Remember when Oriane's mother was supposed to have paid a fine to FW for giving birth to an illegimate child? There's going to be a whole thread on this, because I'm finding stuff in the Knyphausen papers--there is (predictably) drama!--but first I wanted to ask:
I seem to recall Crown Prince Fritz being sympathetic to her. Does anybody remember where we found this? I'm not finding it in a quick search of salon, and I need to focus on deciphering right now. If no one knows, I'll hunt for it later.
(Omg, yet *again* I glance at a letter I thought was unimportant, and my list of things that absolutely need to be deciphered asap gets even longer.)
THANK you! That's even more relevant than I thought (plus it means I can skip writing up some of the backstory that we'd already found, which will save time).
OMG, rereading this - Kloosterhuis says the (illegitimate) babydaddy was …. drumroll….Schwerin! I.e. that same general who told Fritz to leave at Mollwitz and then won the battle, to Fritz‘ everlasting chagrin.
If this is true, or even if it isn‘t but Fritz is aware of the rumor of a Knyphausen/Schwerin liason, then he could also suspect that not only is her sonTido writing a satire about his less than glorious personal contribution to Mollwitz, but that it might be a conspiracy including the definitely glorious victor of Mollwitz, Schwerin! (I mean, Fritz is FW‘s son in so many ways. Paranoia is part of his inheritance. And Mollwitz was a case where he definitely couldn‘t take any punching up by way of satire.
Truly, salon is the earthy paradise. <3 luzula will tell you about historical pea varieties, and felis will find what you're looking for while you eat breakfast!
Illegitimate sibling or conwoman? There are, as I recall, several mentions of Amalia Schönhausen (Herlyn) in the subset of papers I'm looking at now. Unfortunately, when I went through them in December skimming for mentions of Peter and his family and making notes on which pages to return to, I noticed that this "Herlyn" person showed up but had completely forgotten who she was, so I completely neglected to make notes on where she showed up! Which means I'm going to have to go through these almost 600 pages again looking for mentions of her, argh.
For now, I have one letter from one of the East Frisian Knyphausen cousins as well as a letter from Trenck.
The Knyphausen cousin says that Madame Herlyn (and he quotes extensively from her letters) is saying that the amount of money she's getting from her half siblings in Berlin is completely inadequate and not proportionate to what an illegitimate child should receive. She is threatening to sue and make a public stink.
The family, siblings, sibling spouses, and East Frisian cousins are denying *everything*! She's not an illegitimate child of Charlotte von Knyphausen at all, they say!
The sisters are in favor of paying her off with a little something to keep scandal down. The elder of the brothers (the envoy one) hasn't weighed in yet, but the youngest brother says, "Give her NOTHING." He's ready to go head-to-head with her.
Cousin Knyphausen has sent his bailiff to tell Amalia what she risks in giving herself out to be a daughter of Charlotte von Knyphausen (nee Ilgen) without sufficient proof.
Amalia says (and here Knyphausen quotes the bailiff) that she has sufficient proof, and she will have the youngest brother subpoenaed to testify that he had given her the seal of the Ilgen family, declaring that it was the seal of his deceased mother and that consequently she could use it. Furthermore, that he had told her that when "Mme de Jennelt" had given birth to her, she had paid some thousand ecus to the late king of Prussia, but that the current king of Prussia had made a present of this amount to Mme de Keith, and that in consideration of this, Mme de Keith would do something for her. (I'm a little unsure of the translation of "would do something for her.")
Knyphausen here is *stressing* *out*. He's trying to figure out what to do, trying to get in contact with family members, trying to negotiate, and so on. And if I'm reading this correctly, this has been going on for ten years.
Interestingly, he says it's been a thing since 1770, and Amalia married the merchant Herlyn in August 1769. I'm going to guess that as soon as she got married, she started trying to get money out of the Knyphausen family.
I'm going to have to hunt through the rest of the letters! I'm almost certain I remember them talking about Amalia when she got married, althought it could have been the letter writer catching their correspondent up on the fact that she had in the past gotten married to a merchant by the name of Herlyn. I'm annoyed because I had all the time in the world for this in December, and now I don't. Oh well! Maybe I'll find other interesting things in my next pass-through.
Money from Fritz So, first question: that box of money Fritz gave Peter for his mother-in-law. I was assuming this had to do with the fact that about 6 months earlier, Peter had asked Fritz for some money, and been told to wait. I was not assuming it had anything to do with events of 15 years prior. But now I'm questioning.
We only have very secondhand information here. The fact/rumor that Charlotte von Knyphausen gave birth in the 1730s and paid a fine was so well known that Voltaire wrote about it in the 1750s. His memoirs haven't been published yet, but apparently the story was still going around Berlin fifteen years later--unless he's reporting something he remembered from his first visit?--so Amalia Schönhausen could have heard it herself. The fact that Peter received a gift of money for his mother-in-law in 1750 was in a book that had been published already in the early 1750s, and she could have put the two stories together.
However, we *also* have that Manteuffel report that Fritz said the money should be paid back! I'm surprised if he decided to pay it himself, but maybe 10 years later, in 1750, when he was dispensing money more freely than he was in 1740, he decided the time had come.
So maybe Fritz did gift the money all or in part because he felt she had been unfairly robbed.
Did Oriane give some to the illegitimate daughter? Is the family just denying it because they don't want to admit their mother had an affair *and* pay a bunch of money out? (The sisters want to pay her a bit of hush money, not pay her the full amount due an illegitimate daughter.)
Or is Amalia actually a conwoman?
As noted, the dates don't line up: if the church record shows she was born in 1737, and the Manteuffel-Fritz conversation happened in 1735, either she gave birth 3 times (twice already by 1735), or else Amalia just decided "close enough" and trusted no one would look that closely.
Which Schwerin? Also, Generalleutnant Kurt Christopher vs. Oberst Carl Christoph von Schwerin: they seem to be the same person. Kloosterhuis's source goes back to a source mentioned in the wiki article's footnotes that says Kurt Christoph.
Wikipedia tells me Kurt Christoph was still a lieutenant-colonel in the 1730s, and lieutenant-colonels often get abbreviated to "colonel". Also, I can't find a "Carl Christoph", and "Carl" vs. "Kurt" is a mistake that wouldn't surprise me, especially since it's from the less common "Kurt" to the more common "Carl". So I think it's the guy who won Mollwitz.
SO. The son of the woman who's supposed to have had an affair with Schwerin writes a satire about Fritz's participation in Mollwitz, which was won by Schwerin. Did this come up at all in the satire??? Did it make it extra offensive to Fritz??
If so, I kind of wonder if Fritz would *ever* give her money, even 10 years later, especially if he was already pissed off at her for protecting her son.
So maybe not. But I bet the personal history between Schwerin and Charlotte von Knyphausen, whether real or just rumored, definitely lent some extra oomph to the context of that satire. [ETA: I see selenak was thinking along similar lines.]
