Skip to navigation – Site map
2016

Da parente”: A Special Form of the Vienna Court Ceremony in the Mid-Eighteenth Century

The Example of the Visits of Saxon-Polish Princes
« da parente ». Un type de cérémonie particulier à la cour de Vienne au milieu du xviiie siècle : le cas des visites des princes de Saxe
Krisztina Kulcsár

Abstracts

This paper explores the way the strict Viennese court ceremony was altered and simplified in the 1750s and 1760s during the visits of Saxon-Polish princes, who were related to the imperial family but were landless and not crown princes. It depicts in detail this lesser-known type of visit, called “da parente” along with the changes in the audience, the “Re-Visite”, the problems related to the accommodation and catering for the visitors as well as their participation in court leisure events, using ceremonial protocols and ceremony records, envoys’ reports, and the correspondence and diaries of the princes, held in archives in Budapest, Dresden and Vienna. By comparing these sources and the published ceremony handbooks, this study highlights the differences between established court ceremony and this special kind of informal visit. It is demonstrable that the „da parente” type of visit was not applied as a standard or a norm in the court of Vienna, but invoked only in exceptional cases, with visitors who were related to the imperial family.

Top of page

Full text

Introduction

  • 1 Dresden, Sächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Dresden (henceforth SHStA Dresden), 10026 Geheimes Kabinett (...)
  • 2 Lünig 1719–1720, Moser 1754–1755. For a summary of the research history of court ceremonies, with a (...)
  • 3 See Beales 1987, pp. 32–33 and Khevenhüller-Metsch and Schlitter 1907–1925, 7 vols, passim.

1“Leurs Altesses Royales les Princes … arriverent le 9 [Janvier 1760] à Vienne, Madame la Comtesse Mnisczek et Monsieur le Comte Flemming furent à Leur remontre à la derniére Poste. D’abord après Leur arrivée ils envoyerent le Major Miltitz au Comte Khevenhüller grand Chambellan pour sçavoit quand il plairoit à Leurs Majestés Imperiales Leur donnes audiences ce qui fut fixé au lendemain”1 – is in the travel diary of the Saxon-Polish princes Albert and Clemens from the year 1760. Based on this quote we may assume that this visit took place with the same rules or within the same framework of any high-ranking visitors. The ceremony of the imperial court in Vienna was defined by strict rules to which visitors had to adhere. Printed manuals provided visitors with help in navigating the labyrinth of protocol standards.2 A separate section of these discussed the visits and audiences of reigning monarchs or heirs to the throne of other sovereign houses, which were held in a solemn form in front of the full court – completely different to the simple arrival of princes Albert and Clemens. Some second-, third- or even later-born princes paid visits to Vienna; they were the ones who could not hope to gain a regal position or a share of the paternal inheritance. However, from time to time, among the visitors who were without a chance of inheriting a throne, several appeared who were considered to be relatives, even cognates. The ceremony applied in the princes’ cases was regarded as exceptional and ceremony books do not refer to it. So their case is remarkable mostly for the fact that the Viennese court considered it important to alter and ease the applied ceremony with regard to existing family relations. The hierarchic regulations applied for centuries were effaced, leading to the birth of a new category of visitors. This new situation and the ceremonial changes were not only the result of who the visitors were and their kinship, but were also influenced by a slackening of formal ceremonies that could be observed in the 1740s. It was related to one case, up to that time exceptional, when a female ruler, in the person of Maria Theresa, came to the Habsburg throne, and several elements applied as norms in practice had to be reformed. But it also mattered that Maria Theresa’s husband, Francis Stephen of Lorraine, objected to court normality.3 Beyond everyday practice, they did their best to invent ceremonies that could be followed (considering earlier norms) for such exceptional situations, such as the visits of relatives, who were increasing in number.

  • 4 Scheutz and Wührer 2007, pp. 18–19; Wührer and Scheutz 2011.

2This paper explores the way the Viennese ceremony was altered and simplified in the 1750s and 1760s during the visits of the Saxon-Polish princes who were relatives of the imperial family. It outlines in detail this lesser-known type of visit along with the changes in ceremony. The research has been conducted using Viennese ceremonial protocols and ceremony records, reports from envoys, and the princes’ correspondence and notes. Until the middle of the seventeenth century the standards of attitude, the regulations of ceremony, the service duties of officials, and the hierarchical relations applied in the Viennese court were described in the instructions issued for officials and in the court ordinance (Hofordnungen).4 It was only from 1652 onwards that the protocols of court ceremony (Protocollum Aulicum in Ceremonialibus) were kept. As these volumes depict Viennese events along with court issues, their entries were used as references in case of future controversial issues of etiquette or ceremony. Individual questions concerning ceremony, which were settled mostly by committees, along with the response of the sovereign, were also codified in these protocols. Being examples of precedential value regarding court life, these cases were of essential importance for the major-domo and his office, which was responsible for issues of ceremony and compliance with protocol. In special cases certain issues were settled by the use of these entries and the sovereign was enabled to arrive at a decision with the help of them. There are diary-like entries in these volumes regarding ceremonial public events that took place in the presence of the sovereign, namely interactions that exceeded the daily court routine between the sovereign, their relatives and a third party. For the reasons outlined above, these volumes are a primary source pertaining to compulsory elements of state and court ceremonies, court representation and hierarchy. Evaluating bureaucracy and how norms were established can be discovered through assiduous use of this historical source.

  • 5 Hengerer 2004, pp. 78–87.
  • 6 Vienna, Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (henceforth ÖStA, HHStA), Hofar (...)

3We may discover several differences between ceremony books (ceremonial protocols) and ceremony records.5 The clarified version of the protocols contains the final position and event. Under the command of the major-domo, the heads of court offices discussed ceremonial issues in special conferences, declared their positions and kept a record of the points under debate. Therefore, the so-called ceremony records (Zeremonialakten) provide information on the reaching of a decision, including the various viewpoints of the participants and also of the sovereign involved in the creation of a rule. These are important documents of the era, depicting the diversity of court demeanour, its interpretation by contemporaries and also its possibilities. These views are only here in this written form, but not in the court protocols, which were used as examples, precedents and norm. The subsistence (just like the content) of these documents is very incidental, and the reason for their preservation or rollout can no longer be discerned. This time we cannot use the sources, since they contain no additional information: one of the documents concerned can also be read literally copied in the protocols of court ceremony, and another is exactly an abstract written based on the protocol itself.6 Therefore, in the present case, we rely on the already determined, “codified” descriptions copied in the ceremonial protocols that can also be used as examples in the future, and that, however, themselves highlight the unique, exceptional situation, bringing up the state of “not-yet-a-norm”.

Problems of creating a new form of ceremony

  • 7 On the comparison of norms and practice, see Cerutti 1995.

4With the help of actual examples, I will present various ceremony-related problems that occurred in the Vienna court due to the visits of the Polish-Saxon princes. Also, I aim to point out how they altered the usual, regulated ceremony (which was sometimes even printed) and how they strove to shape the new regulation. The importance of these cases lies in the fact that they reveal the mechanism itself, the difficulties the court officials faced and the way they attempted to develop – reaching back to the practice of previous events – a ceremony to be applied on a given special occasion, resulting in the creation of new norms which, however, were later used only in special circumstances. The “da parente” method is also suitable to outline evaluation of the applied ceremony based on practice.7

  • 8 Fiedler 2009.
  • 9 Malcher 1894; Koschatzky and Krasa 1982; Kulcsár 2014.
  • 10 Wüst 1992.

