Get the full ebook with Bonus Features for a Better Reading Experience on ebookgate.

com

Go betweens for Hitler First Edition Karina Urbach

https://ebookgate.com/product/go-betweens-for-hitler-first-
edition-karina-urbach/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more ebook instantly today at https://ebookgate.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Hollywood and Hitler 1933 1939 First Edition /First

Printing Thomas Doherty

https://ebookgate.com/product/hollywood-and-hitler-1933-1939-first-
edition-first-printing-thomas-doherty/

ebookgate.com

Hitler s First War Adolf Hitler the Men of the List

Regiment and the First World War 1st Edition Thomas Weber

https://ebookgate.com/product/hitler-s-first-war-adolf-hitler-the-men-
of-the-list-regiment-and-the-first-world-war-1st-edition-thomas-weber/

ebookgate.com

Hitler s Plans for Global Domination 1st Edition Jochen

Thies

https://ebookgate.com/product/hitler-s-plans-for-global-
domination-1st-edition-jochen-thies/

ebookgate.com

Stalin Waiting for Hitler 1929 1941 1st Edition Stephen

Kotkin

https://ebookgate.com/product/stalin-waiting-for-hitler-1929-1941-1st-
edition-stephen-kotkin/

ebookgate.com
Corona False Alarm Facts and Figures 1st Edition Karina
Reiss

https://ebookgate.com/product/corona-false-alarm-facts-and-
figures-1st-edition-karina-reiss/

ebookgate.com

Let s Go 3 Workbook Let s Go Third Edition Ritsuko Nakata

https://ebookgate.com/product/let-s-go-3-workbook-let-s-go-third-
edition-ritsuko-nakata/

ebookgate.com

The Führer s Headquarters Hitler s command bunkers 1939 45

First Edition Neil Short

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-fuhrer-s-headquarters-hitler-s-
command-bunkers-1939-45-first-edition-neil-short/

ebookgate.com

Go Play Golf Read It Watch It Do It GO SERIES Gavin

Newsham

https://ebookgate.com/product/go-play-golf-read-it-watch-it-do-it-go-
series-gavin-newsham/

ebookgate.com

Go Cookbook Build modular readable and testable

applications in Go 1ed Edition Aaron Torres

https://ebookgate.com/product/go-cookbook-build-modular-readable-and-
testable-applications-in-go-1ed-edition-aaron-torres/

ebookgate.com
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/05/15, SPi

GO-BETWEENS FOR HITLER

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/05/15, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/05/15, SPi

GO-BETWEENS
FOR

HITLER

KARINA URBACH

1
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/05/15, SPi

3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Karina Urbach 2015
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2015
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014959993
ISBN 978–0–19–870366–2
Printed in Italy by L.E.G.O. S.p.A.
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/05/15, SPi

Praise for Karina Urbach

Queen Victoria:
This clever and enlightening biography of Queen Victoria is a gripping read. With
humour and psychological expertise Karina Urbach portrays—supported by a
multitude of documents—an impressive portrait of this woman.
Christopher Clark, University of Cambridge
This short and readable biography of Queen Victoria is a remarkable achievement.
First and foremost, it is a masterpiece of a biographical miniature, not in terms of
its scholarliness, insight or intellectual power—all of which are by no means in
short supply given its proportions. Rather, it manages to be readable, clear, interest-
ing, witty and brief, and yet also important. . . . The failure of academic historians to
consider Queen Victoria seriously has meant she has been enigmatic to date. A
triumph of Karina Urbach’s book is that, by its end, if anything,Victoria has become
more seriously and urgently so.
John Davis, Sehepunkte
A little masterpiece
Andreas Rose, Historische Zeitschrift
Bismarck’s Favourite Englishman:
Karina Urbach has managed to bring together an impressive amount of new
­evidence . . . She gives us a balanced, carefully researched and gracefully written
account of personalities and policies.
James J. Sheehan, Times Literary Supplement
Karina Urbach has a light touch and a sharp eye. She provides vivid portraits of
William I, Berlin in the 1870s and the great Bismarck, with whom Russell had a
close relationship. Here is a work which is a sheer delight to read.
Jonathan Steinberg, University of Pennsylvania,
and author of Bismarck: A Life
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/05/15, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/05/15, SPi