Trenck shows up Now, Trenck! Fair warning, I have no evidence, only speculation. He doesn't talk about this alleged illegitimate daughter at all. But he writes to the Knyphausens in 1777, and this is what he says.
I'm going to have to transcribe this part more carefully, but he clearly has pissed off the Knyphausens somehow (he doesn't tell us how, just starts going "I didn't mean it! You should forgive me!") and is trying to get back in their good graces. Lol, "I have nothing with which to reproach myself, and great men are subject to the greatest weaknesses."
Classic Trenck.
Anyway, he's now moved to their area and wants to sell them some Hungarian wine. He can get them a good price, if in return they promote the selling of his wine in their area. Wikipedia tells me our Trenck sold Hungarian wines in Aachen during this period, so it's definitely the same guy.
And that's it, except for some postscripts, one of which reads, "The King of Prussia has stopped the Emperor from traveling to Paris. The north is troubled and the ?? trembles."
Remember, the war of the Bavarian Succession is about to break out.
Nothing super relevant, in other words.
BUT. If we put them together, we see that, in 1777, Trenck is trying to get on the good side of the Knyphausens for his business. He's also living in the vicinity of the Knyphausens and Amalia. We also know that in 1780, the local Knyphausen lord is freaking out over what to do about Amalia.
Did Trenck claim to be the father of Amalia to try to weaken her claims and do the Knyphausens a favor? (Either his idea or theirs?) I need more info on where the idea that Trenck was the father comes from. The source everyone's citations go back to seems to be Stephan Kekule von Stradonitz: "Amalia Schönhausen und ihre angebliche Abstammung von der Prinzessin Anna Amalia von Preußen und dem Freiherrn Friedrich Wilhelm von der Trenck." In: Zeitschrift der Zentralstelle für Niedersächsische Familiengeschichte. Jahrgang 7. Hamburg 1925. S. 1 ff.
Which is turning up for sale (expensively!) and not yet in any online sources I've found. But I haven't had time to do a full search yet.
Anyway! Between Tido and Amalia, I've decided that not only do I need to read through the letters I have more carefully, I also need to go back to the archive catalogue where we found the Knyphausen papers and see if there are promising looking collections that *don't* have to do with the Keiths. Because I only requested access to the ones having to do with Peter, but it turns out there's a satire-writing exiled Knyphausen brother, and a possible illegitimate half-sister or conwoman! Both of whom we need to know more about. And who doesn't like figuring out what Trenck has gotten up to??
Oh cool that you've figured out that the two Schwerins are the same person!
SO. The son of the woman who's supposed to have had an affair with Schwerin writes a satire about Fritz's participation in Mollwitz, which was won by Schwerin. Did this come up at all in the satire??? Did it make it extra offensive to Fritz??
If so, I kind of wonder if Fritz would *ever* give her money, even 10 years later, especially if he was already pissed off at her for protecting her son.
So maybe not. But I bet the personal history between Schwerin and Charlotte von Knyphausen, whether real or just rumored, definitely lent some extra oomph to the context of that satire. [ETA: I see [personal profile] selenak was thinking along similar lines.]
Yeah, to both of you: WOW. I can totally see Fritz just getting extra special angry about all of this :P
Which Schwerin? Also, Generalleutnant Kurt Christopher vs. Oberst Carl Christoph von Schwerin: they seem to be the same person. Kloosterhuis's source goes back to a source mentioned in the wiki article's footnotes that says Kurt Christoph.
Morgenstern! Morgenstern says it's the Fieldmarshal Count Curt von Schwerin! That's the earliest source* this detective can find naming our Schwerin. Furthermore, Preuss has printed a cabinet order from FW to the future field marshal indicating that Schwerin was acting as a go-between between FW and the widowed Baroness von Knyphausen in April 1731, immediately after her husband died, and that Schwerin wanted to "take the oldest son to him." A number of later (19C) sources indicate that he was the guardian of the children.
Comforting the widow, I guess. ;)
The oldest son, btw, is Tido. So the connection between Schwerin and Tido at Mollwitz is even closer than we realized. Gosh, no wonder Fritz blew his stack.
* I know Morgenstern didn't write until at least the 1740s, and his memoirs were published posthumously in 1793, but he joined the court in 1736, and at least was probably reporting *rumors* accurately. This is a lot better than what I had, which was Varnhagen von Ense writing in the 1840s, and why I had "track down earlier source" on my todo list. Victory!
Agreed on Morgenstern. (He's not always reliable, but stuff like his story about Sophie Charlotte telling FW he's totally illigitimate are describing things that supposedly happened decades before his arrival at court, and with what he tells about more recent to this events, we haven't caught him at an outright falsehood (which he'd have known to be one) yet. (See also his describing Gundling's life with FW, including the bears, which are also stories predating his own arrival by years and which he had to base on what he heard, but which hold up when compared to other data.) So if he says it was Schwerin the Victor of Mollwitz, then I take it to be at least a very popular rumor in the later 1730s.
The oldest son, btw, is Tido. So the connection between Schwerin and Tido at Mollwitz is even closer than we realized. Gosh, no wonder Fritz blew his stack.
LOL, quite. I wouldn't swear on Schwerin's complete innocence in Tido writing that satire, either.
BTW: if the Knyphausen/Schwerin offspring and it's not Amalie the conwoman (which due to the date of her birth it can't have been), what did become of the kid, I wonder? And why wasn't there a melodramatic 19th century novel imagining its fate? I mean, those were the days before anyone could sue you for writing RPF about them. See also Fanny Lewald writing an novel which has Rahel Varnhagen in unrequited love with Heinrich's favourite nephew Louis Ferdinand while Varnhagen the widower was still alive (and not happy, not least because Rahel really had not been).
So if he says it was Schwerin the Victor of Mollwitz, then I take it to be at least a very popular rumor in the later 1730s.
Exactly, and rumors are what's relevant here. It's not like Fritz had access to a DNA test; he was as dependent on rumor as anyone else. And since he presumably would have known about the close ties between Schwerin and the Knyphausens, it would have been a very plausible rumor.
Btw, cahn, the conversation between Manteuffel and Fritz happened in December 1735, so Morgenstern joining the court in 1736 meant that the rumors would have been very current when he was around in the late 1730s.
I have so much more to tell you about Tido and Schwerin and the Knyphausens, but no time! Maybe soon!
LOL, quite. I wouldn't swear on Schwerin's complete innocence in Tido writing that satire, either.
Omg, excellent point! And as we discussed, even if he was innocent, Fritz's paranoia is going to suspect him anyway.
The one caveat is that the only reason we have to believe in the satire--at least so far, no other sources have emerged--is an extremely unreliable source: a British merchant writing decades later and specifically saying he heard the story from Tido, who was prone to telling tall tales. All contemporary sources point to simple desertion; maybe Tido fancied up the story at Fritz's expense years later.
