Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Captain__Spiff t1_iquzxw4 wrote

>Sophie married her maternal first cousin, the future Prince of Orange (later King William III), in Stuttgart on 18 June 1839 with the idea that she would in the end succeed in dominating him.[citation needed]

>The marriage was arranged. Her father, while being a liberal progressive in other aspects, still favored dynastic marriages and wished for his daughters to marry monarchs. Prior to her marriage, King Otto of Greece and Duke William of Brunswick were possible suitors for Princess Sophie. The engagement with the first came to nothing because Princess Sophie's ambitious father had no confidence in the newly established Greek monarchy of Otto. Chance prevented a proposal by the second candidate because her father let it be known that Princess Sophie was already betrothed. Sophie herself had preferred to marry William of Brunswick, and she stated herself that her marriage to William of The Netherlands was a sacrifice she made to her father.[2]

>After the wedding, Sophie and William settled in the Paleis aan het Plein in The Hague. Sophie came to have a good relationship to her father-in-law as well as to her uncle-in-law Prince Frederick of the Netherlands.[2] King William's mother, whom he completely relied on, was totally against the marriage to a daughter of the sister she loathed and treated her daughter-in-law and niece with disdain. She and her mother-in-law Anna were never to be on good terms: Anna was also her maternal aunt, but she had never been on good terms with her sister, Sophie's mother, and she had opposed the marriage between Sophie and her son.[2]

>The marriage between Sophie and William was arranged and never a happy one. Their relationship was not improved by the birth of their children, whose upbringing was a constant cause for conflict between their parents.[2] William was constantly unfaithful.[2] Sophie did not wish to live with him and devoted herself on cultivating her own intellectual interests and the private study of various subjects.[2] A divorce was contemplated early on, but was continually postponed because it was not seen as suitable for a king and queen.

834

LaoBa t1_iqv210w wrote

All her sons died before their father, leaving him without an heir, so after Sophie's death William III first tried to marry an opera singer, which was forbidden by parliament. Then he married the 41 year younger Emma of Waldeck-Piermont. They had one daughter, Wilhelmina, who would become the first queen-regnant of the Netherlands. Emma served as a regent after William III died and Wilhelmina was still a minor.

623

blue-cube t1_iqwxmoe wrote

https://www.thecourtjeweller.com/2014/11/jewel-detective-emma-of-waldeck-and.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_of_Waldeck_and_Pyrmont

Two of his three sons were still alive at the time of the William's second marriage to Emma (from the photo, not a looker).

>Emma was one of several daughters of a minor German prince, with very moderate marriage prospects, and her parents were enthused by the idea that their daughter would become a queen on her wedding day.

[...]

>An immensely popular member of the Dutch Royal Family, Queen Emma served as regent for her daughter, Queen Wilhelmina, during the latter's minority from 1890 until 1898.

83

himbologic t1_iqy2jrm wrote

Asking the real questions. Why was Queen Emma not snatched? Did she forsake her yassification pills? What of her skincare regimen--did she not most earnestly endeavor to comply every day? I, a humble reddit user of the year of our Lord 2022, must know why this middle aged woman from 1900 is not to my liking. For if she is not fuckable to my own specifications, why then do we keep record of her? I say we cast her into obscurity! Begone, foul wretch! I'd never fuck you!

"Not a looker." I hate reddit.

75

highoncraze t1_iqy7vkl wrote

With Reddit, as with all things in life, we take the good with the bad.

14

himbologic t1_iqy8da9 wrote

Your words of wisdom have returned me to equilibrium.

7

Fishwhocantswim t1_iqyg829 wrote

With the dawn of photography, I wonder if many of the royals that absolutely needed portraits ever prefer paintings still so they don't look as ghastly from that wretched invention that shows warts and all.

13

weirdwallace75 t1_iqzjou5 wrote

> Did she forsake her yassification pills?

What in the world are you inaning about?

5

LaoBa t1_iqyor8n wrote

Emma always spoke French with her husband, as he didn't speak German and her Dutch was very limited in the beginning.

1

Wonder-Lad t1_iqv35zd wrote

This sounds like one of those drama heavy 19th century novels that they would make adaptions of on BBC. And ngl I would read it.

