex, and now here's the original:

rose out of his bed and, taking up his shirt, did show to them all so able and extraordinarily sufficient matter that they all cried out shame of his lady and said that, if the ladies of the court knew as much as they knew, they would tread her to death.

(Pithy commentary from modern writer: "The ability to obtain an early morning erection prior to urinating is not necessarily indicative of sexual potency."

Anyway, the other hilarous impotency musings of Abbot comes when he writes indignantly that Frances' lawyers pointed out there's precedence, because Henry VIII himself pleaded impotence with Anne of Cleves as a reason for his divorce. First Abbot is indignant on Henry's behalf. Then he says Henry with his divorces was a weirdo anyway. Then he says he looked it up, and those lawyers were lying, but because while Henry did plead impotence with Anne of Cleves, he a) said he still had many wet dreams, thus proving the impotence was just Anne-related and not general, and b) actually used as the more defining reason for the Cleves divorce the eminently respectable one of pre-contract (on Anne's side, with a Lorraine prince), and that is totally different from the Frances & Bob case.

Interestingly: Frances and Bob were married when they were barely legal for the era, she was thirteen and he was fourteen. This is is important because while the nobility did make a lot of child contracts to ensure themselves alliances and cash, the law left a loophole for the unfortunate kids in that when they were legally able to marry, which was twelve for girls and fourteen for boys, they could refuse any marriage their parents or guardians had arranged for them. But show me the twelve years old girl and the fourteen years old boy able to withstand parent pressure who does that. Anyway, at the time, they were married but apparently everyone was clear that these two kids could not yet live a married life together, which was why Bob of Essex was sent on his grand tour abroad for two years. Frances when Abbot targets her for being such an evil conniving hussy set on slandering the noble Essex was all of seventeen going on eighteen.

Re: Essex Erections: The Original

[luzula]

an upstanding manly man
So to speak. *sniggers*

so able and extraordinarily sufficient matter
Riiight. Thanks for tracking down that quotation, it was hilarious.

And also thanks for giving the context--marriage at 12 and 14, wow. : (

1764-1772 Foreign policy: Austria: Partitions, partitions, partitions

[mildred_of_midgard]

First, the all-important map:



Which, may I remind you, is from 1783, post Russo-Turkish War and post Crimean acquisitions, because it's the closest I could come to the 1772 map I really wanted.

Catherine: Okay, it's 1770, year of my army's parade of triumphs through Ottoman territory, and I am drunk on success! I say if you want to make peace with me, I keep control of Poland and some ports on the Black Sea, plus Crimea, Wallachia, and Moldavia become nominally independent Russian satellites!

Kaunitz: Hell to the no. MT and Joseph, what say we ally with Turkey and maybe Prussia, on terms that say we get to keep Zips and part of Wallachia, and in return Prussia can get Courland if they want to join us, or stay neutral if not.

Joseph: Pipe dream. Fritz will never agree, and we don't want to provoke him. Also, war in Turkey is not something we can win. Let's let Russia and Turkey duke it out for at least another year.

Kaunitz: I want war with Russia, even if we have to do it single-handedly.

MT and Joseph: Dude. Chill out. Do you not remember the last war? The Seven Years' War that just ended a few years ago?

MT: I am done with war.

Joseph: I'm not, but these are not the terms on which I want to wage a war of aggression.

Now it's 1771.

MT: Instead of partitioning, we should pressure Russia and Turkey to make peace. What terms would you want, Catherine? We're willing to collaborate with Prussia to make peace.

Catherine: Well, let's see. [Terms quoted from Isabel de Madariaga.]

* The ports of Azov and Taganrog on the Black Sea.
* Free commercial navigation for Russia on the Black Sea.
* An amnesty for all Turkish subjects who had taken the Russian side in the war.
* The retention of an island in the Archipelago if one were captured.
* The independence of those Tartars who should have thrown off the yoke of the Porte (a reference to the proposed Russian occupation of the Crimea)
* Occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia for long enough for Russia to compensate herself from their revenue for the costs of the war.

Frederick: I may be your ally, but OMG no.

Joseph/MT/Kaunitz: We are seconding Fritz hard on this one.

Frederick: How about Azov, navigation on the Black Sea, and some slight territorial adjustments in the Caucausus?

Catherine: And give up all my conquests? My army is on a ROLL! Gambit declined.

Frederick: I am disliking all the subsidies I have to pay to my ally Russia, so I want this war to end, but I have just heard an intriguing proposal from my brother that could mean territory in Poland for me. So let's drag out the peace talks just a little bit longer, so that Catherine's motivated to let me take my piece of Poland.

Panin (Catherine's minister): So how about, in return for Russia and Prussia taking parts of Poland, Russia will give occupied Moldavia and Wallachia to Poland, instead of giving it back to the Turks? That will compensate Poland, and still mean a Russian victory over the Turks.

Fritz: Works for me. The sooner we can close out this Polish deal, the better.