BTW: if the Knyphausen/Schwerin offspring and it's not Amalie the conwoman (which due to the date of her birth it can't have been)
If the church register is correct (and it may not be), it can't have been the same kid as December 1735. It may be impossible that they had a later kid, as I'm not sure about Schwerin's movements in 1737, but I can't quite rule it out based on the knowledge I have.
There's also a big question mark about the date. What we have is an unreliable historian (Herlyn, a descendant of her husband's family) citing a church register at Jennelt that records her marriage in August 1769 and says she was 32 years old. Now, church records recording how old people were are often off by a year or two. I'm not super convinced she wasn't born in late 1735 and thus 33 at the time of her marriage. It's also possible that there was some delay in her baptism due to the whole changing-hands thing, and her baptism, not her birth, is what's dated to late 1736 and leading them to believe she was 32 in 1769.
You'll see when you read the latest Peter draft that I've come down on the side of "probably the illegitimate kid, not certainly" for Amalia.
what did become of the kid, I wonder?
I've asked myself the same question. Boring answer? Infant/child mortality. It's my best explanation for why we don't hear of any contesting "Amalia's not the illegitimate child, *I* am!" contemporary claims. Also, if the Baroness really did give birth twice, either to twins or twice consecutively, as rumor has it, there's still a missing child. So I'm thinking death is the most likely explanation.
And why wasn't there a melodramatic 19th century novel imagining its fate?
Lol, that I can't help you with! Perhaps all the 19th century romantic urges were channeled into imagining Amalia was the daughter of Princess Amalie and Trenck.
So I'm thinking death is the most likely explanation.
Probably, especially if whoever was put in charge of her wasn't really motivated to keep the baby alive. I am not insinuating infanticide, just that if baby X ended up with some eighteenth century countrywoman who got already paid for caring for other babies, as was often the custom in France (don't know about Prussia), then being one of many wouldn't heighten its life chances. Now obviously both Schwerin and the Baronness Knyphausen could have afforded a more exclusive upbringing, i.e. one family, but if they had done that, you'd think that their descendants would have known whether or not Amalie was the genuine article or an impostor and what exactly became of the kid.
(Illegitimate children of nobility: I've encountered all variations, from the kids being part of the regular household to "it never happened, who is this?", with the most common method sadly being foisting them on a third party from lower in the class system who originally benefits financially and stops caring once the benefit is no longer there.)
The one caveat is that the only reason we have to believe in the satire--at least so far, no other sources have emerged--is an extremely unreliable source: a British merchant writing decades later and specifically saying he heard the story from Tido, who was prone to telling tall tales. All contemporary sources point to simple desertion; maybe Tido fancied up the story at Fritz's expense years later.
Good point, yeah. It does make himself look cooler than simple desertion.
Further developments: I tracked down the original of Manteuffel's report to Brühl on the episode of Knyphausen's illegitimate child (which is the episode I'm now editing in the biography). Manteuffel says some rumors attribute the fathering of the child to a certain lieutenant general, others a certain major general, both of whom are close friends of hers, and still others to some low officer.
Manteuffel doesn't name names, but Schwerin the victor of Mollwitz was a lieutenant general at the time (it was Fritz who promoted him to field marshal in 1740), so that is presumably him. The major general is presumably the other Schwerin we found. It's good to know there were multiple rumors going around in 1735 that would account for the multiple fathers we've found named!
In other news, supposedly ("dit on") the Baroness confessed to having been pregnant in December 1735 for the 3rd (!) time since her widowhood (a little over 4 years earlier).
Manteuffel keeps emphasizing that she paid the fine without difficulty (which is the opposite of what Voltaire said, namely that she was ruined!)
He says that everyone is surprised that FW is coming down so hard on her when he's usually pretty lenient with women and girls who give birth to illegitimate children, and everyone is speculating why. Some think it's because he's so pissed off at her late husband (whom he dismissed for having been suspected of involvement in the 1730 escape attempt), but others, Manteuffel included, think it's "amor habendi". I assume that means she's so rich he can fine her a lot.
It's difficult to overstate how much I love the Dresden archives for their extensive digitization efforts. <333 It was driving me crazy that I was relying on a summary by Weber when I'm trying to use primary sources as much as possible.
In particular, because I couldn't tell if it was Weber who declined to name the Baroness von Knyphausen as the woman in question, or Manteuffel, but I extremely suspected Manteuffel wouldn't hesitate, so I needed to go look at the original. And indeed, the anonymization was done by Weber.
ETA: Also, if this is her third pregnancy, we have a number of missing children to account for! Probably early death, as we discussed, but someone should write a melodramatic novel anyway. :)
Three illegitimate children in four years seems somewhat unlikely, not least because the body needs some time to recover, even for noblewomen who don`t nurse, and I doubt she immediately had sex again after giving birth, - maybe the rest were stillbirths? If there was a rest; I could also believe Manteuffel is spicing things up a bit, based on the true fact of one kid (and maybe one stillbirth).
Mind you, if she did have all those pregnancies in so short a time immediately after having been widowed, it may be that her marriage with Oriane's late father had not been exactly passionate...
FW (and Fritz after him) was definitely described as avaricious by all and sunder.
Voltaire describing her as ruined by FW: figures. This is the man who describes Wilhelmine as being thrown out of the window for dramatic effect.
You are, as ever, the best detective. And I'm still ragingly curious as to whether it was Schwerin the victor of Mollwitz and if so, why they didn't marry - was his wife (assuming he had one, which in FW's Prussia is a given) still alive?
Three illegitimate children in four years seems somewhat unlikely, not least because the body needs some time to recover
Au contraire, the royal genealogist is here to say that it was extremely common in the eighteenth century. That's what happens when you don't have birth control!
She actually did it herself multiple times during her first marriage, in which she had legitimate kids (of whom all but the first survived to adulthood, and the first lived to be 2 years old) in 1717, 1719, 1721, 1722, 1724, 1725, 1727, 1729, and 1731. Given that her last son was born 1 week before her husband died, I would say it was a passionate marriage and she was quite fertile.
SD also did it multiple times: 1707, 1709, 1710, 1711, 1712, 1713, 1714, 1716, 1723, 1726, 1730.
Maria Theresa did it multiple times: 1737, 1738, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1754, 1755, 1756.
Louis XV's wife Marie Leszczynska did it multiple times: 1727 (twins), 1728, 1729, 1730, 1732, 1733, 1734, 1736, 1737.
Peter's mother did it at least once that we know of: 1711, 1713, 1714, and since the genealogies tend to list a daughter in between 1711 and 1713, may have done 4 births in 4 years.
Suhm's wife did it multiple times: 1722, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1728, 1730.
Grandpa Wartensleben's 2 wives did it multiple times each: 1680, 1683, 1683, 1864, 1694, 1696, 1697, 1700, 1702, 1703, 1707, 1709, 1710.
Caroline of Ansbach did it multiple times: 1707, 1709, 1711, 1713, 1717, 1721, 1723, 1724 (plus miscarriages and stillbirths).
