1740 and All That

This is the first installment of my write-up on the Chevalier d'Eon based on the biography by Gary Kates' Monsieur d'Eon Is a Woman. The book was an informative read, but veeeery much a product of its time, which is 1995 (preface added in 2001). The author is actually surprisingly liberal for that period, but, well, here's his take:

At first, I thought that d'Eon must have been Europe's first transsexual, the victim of a disorder that certain psychiatrists label gender dysphoria. I assumed that today he would have been a prime candidate for sex reassignment surgery. Indeed, since the 1920s communities of transsexuals and transvestites have thought of d'Eon as their patron saint. However, several conversations with a psychiatrist who had worked in a gender identity clinic convinced me that d'Eon was not sick. He did not hate himself. He did not hate his body. He did not think that he was trapped in the wrong body. But if d'Eon was not a transsexual, then, well, what was he? Of course, my book argues that d'Eon came to a cognitive decision that it was best for him to live life as a woman.

Kates then uses that argument to conclude that he doesn't need to respect d'Eon's pronouns, and decides the most useful approach to writing about d'Eon is to use masculine pronouns, in order to emphasize to the reader that the subject of this bio was not a transgender ("transsexual") woman, but a man, full stop.

Now, I was certainly not any more well informed than this in 2001, but since it's 2023 and discourse has moved on, I had to decide what to do about pronouns. At first I was going with what the Mob AU fanfic author did, which was conclude that we have no idea what the Chevalier d'Eon would have wanted, because we're not in a position to ask the right questions, so she uses they/them. But after reading this book (I think the Mob AU author has only read Wikipedia), it seems like–assuming this book is more accurate than Wikipedia–the Chevalier d'Eon did not go back and forth between presenting as a man and a woman, but switched from presenting as a man to presenting as a woman, and subsequently lived and died as a woman. So I'm going to use "she/her" pronouns.

However, since I've told this story using dialogue, characters are going to use whatever pronouns they would have used at a given time, both for accuracy and because their decisions make no sense if you don't understand how they were perceiving this individual.

I'm also, because Kates presents the Chevalier d'Eon as an unreliable narrator who was consciously refashioning her narrative to her advantage, going to allow Kates to argue with the Chevalier in this write-up. I will also be interrupting the narrative a lot myself. :D

Here goes! The story of the Chevalier d'Eon (1728-1810).

( Russia )

( England and the King's Secret )

( Genderswap )

( Here at the end of all things )

So this was an interesting book. Despite the fact that the whole Joan of Arc treatment made me question everything about his credentials, the book is jam-packed with more information about the 18th century and the Chevalier's life than I could report here.

In particular, if you want to read the book, there's a ton on how 18th century society and intellectuals understood gender roles, and how that differed from the 19th century. There's also a lot on the Chevalier's intellectual and spiritual life, the books she read and what she wrote, her experience as a born-again Christian, and how both of those things led her to believe women were morally superior to men in a way that must have contributed to her desire to live life as one.

There's also a lot more on how famous figures interacted with her, what she thought of them, and what they thought of her, such as Voltaire, Rousseau, Benjamin Franklin, John Wilkes, and this entire ~dramatic~ episode with Beaumarchais. It's worth a read even if it's not the most rigorous history ever. cahn, you might like this one.

Oh, and final note from our 19th century Duc de Broglie, he is predictably not a fan of the Chevalier d'Eon and gets eyerolly at the whole "I'm a woman!" thing, and thinks of it as shenanigans that just made it harder for the Comte de Broglie to focus on important things, like the First Partition of Poland. (Note that the rumors about the Chevalier being a woman started in 1770, and the First Partition was playing out in 1771-1774, so these two events overlapped.)

selenak asked what would have happened if Maria Theresia had taken up Fritz's offer of Silesia in return for defence of her realm against the rest of Europe. In the course of some lengthy speculation, we ended up writing down a lot of what actually did happen. Here are the notes on the factual parts. See the thread linked to for the speculative parts.

mildred_of_midgard: Part of the reason MT was able to come off so well, holding on to everything apart from Silesia, was the same reason Prussia was able to survive the Seven Years' War: Having four enemies doesn't mean they're all super into supporting each others' land grabs. Fritz specifically wanted to keep France, Bavaria, and Saxony from getting too powerful in Germany. Or as Macaulay put it, "He had no wish to raise France to supreme power on the continent, at the expense of the house of Hapsburg. His first object was to rob the Queen of Hungary. His second was that, if possible, nobody should rob her but himself."