5When the troops of Frederick II unexpectedly invaded Saxony in August 1756, Frederick Augustus II, Elector of Saxony (1696–1763, reigned Poland as Augustus III) was allowed to leave for Poland with his two sons following the surrender of his army to the Prussians. Family members – including his wife, Archduchess Maria Josepha (1699–1757) – remained in Dresden, practically as captives of the invaders. The city, along with the elector and his family, were liberated only in 1759 by the united imperial-royal troops. The elector’s family fled to the Kingdom of Bohemia and from there to Munich. Over the following years three of the elector’s sons fought against the Prussians in the Seven Years’ War. When military actions were temporarily halted in the winter, more of Elector Frederick Augustus II’s sons paid a visit to the court of Vienna, which was considered an ally of Saxony. In 1758 Francis Xavier (1730–1806),8 the fourth-born prince (second among those who reached adulthood) on his way to France; then in 1760 Albert Casimir (1738–1822)9 the sixth-born (fourth survivor) along with Clemens Wenceslaus (1739–1812)10the seventh-born (fifth survivor) princes were welcomed to Vienna in transit to their father in Warsaw. Two years later Prince Charles (1733–1796), their third brother, also paid his respects to the imperial couple.

  • 11 Khevenhüller-Metsch and Schlitter 1907–1925, vol. 5, pp. 21–36. Report on the visit: SHStA Dresden, (...)

6In the course of preparations for the visit of princes belonging to related reigning houses, Viennese officials faced special difficulties, which led to extensive preparation work and searches through old records. Despite the known cases and the defined ceremonial rules, in the case of the visit of high-ranking visitors, a special conference was held regarding the ceremony proceedings, during which earlier visits were examined and established as models. Having learnt about Prince Xavier’s journey from Warsaw to France in 1758,11 Francis Stephen of Lorraine, Holy Roman Emperor, ordered his court officials to look for records in the court ceremonial protocols providing information on how similar high-ranking visitors had been welcomed, accommodated and catered for in the past.

  • 12 ÖStA, HHStA, Hofarchive, Hofzeremonielldepartement, Zeremonialprotokolle (henceforth ZP) vol. 26. f (...)

7As a result of their research, the court officials were able to submit several examples to the emperor. Firstly they gave a description of the visit of Xavier’s father, the then heir to the throne, Polish and Saxon Prince Frederick Augustus, which took place in 1717, then focused on the several days’ long stay of Joseph Ferdinand, duke of Bavaria (future elector of Bavaria) and his brother in the same year. The third case, which was also traced back to the protocols, proved not to be relevant: it related to the 1716 arrival of Infante Don Emanuel from Portugal, who was from a family in which kingship was hereditary instead of being achieved by election, as with the Polish prince and Bavarian duke. The example of the infante was regarded as inappropriate for an additional reason: being a close relative, the nephew of the dowager empress, Eleonora Magdalena (the third wife of Leopold I), the young prince was treated in the course of his stay in Vienna almost as a “relative”.12

  • 13 Ibid. fol. 204r, 2 April 1758.

8The other two examples were also not applicable during Prince Xavier’s visit, since the visitors were all heirs to the throne or close relatives. The Polish-Saxon prince, however, was not a first-born: he would not obtain the title of king of Poland or elector of Saxony and he did not possess any other actual titles or estates. (The title of Count of Lausitz was not considered elevated enough.) He was regarded, in contemporary terms, as a cadet, who could not be welcomed according to the same rules that applied to high-ranking ruling figures. Already in 1717, when Prince Ferdinand – the third-born son of Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria – joined the Bavarian heir to the throne on his journey, a fundamental principle was established in the imperial court: in the case of a cadet, the usual formal and opulent ceremony was not meant to be and could not be followed. The same process was repeated in the case of Xavier: the minutes imply that the usual ceremony was not to be followed if a second-born prince came to visit.13

  • 14 Ibid.
  • 15 Ibid. fol. 198v, 1 April 1758. Khevenhüller-Metsch and Schlitter 1907–1925, vol. 3. pp. 141–68.

9However, the Viennese court hosted all four of the sons of the Elector of Saxony in a more informal way: beyond the determined official ceremony further concessions were made. The reason lies in the closer family relations. In fact, Xavier, Charles, Albert and Clemens were considered to be Habsburg descendants on the maternal side, since their mother, Archduchess Maria Josepha, was the daughter of the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph I. This family relation made it possible to ease the formal ceremonial regulations: on the occasions of all three visits the court offices were instructed accordingly. A special approach was taken towards them, as they were regarded as “members of the family” (da parente).14 An exemplary case was found even for its antecedents in the appropriate volume of the Zeremonialprotokoll. In 1753 Ercole Rinaldo (Ercole III d’Este, 1727–1803), Prince of Modena and heir to the throne, visited Vienna in order to express his respect and gratitude to the emperor for his admission to the Order of the Golden Fleece. He was considered a person of particular importance in the court, since the House of Habsburg-Lorraine was contemplating marriage between the third-born Archduke Leopold and the prince’s daughter Princess Maria Beatrice of Modena (1750-1829), then only three years old. With these future family relations in mind and considering political interests (namely that without a male heir, the principality would have devolved to the Habsburgs), Prince Ercole Rinaldo was given special attention and the ceremonial rules were eased in some aspects.15 In his case, it has to be pointed out that he was treated as a relative not only with respect to blood relations (on the maternal side through princess palatine, Elizabeth Charlotte) but also for dynastic reasons. The practices established and applied for the audience and his catering were later considered appropriate examples to be used in the course of Prince Xavier’s visit and those of other Saxon-Polish princes.

The Forms of Personal Interaction with the Imperial Couple and Archdukes

  • 16 Moser 1754–1755, vol. 1. p. 8.

10In the eighteenth-century court of Vienna which, apart from a short-term exception, was at the same time the Imperial Court, courtly ceremony played a key role: “what was connected to the splendour, prestige, resplendence, the connections with strangers and the courtly ceremonies and amusement”.16 The strict prescriptions regulated everyday life between the members of the court, especially towards the members of the Imperial Family. The deference toward higher-ranking persons, the appropriate form of ceremony, was compulsory for visitors to the court. The form of interaction could be either ceremonial (according to rules applied as norms), or in the case of less honourable guests, more informal. These times the principles to be followed in practice were elaborated individually, considering the visitor’s rank. In the eighteenth century the members of the court tried to avoid strict ceremonies by choosing incognito, a way of interaction that concealed their rank, and like this, the interactions did not take place in a formal manner.

  • 17 Holenstein 1991, Conrads 2005.
  • 18 Moser 1754–1755, vol. 2. pp. 588–600.
  • 19 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 24. fol. 161v, 2 October 1753; SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3338/04, fol. 22r(...)

11It says a lot about the method of travel followed by all four Saxon-Polish princes that they arrived in Vienna – in contrast to the Prince of Modena – simply by using the post coaches instead of travelling according to the formal, ceremonious and opulent practice. Nevertheless, they have something in common as well, namely – according to the prevailing customs of the era – that they all travelled incognito on their 1753 and 1760 visits.17 When choosing a travelling name, the princes complied with firmly established regulations.18 In such cases, the traveller didn’t use his real name or rank but a title that was among those he owned. He travelled as a lower-rank personality compared to his original title, choosing a name of one of his domains or towns: Ercole Rinaldo arrived as the Count of Novi, while Albert decided to use the title Count of Meissen and Clemens, Count of Thuringia.19

  • 20 For example, as in newspaper articles published during the journey of Joseph II to France as Count (...)
  • 21 Moser 1754–1755, vol. 1, p. 265.