Maria Carolina did it multiple times: 1772, 1773, 1775, 1775 (yes, January to November of the same year), 1777, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1783, 1784, 1786, 1787, 1788, 1790, 1792, 1793.
Fritz's sister Charlotte did it multiple times: 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739, 1740, 1742, 1743, 1745, 1746, 1748, 1749, 1752.
Both of Philip V's wives did it, one multiple times: 1707, 1709, 1712, 1713, 1716, 1717, 1718, 1720, 1726, 1727, 1729.
Both of Moltke's wives did it multiple times: 1736, 1737, 1738, 1740, 1741, 1743, 1745, 1746, 1748, 1750, 1751, 1753, 1755, 1762, 1764, 1765, 1767, 1769, 1770, 1773.
Ferdinand's wife-niece did it multiple times: 1761, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1776, 1779
Catherine I of Russia did it multiple times: 1704, 1705, 1707, 1708, 1709, 1713, 1714, 1715, 1717, 1718, 1723, 1724.
Katte's mother did it only once, but she did it in the space of 2 years: 1704, 1705, 1706.
And I chose these examples because a majority of the births are ones where the kid lived at least a few months, and mostly a lot more than that. Non-stop pregnancy was a way of life for many women, Charlotte von Knyphausen among them.
Actually, on the one hand with modern medicine, but on the other hand with birth control, my own mother had 3 kids in 4 years: 1983, 1985, 1987.
So I find it very plausible that she gave birth 3 times in 4 years, given her previous history of giving birth every year or two.
And I'm still ragingly curious as to whether it was Schwerin the victor of Mollwitz and if so, why they didn't marry - was his wife (assuming he had one, which in FW's Prussia is a given) still alive?
Yes, according to Wikipedia, he married his first wife in 1708, and she didn't die until 1754. They had children in 1711, 1712, and 1715 (i.e., 3 in 4 years). Then he married his second wife and thereby legitimized their illegitimate children from 1717 and 1721.
If you ask me, the fact that he was having illegitimate children in 1717 and 1721 makes it more plausible that he was having them in the 1730s!
I should add that Charlotte von Knyphausen embodies a different feature of the 18th century that surprised cahn: that first birth in 1717 took place when Charlotte was still 14 years old. (Her husband was 38.)
If you catch women early enough in their childbearing years, you can get a lot of kids out of them every 1-2 years! If, you know, they don't die in childbirth or have their organs ruined entirely*. I'm reminded of one of my great-grandmothers, who got started at age 14 and had 15 children live to adulthood, plus a few die as babies. I don't have birthdates, but she must have been doing the "3 kids in 4 years" thing numerous times.
* Not that she was married young (22), but I still wonder how Wilhelmine managed to get pregnant within about 10 days of her wedding and then never again, despite a loving marriage. Organ damage is still my best explanation.
Btw, I got curious and looked it up, and Marie Louise of Savoy, wife of Philip "the Frog" V, despite being married at 12, at least didn't start having children until she was 18. Not for lack of sex: she didn't want to consummate the marriage on her wedding night, and Philip wasn't going to make her, but when Grandpa Louis XIV found out, he was all, "No, you SHOW her who's boss! You rape that child!" (essentially) And then they did start having sex shortly thereafter.
In other words, our days of being stupendously grateful we don't live in the past are certainly coming to a middle.
Found out a bit more about this illegitimate daughter thanks to an article I received today via ILL, which I may or may not find time to write up, but I had to share this:
The author (in 1925) argued that Amalie and Trenck can't have had an affair, on the grounds that "Lehndorff, der Allwissende," knows nothing about it.
I mean, that was our reasoning for Fredersdorf's dismissal for embezzlement (or lack thereof)! But I had to laugh at "Lehndorff, der Allwissende." (This author gets very excitable in his article, an exclamation point in almost every paragraph.)
We can't all be "der Einzige", but you achieved "der Allwissende" status, Lehndorff! Not bad, not bad.
LOL. And true! I mean, he could have known more about the Katte family if not for his issues, but other than that, Lehndorff always delivers with the gossip. Including lots of rumours about Amalie, which include her dissecting corpses of children which she then burns in her fireplace (which he cites as an example of a very silly rumour). If he has heard that but nothing about Trenck, chances are there was nothing to hear about Trenck.
If I didn’t have three Lehndorff icons already, I would create a „Lehndorff der Allwissende“ icon.
I was wondering where the claim that Trenck and Amalie were the parents of Amalie Schönhausen came from. Apparently it's *not* from Trenck; some early 20th century member of Amalie's husband's family (the Herlyns) was doing the family history, and he went and talked to an old pastor in the church where Amalie got married. The pastor told Herlyn a story that he originally thought was the pastor spinning tall tales, but then Herlyn did more research and became convinced!
He published in 1914 and 1920, and in 1922, a local historian, John Gechter, elaborated on his case in an issue of a local genealogical magazine.
"Hogwash!" said one Stephan von Stradonitz, writing in that same magazine in 1925. A year later, in his book on the documentary sources relating to Trenck's life that Selena read for us, Volz agreed.
Herlyn: Amalia was 32 when she married in 1769, so she was born around 1738.
Stradonitz: I.e., she was born in 1737, when Amalie was 13 and Trenck 11!
Mildred: And your claim that Fritz was king when this happened is extra suspect, Herlyn!
Herlyn: A friend of Fritz's, one Karl Ernst Reinhard von Keith, was responsible for bringing her to East Frisia and taking care of her in her old age. I have here a document in which he allows her to live on his estate rent-free.
Stradonitz: You idiot! Fritz's Keith friends were James the Field Marshal and George the Earl Marischal. Peter, his childhood friend, was veeeery very distantly related. This Karl Ernst Reinhard, I think was Peter's son, but in any case was more closely related to Peter than to the other two. He was way too young to have brought her anywhere in 1738, and he was certainly no friend of Fritz's.
Mildred: Wow, it's so weird to see people not knowing things I take for granted.
Herlyn: She used the royal arms on her seal!
Stradonitz: That's not the Prussian crown! That's just a crown, which doesn't signify anything. If you want to look for an illegitimate ancestry, look in East Frisia and the vicinity, where she married, lived, and died, and look for an obscure noble family that has this coat of arms.
Mildred: You're both wrong! I know from Wikipedia and also the Knyphausen family papers that she used the Ilgen family coat of arms, i.e. her alleged mother's, so I bet this is a description of the Ilgen family arms.
Wikipedia: *conveniently shows a picture of the Ilgen arms that exactly matches Herlyn's and Stradonitz's descriptions of Amalia's*
Mildred: In general, none of you seem to know anything about her alleged Knyphausen ancestry.
In fact, I know very little about what has been said about her Knyphausen ancestry in the historical literature, other than what I found in the Knyphausen papers where they're freaking out about her pressuring them into giving her money. I know there's more material on her in the archives that I'm planning to request, but I also would like to know what's been published so I can figure out what I may have to contribute that's new information, as opposed to already out there.