Macaulay actually said that before Fritz invaded, it was looking like Europe would respect the Pragmatic Sanction, and that there wouldn't have been a war of the Austrian Succession without him. I was skeptical at the time, but now having dug more into the internal politics of each country, I'm less skeptical. Saxony and France each have reasons not to go to war over Habsburg territory. Bavaria's unlikely to act alone. Spain would have gone to war regardless, but only in Italy. Russia was in support of Austria and the Pragmatic Sanction (and, like, genuinely, not reluctantly),

selenak: One reason why MT - who, it‘s always worth pointing out, was the first female Habsburg to rule not as a regent for a male monarch but as a monarch in her own right - managed to have her authority accepted in her own realms was that nobility and people alike could see she didn‘t fold, that she didn‘t flee, that she wasn‘t dominated by a favourite and/or her husband. As Rillinger points out, the caricatures during the first two Silesian Wars show the changing public perception - at first you have the misogynistic ones, some even with rape imagery (not disapproving of the rapists), and she’s a damsel crying for help, whereas later you have her wearing the proverbial pants instead. I‘m also thinking of all the envoy reports by Podewils between Silesian Wars saying MT is now bossing everyone around and thus showing what‘s under the „attacked woman“ mask. (Meaning she acts like any other male monarch, I suppose.) Would people have let themselves be ordered if she hadn‘t stood up to Fritz? Female rulers perceived as „weak“ usually don‘t end up ruling long.

( Saxony )
( France )
( More France notes )
( Spain )

Bonus Fleury quote describing Fritz during this period:

I confess that the king of Prussia, who is not in this situation [of not being rich or powerful enough for a land grab, like Bavaria], disquiets me more than any other. He has no order in his disposition: he listens to no counsel and takes his resolutions thoughtlessly, without having previously prepared measures suitable for success. Good faith and sincerity are not his favourite virtues and he is false in everything, even in his caresses. I even doubt whether he is sure in his alliances, because he has for guiding principle only his own interest. He will wish to govern and to have his own way without any concert with us, and he is detested throughout Europe.

It's 1710. Louis XIV is King of France. The succession seems assured, as he has six male descendants, five of whom are eligible for the throne:

Son
Louis the Dauphin

Grandsons
Louis, Duke of Burgundy
Philip V of Spain (not legally eligible)
Charles, Duke of Berry

Great-grandsons
Louis, Duke of Brittany (son of Louis, Duke of Burgundy), born in 1707
Louis, (other son of Louis, Duke of Burgundy), born in 1710.

But then this happens!

1711: Louis the Dauphin, son of Louis XIV, dies of smallpox. Louis, Duke of Burgundy, becomes the Dauphin.
1712, February 12: The wife of the Dauphin dies of measles.
1712, February 18: The Dauphin, who loved his wife, stayed with her when she was sick, caught the measles from her, and didn't want to outlive her, also dies of measles. His 5-year-old son Louis becomes Dauphin.
1712, March 12: The new 5-year-old Dauphin dies of the same measles that got his parents.
1714: The Duke of Berry dies from a hunting accident.
1715: Louis XIV dies.

This means that when Louis XIV dies, he has two legitimate male descendants, Philip V of Spain, and a 5-year-old kid, the one whose parents and older brother died of measles within a single month, when he was only 2.

5-year-old kid becomes the Louis XV we know so well.

Who's regent?

Well, not Philip V of Spain. After the War of the Spanish Succession (1711-1714), he was only allowed to keep his throne on the condition that he renounce all his rights to France, on his own behalf and that of his descendants, in perpetuity.

Of course, when they started negotiating this treaty, he was a lot further along in the succession than he was when they signed it! Now it's one five-year-old kid standing between him and the throne. War is feared.

Normally, the kid's mother would be regent (as happened when Louis XIV inherited at the age of four), but remember, she died of measles. Grandma was long dead. So is great-grandma. Madame de Maintenon is in a morganatic marriage with Louis XIV, and morganatic marriages don't make you a shoo-in for regent.

So the regency goes to the next in line to the throne (ignoring the officially disqualified but very much feared Philip of Spain), Louis XIV's gay brother's son, Philippe d'Orleans.

But the regency doesn't go to him without a fight!

A number of Philippe's enemies are concerned he's going to off the 5-year-old so he can become king (not a problem when Mom is regent). One of those enemies, Madame de Maintenon, wants the Duc de Maine, illegitimate son of Louis XIV by his mistress Madame de Montespan, to be regent.

Louis XIV's final will legitimizes the Duc de Maine, gives him the real power, and gives Philippe an empty title. Then he dies.

The next day, Philippe summons the Parlement of Paris (not to be confused with a Parliament such as that of England) and gets them to annul the will. In return, he gives them all the rights they had previously enjoyed involving the vetoing of royal laws and actions, which Louis XIV had severely limited.

So that's the story of how Philippe II, Duc d'Orleans, against all probability, ends up as regent for Louis XV.

For the story of how Louis XV, against all probability, survived the measles that wiped out his family, his governess gets the credit. His older brother, being the next in line to the throne, and the doctors, paying more attention to him, did what 18th century doctors did: they bled him. The five-year-old died.

Two-year-old Louis was barricaded in his room by his governess, who wouldn't let the doctors near him, and stayed with him herself. And surprise! He survived! (Eventually he would die of smallpox, but not until his sixties.)

Go governess. Horowski tells me Louis XV loved her like a mother and called her Doudou (from her name, "Madame de Ventadour").