12The identity of the incognito traveller was not kept secret – generally the whole court knew it and in most cases even the contemporary newspapers gave an account of it.20 In this way it was possible to relax etiquette to some extent. According to the handbook of Moser, the famous German state journalist, the use of incognito can be explained largely by the intention of saving on travel expenses, which would have been much higher when using titles.21

  • 22 Ibid., p. 266.

13Being aware of the devastation caused by the Seven Years’ War and the Saxony and the Saxon electoral family’s catastrophic financial situation, we can be sure that financial aspects played a significant role in their decision. Albert and Clemens even arrived in Vienna from the battlefield of the Seven Years’ War. Being incognito solved problems pertaining to the welcome ceremony and any title debates that could have emerged around the visit of the Elector of Saxony’s youngest sons.22 They were not welcomed publicly with great pomp: the Saxon envoy in Vienna, Count Karl Georg Friedrich von Flemming, went to meet them at the nearest postal station outside the town.

  • 23 Ibid. vol. 2, p. 552.

14It was this audience that provided the visitors with the opportunity to pay their respects in front of the reigning couple’s family, in other words it defined the frame of the formal contact between the visitor sand the ruling couple or the archdukes and archduchesses. According to Moser’s handbook there were two kinds of audiences to be distinguished. In the course of a public – therefore ceremonial – audience, one high-ranking visitor (electors, persons in ruling position or heirs to the throne) expressed their respects to the emperor,23 while a private audience, which was applied for low-ranking princes who were not heirs to a throne, was staged without any ceremonial aspects or at most, with moderate opulence.

  • 24 Ibid., pp. 550–60.

15Appointments for an audience had to be made by established rules: the request was handed to the imperial-royal chamberlain, or occasionally to the premier marshal of the household, by an attendant of noble rank or the secretary of the envoy who let a lower ranking court official know the decision regarding the day and time of the audience. According to Moser in case of a private audience it was sufficient to apply directly to the official responsible for managing the appointment, namely the premier marshal of the household or the chamberlain.24

  • 25 SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3338, fol. 24ro-vo; Moser 1754-1755, vol. 2. p. 555.

16The Saxon-Polish princes notified the court of their arrival and applied for an appointment through this official, formally following the ceremonial regulations described by Moser. To provide more effective guidance, Count Flemming compiled auxiliary material in 1760, in which he listed the officials to apply to in case the princes required an appointment with one of the members of the imperial family.25 Nonetheless, all four princes first applied for an audience only with the emperor and separately with the empress.

  • 26 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 27. fol. 215r, 10 January 1760 and see also Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár (...)
  • 27 Moser 17541755, vol. 2, p. 557.
  • 28 Ibid., pp. 557–58.

17It was Count Flemming who lent his double horse carriage to the impecunious princes – they had lost all their possessions during the Seven Years’ War – making it possible for them to arrive at the audience in a way appropriate to the occasion. Their entourage usually comprised army officers, and in case of Albert and Clemens, also a general as seneschal.26 While according to the regulations, those arriving at an audience were received by the emperor in the so-called secret court room, the private audiences (audience particulière) were held in the Retirada.27 All four princes were granted the latter, and were received by Francis of Lorraine in his Retirada, his own private apartment. The emperor – as determined in accordance with the ceremonial regulations – took several steps toward the visitor and had a conversation with him, more than twenty-five minutes long. During this event a further sign of generosity appears worthy of attention: similarly to the private audiences of the electors, the emperor received the princes not sitting in an armchair, but held a conversation standing; nothing which could serve as seats were placed in the room. During official audiences the emperor received his visitors sitting in an armchair, while the guests sat on simpler seats prepared for them beforehand.28

  • 29 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 26. fol. 204r, 2 April 1758 and see personal notes of the chamberlain: Khevenh (...)
  • 30 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 24. fols 162v–170v, 2 October 1753; ibid. vol. 26. fol. 204v, 2 April 1758; ib (...)

18The first introductory audience with the empress unfolded according to the same “script”. Immediately after the imperial audience, the prince who came to pay his respects went over to Maria Theresa’s private apartment where he was again received by the imperial court chamberlain, Count Johann Josef Khevenhüller. Here again, special procedures can be observed: in 1758 and also in 1760, the count hurried to meet them in the reception room at a four-step distance from the entrance door and showed them into the empress’s reception room. It was an exceptional generosity given that in the case of private audiences with foreign envoys, ordinarily the court chamberlain waited in the centre of the court room, met the visitors standing without taking a step, and did not leave the room.29 The princes spent half an hour in the so-called mirror room, Maria Theresa’s reception room, again in a standing position. Generally, at the end of the audience, on request, the visitor was given the opportunity to introduce the members of his entourage waiting in the entrance hall to the emperor and empress, who accepted their hand kisses. This procedure was in practice in 1753, in 1760 and in 1762 as well. Oddly, and for reasons unknown, Prince Xavier forgot to request it during the audience he was allowed to attend with the emperor.30

  • 31 Moser 17541755, vol. 2. pp. 550–60.

19If we compare the practice presented on the occasion of the Saxon princes’ visit and the one described in Moser’s handbook,31 a strange combination reveals itself, made of the patterns of an official (public) performance, a ceremony and direct, “private” family relations.

  • 32 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 24. fol. 162v, 2 October 1753.
  • 33 Ibid. fol. 168v.

20The compulsory audience elements listed by Moser, for example the formal regulations (obligation to notify arrival, the role of court officials in showing the visitors in and out) and the loosened ceremony of private audiences (the place and fashion of reception) emerge in a mixed manner. All the above were modified further by the existence of blood relationships and family relations which made it possible again to evade formal ceremonial regulations. Maria Theresa practised even larger generosity in 1753 when she decided to receive her son’s future father-in-law in her private apartment during the audience and not among a reigning queen’s usual ceremonial circumstances.32 At the same time, the official rules were implemented during the visit of the heir to the throne of Modena. Accordingly, he had to apply for separate audiences with every member of the family and, moreover, the high-ranking visitor was formally received and announced by the tutors. During his several months in Vienna, he paid his respects to the archdukes on several occasions without any ceremony, but a request for audience was submitted every time in advance through the envoy of Modena.33

  • 34 Ibid. vol. 27. fols 217v–219r, 11 January 1760; ibid. ZP vol. 26. fol. 207rv, 2 April 1758.