In any case, I have answered my question about whether Trenck was maybe claiming to be her father in order to do the Knyphausens a favor by weakening her case to be related to them: he never claimed to be her father. I guess unless he did and Stradonitz just didn't know about it! But unlike the relationship with Amalie, it's not in the memoirs. I also didn't see her mentioned in his letters to Hertzberg, which I've done a quick skim through.
Based on that quick skim, he's writing for the usual reason: money, money, money. I see the word "pension" a lot. I think Trenck wants a pension from Fritz? (But hold on commenting on this until I've had a chance to read properly.) But there are also hints that he's been up to his usual entertaining shenanigans, so time--sleep, really--permitting, I'd like to decipher and translate or summarize some of those letters for salon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-01-13 11:41 am (UTC)I seem to recall Crown Prince Fritz being sympathetic to her. Does anybody remember where we found this? I'm not finding it in a quick search of salon, and I need to focus on deciphering right now. If no one knows, I'll hunt for it later.
(Omg, yet *again* I glance at a letter I thought was unimportant, and my list of things that absolutely need to be deciphered asap gets even longer.)
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-01-13 12:39 pm (UTC)Here. ;)
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-01-13 12:42 pm (UTC)Stay tuned!
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-01-13 01:43 pm (UTC)If this is true, or even if it isn‘t but Fritz is aware of the rumor of a Knyphausen/Schwerin liason, then he could also suspect that not only is her sonTido writing a satire about his less than glorious personal contribution to Mollwitz, but that it might be a conspiracy including the definitely glorious victor of Mollwitz, Schwerin! (I mean, Fritz is FW‘s son in so many ways. Paranoia is part of his inheritance. And Mollwitz was a case where he definitely couldn‘t take any punching up by way of satire.
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-01-13 01:48 pm (UTC)Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-01-15 06:01 am (UTC)Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-01-13 03:11 pm (UTC)Also, good to see you again, Felis. :)
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-01-13 02:00 pm (UTC)Please read this thread and this short wiki article for context.
Here's what I found today.
Illegitimate sibling or conwoman?
There are, as I recall, several mentions of Amalia Schönhausen (Herlyn) in the subset of papers I'm looking at now. Unfortunately, when I went through them in December skimming for mentions of Peter and his family and making notes on which pages to return to, I noticed that this "Herlyn" person showed up but had completely forgotten who she was, so I completely neglected to make notes on where she showed up! Which means I'm going to have to go through these almost 600 pages again looking for mentions of her, argh.
For now, I have one letter from one of the East Frisian Knyphausen cousins as well as a letter from Trenck.
The Knyphausen cousin says that Madame Herlyn (and he quotes extensively from her letters) is saying that the amount of money she's getting from her half siblings in Berlin is completely inadequate and not proportionate to what an illegitimate child should receive. She is threatening to sue and make a public stink.
The family, siblings, sibling spouses, and East Frisian cousins are denying *everything*! She's not an illegitimate child of Charlotte von Knyphausen at all, they say!
The sisters are in favor of paying her off with a little something to keep scandal down. The elder of the brothers (the envoy one) hasn't weighed in yet, but the youngest brother says, "Give her NOTHING." He's ready to go head-to-head with her.
Cousin Knyphausen has sent his bailiff to tell Amalia what she risks in giving herself out to be a daughter of Charlotte von Knyphausen (nee Ilgen) without sufficient proof.
Amalia says (and here Knyphausen quotes the bailiff) that she has sufficient proof, and she will have the youngest brother subpoenaed to testify that he had given her the seal of the Ilgen family, declaring that it was the seal of his deceased mother and that consequently she could use it. Furthermore, that he had told her that when "Mme de Jennelt" had given birth to her, she had paid some thousand ecus to the late king of Prussia, but that the current king of Prussia had made a present of this amount to Mme de Keith, and that in consideration of this, Mme de Keith would do something for her. (I'm a little unsure of the translation of "would do something for her.")
Knyphausen here is *stressing* *out*. He's trying to figure out what to do, trying to get in contact with family members, trying to negotiate, and so on. And if I'm reading this correctly, this has been going on for ten years.
Interestingly, he says it's been a thing since 1770, and Amalia married the merchant Herlyn in August 1769. I'm going to guess that as soon as she got married, she started trying to get money out of the Knyphausen family.
I'm going to have to hunt through the rest of the letters! I'm almost certain I remember them talking about Amalia when she got married, althought it could have been the letter writer catching their correspondent up on the fact that she had in the past gotten married to a merchant by the name of Herlyn. I'm annoyed because I had all the time in the world for this in December, and now I don't. Oh well! Maybe I'll find other interesting things in my next pass-through.
Money from Fritz
So, first question: that box of money Fritz gave Peter for his mother-in-law. I was assuming this had to do with the fact that about 6 months earlier, Peter had asked Fritz for some money, and been told to wait. I was not assuming it had anything to do with events of 15 years prior. But now I'm questioning.
We only have very secondhand information here. The fact/rumor that Charlotte von Knyphausen gave birth in the 1730s and paid a fine was so well known that Voltaire wrote about it in the 1750s. His memoirs haven't been published yet, but apparently the story was still going around Berlin fifteen years later--unless he's reporting something he remembered from his first visit?--so Amalia Schönhausen could have heard it herself. The fact that Peter received a gift of money for his mother-in-law in 1750 was in a book that had been published already in the early 1750s, and she could have put the two stories together.
However, we *also* have that Manteuffel report that Fritz said the money should be paid back! I'm surprised if he decided to pay it himself, but maybe 10 years later, in 1750, when he was dispensing money more freely than he was in 1740, he decided the time had come.
So maybe Fritz did gift the money all or in part because he felt she had been unfairly robbed.
Did Oriane give some to the illegitimate daughter? Is the family just denying it because they don't want to admit their mother had an affair *and* pay a bunch of money out? (The sisters want to pay her a bit of hush money, not pay her the full amount due an illegitimate daughter.)
Or is Amalia actually a conwoman?
As noted, the dates don't line up: if the church record shows she was born in 1737, and the Manteuffel-Fritz conversation happened in 1735, either she gave birth 3 times (twice already by 1735), or else Amalia just decided "close enough" and trusted no one would look that closely.
Which Schwerin?
Also, Generalleutnant Kurt Christopher vs. Oberst Carl Christoph von Schwerin: they seem to be the same person. Kloosterhuis's source goes back to a source mentioned in the wiki article's footnotes that says Kurt Christoph.
Wikipedia tells me Kurt Christoph was still a lieutenant-colonel in the 1730s, and lieutenant-colonels often get abbreviated to "colonel". Also, I can't find a "Carl Christoph", and "Carl" vs. "Kurt" is a mistake that wouldn't surprise me, especially since it's from the less common "Kurt" to the more common "Carl". So I think it's the guy who won Mollwitz.
