Maria Theresas Contemporaries Already Praised (...) Her Manliness Of Soul, Her Virilit Danima. Some Even

Maria Theresa’s contemporaries already praised (...) her “manliness of soul,” her virilità d’anima. Some even called her a “Grand-Homme”; “in the attractive body of a queen” she was “fully a king, in the most glorious, all-encompassing sense of the word.” Later historians reprised the theme, describing her as a “man filled with insight and vigor.” That a masculine soul could reside in a female body had long been a commonplace, albeit one used less to elevate women than to cast shame on men. Praising a woman for her manly bravery or resolution, her masculine courage or spirit, served above all as an indirect criticism of men (…) When a woman is said to be the better man, this casts a devastating judgment on all her male peers. The key point is that calling an exceptional woman like Maria Theresa a “real man” consolidates the sexual hierarchy rather than calling it into question. Such praise assumes that masculinity is a compliment and that the male sex is and remains superior.

For the eighteenth century, a period when the dynastic principle still largely held sway throughout Europe, there was nothing especially unusual about a female head of state. While a woman on the throne was perceived even then as less desirable, she was not yet a contradiction; the spheres of the public and the private, politics and the family were not yet categorically distinct. Maria Theresa’s contemporaries already found it remarkable that a representative of the lesser sex could wield such power. But they did not regard her rule as entirely anomalous: she was “a woman, and a mother to her country, just as a prince can be a man and father to his country.” Her rule proved that “the greatest of all the arts, that of governing kingdoms, is not beyond the soul of a lady.” What was extraordinary, in the eighteenth-century context, was less the fact that a woman held the scepter of power than that a monarch, whether male or female, took the task of government so seriously. Princes came in many forms—patrons of the arts, skirt-chasers, war heroes, family fathers, scholars, philosophers—and each prince could shape his everyday life as he saw fit. Very few approached the task of rule with the single-minded dedication of a Maria Theresa. She met the criteria of a conscientious ruler to a remarkable degree, far more than most other sovereigns of the time.

Stollberg-Rilinger, Barbara (2020). Maria Theresa: The Habsburg Empress in her Time (translation by Robert Savage)

Can’t pass on such an amazing topic for discussion and leave it without any commentary from my part!

Even though I pretty much stopped posting about Austrian affairs in the Napoleonic era, I’m still fascinated by the subject and would love to see some piece of media focusing on Imperial strifes and struggles during the exact same time period. And since nobody wants to do anything, I’d love to do it myself! If I only had such an opportunity. 🇦🇹✨

Like… those events made such an impact on a scale of European and world history. Yet it seems, that despite vast historical research being carried out on the Habsburg’s monarchy general public tends to know literally nothing about fundamentals. The fall of the Holy Roman Empire was not something that occurs every now and then. And people who lived through this whole mess were not just some boring imperialists, reactionaries and conservatives. 🤡

(Frankly speaking, many of them were all of those things at once… Still I whole-heartedly believe that they can be unbelievably captivating and deserve to be explored too!)

Documentaries are always appreciated, however I’d kill for a fully-fledged series about Kaiser Franz, his mind-blowing family and his court because oh man, what a court it was. Also, we desperately need a proper series about the Congress of Vienna! At least 4 seasons of drama, political intrigues and scandalous love affairs. It could be a show of a century! 😩🤌

My bad: I’ve started talking about series - not films - from the beginning, since, in my opinion, themes that I’ve mentioned require series and only series. There are so many things to explore, no film would be able to depict even a hundredth of what is needed to be shown.

Nevertheless, if we get back to the “film” topic, I’ll definitely ask for a decent biopic about Metternich without caricature exaggeration of his evilness and narrow-mindedness. 👏 Metternich 👏 has 👏 rights 👏 too 👏! That eccentric man was broken beyond repair by life-circumstances and it’s unbelievably tragic to witness, what a person could become because of their predisposition and bias.

At last, just to make this whole rant even worse…

Schwarzenberg.

Like, anything focusing him to let people know about someone who confronted Napoleon (much more complexly and excitingly, from my point of view, sorry not sorry) aside tsar Alexander and Wellington.

Das Ende der Geschichte. 😑

Your Ideal Napoleonic Era Movie

If someone gave you like Insane James Cameron Avatar money to make a Napoleonic film and every perfect actor, choreographer, screenwriter, and other logistics you needed was available to you, what you would do?

I'm just curious. I was discussing with a friend about how it was physically impossible to do the entirety of Naps' career in one movie in a satisfactory manner due to the absolute length of his military career.

But I had nothing cognizant to suggest for a movie about Napoleon.

The only thing I want is having the Napster sitting on his secretary's lap for no reason ever provided.

The guy was like a cat with ADHD from what I figure.

Maybe I just want guys chilling in an explicitly not 20th-21st century "we gotta No Homo everything" way.

And obviously, if I had more money on my hands than I knew what to do with for a Napoleonic film, I would hire the prettiest man for a Louis-Francois Lejeune biopic. xD

Ohhhh, for sure! 💕

*hugs back tightly*

Always so interesting to me when I come across a historical figure who was noted to be constantly "in poor health" or "of a weak constitution" or some other shorthand for "they were always falling ill, even when others weren't and there was no obvious trigger for it." it really makes me wonder--how many of those people had what we'd today consider a chronic illness, and how many of them were just suffering from subpar sanitation in the past? how many of them had what could reasonably be considered a disability as opposed to just living in a time without modern medicine, and the people around them just couldn't diagnose them because the diagnosis didn't exist yet? this is something that I think about constantly btw

at least tumblr doesn't hate vertical pics

Archduke Karl of Austria-Teschen and his children, by Johann Ender, 1832. From left to right: Archduke Wilhelm, Archduke Karl Ferdinand, Archduchess Maria Theresa (future Queen of the Two Sicilies), Archduke Karl, Archduke Albrecht, Archduchess Maria Karolina, and Archduke Friedrich Ferdinand. In the left corner there is a bust of Princess Henriette of Naussau-Weilburg, the children's late mother.