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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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!