SO. The son of the woman who's supposed to have had an affair with Schwerin writes a satire about Fritz's participation in Mollwitz, which was won by Schwerin. Did this come up at all in the satire??? Did it make it extra offensive to Fritz??
If so, I kind of wonder if Fritz would *ever* give her money, even 10 years later, especially if he was already pissed off at her for protecting her son.
So maybe not. But I bet the personal history between Schwerin and Charlotte von Knyphausen, whether real or just rumored, definitely lent some extra oomph to the context of that satire. [ETA: I see
Trenck shows up
Now, Trenck! Fair warning, I have no evidence, only speculation. He doesn't talk about this alleged illegitimate daughter at all. But he writes to the Knyphausens in 1777, and this is what he says.
I'm going to have to transcribe this part more carefully, but he clearly has pissed off the Knyphausens somehow (he doesn't tell us how, just starts going "I didn't mean it! You should forgive me!") and is trying to get back in their good graces. Lol, "I have nothing with which to reproach myself, and great men are subject to the greatest weaknesses."
Classic Trenck.
Anyway, he's now moved to their area and wants to sell them some Hungarian wine. He can get them a good price, if in return they promote the selling of his wine in their area. Wikipedia tells me our Trenck sold Hungarian wines in Aachen during this period, so it's definitely the same guy.
And that's it, except for some postscripts, one of which reads, "The King of Prussia has stopped the Emperor from traveling to Paris. The north is troubled and the ?? trembles."
Remember, the war of the Bavarian Succession is about to break out.
Nothing super relevant, in other words.
BUT. If we put them together, we see that, in 1777, Trenck is trying to get on the good side of the Knyphausens for his business. He's also living in the vicinity of the Knyphausens and Amalia. We also know that in 1780, the local Knyphausen lord is freaking out over what to do about Amalia.
Did Trenck claim to be the father of Amalia to try to weaken her claims and do the Knyphausens a favor? (Either his idea or theirs?) I need more info on where the idea that Trenck was the father comes from. The source everyone's citations go back to seems to be Stephan Kekule von Stradonitz: "Amalia Schönhausen und ihre angebliche Abstammung von der Prinzessin Anna Amalia von Preußen und dem Freiherrn Friedrich Wilhelm von der Trenck." In: Zeitschrift der Zentralstelle für Niedersächsische Familiengeschichte. Jahrgang 7. Hamburg 1925. S. 1 ff.
Which is turning up for sale (expensively!) and not yet in any online sources I've found. But I haven't had time to do a full search yet.
Anyway! Between Tido and Amalia, I've decided that not only do I need to read through the letters I have more carefully, I also need to go back to the archive catalogue where we found the Knyphausen papers and see if there are promising looking collections that *don't* have to do with the Keiths. Because I only requested access to the ones having to do with Peter, but it turns out there's a satire-writing exiled Knyphausen brother, and a possible illegitimate half-sister or conwoman! Both of whom we need to know more about. And who doesn't like figuring out what Trenck has gotten up to??
More when time permits!
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-01-15 06:07 am (UTC)SO. The son of the woman who's supposed to have had an affair with Schwerin writes a satire about Fritz's participation in Mollwitz, which was won by Schwerin. Did this come up at all in the satire??? Did it make it extra offensive to Fritz??
If so, I kind of wonder if Fritz would *ever* give her money, even 10 years later, especially if he was already pissed off at her for protecting her son.
So maybe not. But I bet the personal history between Schwerin and Charlotte von Knyphausen, whether real or just rumored, definitely lent some extra oomph to the context of that satire. [ETA: I see [personal profile] selenak was thinking along similar lines.]
Yeah, to both of you: WOW. I can totally see Fritz just getting extra special angry about all of this :P
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-01-15 10:52 am (UTC)Caveat: probably the same person.
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-06-07 01:21 am (UTC)Also, Generalleutnant Kurt Christopher vs. Oberst Carl Christoph von Schwerin: they seem to be the same person. Kloosterhuis's source goes back to a source mentioned in the wiki article's footnotes that says Kurt Christoph.
Morgenstern! Morgenstern says it's the Fieldmarshal Count Curt von Schwerin! That's the earliest source* this detective can find naming our Schwerin. Furthermore, Preuss has printed a cabinet order from FW to the future field marshal indicating that Schwerin was acting as a go-between between FW and the widowed Baroness von Knyphausen in April 1731, immediately after her husband died, and that Schwerin wanted to "take the oldest son to him." A number of later (19C) sources indicate that he was the guardian of the children.
Comforting the widow, I guess. ;)
The oldest son, btw, is Tido. So the connection between Schwerin and Tido at Mollwitz is even closer than we realized. Gosh, no wonder Fritz blew his stack.
* I know Morgenstern didn't write until at least the 1740s, and his memoirs were published posthumously in 1793, but he joined the court in 1736, and at least was probably reporting *rumors* accurately. This is a lot better than what I had, which was Varnhagen von Ense writing in the 1840s, and why I had "track down earlier source" on my todo list. Victory!
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-06-07 02:10 pm (UTC)The oldest son, btw, is Tido. So the connection between Schwerin and Tido at Mollwitz is even closer than we realized. Gosh, no wonder Fritz blew his stack.
LOL, quite. I wouldn't swear on Schwerin's complete innocence in Tido writing that satire, either.
BTW: if the Knyphausen/Schwerin offspring and it's not Amalie the conwoman (which due to the date of her birth it can't have been), what did become of the kid, I wonder? And why wasn't there a melodramatic 19th century novel imagining its fate? I mean, those were the days before anyone could sue you for writing RPF about them. See also Fanny Lewald writing an novel which has Rahel Varnhagen in unrequited love with Heinrich's favourite nephew Louis Ferdinand while Varnhagen the widower was still alive (and not happy, not least because Rahel really had not been).
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-06-07 10:58 pm (UTC)Exactly, and rumors are what's relevant here. It's not like Fritz had access to a DNA test; he was as dependent on rumor as anyone else. And since he presumably would have known about the close ties between Schwerin and the Knyphausens, it would have been a very plausible rumor.
Btw,
I have so much more to tell you about Tido and Schwerin and the Knyphausens, but no time! Maybe soon!
LOL, quite. I wouldn't swear on Schwerin's complete innocence in Tido writing that satire, either.
Omg, excellent point! And as we discussed, even if he was innocent, Fritz's paranoia is going to suspect him anyway.
The one caveat is that the only reason we have to believe in the satire--at least so far, no other sources have emerged--is an extremely unreliable source: a British merchant writing decades later and specifically saying he heard the story from Tido, who was prone to telling tall tales. All contemporary sources point to simple desertion; maybe Tido fancied up the story at Fritz's expense years later.
BTW: if the Knyphausen/Schwerin offspring and it's not Amalie the conwoman (which due to the date of her birth it can't have been)
If the church register is correct (and it may not be), it can't have been the same kid as December 1735. It may be impossible that they had a later kid, as I'm not sure about Schwerin's movements in 1737, but I can't quite rule it out based on the knowledge I have.