21In the case of the Saxon-Polish princes, who were considered to be blood relatives, ceremony was loosened even further. The visit paid to the archdukes is the most telling example of this process, so much so that Moser’s handbook never mentions a word about this version. The first visit to relatives to pay respects took place in a simple and more informal manner. Thus, after her audience, Maria Theresa immediately ordered Count Khevenhüller to escort Xavier (then in 1760 Albert and Clemens) to the apartment of Archduke Joseph. The archdukes in question had been informed in advance as a matter of course. In order to ease the formal ceremony, they acted (mezzo termino) “by arrangement” as if all this had happened unexpectedly. The Zeremonialprotokoll applies the following terms regarding this fashion of visit: all incognito, en surprise, a l’imprevu, “by coincidence”, par hasard), his younger brothers were present, along with his tutor, Count Károly Batthyány who – as in any other case – should have received, announced and shown in the visitors, just as he had done in 1753 for that matter! The “stage play” was enacted: when Count Batthyány noticed the approaching princes, he pretended to be surprised and hurried to meet them in the second entrance hall. The archdukes feigned surprise as well and took some steps toward Albert and his companion. The short visit took place standing and walking instead of sitting in armchairs. Since it was lunchtime, the audiences at the archduchesses, requested for the same time, could not take place, so they accepted Albert and Clemens’ visit the following day. In 1758 Xavier also visited them the following day, only he did not wait until the arrival of the response and the time of the appointment, since he had returned to his residence earlier.34

  • 35 Moser 17541755, vol. 2. pp. 3545.
  • 36 SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3060/20, fols 2r–3r; the description of the ceremony by Xavier: ibid. (...)

22For Moser, the so-called Re-Visite or Gegen-Visite was considered to be an important element of courtesy.35 It referred to repaying a visit, but only much higher-ranking persons were entitled to act in such a way as the archdukes did in the example above. They conducted an incognito visit lacking ceremony in 1758, and again in 1760. This custom was created following the 1753 example of Ercole Rinaldo and gradually became “customary practice” concerning guests treated as relatives. Xavier was visited only after a week due to an inflammation of his eyes, but the three oldest archdukes paid – an actually inessential – visit demanded by courtesy to Albert and Clemens at their lodgings on 12 January 1760, the day after their audience. Both visits took place incognito, without displaying any compulsory external opulence (ohne aller Ceremonie, all incognito, en surprise). The arriving archdukes were welcomed on the stairs of the building by Count Flemming, who had been notified in advance and escorted them upstairs to the first room. Here the princes hurried to greet them reaching out for their hands. There were armchairs placed in the room, which Joseph and his siblings did not accept and, similarly to their parents the previous day, they had a conversation with the princes while standing. On taking their leave, the Saxon-Polish princes were allowed to go until the top of the stairs with the archdukes who did not let them go further. It again implies that despite the incognito and family relations, they were obliged to comply with the established rules of etiquette. Only the envoy of Saxony and the accompanying noblemen were allowed to join them on their way to the carriages.36

At the Court or only by the Court? The Questions of the Accommodation and Catering in Accordance with Rank

  • 37 Khevenhüller-Metsch and Schlitter 19071925, vol. 5. pp. 21–22. On the replacement: ibid. 24–25; co (...)
  • 38 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 27. fol. 214v, 10 January 1760.
  • 39 Ibid. vol. 26. fol. 198r, 1 April 1758.
  • 40 Ibid. vol. 28. fol. 343v, 5 May 1762.

23To determine which ceremony was to be followed in the course of court audiences was only one of the difficulties to be faced. Usually, the hierarchical order of the court did not allow low-ranking outsiders to be accommodated in the court; it was possible only for the most honourable persons, and only within representative frameworks. After Maria Theresa’s accession to the throne, more and more exceptions to the strict norms were allowed, but they also tried to defend the integrity of the court. Providing accommodation and catering for visitors of lower rank was not an easy task: research was undertaken to find arguments to let cadets in the court, and a separate solution was explored for how to accommodate them. A decisive point was that the Saxon-Polish princes were considered relatives on the maternal side and at the same time, as younger members of the Saxon elector family, did not warrant the implementation of the usual opulent ceremony. These facts led to the collision of two opinions on the issue in 1758. Maria Theresa was then of the view that – due to family relations – Prince Xavier should have been provided accommodation in the Hofburg or in the palace of his brother-in-law, Prince Charles of Lorraine. (Today this palace is a part of the Albertina, close to the Augustinerkirche.) However, the emperor did not want to deviate from the usual etiquette. Pursuant to his command, new research began to find appropriate examples, but nothing relevant was found for this special situation. The protocol entries only reveal that up to that time Don Emanuel had been provided with accommodation in the Hofburg. As a result of a discussion concerning the ceremony, the emperor, the empress and the heads of the main court offices concluded that Xavier could not stay in the Hofburg regardless of the fact that his mother was a Habsburg archduchess. As an intermediate solution, the palace of Charles of Lorraine, empty at the time, could have been an appropriate place to stay, but in the meantime Maria Theresa learnt who the owner was: since the court intended to appropriate the building, the register of the Hofbauamt listed it as one already belonging to the Hofburg. Consequently, allotting accommodation there would have set a precedent, as Xavier would have stayed at one of the buildings of the Hofburg. Eventually, a practice usually followed in case of similar high-ranking princes was applied: flats were rented in town for this purpose, or one of the Viennese guesthouses provided accommodation.37 In 1758 Xavier stayed at a house situated on the Kohlmarkt, which was formerly owned by Count Enckevoirth, and was later purchased by the court jeweller, and shortly before the visit was entirely renovated. However, knowing that Xavier suffered from a constant inflammation affecting his eyes, to protect him from the presumed damp of this house, Maria Theresa decided to choose another place for the prince. Fulfilling the empress’s request, Prince Joseph Wenzel von Liechtenstein ensured the use of an apartment in his town palace, in a distinguished building but not one that belonged to the Hofburg. In contrast to this solution, in 1760, the accommodation of Albert and Clemens was arranged in an inn that operated on the Neuer Markt, in the so-called Mehlgruben Building. The accommodation was reserved by Count Flemming, the envoy of the Saxon court,38 but all the accommodation expenses for the princes and their entourage were covered by the court.39 This practice was again followed in 1762 when their brother Charles visited Vienna, staying at the same inn in Vienna, and in Laxenbourg at the palace of Prince Schwarzenberg.40

  • 41 Moser 1754–1755, vol. 1. p. 275. Compare ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 26. fol. 198r, 1 April 1758; ibid. vo (...)
  • 42 On the regulations of the ceremony see Löwenstein 1995.

24According to the entries in the Zeremonialprotokolle and the princes’ diaries from 1760, the young Saxon princes had lunch and dinner at the court, or as guests of high-ranking official-ministers. This is not only another sign of generosity towards the princes as relatives, but also a common practice. Moser’s handbook contains examples of this as well. The so-called “catering” (Defrayierung) was applied in case of visitors considered to be relatives, which meant that their catering expenses, and that of their entourage, were covered by the court.41 With regard to low-ranking guests such court banquets (Tafel) were held without ceremony (sans ceremonie), but were attended by highly distinguished persons, including Saxons. Strict rules of etiquette were again abandoned with regard to seating arrangements.42

  • 43 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 27. fols 220r–221r, 11 January 1760 and ibid. fol. 4r, 2 January 1761. On Xavi (...)
  • 44 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 28. fol. 344r, 5 May 1762.
  • 45 Ibid. vol. 27. fol. 222r, 14 January 1760.
  • 46 Ibid. fol. 222v, 16 January 1760.

