Seewalds 30: No new baby, but with more recipe thread-drift

[tabitha2]

Yet his younger sisters and brothers were mentally ok and physically average in health for the time if not exactly attractive and hardy.  Genetics are funny.  

[QuiverFullofBooks]

2 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

I think I remember the resulting birth (her being so young) rendered her incapable of having more children. 

Quite possible, but not certain. Her second husband was childless in his first marriage and may have been infertile. The marriage contract from her third marriage apparently specified that they would not have sex.

[tabitha2]

Actually She was married 4 times. Turned out her first marriage was illegal  by canon law because  she was entered into it before she was  of age at 12. 

[Georgiana]

One of my areas of interest is in royal mistresses, especially those of France.  I came across a quote one time that said in essence "If the Kings of France had chosen their wives as well as they chose their mistresses, the monarchy might well still be around today."  Now obviously this is stretching it since we all know that the kings of France generally DID NOT choose their wives, but it is fascinating to see what happens to a court when the strong, influential, and often capable female power is expected NOT to be the Queen, but the mistress en titre.  

But seriously, the mistresses of France are SO INTERESTING.  They are often women who rose from low or disadvantaged beginnings, and used their intelligence, talents, and sexual allure to become the most powerful women in the land.  Many of them were quite remarkable, and there is an argument to be made that had Louis XVI had such a woman to advise him instead of Marie-Antoinette (and also to curtail the financial frivolity of said madam), the monarchy may have fared much better...if only because a French mistress generally acted as a counterweight to the fear of a foreign queen exerting too much power.  

[Snarkangel Gabriel]

5 minutes ago, Georgiana said:

One of my areas of interest is in royal mistresses, especially those of France.  I came across a quote one time that said in essence "If the Kings of France had chosen their wives as well as they chose their mistresses, the monarchy might well still be around today."  

Uxorious royalty don’t seem to do well - Charles I, Louis XVI, Nicholas II...

[justoneoftwo]

How much influence did Marie Antoinette actually have though?  As I understand it she didn't actually do many of the things the revolution said she did ("let them eat cake" has been shown to be a lie), so what exactly did she do that caused the downfall?  How would someone have been able to avoid it? (Personally I don't think it was avoidable, although it could have been contained to the girondin revolution)

[singsingsing]

I know that Margaret Beaufort took a vow of celibacy years after she married her third (or fourth, if you want to count the first "marriage") husband. He had to agree to it for it to be valid, and he did. I'm 99% sure they had been married for many years by that point, though.

I do think it's fairly likely that Margaret's pregnancy and birth at so young an age was the reason she was never able to have more children. Even back in the 15th century, she was exceptionally young to be reproducing. Super young marriages were usually made among the nobility for dynastic purposes and often weren't consummated until at least the mid-teens, often later. Late teens/early twenties was considered a better age to marry/become sexually active. People at the time were definitely aware that it was dangerous and unhealthy for girls to have babies at too young an age. There was also a belief that the health of young men could be seriously damaged by too much sexual activity too early. 

[tabitha2]

Of course . These foreign Princesses  who  were sent to France  to be consorts Generally raised from infancy expecting to be married off soon, Their father was their God on earth who would give all power over them to a husband, That their God in heaven wanted them to suffer bearing child after child in agony because they were lowly evil daughters of Eve. Being in almost habitual terrible health by the pregnancy's and inbreeding made them even more pathetic. Being fervently religious, over eating and gambling were some coping methods to being powerless, shunted aside for mistresses by both court and King. 

 

A sturdy saucy Buxom mistress picked from the French Gentry  or nobility who was generally very little troubled by thoughts of Hell for enjoying sex was always going to be preferable to an arranged marriage like this.    

 

 

[Carm_88]

1 minute ago, justoneoftwo said:

How much influence did Marie Antoinette actually have though? 

Not too much but she was silly and frivolous in a time where money was tight. It was mostly that she was foreign, but Marie Antoinette didn't listen to good advice. She was too caught up in her own world. Her family tried to talk sense to her but it didn't work. She's remarkably similar to Alexandra (Alix) being the downfall of Russia. Alix made bad decisions but ultimately the circumstances of Russia at the time and Nicholas' own bad decisions didn't help. The Rasputin affair was exaggerated and Alix didn't do herself any favours. They definitely played a part in the downfall, not completely on their shoulders but they did play a part. 