Joseph/MT/Kaunitz: No. We would rather have the Turks as a neighbor, and if that means breaking with tradition and allying with them to fight you two, so be it.

July 1771:

Austria: Okay, Ottomans, traditional enemy but now weakened neighbor, Russia is becoming a big enough problem that we're willing to form an alliance with you. But the point is to make love peace, not war!

Meanwhile…

Heinrich, Catherine: We're still on for partitioning Poland, right?

Fritz: Yes, caveat being "without starting a war." I, for one, have not forgotten the last war. So if we don't want Austria to have any ground to stand on when they go to protest our land grab, we should cut them in on the deal!

Fritz: Hey, Vienna, want to help cut the cake?

Kaunitz and Joseph: We're willing to dicker!

MT: I have an idea that might actually be ethical. How about we agree to give up our claims to Poland in return for you all giving up your claims to Poland, and then we can avoid a war and still sleep at night!

Joseph and Kaunitz: But Wallachia and parts of Moldavia! We could ask Catherine for those in return for letting her have part of Poland.

MT: *sigh* I see I'm talking to myself.

Fritz: Or you could have Parma and Piacenza in Italy! Maybe even some Venetian territory. It doesn't have to be Poland. Lots of options here! You could have some Turkish territory! All I care about is that if the Russians get Balkan territory from the Turks, I get part of Poland to compensate.

MT, Joseph, Kaunitz: Ix-nay on the Russia getting Balkan territory from the Turks! We don't want Russia as a neighbor, could we make that any clearer?

MT: Okay, I *guess* if push comes to shove, we can partition Poland, but we're definitely not robbing the Turks. Did you two forget the treaty of alliance we JUST signed with them?

Joseph and Kaunitz: This is 18th century Europe. Promises aren't worth the paper they're written on. Did you forget the Pragmatic Sanction?

Joseph and Kaunitz: Besides, any Polish territory we get is going to be stupid and pointless. You sure we can't rob the Turks?

MT: POSITIVE.

Joseph and Kaunitz: Okay, fine, Poland it is.

MT: But we shouldn't rob Poland either! Besides, you just pointed out that this will be a net loss for us. We'll have to defend poor, inconveniently located territory and we'll lose the PR war!

Joseph and Kaunitz: But if Russia and Prussia are going to do this anyway, we either have to go to war to try to stop them (hard no, right?), or deal with them gaining immensely at our expense and look like we were powerless to stop them. Is that what you want? No? So the only option is to join them.

MT: This is still a really BAD idea, both politically and ethically. But FINE, if we're going to do it, we'd better get as much territory as possible out of this. We have to get *something* to make up for everything we're losing by agreeing to this.

"She cried as she took, and the more she cried, the more she took."

After the partition:

Kaunitz: Yeah, politically this was a bad move, in hindsight. I should have seen this coming.

Joseph: Yeah, it's giving people the wrong impression of me! I'm actually a very honest man!

No, really. To quote Beales:

Joseph too apologised for it, in a remarkable audience he gave to Stormont at the end of 1772. It was the only occasion in seven years when he allowed such a lengthy political conversation to take place between them. He avowed, 'with an Hesitation and Embarras that is not usual to Him', 'the Anxiety he was under, lest the Polish Business should give the World a false Opinion of His Character'. He knew it looked 'ignominious'.

Beales quoting Stormont:

He added, that one of the Advantages Private Men had over Sovereigns was, that their Duty was generally so clear, that they could not mistake it, and the Line so distinctly marked that they could always follow it, if they pleased; but the Case is very different with Us, added He, We are too often in Situations where there is a number of Considerations to be attended to, a variety of weighty urgent and seemingly opposite Duties, which it is hard to reconcile. In such Cases...it is difficult if not impossible, to hit upon any Determination that is free from Objections...He then repeated, that what He had done, or rather approved, for he was not an Actor but a Counsellor, was from a а Conviction of the absolute Necessity of it, and said, He should be very sorry if the World put a false Construction upon it, and considered Him as a Man of loose and unsettled Principles. That that was far from being the Case, that he meant to be a truly honest Man, both in Public and in Private Life, and was convinced that Honesty was the wisest and soundest Policy, and though it might make you lose some seeming momentary Advantages, which less scrupulous Men would seize, you were always a gainer in the End.

Emphasis mine.

I guess the advantage of a triumvirate is you always get to blame someone else:

Kaunitz: Well, they're the anointed monarchs! I'm just the minister.

Joseph: I am not an actor but a counsellor!

MT: I was pressured into this against my will and better judgment!

As one historian points out, though, it was MT's signature on the partition, all her tears and protests notwithstanding.

Re: 1764-1772 Foreign policy: Austria: Partitions, partitions, partitions

[selenak]

Oh, absolutely, and I think she knew it, and knew this was one of the things which in the faith she very much believed in God would held her acountable for. LOL on the Joseph passage, which I remember from Beales' biography. BTW, the MT series skipped over the partitioning of Poland entirely, not least because they kept FS alive so much longer and went straight from his death to shortly before MT's, but that's practically minor in terms of all the other liberties they took.

