WI: Frederick The Great actually manages to escape with his lover?

So yeah, what the thread title says, what would happen if Frederick and his lover disappeared into the countryside never to be found again?
 
Given what a loving family man his father, Fredrick William I, was ...

Augustus William becomes the new crown prince, the royal executioner is told to sharpen his axe for Frederick and the UK (and the HRE) have a diplomatic crisis drop in their laps.

The immediate butterflies are that it creates bad blood between Prussia and the UK and presents the Holy Roman Empire with a succession crisis, the later butterflies come from Augustus William being very much not the genius his brother was.
 
Given what a loving family man his father, Fredrick William I, was ...

Augustus William becomes the new crown prince, the royal executioner is told to sharpen his axe for Frederick and the UK (and the HRE) have a diplomatic crisis drop in their laps.

The immediate butterflies are that it creates bad blood between Prussia and the UK and presents the Holy Roman Empire with a succession crisis, the later butterflies come from Augustus William being very much not the genius his brother was.

This probably also means that the Austrian Habsburgs keep Silesia. Though Prussia-Brandenburg might succeed in acquiring Polish Prussia, if they join the right alliances.
 
So yeah, what the thread title says, what would happen if Frederick and his lover disappeared into the countryside never to be found again?

I'm sorry, when was it established as historical fact that Frederick the Great was involved in a homosexual romantic relationship with Hans Hermann von Katte?
 
As well, if the blow back is bad enough it could lead to the side-lining of Prince Henry, the real brains of the Hohenzies family in the latter 18th century.

Prince Henry was an out of the closet homosexual who did nothing to hide his sexual orientation.

My take on Frederick was that he was asexual.
 
I'm sorry, when was it established as historical fact that Frederick the Great was involved in a homosexual romantic relationship with Hans Hermann von Katte?

It wasn't but I definately believe that Fritz was gay and it just kind of makes sense. I will admit that it's far from proven but I really don't see why it matters to the WI.
 
It wasn't but I definately believe that Fritz was gay and it just kind of makes sense.

I don't really know about that. I mean, Frederick the Great seems to be one of those people who are just generally suspected of being homosexuals because they never really showed too much interest in women, and I feel that saying "well, he didn't like his wife and he never took a mistress, ergo he was gay" is reading into history what you want to see in history. If Frederick the Great indeed was gay, then it certainly makes him a far more intriguing historical character, but unfortunately, it is hard to substantiate such a supposition.

It's just like how Marie-Antoinette and Axel von Fersen is often assumed to have been lovers by many because it makes that episode of French history a little more interesting, even though the evidence of such a dangerous liaison is rather non-existent.

I will admit that it's far from proven but I really don't see why it matters to the WI.

If they are never found again, then I guess you're right, it doesn't matter.
 
I don't really know about that. I mean, Frederick the Great seems to be one of those people who are just generally suspected of being homosexuals because they never really showed too much interest in women, and I feel that saying "well, he didn't like his wife and he never took a mistress, ergo he was gay" is reading into history what you want to see in history. If Frederick the Great indeed was gay, then it certainly makes him a far more intriguing historical character, but unfortunately, it is hard to substantiate such a supposition.

He decorated his palace with rather obvious symbolism, which was kind of like hanging portraits of Liberace and Oscar Wilde and Freddy Mercury and Neil Patrick Harris in your room. Could be nothing, but likely not nothing.

And while he could certainly have been asexual, he seemed to have been homoromantic in his attachments. As for Katte, he may not have been a lover but he was the closest friend in a circle which could have included the actual lover. They didn't flee alone, they fled with a group of young nobles and army officers.

So let's acknowledge your (forgive the word but) nitpick, and rephrase the OP as "he successfully flees Prussia in the company of his close friends and the man he loves non-sexually, avoiding marriage to a female."

What then.
 
He decorated his palace with rather obvious symbolism, which was kind of like hanging portraits of Liberace and Oscar Wilde and Freddy Mercury and Neil Patrick Harris in your room. Could be nothing, but likely not nothing.