Preface

Many of us have been go-betweens at one time or another in our lives. We

may have conveyed messages between siblings, parents, or friends after a
misunderstanding or argument. But go-betweens not only exist on a per-
sonal level, they are also employed in high politics, well hidden from the
public eye. Right now they may be working where official channels have
become stuck.
Go-betweens are not an invention of the twenty-first century, they have
existed for a long time. Those in power who have launched go-between
missions over the last century have done so regardless of the form of gov-
ernment. But a common thread existed when it came to choosing the ideal
person for such missions: up to 1945 they were mainly members of the
aristocracy from every corner of Europe. Only after the Second World War
were these people replaced by international businessmen, secret servicemen,
and journalists.
In the American television series House of Cards, the Vice-President snarls
at a congressional inquiry: ‘When a back channel becomes public, it defeats
its purpose.’ It has been my purpose for the last five years to highlight the
role of the back channel in the first half of the twentieth century.This book
uses new sources found in thirty archives in the United States, Britain,
Germany, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic.
It has been a pleasure writing this story because it gave me a chance to
meet real life go-betweens. Following James Watson’s advice ‘avoid boring
people’, I have been spoilt with wonderful friends and colleagues. This
is a, probably, incomplete list of them: Denys Blakeway, Gerry Bradshaw,
Christopher Clark, Matthew Cotton, Shawn Donnelley, Andreas Fahrmeir,
Otto Feldbauer, Lothar Gall, Ulrike Grunewald, Stefan Halper, Klaus
Hildebrand, Paul Hoser, Eva Klesse, Jeremy Noakes, Klaus Roser, Jonathan
Steinberg, the Stolzenbergs, Natascha Stöber, Miles Taylor, the Unholzers,
Adele Warner.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/05/15, SPi

viii p re fac e

The Austrian novelist Thomas Bernhard coined the idea of Lebensmensch.

I have had three such people in my life: my mother Wera Frydtberg (†2008),
who was not just a great actress but also the most enchanting person I have
ever met; my son Timothy, and my husband Jonathan Haslam, who have
made me so happy.
London, June 2015
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/05/15, SPi

Contents

List of Illustrations xi

Introduction1

PART I: GO-BETWEENS BEFORE HITLER

1. What are Go-Betweens? 7

2. Go-Betweens in the Great War 58
3. Bolshevism: The Fear that Binds 128

PART II: HITLER’S GO-BETWEENS

4. Approaching the Appeasers: The Duke of Coburg 165

5. Horthy, Hitler, and Lord Rothermere: Princess Stephanie
Hohenlohe217
6. Munich to Marbella: Prince Max Egon zu
Hohenlohe-Langenburg279

Conclusion: Did Go-Betweens Make a Difference? 309

Abbreviations 323
Notes 325
Archives and Bibliography 357
Picture Acknowledgements 373
Index 375
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/05/15, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/05/15, SPi

List of Illustrations

1. The young Charles Edward, with his sister Alice 27

2. Wilhelm II (1859–1941), Emperor of Germany 1888–1918, and
Prince Max Egon II zu Fürstenberg 37
3. Four sisters who would be divided by the First World War: 60
Princess Beatrice (Spain), Princess Victoria Melita (Russia), Princess
Alexandra (Germany) and Crown Princess Marie of Romania in 1900.
4. A mission that ended in scandal: Prince Sixtus of Bourbon-Parma,
brother of the Austrian Empress Zita 75
5. Failed go-between Prince Max von Baden with his cousin Queen
Victoria of Sweden and her husband Gustav V King of Sweden
before the Great War 104
6. A front row seat again (left to right): Emmy Sonnemann
(later Mrs Göring), Hermann Göring, the Polish ambassador Jozef Lipski,
Carl Eduard Coburg and Joseph Goebbels, 26th February 1935 200
7. Celebrating their achievements in Coburg: Adolf Hitler and
Carl Eduard 24th October 1935 211
8. Go-between for many masters: Princess Stephanie von Hohenlohe-
Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst (front left, next to Magda Goebbels).
Standing from left to right behind her: Lord Rothermere, Ward Price,
Hitler, Fritz Wiedeman, and Joseph Goebbels. Photo taken at the
Berghof, January 1937 247
9. On their last mission together: Princess Stephanie and Hitler’s
adjutant Fritz Wiedemann 275
10. The shady go-between: Prince Max Egon zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg 292
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 13/05/15, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 09/05/15, SPi