Incidentally, one long term effect of the Austrian participation in the Partitioning of Poland is that not only do you have a lot of Austrian era derived architecture in the relevant parts of the countries (plural, since today they include not just Poland but also parts of Ukraine, for example), but also some of the greatest poets in German in the 20th century, Paul Celan and Rose Ausländer, hailing from what was at the time of their births Austrian-governed. (Today it's Southern Ukraine.)

More about Overbury

[selenak]

What reading up on the early Stuarts also told me: Thomas Overbury, the guy who was Robert Carr's secretary and advisor and what not who coached him in the pre Frances part of his life was deeply unpopular. Edward Coke, who was the prosecuting lawyer against the non-noble defendants, painted him as a saintly victim, but Francis Bacon, who prosecuted Frances and Robert Carr/Somerset because they were nobles and thus were tried in the House of Lords, knew that his audience had actually met Overbury and in his resume basically said "Yes, we all know Overbury was a jerk, but he still didn't deserve to be murdered". Overbury was a minor poet and wit, and clearly saw himself as the brains of the operation, which he probably was. (Carr/Somerset does not come across as particularly bright at any time in his life.) James did notice and resent it. In one of the few surviving letters by him to Carr/Somerset (most of these letters were confiscated when Carr was arrested and while Francis Bacon, who led the case against Somerset, read them, he was discreet enough to destroy them - but James knew he'd read them, which didn't make Francis Bacon more popular with him), he says that people say that Robert Carr rules him (James) and Overbury rules Robert Carr, and this must stop.

It didn't help that Overbury was incredibly jealous and possessive. James doesn't seem to have minded any of his faves getting married - he was fine with Frances and very nice and supportive of Katherine, the heiress Buckingham married, calling her "Kate" in his letters to Buckingham, and when Buckingham is off with Charles on their ill fated journey to Spain, James keeps updating Buckingham on how his wife and kids are doing. Now maybe this was because James knew as King he'd always be his favourites' priority (or should be - one of the reasons for Robert Carr's downfall was that he didn't prioritize James anymore), or maybe it was the misogyny of the day which assumed that women could not never have such deep feelings and thoughts like the men, or maybe both. But still, the fact is that James was supportive of his faves getting married, and Overbury was the one throwing jealous tantrums, and not just because Frances as a Howard was a part of the opposing faction he didn't want Carr/Somerset to ally with.

Ironically, Overbury in his raging letters from the Tower to Carr/Somerset claims to have written the early love letters to Frances when Somerset was wooing her, and says basically "but don't you remember, it was all supposed to be a joke on her, to humiliate her!" and then Somerset went and actually fell in love with Frances and pursued her for real and didn't listen to Overbury anymore. That Somerset thought he was the lead in a rom-com when everyone else was playing Game of Thrones explains a lot. Said raging and jealous letters written during Overbury's time in the Tower also contain a "there are things I could say!" threat, which helps explaining what I was wondering about when first hearing about the entire affair, i.e. why kill Overbury when he's already in the Tower and the marriage has happened. Now Frances in her confession took the entire blame on herself, i.e. she insisted her husband had nothing to do with it. But for my money, he had more to loose, given that it was his secrets Overbury as his secretary had been privy to. And of course James' readiness to put Overbury in the Tower to begin with - for no better reason than Overbury refusing a job as envoy in Moscow - is also explained by the fact James resented the idea that his fave had a fave and that Overbury was pulling the strings. (If you think about it, putting Overbury into the Tower for such a reason goes against the Magna Charta and is just the kind of abuse of (noble) rights by the King that got everyone so upset when Charles I. was the one doing it later, and it's telling of how little Overbury was liked that no one protested on his behalf when it happened.

Re: More about Overbury

[cahn]

Francis Bacon, who prosecuted Frances and Robert Carr/Somerset because they were nobles and thus were tried in the House of Lords, knew that his audience had actually met Overbury and in his resume basically said "Yes, we all know Overbury was a jerk, but he still didn't deserve to be murdered".

Gosh, I mean, it's a reasonable argument, but when that's the best your counsel can come up with...

And of course James' readiness to put Overbury in the Tower to begin with - for no better reason than Overbury refusing a job as envoy in Moscow - is also explained by the fact James resented the idea that his fave had a fave and that Overbury was pulling the strings. (If you think about it, putting Overbury into the Tower for such a reason goes against the Magna Charta and is just the kind of abuse of (noble) rights by the King that got everyone so upset when Charles I. was the one doing it later

Ohhhh. Yeah, I hadn't thought of that. Heh to everyone disliking Overbury just that much!

New post!

[cahn]

Here!

(I set it to private for a couple of hours before setting it back to public, so it might not show up in a timely way on reading pages, etc.)