25According to the regulations, the highest-ranking person, Francis of Lorraine, should have been placed at the centre of the longer side of the rectangular table, while, in fact, he sat almost at the end of the it. At the very first court banquet held in 1760, on his right sat Prince Albert and on his left the wife of Prince Adam Auersperg. Prince Clemens was placed at the opposite, shorter side of the table with Maria Theresa and Countess Paar, seneschalle of the empress either side of him. Of the archdukes only Joseph, the first-born attended the banquet, but several chief court officials and their wives had their meals in their company. Representing Saxony, Count Flemming, the envoy of Saxony, and his wife, Countess Mniszeck, General Meagher and Countess Sternberg, the wife of the Austrian envoy in Saxony were present. The fact that the rules of ceremony were not followed implies the existence of a more informal approach: the members of the imperial family along with Albert and Clemens were served by butlers (Cammerdiener), the others by ushers, armed servants and servers.43 Subsequent to the first banquet, the Saxon-Polish princes had lunch at the court five times during the winter of 1760, and twelve times in spring, generally without any ceremony. Moreover, Charles, their brother, visited the Laxenburg residence almost every day in 1762.44 The other lunches and dinners were provided by imperial-royal officials and ministers, as ordered by the imperial couple.45 When they were not invited for dinner, they had their meals with Count Flemming, the envoy of Saxony and sometimes with Countess Mniszeck of Saxony. The catering included other “services” provided by the court, such as carriages, sleighs, horses, trappings, attendants, appropriate habiliments and serving in case of meals at the palaces situated in Vienna or in the countryside.46

The Possibilities of Informal Interactions at Court

26Court officials followed strict rules to ascertain which court events they were entitled to attend. Granting admission to a court event was considered a special favour. In the case of the Saxon-Polish princes the form of the participation in entertainments raised further questions with regard to court ceremony, which I aim to explore one by one providing examples.

  • 47 SHStA Dresden, Fürstennachlässe, 12527 Nachlaß Friedrich Christian, no. 29. fol. 22r, Prince Albert (...)
  • 48 SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3060/20, fol. 3rv; ibid. Loc. 3338/04, fol. 23v, Flemming’s report, (...)
  • 49 Moser 1754–1755, vol. 2. pp. 485–486.

27The princes were received and graciously treated by the imperial couple, their family and ministers, with the utmost courtesy, attention and kindness.47 They were invited to court on numerous occasions, an example followed by the envoys of other countries as well, thus increasing the princes’ importance and that of any event they attended. For instance, Don Niccolo di Majo, the envoy of the Kingdom of Naples, invited princes Albert and Clemens to a lunch hosted on 12 January 1760 honouring the king’s birthday, which was followed by another invitation for the 15 January from Étienne François duc de Choiseul, the envoy of France.48 According to the regulations, the banquet (dinner, souper) was by invitation only.49

  • 50 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 27. fol. 222v, 15 January 1760.
  • 51 Schnitzer 1999, pp. 302–306.
  • 52 See also SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 2933/01, fol. 186r, “Le Comte de Flemming à Vienne, April-Ju (...)
  • 53 Khevenhüller-Metsch and Schlitter 1907–1925, vol. 5. passim.
  • 54 Schnitzer 1999, p. 258.
  • 55 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 27. fol. 259r, 13 May 1760; SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 2933/01, fol. 200r, (...)

28Beside lunches and dinners, there were court and other (evening) arrangements to which invitations arrived. The balls were the most significant events of the carnival time. In 1760 three balls were held to which also the Saxon princes were invited. The Saxon-Polish princes – who were not used to such entertainments (in their almost four years in Dresden, when the city was controlled by the Prussian army, there were no balls organized) – participated in these Viennese events with great enthusiasm. According to custom, the court ball of 15 January was a special type of masquerade (Bal en Domino, Bal de la cour).50 In spite of the same costumes, strict ceremonial regulations were in effect during the course of the ball, and hierarchy was to be fully respected. Here the ball primarily served formal purposes, the costumes played only a supplementary role.51 It is implied also by the fact that it was not required to wear masks (Bal en Domino ohne Larffen, Bal ohne masque).52 Domino balls, a type of masquerade, were organized not only in the court but also at the residences of other high-ranking noblemen.53 Opulent court balls were held during grand-scale court festivities even beyond carnival time. These were social events rather than masquerade balls, which were organized according to strict rules. The Bal paré or Bal en ceremonie was famous for its rigid ceremony rather than providing light court entertainment. Participation in court balls was obligatory.54 One of the remarkable court events was the birthday of Maria Theresa on 13 May, to which the envoys of foreign countries along with their wives and the most illustrious noblemen accepted by the court were invited. Naturally in 1760 the Saxon-Polish princes were also invited to this event.55

  • 56 Khevenhüller-Metsch and Schlitter 1907–1925, vol. 5. p. 24.
  • 57 SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3338/04, fol. 26r, Flemming’s report, 23 April 1760.
  • 58 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 28. fol. 345v–346r, 13 May 1762.

29Similarly to the court and Viennese noblemen, the princes spent considerable time at the theatre. As a sign of special generosity expressed towards them, a private loge was reserved for them. At the time of Xavier’s visit in 1758 a special provision put in effect granted him and his entourage permission to use the first loge in the theatre situated next to the Burg, which was covered in red damask on this occasion.56 It was ordered that the performance should begin only after the princes’ arrival,57 but they were not admitted into the imperial loge. In 1762 yet a further sign of generosity was expressed: Maria Theresa allowed Charles, Duke of Courland, to enter her loge. However the Zeremonialprotokoll emphasized that this affair had to be considered something that “never happened” and could not serve as a model.58

  • 59 Ibid. vol. 27. fol. 221r, 11 January 1760; SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3338/04, fol. 23r.
  • 60 Ibid. fol. 29r.
  • 61 ÖStA, HHStA, Hofarchive, Hofzeremonialdepartament, Ältere Zeremonialakten 1757–1759. Kt. 51. fol. 3 (...)

30Emperor Francis of Lorraine and Maria Theresa expressed their courtesy towards the princes considered to be relatives in numerous ways, including granting permission for them to take part in more intimate court and family events. For instance after the first banquet in 1760 Prince Albert and Clemens were invited to a “home concert”, which was given by the members of the imperial family, involving the older archduchesses who sang. It has to be noted that only those invited to the banquet along with the heads of the court offices and noblemen accepted by the court and holding the title of chamberlain were permitted to attend such concerts.59 Two weeks later, on 25 January, in the course of a remarkable chamber music recital, the Saxon princes themselves sang and played music with the Habsburg-Lorraine archduchesses, which resulted in them allegedly entertaining themselves and the audience until 9 p.m.60 At another evening event, the so-called Apartement in 1758, Prince Xavier and the archduchesses were given identical armchairs, which was recorded as a special affair.61

  • 62 Bastl 1996, with illustrations of the sleighs, the decoration etc. p. 217.
  • 63 ÖStA, HHStA, vol. 24. fols 275v–279v, 11 February 1754; ibid. vol. 27. fols 222v–225r, 17. January (...)
  • 64 This obligatory order was also given by Moser: Moser 1754–1755, vol. 2. p. 585.
  • 65 MNL OL, P 298, Nr. 2. A. II. 12/1. fol. 103v.
  • 66 Moser 1754–1755, vol. 2. pp. 585–86.