Could be. Or it could be a case of simply this:

"My suspicions were aroused when I discovered that he had all seasons that has yet been released of How I Met Your Mother on DVD. Looking over the songs on his iTunes, his extensive collection of Queen albums as well as a poster of Freddy Mercury hanging on a wall raised further concerns. That's when I found a copy of The Picture of Dorian Gray in his bookcase. The situation was obvious. This man was a flaming homosexual."

I mean, to be quite frank, back in the 18th century, aristocratic men wore wigs, jewelry, make-up, were anticipated to hold close dear male friends whom they were to write long letters spilling out their souls. It seems to me quite possible that what we're doing here is simply misinterpreting the behaviour and customs of a different age.

And while he could certainly have been asexual, he seemed to have been homoromantic in his attachments. As for Katte, he may not have been a lover but he was the closest friend in a circle which could have included the actual lover. They didn't flee alone, they fled with a group of young nobles and army officers.

So let's acknowledge your (forgive the word but) nitpick, and rephrase the OP as "he successfully flees Prussia in the company of his close friends and the man he loves non-sexually, avoiding marriage to a female."

Now worries, won't push it any farther. :p

My only concern was that if this was to be a timeline in which we see the young Crown Prince of Prussia run away from his kingdom to start a new life with a homosexual lover, some questions regarding historicity of certain presumptions ought to be raised, but it would appear that the Original Poster has intended for this scenario to instead be that Frederick the Great and his fellow escapees disappear from the worldly scene as far as we know it.
 
While this debate over Frederich's sexuality is interesting and all I feel I must interject. First of all Frederich seemed to be homosexual. Here's an example form Wikipedia: "At age 16, Frederick had formed an attachment to the king's 13-year-old page, Peter Karl Christoph Keith. Wilhelmina recorded that the two "soon became inseparable. Keith was intelligent, but without education. He served my brother from feelings of real devotion, and kept him informed of all the king's actions." While Plus there's his attachment to Hans Hermann von Katte and his comment about his wife "There can be neither love nor friendship between us". While no one ever comes out (pun not intended) and says hes gay I think we can infer between the lines here, just like we do with Alexander the Great and Hephaestion.


And to the part we are debating, his attempted flight to England. If he and the other army officers were to successfully flee to England, what might happen next? Its guessed that they intended to offer their services to Frederich's uncle, George II and maybe even get British aid in returning to Prussia and overthrowing Frederich Wilhelm. That's up in the air but having the Crown Prince of Prussia would definitely be a good weapon for the British. Sort of like the French with the Stuarts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_the_Great#cite_note-Crompton-5
 
I mean, to be quite frank, back in the 18th century, aristocratic men wore wigs, jewelry, make-up, were anticipated to hold close dear male friends whom they were to write long letters spilling out their souls. It seems to me quite possible that what we're doing here is simply misinterpreting the behaviour and customs of a different age.

Well, it's always tricky, that. On one hand as you say, it can be wishful thinking, and we collectively pretend to have some kind of commitment to treat history is an objective manner.

On the other hand, if you're approaching everything with that kind of skepticism it becomes obvious there were no homosexuals between 180 CE and 1888 or thereabouts, because what wasn't wishful thinking about tender customs of a different age was probably vicious salacious slander by enemies, right?

That really impedes any kind of backwards analysis because it takes away and makes irrelevant a very common human motivation.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Well, it seems to me that there a different types of people / men. Frankly, some men are very if not only able to form meaningful realtionships with other men, while still prefering to have sex with women, or not having any desire to have sex with their "best friends.'

For a classic example, I look back on Umar, the Prohphet Mohammed's friend...

It is kind of silly not to accept that sexuality is influence by the times. (In certain times, a "heterosexual" man could have a "homosexual" experience and never be thought gay. And a man who prefers men could also occasionally have sex with women. But now adays, everyone is either or, with nothing in between.

And, which gender you prefer to talk to over a cup of coffee also supposedly suggests which gender you'd rather bed. But in reality, when given the option, people will make surprising choices all around...both in terms of with whom they'll share their heart....and interms of who they'll share their bodily fluids....and for a not insignificant portion of people, the gender of the person they'd prefer to "bed" and the gender of the person they'd prefer to "wed" (as a euphamism for being close to) is different;.
 
