Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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

KalzK t1_iqv1311 wrote

She was the original Drama Queen

−20

LaoBa t1_iqv210w wrote

Replying to Captain__Spiff (#20,346)

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

Geofferz t1_iqv28rn wrote

>because she viewed her life ended in the day she got married.

Same here Sophie

184

niamhweking t1_iqvdrbg wrote

Replying to Geofferz (#20,467)

Nice to hear a mature/healthy divorce story. I currently know of a few breakups happening now, and only one seems to be we grew apart, we tried counselling and we've jointly agreed to split, all the others involve fights, cheating, etc.

17

Geofferz t1_iqvi4ht wrote

Replying to niamhweking (#20,778)

Yeah, it's not a failure, I deem any happy time together a success. Like a few years at a job - good times, move on. Yolo, as in, actually. Go enjoy! Best of luck.

14

InsensitiveCocksucka t1_iqvk7dq wrote

Like i always say, a man/woman is not complete until they are married. Then, they are finished

20

merijn2 t1_iqvsf0s wrote

He was nicknamed Koning Gorilla, which is quite unfair to gorillas. He was known to have tempers, and turned violent towards people employed in his court. One thing he did was asking one of his employers to light his cigar with a matchstick, and then wait so long that the employer had to extinguish the match, otherwise he would burn his finger, and then the king withheld his salary for two weeks as a punishment for not lighting his cigar. He was also a staunch conservative, and he was very angry that a year before he became king the constitution of The Netherlands became much more liberal, limiting the power of the king. He mellowed down after his second marriage apparently.

139

h08817 t1_iqvv9p7 wrote

'turbulent' huh? Sounds more like 'shitty' 🤣

35

dj_spanmaster t1_iqw0i1z wrote

Replying to Captain__Spiff (#20,346)

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

dj_spanmaster t1_iqw7kpj wrote

Replying to Captain__Spiff (#21,625)

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

releasethekaren t1_iqwbhjs wrote

This is the level of dramatic I aspire to be

125

castawaysyrup t1_iqwg4sh wrote

Replying to h08817 (#21,383)

Exactly my thought, turbulent can be exciting. My grandma’s life ended the day she got married too but not because it was turbulent. It was a shitty marriage and that’s it.

8

NoNeedForAName t1_iqwpu36 wrote

Replying to niamhweking (#20,778)

Same here. I used to practice law, and crazy ass divorce clients were a big part of the reason I was miserable enough to quit. My ex wife and I didn't exactly get along great around the time of our divorce, but there was never any of that childish fighting, using the kid as a pawn, or any of that other bullshit. It was a pretty amicable split, and we're actually good friends now.

7

niamhweking t1_iqwqjfq wrote

Replying to NoNeedForAName (#22,652)

I'd love to think if I were splitting up I'd like to think we'd be good friends, maybe not immediately but I'd hope I'd be mature enough. I think holding spite and anger, while I understand it, just eats away and takes way more effort and energy

3

NoNeedForAName t1_iqwrl2i wrote

Replying to niamhweking (#22,683)

For us it took probably a couple of years to get to the point where I would call us friends, but up to then we were at least able to get along. I think the fact that we're both 100% devoted to our daughter helped a lot.

And I feel exactly like you in regards to holding on to spite and anger. I saw so many people in divorce cases who would do virtually anything to hurt the other party, even if they caused themselves even more problems in the process. I never understood why anyone would just choose to be an asshole like that.

4

blue-cube t1_iqwxmoe wrote

Replying to LaoBa (#20,390)

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

sabersquirl t1_iqwya26 wrote

Replying to dj_spanmaster (#21,580)

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

Replying to sabersquirl (#23,007)

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

Simba7 t1_iqx9fgo wrote

Replying to cydril (#22,933)

It can be two things.

Try to remember that this was literally someone at the pinnacle of the nobility in a time where not dying of starvation was something of an accomplishment.

Not to say she isn't entitled to problems, but a little perspective never hurt anyone.

16

slabby t1_iqxcx73 wrote

And then she became the vampire queen of Louisiana or something

−8

mksavage1138 t1_iqxiyh0 wrote

"I wear my wedding ring on the wrong finger, because I married the wrong g*d d*mn woman!"

Robin Harris

−1

dj_spanmaster t1_iqxoarz wrote

Replying to gilly_90 (#23,949)

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

Geofferz t1_iqxop1z wrote

Replying to NoNeedForAName (#22,728)

Yeah I'm mates with my ex, no kids so it's genuine. People often think kids is the onyk reason they're still friends with their exes which may often be true, but you can't know for sure if you have em. Just be glad day.

2

radio_allah t1_iqxzcn4 wrote

Replying to dj_spanmaster (#21,888)

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

himbologic t1_iqy2jrm wrote

Replying to blue-cube (#22,972)

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

moosehornman t1_iqyg63x wrote

Fucking pieces of shit royalty! Poor, poor royalty!

−4

Fishwhocantswim t1_iqyg829 wrote

Replying to himbologic (#24,500)

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

UrbanAcc t1_iqznh82 wrote

Replying to Captain__Spiff (#20,346)

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

myeff t1_iqzsnkf wrote

Replying to Greene_Mr (#22,814)

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