31During the winter season, which offered few opportunities for pursuing outdoor activities, sleighing proved to be a very popular pastime, a real social event. Sleigh rides provided opportunities for court representation as well, and it was an important to see who could take part in it.62 Several types of sleigh rides were distinguished even in the era. That organized according to rank offered a pastime that was announced in advance and could be attended by members of the imperial family, guests – such as the envoys of foreign countries – the heads of court offices, occasionally their wives and daughters, and ladies-in-waiting as well. The destination could be a nearby country residence (such as Laxenburg on 3 January 1760), but it was possible to pass through Vienna as well. On 11 February 1754 the invitees made several circles, turning around Burgplatz three times and they would have turned around again if the Prince of Modena, guest of honour, had not felt unwell. On 17 January 1760, the court organized a pompous, nearly an hour-long sleigh ride in Vienna.63 Imperial cavalry officers, thirty stablemen and imperial trumpeters, along with horn players in a sleigh drawn by six horses led the procession of sleighs. The sleighs were headed by Prince Heinrich von Auersperg, the imperial master of the horse, who sat in a sleigh alone, without a female companion.64 He was followed directly by the highest-ranking participants, namely the emperor and the empress, Francis of Lorraine and Maria Theresa. The others took seats in the sleighs also according to their titles, birth order and the position held at the court. Thus, Archduke Joseph, the unmarried heir to the throne led his sister, the oldest archduchess, Maria Anna to the sleigh, while the next highest-ranking guest in line accompanied the next archduchess. Prince Albert joined the second-born archduchess, Maria Christina, while Clemens was paired with the third-born, Archduchess Elisabeth.65 The heads of court offices took seats in the sleighs according to their position held at the court. Female companions were usually ladies-in-waiting, or wives of high-ranking men, occasionally daughters of court officials. Upon arrival at the destination (a residence in the countryside or a palace in the town) the man was obliged to accompany and entertain the lady who shared the journey with him during the common – and also formal66 – meal. Classification according to titles was applied here as well: the members of the imperial family and the highest-ranking guests took seat at the first table. The others had their meals at another table.

  • 67 MNL OL, P 298, Nr. 2. A. II 12/1. fol. 103v, “Mémoires de ma vie”; Wienerisches Diarium 1760, no. 7 (...)
  • 68 Moser 1754–1755, vol. 2. pp. 585–86. ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 27. fols 208v–209r, 3 January 1760; ibid. (...)
  • 69 MNL OL, P 298, Nr. 2. A. II. 12/1. fol. 103rv, “Mémoires de ma vie”.
  • 70 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 30. fol. 2r, 2 January 1765.

32Lantern sleigh rides, organized on the elegant roads and squares of Vienna, were considered a striking spectacle.67 On 22 January 1760, the court did not attend this event, but nearly all the influential noblemen of Vienna along with the Saxon-Polish princes staying in the town took a seat in the sleighs. Observing the lists of the sleighs, one can notice that the participants’ names are listed unarranged and not according to their titles. The sleigh ride ceremony created almost fixed pairs. To add variety to the event, both the order of the sleighs and the names of the ladies were drawn. Moser’s book informs his readers that the highest-ranking participants generally kept their partners, but the other couples were formed by the result of the draw, which meant that the order and the pairing were based on luck. The court also readily applied this method when they wore costumes and wigs for the journey during carnival time.68 On 16 January, it was decided by draw again who would ride the sleighs together.69 It is important to note, however, that the status of the imperial couple was taken into consideration and an essential regulation of ceremony was applied: in case an archduchess was to share a sleigh with a prince or a high-ranking nobleman, the male companion was ordered to sit on the outside front seat. He was not allowed to sit with the archduchess – she was accompanied by her seneschalle or tutor – as it was not considered appropriate to share the same “airspace”. Therefore, although fortune smiled on him, it was impossible for the young Prince Albert to be together alone with Maria Christina, the second-born archduchess, his future wife.70

Conclusion

  • 71 See Kulcsár 2002, Kulcsár 2009.

33The examples discussed here illustrate how adjusting the ceremonial rules in the Viennese court for the imperial family’s visiting relatives made social interactions simpler, easier and more natural. The Saxon-Polish princes, as acknowledged relatives (even by contemporaries) were able to form more personal, closer relationships with the members of the imperial family and with high-ranking official ministers in the Viennese court. The emperor, and especially Maria Theresa thus got to know the two youngest Saxon princes particularly well and even helped them in their careers: Clemens became the Bishop of Freising and Regensburg in 1763, then the Archbishop of Trier in 1768. In 1766 Albert Casimir married Archduchess Maria Christina, Maria Theresa’s favourite daughter, and became Duke of Saxony-Teschen. He was appointed Royal Governor of Hungary and became the Governor of the Austrian Netherlands with his wife in 1781. His assets, acquired partly through marriage, contributed to the founding and enrichment of the famous Albertina collection.71

  • 72 SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3060/21, “Acta über den Aufenthalt der Allerhöchsten Herrschaften in (...)
  • 73 Kulcsár 2016.

34It is important to point out that the special form of the Saxon-Polish princes’ visit cannot be regarded absolutely as standard or of precedent value. This is clear in the entries of the minutes of ceremony, in which the unique and exceptional features of certain segments of the visit were emphasized. Accordingly, on the basis of the investigation, I assume that the “da parente” form of visit did not solidify to the extent of being applied as a standard or a norm. It was rather a possible variant the Court of Vienna could call upon when it was necessary, for visitors who were related to the imperial family. Investigating this theme, exploring and comparing certain aspects of further visits by relatives, along with the observation of how rules created in practice were applied requires further research – to study not only the Court of Vienna’s practice but of other courts as well. Contemporary Europe witnessed the formation of a wide range of relations between relatives influenced by religion, age, dynastic and political interests. Lineage and marriages enabled the young princes to find their brother, sister, nephew, uncle or another relative in other courts of Europe. Therefore it is understandable that a different approach was taken towards them in a court of “relatives” than to other high-ranking visitors. In order to see whether the way the Viennese court adjusted its ceremony was unique or generally followed in the era, it would be important to also conduct research on other courts’ practices. Even the same people could provide further points to focus on – both the visit of Prince Albert and Clemens to Munich at the beginning of the 1760s72 and that of Prince Albert and Maria Christina to Italy (1776) and to France (1786) are worth examining.73 Exploring all these aspects may provide further additions on the changes in the mentalities of the ruling elite over time, both in the decay of strict court rules and in turning exceptional occasions into the norm.

Top of page

Bibliography

Bastl Beatrix, 1996, “Feuerwerk und Schlittenfahrt. Ordnungen zwischen Ritual und Zeremoniell”, Wiener Geschichtsblätter 51, pp. 197–229.

Cerutti Simona, 1995, “Normes et pratiques, ou de la legitimite de leur opposition”, in Les formes de I'experience: Une autre histoire sociale, ed. by Bernard Lepetit, Paris: Albin Michel, pp. 127–49.

Conrads Norbert, 2005, “Das Incognito. Standesreisen ohne Konventionen”, Beihefte der Francia”, vol. 60, pp. 591–607.

Fiedler Uwe, 2009, Die Gesellschaft des Fürsten: Prinz Xaver von Sachsen und seine Zeit, exh. catalogue (Chemnitz, Kunstsammlungen Chemnitz, Schlossbergmuseum, 3 October–6 January, 2010), Chemnitz: Edition Mobilis.

Hengerer Mark, 2004, “Die Zeremonialprotokolle und weitere Quellen zum Zeremoniell des Kaiserhofes im Wiener Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv”, in Quellenkunde der Habsburgermonarchie (16.-18. Jahrhundert): Ein exemplarisches Handbuch, ed. by Josef Pauser, Martin Scheutz and Thomas Winkelbauer, Vienna: Oldenbourg, pp. 76–93.

