One of the most interesting parts of the Priscilla Robertson article that I found (and wished had been elaborated on more) was the influence of King Ludwig's mistress, Lola Montez. " At Munich in 1848", wrote Priscilla, " things were different, partly because Bavaria was Catholic and partly because of the role of th kings mistress, Lola Montez." I find this to be quite an alluring line. Who was this woman? How did she influence Germany to this extent? What was the people's reaction? I just had to snoop.
I have always found the role of kings favourite to be fascinating. To be favoutie you had to be more than a pretty face. You had to have cunning, wit, charm. These were women not content with their traditional role in life and were willing to risk their reputation (and in some cases their salvation) to better themselves and their own. It wasnt just money and jewels and gowns. It was power, influence and in the case of Anne Boleyn, a crown. I find it frustrating that people fall into the trap of dismissing women as useless during this time. Women, while lacking a direct path to influence, were able to create their own power. It was a different kind of power, but not one less weak than their male counterparts. Indeed, Sarah Churchill, Duchess Marlborough, helped her friend the Princess Anne to become Queen. Many in London joked that it was Queen Sarah who ruled them rather than Anne so great was her influence. Barbara Villiers, Lady Castlemaine remained high in the kings favor not for her beauty alone, but her daring imperiousness. Her will was never crossed.The ingenius ways in which these illustrious women were able to exert their power thus (obviously) intrigues me to no end.
To return to Eliza Rosanna Gilbert, alias Lola Montez, I believe that she held the power of many of these same women. Her ability to seduce the king not only in body but also in mind altered the course of German history. Ms. Robertson describes the trouble Lola stirred up toward the end of her career. For her actions she was exiled for her adopted home. Gracious what mischief had she wrought to warrant such a punishment?!
I think that the people, expecially the middle classes as described by Shorter, feared Lola. She embodied the immorality that they feared was taking over their land. She was a shockingly wild woman. She was not just a mistress to the king (adulteress!) but she had been previously divorced. And she was an Irishwoman! Foreigners are forever stirring up trouble. Holding the precarious place of kings woman, she did nothing to endear herself to the people (other than the students). She did not improve her ways and sought to further her own very liberal political agenda. Lola also isolated herself from any sympathy she may have had from the aristocracy. She was able to convince the king to naturalize her and give her the title of Countess. Members of the aristocracy were appalled. How could this woman now be apart of their ranks?
A key mistake of Lola's was to distance herself from the people and not care what anyone thought about her. She alienated any allies she may have had and further distanced herself from those who could save her. In the end a king can only be in power as long as the people let him be. She was part of the reason he fell out of favor with them. After the REvolutions of 1848 Lola was forced to flee and he to abdicate his throne. All in all a dismal ending for them both.