[Georgiana]

Just now, justoneoftwo said:

How much influence did Marie Antoinette actually have though?  As I understand it she didn't actually do many of the things the revolution said she did ("let them eat cake" has been shown to be a lie), so what exactly did she do that caused the downfall?  How would someone have been able to avoid it? (Personally I don't think it was avoidable, although it could have been contained to the girondin revolution)

Well, her very existence was hated.  The French HATED the Austrians at that time, so naturally an Austrian queen was seen as HIGHLY suspicious.  People did genuinely believe that she was influencing her husband away from the interests of France.  Now, had her husband taken a mistress as he was expected to do, this would have been significantly abated.  The Queen's influence would have been seen to have been lessened and contained, and the King would have been seen to be under the influence of a proper French woman, which likely would have improved his image with the people.  As it was, people wondered if the King was under the sway of the Austrians.  

In addition, many of the nobility and upper class themselves had become disillusioned with the monarchs.  Partially, this WAS due to the fact that a royal mistress was the traditional avenue for non-traditional people to gain influence with the king.  Versailles was an insane court with more rules than you could shake a stick at.  Only the most nobly born could get near the monarch in any capacity without a connection or invitation.  This meant that it was incredibly difficult for people to rise within the court, even when they had the merit to do so.  The mistress was often the loophole.  Since she was NOT an official member of the Royal Family, she could be approached more easily.  She could then invite those she supported into her chambers, where they may have a chance to interact with the king.  Heck, she could likely influence the king into making a direct invitation or appointment just on her own influence.  Without a mistress, many people felt they were unable to advance because as they could not officially approach the monarchs, they were blocked.  There was no way for them or their children to rise.  

In terms of Marie Antionette herself, while she wasn't as bad as she was made out to be, she WAS undereducated, unsuited to the challenges of the French court, and a massive spender.  She was not her mother's first choice for the Queen of France, and she did not receive the necessary education because she was a hasty second-choice after the death of her sister.  She never received the preparation needed to thrive in Versailles, so it is no wonder that she essentially crumpled under the pressure and ran away as best she could.  When she did make decisions, they were usually poor ones.  While her country starved and knowing spending was an issue, she still built an entire fake village in the palace in order to "play peasant".  She encouraged her children and husband to join her there.  She essentially hid from her problems and encouraged her husband to do the same until they spiraled out of control, and while one can understand on a human level why she did it, it did eventually spell her downfall.  A better educated French woman, possibly of lower birth who would be more in touch with the feeling of the nation and stronger character, may have prevented this by nipping it in the bud, encouraging the King to put a stop to royal spending, and embarking on a policy of reform to confront the issues facing the nation.  

Marie Antoinette would have made a lovely noblewoman of a small principality married to a man of decision and action.  A Germanic marriage might have done her well.  She would have been an EXCELLENT modern monarch with her love of family life and her interest in promoting national fashion.  But as the wife of the weak Louis XVI and Queen of France, she was a wreck.  

[justoneoftwo]

Okay, so then why did he not have a mistress?  What changed?  He knew it was expected, he probably didn't have anything against it, what happened?

[tabitha2]

Both he and MA were kind  of hopeless about Sex for along time...he was totally inadequate and she was totally interested in sex according to Joseph II MAs eldest brother. He had to Instruct and advice then to get things on the right track. Took a whopping seven years. Joii said his BIL could get it up fine so it wasn’t the physical problem that historians have always believed and he did not have the surgery people have always been taught.

[VelociRapture]

12 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Okay, so then why did he not have a mistress?  What changed?  He knew it was expected, he probably didn't have anything against it, what happened?

I found this article that lays out a few hypotheses:

Its probably impossible to know for sure, but most people seem to agree their initial intimacy issues were likely either a lack of libido, Louis’ distrust of his Austrian wife (due to his Advisors), their immaturity upon marriage (he was 15 and she was 14), or because he found sex painful for some reason. 