212

ArbainHestia t1_iqvwnk9 wrote

Or something akin to The Great which is an absolutely awesome show.

58

Greene_Mr t1_iqwtqgx wrote

Deeply inaccurate, though...

25

mournthewolf t1_iqxqime wrote

I mean I truly hope nobody has thought otherwise.

14

Greene_Mr t1_iqxzf6a wrote

Peter III didn't deserve another posthumous slandering.

4

EyeHamKnotYew t1_iqxtyi0 wrote

Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I say to thee, sir or madam!

3

myeff t1_iqzsnkf wrote

I've enjoyed the show, but I almost screamed when they didn't kill him off at the end of season 2. How long can they keep this standoff going that in reality lasted only 8 days? I'm ready to move on.

3

Jatzy_AME t1_iqx8211 wrote

Her father had little faith in the future of the Greek monarchy; he didn't trust that Otto man.

21

UrbanAcc t1_iqznh82 wrote

Ah, good old "King Gorilla", as he was known. In her loathing for William, Sophie had most of the country on her side, and both of their sons. In hindsight, William seems like an obvious borderline personality, and his syphilis probably didn't make things more palatable.

3

dj_spanmaster t1_iqw0i1z wrote

Ah, so the father was a capitalist. Keep the wealth & power in the family at all costs. It's not uncommon - most liberals fall into this trap, in fact it seems to be the defining line between liberal and true progressive.

−88

fjdkf t1_iqw3hrq wrote

That is not capitalism...

53

Captain__Spiff t1_iqw1k6d wrote

Aristocrat in the early 19th century

25

dj_spanmaster t1_iqw7kpj wrote

Actually, this is a great point, one that I needed to read up on. As I've read, the aristocracy can essentially be understood as a wealthy and politically controlling class. Generationally speaking, they tried to keep that wealth and power within a family.

Thing is, I can find little effective difference for how that is currently applied in the the form of capitalism where I live (the USA). Capitalists use their wealth to influence politicians, wielding the political power indirectly instead of directly. They retain their wealth in the family as much as possible, having removed most generational taxes, and primarily marrying within their class (sought citation, found a lot of general expression without firm numbers). That the power is now indirect is decreasing in meaningfulness, as many bills are written by capitalists and passed on verbatim by politicians and lobbying has great sway on them.

−37

gilly_90 t1_iqxn7u8 wrote

Is this a satire account of how people think 'progressives' are? None of this makes sense.

12

dj_spanmaster t1_iqxoarz wrote

Nope, just a person trying to make sense of the world, with apparently drastic misunderstandings of concepts. From what I can tell the distinction between progressives and neoliberals as they currently exist in the US is along those lines. It's the thorough misapplication to historical contexts that is incorrect. As I mentioned in other comments, history hasn't ever been my strong suit. I'm still deprogramming such "facts" as Noah's flood happening because of reservoirs that were stored under our tectonic plates, the Earth being 6000 years old, and humans walking with dinosaurs within that time. As much work as it is to learn anew, it's double work to unlearn.

−7

radio_allah t1_iqxzcn4 wrote

I love how you felt you needed to specify (USA) as where you live, as though it's not already plenty apparent from the uncalled-for comparison to your personal politics, the arbitrary understanding of 'liberals' and 'capitalism', among other things.

7

sabersquirl t1_iqwya26 wrote

It probably won’t due much good mentioning, but her father was a King prior to Revolutions of 1848. So he was a “liberal progressive” not really in any sense that you would recognize it today, but in the sense that he thought absolute monarchs should show some considerations for their subjects as an enlightened despot. He even backtracked some of his positions after revolutionaries forces him to alter his government in 1848. Calling him a capitalist also doesn’t really make any sense, otherwise all of monarchical history and mercantilism is actually “capitalism” if you define it merely by keeping wealth of the state and family within the monarchs direct control.

7

dj_spanmaster t1_iqx4gfg wrote

Thank you for taking the time to illustrate. I'm happy to learn I'm missing a lot of context, and taking current and/or localized concepts and misapplying them. History was never my strong suit, and I've got a lot of ground to make up from a significantly lacking schooling.

0

conquer69 t1_iqy6bkw wrote

That has nothing to do with capitalism. Mercantilism also wanted that.

2