There's also a big question mark about the date. What we have is an unreliable historian (Herlyn, a descendant of her husband's family) citing a church register at Jennelt that records her marriage in August 1769 and says she was 32 years old. Now, church records recording how old people were are often off by a year or two. I'm not super convinced she wasn't born in late 1735 and thus 33 at the time of her marriage. It's also possible that there was some delay in her baptism due to the whole changing-hands thing, and her baptism, not her birth, is what's dated to late 1736 and leading them to believe she was 32 in 1769.
You'll see when you read the latest Peter draft that I've come down on the side of "probably the illegitimate kid, not certainly" for Amalia.
what did become of the kid, I wonder?
I've asked myself the same question. Boring answer? Infant/child mortality. It's my best explanation for why we don't hear of any contesting "Amalia's not the illegitimate child, *I* am!" contemporary claims. Also, if the Baroness really did give birth twice, either to twins or twice consecutively, as rumor has it, there's still a missing child. So I'm thinking death is the most likely explanation.
And why wasn't there a melodramatic 19th century novel imagining its fate?
Lol, that I can't help you with! Perhaps all the 19th century romantic urges were channeled into imagining Amalia was the daughter of Princess Amalie and Trenck.
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-06-08 02:10 pm (UTC)Probably, especially if whoever was put in charge of her wasn't really motivated to keep the baby alive. I am not insinuating infanticide, just that if baby X ended up with some eighteenth century countrywoman who got already paid for caring for other babies, as was often the custom in France (don't know about Prussia), then being one of many wouldn't heighten its life chances. Now obviously both Schwerin and the Baronness Knyphausen could have afforded a more exclusive upbringing, i.e. one family, but if they had done that, you'd think that their descendants would have known whether or not Amalie was the genuine article or an impostor and what exactly became of the kid.
(Illegitimate children of nobility: I've encountered all variations, from the kids being part of the regular household to "it never happened, who is this?", with the most common method sadly being foisting them on a third party from lower in the class system who originally benefits financially and stops caring once the benefit is no longer there.)
The one caveat is that the only reason we have to believe in the satire--at least so far, no other sources have emerged--is an extremely unreliable source: a British merchant writing decades later and specifically saying he heard the story from Tido, who was prone to telling tall tales. All contemporary sources point to simple desertion; maybe Tido fancied up the story at Fritz's expense years later.
Good point, yeah. It does make himself look cooler than simple desertion.
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-06-09 03:16 am (UTC)Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-06-09 03:58 am (UTC)Salon hive mind! I had this exact thought and almost wrote this exact paragraph but for lack of time.
you'd think that their descendants would have known whether or not Amalie was the genuine article or an impostor and what exactly became of the kid.
Gah! I have opinions on this, based on the latest archival findings, but no time. To be continued!
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-06-26 11:25 am (UTC)Manteuffel doesn't name names, but Schwerin the victor of Mollwitz was a lieutenant general at the time (it was Fritz who promoted him to field marshal in 1740), so that is presumably him. The major general is presumably the other Schwerin we found. It's good to know there were multiple rumors going around in 1735 that would account for the multiple fathers we've found named!
In other news, supposedly ("dit on") the Baroness confessed to having been pregnant in December 1735 for the 3rd (!) time since her widowhood (a little over 4 years earlier).
Manteuffel keeps emphasizing that she paid the fine without difficulty (which is the opposite of what Voltaire said, namely that she was ruined!)
He says that everyone is surprised that FW is coming down so hard on her when he's usually pretty lenient with women and girls who give birth to illegitimate children, and everyone is speculating why. Some think it's because he's so pissed off at her late husband (whom he dismissed for having been suspected of involvement in the 1730 escape attempt), but others, Manteuffel included, think it's "amor habendi". I assume that means she's so rich he can fine her a lot.
It's difficult to overstate how much I love the Dresden archives for their extensive digitization efforts. <333 It was driving me crazy that I was relying on a summary by Weber when I'm trying to use primary sources as much as possible.
In particular, because I couldn't tell if it was Weber who declined to name the Baroness von Knyphausen as the woman in question, or Manteuffel, but I extremely suspected Manteuffel wouldn't hesitate, so I needed to go look at the original. And indeed, the anonymization was done by Weber.
ETA: Also, if this is her third pregnancy, we have a number of missing children to account for! Probably early death, as we discussed, but someone should write a melodramatic novel anyway. :)
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-06-26 05:35 pm (UTC)Mind you, if she did have all those pregnancies in so short a time immediately after having been widowed, it may be that her marriage with Oriane's late father had not been exactly passionate...
FW (and Fritz after him) was definitely described as avaricious by all and sunder.
Voltaire describing her as ruined by FW: figures. This is the man who describes Wilhelmine as being thrown out of the window for dramatic effect.
You are, as ever, the best detective. And I'm still ragingly curious as to whether it was Schwerin the victor of Mollwitz and if so, why they didn't marry - was his wife (assuming he had one, which in FW's Prussia is a given) still alive?
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-06-26 06:41 pm (UTC)Au contraire, the royal genealogist is here to say that it was extremely common in the eighteenth century. That's what happens when you don't have birth control!
She actually did it herself multiple times during her first marriage, in which she had legitimate kids (of whom all but the first survived to adulthood, and the first lived to be 2 years old) in 1717, 1719, 1721, 1722, 1724, 1725, 1727, 1729, and 1731. Given that her last son was born 1 week before her husband died, I would say it was a passionate marriage and she was quite fertile.
SD also did it multiple times: 1707, 1709, 1710, 1711, 1712, 1713, 1714, 1716, 1723, 1726, 1730.
Maria Theresa did it multiple times: 1737, 1738, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1754, 1755, 1756.
Louis XV's wife Marie Leszczynska did it multiple times: 1727 (twins), 1728, 1729, 1730, 1732, 1733, 1734, 1736, 1737.
Peter's mother did it at least once that we know of: 1711, 1713, 1714, and since the genealogies tend to list a daughter in between 1711 and 1713, may have done 4 births in 4 years.
Suhm's wife did it multiple times: 1722, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1728, 1730.
Grandpa Wartensleben's 2 wives did it multiple times each: 1680, 1683, 1683, 1864, 1694, 1696, 1697, 1700, 1702, 1703, 1707, 1709, 1710.
Caroline of Ansbach did it multiple times: 1707, 1709, 1711, 1713, 1717, 1721, 1723, 1724 (plus miscarriages and stillbirths).
Maria Carolina did it multiple times: 1772, 1773, 1775, 1775 (yes, January to November of the same year), 1777, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1782, 1783, 1784, 1786, 1787, 1788, 1790, 1792, 1793.
Fritz's sister Charlotte did it multiple times: 1735, 1736, 1737, 1738, 1739, 1740, 1742, 1743, 1745, 1746, 1748, 1749, 1752.
Both of Philip V's wives did it, one multiple times: 1707, 1709, 1712, 1713, 1716, 1717, 1718, 1720, 1726, 1727, 1729.