If Louis had a low libido or found sex painful then that very well could explain why he didn’t have a mistress. Or maybe he was just a faithful guy who took his marriage vows seriously. Whatever the reason, I believe he was the first French King in 200 years not to have a mistress and that made his wife the target of a LOT of hatred that was usually directed towards the royal mistress - for instance, blaming her for excesses at court (which already existed before her arrival and which she didn’t actually make much worse) and portraying her in pornagraphic materials. 

[Georgiana]

12 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Okay, so then why did he not have a mistress?  What changed?  He knew it was expected, he probably didn't have anything against it, what happened?

Oh Louis XVI.  He was...interesting.  Good guy, by all accounts.  Nice guy.  Tried hard.  Loved his country.  But WOEFULLY inadequate.  

It's hard to speculate, but it is known that Louis XVI didn't even consummate his marriage with Marie Antoinette until many years after the couple married DESPITE pleas from all sides to do so.  It wasn't until Marie Antoinette's brother (a reigning monarch so distressed by the situation that he left his own country to investigate) the Emperor Joseph evidently sat the couple down and explained things to them that the marriage was finally fulfilled.  Joseph described the root of the problem as the couple themselves being "complete fumblers", which suggests neither had much idea as to the mechanics of the sex act.

This, of course, would not be overly shocking for Marie Antoinette, but Louis would have had ample opportunity and encouragement to "practice" long before his marriage.  The fact that he didn't suggests to me that his interest in sex was either low, non-existent, or went in another direction which he suppressed.  He did seem to be fond of his wife and Antoinette did conceive readily when the couple was known to be sexually active, but even still her conceptions were low for the time (and one of her conceptions matches up a bit too well with the return of one of her favorites), suggesting to me that for whatever reason and despite being a better match than most upper-class couples of the day, the couple was not interested in frequent intercourse.  

So, in short: He didn't take a mistress because he wasn't interested in having a mistress.  But while HE may not have needed a mistress, FRANCE needed a mistress, and in denying her that, he shot himself in the foot.  

[tabitha2]

Here Is what Joseph II had to say:

 

Joseph wrote to the Grand Duke of Tuscany: “In the end, it’s not a weakness of the body or spirit; it’s simply that he hasn’t had his ‘let there be light’ moment yet, his technique is still in the process of formation ... In his marriage bed, he has strong erections, he inserts his member, remains there for perhaps two minutes without moving, withdraws without ejaculating, and while still erect, bids good night. It’s incomprehensible. He sometimes has nocturnal emissions but always while lying motionless. He’s satisfied, saying he does it only out of a sense of duty but has no desire for it. Ah, if only I could have been present once, I would have set him straight! He should be whipped until he discharges in anger like a donkey. My sister does not have the temperament for this and together they make an utterly inept couple.”

[kacarlton]

Sooooo...

Jessa hasn’t announced a pregnancy?

[eleanora3]

Just now, kacarlton said:

Sooooo...

Jessa hasn’t announced a pregnancy?

She also hasn't said happy birthday to Henry yet.

[justoneoftwo]

3 minutes ago, eleanora3 said:

She also hasn't said happy birthday to Henry yet.

How old was S when H was announced?

[Carm_88]

10 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

How old was S when H was announced?

Spurgeon was around 6 months old when Jessa got pregnant with Henry. She announced when he was about 9 months. 

[tabitha2]

Watch them announce on VD Trying to be all cute and fun LOL

[melon]

Or when CO returns on February 26.

 

[tabitha2]

I always worry and wonder if they have tended to be on a regular schedule with child bearing and they are suddenly late To announce that something has gone wrong with a pregnancy or they have had a mis. I don’t want that for mother even a Fundy.   

[Nargus]

6 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

I always worry and wonder if they have tended to be on a regular schedule with child bearing and they are suddenly late To announce that something has gone wrong with a pregnancy or they have had a mis. I don’t want that for mother even a Fundy.   

I don't know if you can have a child bearing schedule if you only have 2.  Anna seems to have a definite schedule now, every other year.

[Bethella]

Just now, Nargus said:

I don't know if you can have a child bearing schedule if you only have 2.  Anna seems to have a definite schedule now, every other year.

I agree. We can make a predication based on the first interval between kids but it's definitely a guess.

[tabitha2]

That’s is true. Given that fact it should be Anna everyone should be speculative about then. She’s overdue for a pregnancy.