On the other hand, if you're approaching everything with that kind of skepticism it becomes obvious there were no homosexuals between 180 CE and 1888 or thereabouts, because what wasn't wishful thinking about tender customs of a different age was probably vicious salacious slander by enemies, right?

That really impedes any kind of backwards analysis because it takes away and makes irrelevant a very common human motivation.

That certainly is true.

I guess that as far as history is concerned, I know my limitations in making interpretations - I am after all not a trained historian - and so when I write alternate history, I think of it as fiction first and fiction entirely, as I fear that my interpretations may be quite off the mark, especially on controversial issues, or issues lacking too clear historical sources. And Frederick the Great's sexuality is a good example of that. While I too get the impression that he may very well have been gay, I am by nature inclined to not take a definite stand on the issue.

It is because of this that I am very skeptical of those who approach the whole genre of alternate fiction as "a scholarly exercise to establish the logical and natural chain of events that inevitably would have ensued had you changed one little variable." Such an approach is merely ignorance of a writer's lack of omnipotence.
 
That certainly is true.

I'm not sympathetic to that argument. I'm not sure if we had this conversation before or no, but it bears repeating. Just because we have a certain word to describe something and it has connotations beyond its primary meaning doesn't mean the thing described by the primary meaning isn't something that existed before that word was invented. In this case it helps that it's unreasonable and unsupportable in the face of what little evidence we have.

tldr; historical-identitity constructionists are largely wrong about everything and refuse to see the forest for the trees.

I do sympathise with the "history is fiction" though, and on the grounds of that I'd rather read fiction that's more in tune with my values. We've had enough of the reverse in the last oh, 20 centuries or so.
 
I'm not sympathetic to that argument. I'm not sure if we had this conversation before or no, but it bears repeating. Just because we have a certain word to describe something and it has connotations beyond its primary meaning doesn't mean the thing described by the primary meaning isn't something that existed before that word was invented. In this case it helps that it's unreasonable and unsupportable in the face of what little evidence we have.

tldr; historical-identitity constructionists are largely wrong about everything and refuse to see the forest for the trees.

I'm sorry, you completely lost me there. Could you please clarify what you were trying to say? :p:eek:

I do sympathise with the "history is fiction" though, and on the grounds of that I'd rather read fiction that's more in tune with my values. We've had enough of the reverse in the last oh, 20 centuries or so.

No, I'm saying alternate history is fiction. History, on the other hand, should aspire to a higher standard.
 
Actually despite not meaning to start it the conversation on that eras sexuality is fairly interesting (and to delve into my opinion a little I'd be willing to buy the reasoning of him just being asexual if not for the fact that he was so closely involved with numerous men and no women at all, you could argue just convention of the times but I'm willing to bet otherwise because really if you go by the skeptical route there really aren't any gay people in history, and sometimes the salacious rumor mongers and slanderers are speaking the truth)

Now on Frederick disapearing/becoming British, I'd expect that to only last for awhile if he was allowed to stay. Endangering Prussia's relations with England can only go on so long before it's a bad idea (since it would be within Britains interest to keep good relations with Prussia). What I can see happening is eventually the British send the Prince and his entourage away on cover of them escaping from being sent back, from there they join up with whatever nation will keep them and fade into being a footnote of history.

For Prussia this is a huge loss given how much Prussia's rise relied on Frederick's hyper-competence, they likely never get silesia and are just one among many German secondary powers with Austria remaining the premier German power.
 
Now on Frederick disapearing/becoming British, I'd expect that to only last for awhile if he was allowed to stay. Endangering Prussia's relations with England can only go on so long before it's a bad idea (since it would be within Britains interest to keep good relations with Prussia). What I can see happening is eventually the British send the Prince and his entourage away on cover of them escaping from being sent back, from there they join up with whatever nation will keep them and fade into being a footnote of history.
If they're sent to British North America, and the American Rebellion still happens ITTL, then maybe we see Frederick-that-was leading Loyalist troops against the rebels?
 
Top