Holenstein André, 1991, “Huldigung und Herrschaftszeremoniell im Zeitalter des Absolutismus und der Aufklärung”, in Zum Wandel von Zeremoniell und Gesellschaftsritualen in der Zeit der Aufklärung, ed. by Klaus Gerteis, Aufklärung vol. 6. no. 2, pp. 21–46.

Khevenhüller-Metsch Rudolf and Hanns Schlitter, 1907–1925, Aus der Zeit Marias Theresias. Tagebuch des Fürsten Johann Josef Khevenhüller-Metsch, Vienna: Adolf Holzhausen, 7 vols.

Koschatzky Walter and Selma Krasa, 1982, Herzog Albert von Sachsen-Teschen, 1738-1822. Reichsfeldmarschall und Kunstmäzen, Veröffentlichungen der Albertina 18, Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag.

Kulcsár Krisztina, 2002, “A helytartói státus : Albert szász herceg (1738-1822) kinevezése és évtizedei Magyarországon”, Aetas, 17, pp. 51–66.

—— 2009, “Ein fremder Adeliger zwischen der Königin und den ungarischen Ständen: Der Lebenslauf von Prinz Albert von Sachsen bis 1765 und seine Ernennung zum Statthalter des Königreichs Ungarn”, in Adel im “langen” 18. Jahrhundert, Zentraleuropa-Studien 14, ed. by Gabriel Haug-Moritz, Hans Peter Hye and Marlies Raffler, Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 275–88.

—— 2014, “Der Statthalter des Königreichs Ungarn”, Die Gründung der Albertina: Herzog Albert und seine Zeit, ed. by Christian Benedik and Klaus Albrecht Schröder, Vienna: Hatje Cantz, pp. 99–105.

—— 2016, “Marshrutyi evropeyskih gosudarey. Tipologiya puteshestviy XVIII v. na primere poezdok gertsoga Alberta Saksen-Teshenskogo i ertsgertsogini Marii Kristinyi”, Romanovyi v doroge. Puteshestviya i poezdki chlenov tsarskoy semi po Rossii i za granitsu, ed. by M. V. Leskinen, O. V. Khavanova, St Petersburg: Hektor-Istoria, pp. 283–98.

Löwenstein Uta, 1995, “Voraussetzungen und Grundlagen von Tafelzeremoniell und Zeremonientafel”, in Zeremoniell als höfische Ästhetik in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, ed. by Jörg Joachen Berns and Thomas Rahn, Frühe Neuzeit no. 25, Studien und Dokumente zur deutschen Literatur und Kultur im europäischen Kontext, Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 266–79.

Lünig Johann Christian, 1719–1720, Theatrum ceremoniale historico-politicum, oder Historisch- und politischer Schau-Platz aller Ceremonien, welche so wohl an europäischen Höfen als auch sonsten bey vielen illustren Fällen beobachtet worden, 2 vols, Leipzig: Weidmann.

Malcher Franz Xaver, 1894, Herzog Albrecht zu Sachsen-Teschen bis zu seinem Antritt der Statthalterschaft in Ungarn, 1738-1766: Eine biographische Skizze, Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller.

Moser Fridrich Carl von, 1754–1755, Teutsches Hof-Recht, in zwölf Bücher, 2 vols, Frankfurt: Andreä.

Scheutz Martin and Jakob Wührer, 2007, “Dienst, Pflicht, Ordnung und ‘gute Policey’: Instruktionsbücher am Wiener Hof im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert”, in Der Wiener Hof im Spiegel der Zeremonialprotokolle (1652–1800): Eine Annäherung, ed. by Irmgard Pangerl, Martin Scheutz and Thomas Winkelbauer, Innsbruck: StudienVerlag, pp. 15–94.

Schnitzer Claudia, 1999, Höfische Maskeraden. Funktion und Ausstattung von Verkleidungsdivertissements an deutschen Höfen der Frühen Neuzeit, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Wührer Jakob and Martin Scheutz, 2011, Zu Diensten Ihrer Majestät. Hofordnungen und Instruktionsbücher am frühneuzeitlichen Wiener Hof, Vienna: Böhlau.

Wüst Wolfgang, 1992, “Klemens Wenzeslaus von Sachsen”, in Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, ed. by Friedrich Wilhelm Bautz and Traugott Bautz, vol. 4. col. 31–34.

Top of page

Notes

1 Dresden, Sächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Dresden (henceforth SHStA Dresden), 10026 Geheimes Kabinett (henceforth 10026 GK), Loc. 3060/20, fol. 1r, “Journal du voyage de Leurs Altesses Royales Messeigneurs des Princes Albert et Clement de Vienne à Varsovie”.

2 Lünig 1719–1720, Moser 1754–1755. For a summary of the research history of court ceremonies, with an extensive bibliography, see Hengerer 2004.

3 See Beales 1987, pp. 32–33 and Khevenhüller-Metsch and Schlitter 1907–1925, 7 vols, passim.

4 Scheutz and Wührer 2007, pp. 18–19; Wührer and Scheutz 2011.

5 Hengerer 2004, pp. 78–87.

6 Vienna, Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (henceforth ÖStA, HHStA), Hofarchive, Hofzeremonielldepartement, Ältere Zeremonialakten, Karton 51. “Vortrag des Ober-Hofmeisters über das Zeremoniell beim Empfange der sächs[ischen] Kurprinzen Karl August u[nd] Franz Xaver in Wien, 1758/22, III” and ibid. “Aufzeichung über das Zeremoniell beim Aufenthalte des kursächs[ischen] u[nd] poln[ischen] Prinzen Franz Xaver am kaiserl[ichen] Hofe, 1758, 2–16/IV”.

7 On the comparison of norms and practice, see Cerutti 1995.

8 Fiedler 2009.

9 Malcher 1894; Koschatzky and Krasa 1982; Kulcsár 2014.

10 Wüst 1992.

11 Khevenhüller-Metsch and Schlitter 1907–1925, vol. 5, pp. 21–36. Report on the visit: SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3258/04, “Des Prinz Xavers Abschickung nach Wien, wiederholte Reise nach Paris usw”.

12 ÖStA, HHStA, Hofarchive, Hofzeremonielldepartement, Zeremonialprotokolle (henceforth ZP) vol. 26. fols 196v–197v, 1 April 1758.

13 Ibid. fol. 204r, 2 April 1758.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid. fol. 198v, 1 April 1758. Khevenhüller-Metsch and Schlitter 1907–1925, vol. 3. pp. 141–68.

16 Moser 1754–1755, vol. 1. p. 8.

17 Holenstein 1991, Conrads 2005.

18 Moser 1754–1755, vol. 2. pp. 588–600.

19 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 24. fol. 161v, 2 October 1753; SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3338/04, fol. 22r, “Journaux du séjour à Vienne de S. A. R. Mr le Prince Electoral, de S. A. R. Mr le Prince Xavier, de S. A. R. Mr le Prince Albert et Clement avec celui des fêtes célébrées à l’occasion du Mariage de l’archiduc Joseph, 1740., 1758., 1760”. Xavier used the title of Count of Lausitz, while Charles opted for that of Elected Duke of Curland. There are no accounts on them using incognito.

20 For example, as in newspaper articles published during the journey of Joseph II to France as Count of Falkenstein in 1777: Wienerisches Diarium, 1777, no. 35, 30 April 1777. Other reports mentioned the emperor by his cover name.