Both of Moltke's wives did it multiple times: 1736, 1737, 1738, 1740, 1741, 1743, 1745, 1746, 1748, 1750, 1751, 1753, 1755, 1762, 1764, 1765, 1767, 1769, 1770, 1773.
Ferdinand's wife-niece did it multiple times: 1761, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1776, 1779
Catherine I of Russia did it multiple times: 1704, 1705, 1707, 1708, 1709, 1713, 1714, 1715, 1717, 1718, 1723, 1724.
Katte's mother did it only once, but she did it in the space of 2 years: 1704, 1705, 1706.
And I chose these examples because a majority of the births are ones where the kid lived at least a few months, and mostly a lot more than that. Non-stop pregnancy was a way of life for many women, Charlotte von Knyphausen among them.
Actually, on the one hand with modern medicine, but on the other hand with birth control, my own mother had 3 kids in 4 years: 1983, 1985, 1987.
So I find it very plausible that she gave birth 3 times in 4 years, given her previous history of giving birth every year or two.
And I'm still ragingly curious as to whether it was Schwerin the victor of Mollwitz and if so, why they didn't marry - was his wife (assuming he had one, which in FW's Prussia is a given) still alive?
Yes, according to Wikipedia, he married his first wife in 1708, and she didn't die until 1754. They had children in 1711, 1712, and 1715 (i.e., 3 in 4 years). Then he married his second wife and thereby legitimized their illegitimate children from 1717 and 1721.
If you ask me, the fact that he was having illegitimate children in 1717 and 1721 makes it more plausible that he was having them in the 1730s!
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-06-27 03:02 pm (UTC)Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
From:Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-06-28 11:19 am (UTC)If you catch women early enough in their childbearing years, you can get a lot of kids out of them every 1-2 years! If, you know, they don't die in childbirth or have their organs ruined entirely*. I'm reminded of one of my great-grandmothers, who got started at age 14 and had 15 children live to adulthood, plus a few die as babies. I don't have birthdates, but she must have been doing the "3 kids in 4 years" thing numerous times.
* Not that she was married young (22), but I still wonder how Wilhelmine managed to get pregnant within about 10 days of her wedding and then never again, despite a loving marriage. Organ damage is still my best explanation.
Btw, I got curious and looked it up, and Marie Louise of Savoy, wife of Philip "the Frog" V, despite being married at 12, at least didn't start having children until she was 18. Not for lack of sex: she didn't want to consummate the marriage on her wedding night, and Philip wasn't going to make her, but when Grandpa Louis XIV found out, he was all, "No, you SHOW her who's boss! You rape that child!" (essentially) And then they did start having sex shortly thereafter.
In other words, our days of being stupendously grateful we don't live in the past are certainly coming to a middle.
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-02-18 10:57 pm (UTC)The author (in 1925) argued that Amalie and Trenck can't have had an affair, on the grounds that "Lehndorff, der Allwissende," knows nothing about it.
I mean, that was our reasoning for Fredersdorf's dismissal for embezzlement (or lack thereof)! But I had to laugh at "Lehndorff, der Allwissende." (This author gets very excitable in his article, an exclamation point in almost every paragraph.)
We can't all be "der Einzige", but you achieved "der Allwissende" status, Lehndorff! Not bad, not bad.
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-02-19 06:23 pm (UTC)If I didn’t have three Lehndorff icons already, I would create a „Lehndorff der Allwissende“ icon.
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-02-20 02:03 pm (UTC)I was wondering where the claim that Trenck and Amalie were the parents of Amalie Schönhausen came from. Apparently it's *not* from Trenck; some early 20th century member of Amalie's husband's family (the Herlyns) was doing the family history, and he went and talked to an old pastor in the church where Amalie got married. The pastor told Herlyn a story that he originally thought was the pastor spinning tall tales, but then Herlyn did more research and became convinced!
He published in 1914 and 1920, and in 1922, a local historian, John Gechter, elaborated on his case in an issue of a local genealogical magazine.
"Hogwash!" said one Stephan von Stradonitz, writing in that same magazine in 1925. A year later, in his book on the documentary sources relating to Trenck's life that Selena read for us, Volz agreed.
Herlyn: Amalia was 32 when she married in 1769, so she was born around 1738.
Stradonitz: I.e., she was born in 1737, when Amalie was 13 and Trenck 11!
Mildred: And your claim that Fritz was king when this happened is extra suspect, Herlyn!
Herlyn: A friend of Fritz's, one Karl Ernst Reinhard von Keith, was responsible for bringing her to East Frisia and taking care of her in her old age. I have here a document in which he allows her to live on his estate rent-free.
Stradonitz: You idiot! Fritz's Keith friends were James the Field Marshal and George the Earl Marischal. Peter, his childhood friend, was veeeery very distantly related. This Karl Ernst Reinhard, I think was Peter's son, but in any case was more closely related to Peter than to the other two. He was way too young to have brought her anywhere in 1738, and he was certainly no friend of Fritz's.
Mildred: Wow, it's so weird to see people not knowing things I take for granted.
Herlyn: She used the royal arms on her seal!
Stradonitz: That's not the Prussian crown! That's just a crown, which doesn't signify anything. If you want to look for an illegitimate ancestry, look in East Frisia and the vicinity, where she married, lived, and died, and look for an obscure noble family that has this coat of arms.
Mildred: You're both wrong! I know from Wikipedia and also the Knyphausen family papers that she used the Ilgen family coat of arms, i.e. her alleged mother's, so I bet this is a description of the Ilgen family arms.
Wikipedia: *conveniently shows a picture of the Ilgen arms that exactly matches Herlyn's and Stradonitz's descriptions of Amalia's*
Mildred: In general, none of you seem to know anything about her alleged Knyphausen ancestry.
In fact, I know very little about what has been said about her Knyphausen ancestry in the historical literature, other than what I found in the Knyphausen papers where they're freaking out about her pressuring them into giving her money. I know there's more material on her in the archives that I'm planning to request, but I also would like to know what's been published so I can figure out what I may have to contribute that's new information, as opposed to already out there.
In any case, I have answered my question about whether Trenck was maybe claiming to be her father in order to do the Knyphausens a favor by weakening her case to be related to them: he never claimed to be her father. I guess unless he did and Stradonitz just didn't know about it! But unlike the relationship with Amalie, it's not in the memoirs. I also didn't see her mentioned in his letters to Hertzberg, which I've done a quick skim through.
Based on that quick skim, he's writing for the usual reason: money, money, money. I see the word "pension" a lot. I think Trenck wants a pension from Fritz? (But hold on commenting on this until I've had a chance to read properly.) But there are also hints that he's been up to his usual entertaining shenanigans, so time--sleep, really--permitting, I'd like to decipher and translate or summarize some of those letters for salon.
Re: Baroness von Knyphausen's illegitimate child
Date: 2025-06-09 03:16 am (UTC)