21 Moser 1754–1755, vol. 1, p. 265.

22 Ibid., p. 266.

23 Ibid. vol. 2, p. 552.

24 Ibid., pp. 550–60.

25 SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3338, fol. 24ro-vo; Moser 1754-1755, vol. 2. p. 555.

26 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 27. fol. 215r, 10 January 1760 and see also Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára, A Habsburg család magyaróvári levéltára, Albert herceg iratai, P 298 (henceforth MNL OL, P 298) Nr. 2, A. II. 12/1. fol. 102r, “Mémoires de ma vie”.

27 Moser 17541755, vol. 2, p. 557.

28 Ibid., pp. 557–58.

29 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 26. fol. 204r, 2 April 1758 and see personal notes of the chamberlain: Khevenhüller-Metsch and Schlitter 19071925, vol. 5. p. 22.

30 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 24. fols 162v–170v, 2 October 1753; ibid. vol. 26. fol. 204v, 2 April 1758; ibid. vol. 27. fols 215r–219r, 10 January 1760. Albert’s personal impressions: MNL OL, P 298, Nr. 2. A. II. 12/1. fol. 102v.

31 Moser 17541755, vol. 2. pp. 550–60.

32 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 24. fol. 162v, 2 October 1753.

33 Ibid. fol. 168v.

34 Ibid. vol. 27. fols 217v–219r, 11 January 1760; ibid. ZP vol. 26. fol. 207rv, 2 April 1758.

35 Moser 17541755, vol. 2. pp. 3545.

36 SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3060/20, fols 2r–3r; the description of the ceremony by Xavier: ibid. Loc. 3338/04, fols 20ro–21ro, Flemming’s compilation, 14 April 1758; see also ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 26. fol. 198v, 1 April 1758 and fol. 213v, 11 April 1758; ibid. vol. 27. fol. 221v, 12 January 1760.

37 Khevenhüller-Metsch and Schlitter 19071925, vol. 5. pp. 21–22. On the replacement: ibid. 24–25; compare SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3338/04. fol. 20r, Flemming’s compilation, 14 April 1758.

38 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 27. fol. 214v, 10 January 1760.

39 Ibid. vol. 26. fol. 198r, 1 April 1758.

40 Ibid. vol. 28. fol. 343v, 5 May 1762.

41 Moser 1754–1755, vol. 1. p. 275. Compare ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 26. fol. 198r, 1 April 1758; ibid. vol. 27. fol. 222r, 14 January 1760.

42 On the regulations of the ceremony see Löwenstein 1995.

43 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 27. fols 220r–221r, 11 January 1760 and ibid. fol. 4r, 2 January 1761. On Xavier’s banquet, see Khevenhüller-Metsch and Schlitter 19071925, vol. 5. p. 24.

44 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 28. fol. 344r, 5 May 1762.

45 Ibid. vol. 27. fol. 222r, 14 January 1760.

46 Ibid. fol. 222v, 16 January 1760.

47 SHStA Dresden, Fürstennachlässe, 12527 Nachlaß Friedrich Christian, no. 29. fol. 22r, Prince Albert to Frederick Christian, Prince Elector of Saxony, Vienna, 22 January 1760; ibid. 12528 Nachlaß Maria Antonia, no. 24A. fol. 40v, Prince Albert to Duchess Maria Antonia, his sister-in-law, Vienna, 14 January 1760.

48 SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3060/20, fol. 3rv; ibid. Loc. 3338/04, fol. 23v, Flemming’s report, 23 April 1760.

49 Moser 1754–1755, vol. 2. pp. 485–486.

50 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 27. fol. 222v, 15 January 1760.

51 Schnitzer 1999, pp. 302–306.

52 See also SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 2933/01, fol. 186r, “Le Comte de Flemming à Vienne, April-June, 1760”, Flemming’s report, 10 May 1760; ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 28. fol. 6v, 7 January 1761.

53 Khevenhüller-Metsch and Schlitter 1907–1925, vol. 5. passim.

54 Schnitzer 1999, p. 258.

55 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 27. fol. 259r, 13 May 1760; SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 2933/01, fol. 200r, Flemming’s report, 10 May 1760.

56 Khevenhüller-Metsch and Schlitter 1907–1925, vol. 5. p. 24.

57 SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3338/04, fol. 26r, Flemming’s report, 23 April 1760.

58 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 28. fol. 345v–346r, 13 May 1762.

59 Ibid. vol. 27. fol. 221r, 11 January 1760; SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3338/04, fol. 23r.

60 Ibid. fol. 29r.

61 ÖStA, HHStA, Hofarchive, Hofzeremonialdepartament, Ältere Zeremonialakten 1757–1759. Kt. 51. fol. 30v, “Aufzeichung über das Zeremoniell beim Aufenthalte des kursächs. u. poln. Prinzen Franz Xaver am kaiserl. Hofe, 1758, 2-16/IV”.

62 Bastl 1996, with illustrations of the sleighs, the decoration etc. p. 217.

63 ÖStA, HHStA, vol. 24. fols 275v–279v, 11 February 1754; ibid. vol. 27. fols 222v–225r, 17. January 1760; SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3338/04, fol. 26rv.

64 This obligatory order was also given by Moser: Moser 1754–1755, vol. 2. p. 585.

65 MNL OL, P 298, Nr. 2. A. II. 12/1. fol. 103v.

66 Moser 1754–1755, vol. 2. pp. 585–86.

67 MNL OL, P 298, Nr. 2. A. II 12/1. fol. 103v, “Mémoires de ma vie”; Wienerisches Diarium 1760, no. 7, 23 January 1760.

68 Moser 1754–1755, vol. 2. pp. 585–86. ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 27. fols 208v–209r, 3 January 1760; ibid. fol. 214rv, 8 January 1760.

69 MNL OL, P 298, Nr. 2. A. II. 12/1. fol. 103rv, “Mémoires de ma vie”.

70 ÖStA, HHStA, ZP vol. 30. fol. 2r, 2 January 1765.

71 See Kulcsár 2002, Kulcsár 2009.

72 SHStA Dresden, 10026 GK, Loc. 3060/21, “Acta über den Aufenthalt der Allerhöchsten Herrschaften in München, 1760-1762” and ibid. Loc. 3287/18, “Diarium vom chursächsischen Hofe … 1762”.

73 Kulcsár 2016.

Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Krisztina Kulcsár, « Da parente”: A Special Form of the Vienna Court Ceremony in the Mid-Eighteenth Century », Bulletin du Centre de recherche du château de Versailles [Online], Articles et études, Online since 19 October 2016, connection on 19 August 2017. URL : http://crcv.revues.org/13832 ; DOI : 10.4000/crcv.13832

Top of page

About the author

Krisztina Kulcsár

Krisztina Kulcsár, PhD, is archivist-in-chief at the National Archives of Hungary, Budapest, in charge of the documents of the Hungarian central authorities from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as well as the judicial court papers. Her research interest is the administrative and cultural history of the eighteenth century with special focus on Hungarian-Habsburg relations, particularly the travels of Emperor Joseph II in Hungary (published as a monograph in 2004) and the life and Hungarian governorship (1765-1781) of Prince Albert of Saxony-Teschen. Author's email address for correspondence: kulcsar.krisztina@mnl.gov.hu

Top of page

Copyright

Licence Creative Commons
Le Bulletin du Centre de recherche du château de Versailles est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Top of page
  • Logo Centre de recherche du château de Versailles
  • Logo DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Les cahiers de Revues.org