Introduction

I n the summer of 1940 a bizarre incident occurred at the German–Italian

border—the Brenner. In July the 83-year-old Duchess in Bavaria was
refused permission to return to the German Reich. She was stuck in Italy
and tried for months to get back to her home in Bavaria. Her aristocratic
friends and relatives as well as the German embassy in Rome tried their best
to help her.The ambassador Hans Georg von Mackensen explained the case
of the displaced duchess to the German Foreign Ministry: she had travelled
to Italy ‘for the sole purpose of supporting her granddaughter, the Italian
Crown Princess’, during the last stages of her pregnancy.1 This was required
because the mother of the Crown Princess could not come to Italy herself.
She was the Dowager Queen of the Belgians and had ‘for understandable
reasons’ decided against such a trip.2
This family friendly explanation did not have much effect in Berlin,
though. Because nothing was done in the following months, the visit of the
duchess threatened to turn into a serious diplomatic incident between
Germany and Italy. Only when the ‘esteemed’ Nazi Prince Philipp von
Hessen intervened did things start moving again. Hessen used pragmatic
arguments vis-à-vis Berlin: as long as the Bavarian duchess was stuck at the
border, the Italian royal family had to pay for her costly maintenance. This
financial burden was seen as a great nuisance. In October 1940 the displaced
Duchess was allowed to re-enter Germany. It turned out that she was not
the only member of the higher aristocracy who was in trouble at the border.
Over the following years the embassy in Rome was kept busy trying to help
other German aristocrats get home.
So what was the regime afraid of? This book will show that the Nazi
leadership feared the higher aristocracy because it had used their interna-
tional networks for years and it therefore knew of their great potential.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 09/05/15, SPi

2 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

Members of the aristocracy had worked as go-betweens for Hitler and

established useful contacts with the ruling elites of other countries. By 1940
the regime feared that these networks could also work against them.
So far research has focused on the support German aristocrats gave Hitler
in gaining power within Germany.What has been neglected, however, is that
there was also an important international dimension.
Aristocrats saw themselves as an international elite—with their marriages
and friendships transcending national boundaries. These international ties
were tested in the First World War when royal houses and aristocratic fam-
ilies were attacked as ‘hybrids’ and had to demonstrate national allegiance.
But behind the scenes some aristocrats continued to use their international
networks. As unofficial go-betweens for emperors and foreign ministries,
British and German aristocrats conveyed peace feelers.This activity came to
an end in 1918. But not for long. In the inter-war period a new common
enemy appeared on the scene: Bolshevism. Fear of it was another bonding
experience for the aristocracy. The British were alarmed lest the Empire
should be undermined, the Hungarians feared a repeat of Bela Kun’s red
terror (1918), and the Germans were scared of their emerging communist
party, the largest in Europe.
Encouraged by the Italian model—where Mussolini successfully incorpo-
rated the monarchy in his regime (1922)—they turned to a German version
of the Duce: Hitler. In 1933 the Führer was short of international contacts
and did not trust his own Foreign Ministry. He therefore used members of
the German aristocracy for secret missions to Britain, Italy, Hungary, and
Sweden. One of the most notorious was the Duke of Coburg—a grandson
of Queen Victoria. Born in England and educated in Germany, Carl Eduard
is an example of thorough re-education. Unfortunately it was a re-education in
reverse—away from the constitutional monarchy he was reared in to dicta-
torship. This process could have remained a footnote in history. But Carl
Eduard’s determination to help the Nazi movement first clandestinely, later
publicly, had an impact that, like many other go-between missions, has so far
not been recognized. Coburg’s importance to Hitler had been known by
the British intelligence services for a long time. In April 1945 the code
breakers at the Government Code and Cypher School, Bletchley Park,
came across a telegram from Hitler. The contents intrigued them:
Source saw a fragment which contained the following sentence: ‘the Führer attaches
importance to the President of the Red Cross, the Duke of Coburg, on no account
falling into enemy hands’.3
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 09/05/15, SPi

i nt roduc tion 3

Hitler was at this point encircled in the bunker. Since he was not known for
his caring side it seems bizarre that he made the effort to give instructions
about an obscure duke. His message could mean two things. Either Hitler
wanted his old confidant, the Duke of Coburg, to be whisked to safety or
this was a ‘Nero order’, i.e. he wanted him to be murdered before the enemy
could get hold of him. One thing appeared certain: the secrets Hitler and
the Duke shared seemed to be so important that they needed to be forever
hidden from public view. This makes one wonder what role Coburg had
played for Hitler. Had the Duke been entrusted with secret missions
to Britain including one to his close relative Edward VIII, later the Duke
of Windsor?
The aim of this book is not just to untangle Coburg’s secret negotia-
tions for Hitler, but to uncover several go-between missions, their origins,
their significance, and their consequences. It will span the period from
the First World War to the Second World War. Apart from the Duke
of Coburg, it throws light on the work of many other go-betweens
such as Prince Max Egon II Fürstenberg, Lady Barton, General Paget,
Lady Paget, Prince Max von Baden, Prince Wilhelm von Hohenzollern-
Sigmaringen, Princess Stephanie Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingfürst,
and Prince Max Hohenlohe-Langenburg.
It will hopefully further refine our image of the manner in which diplo-
macy was conducted in the first half of the twentieth century and will cast
new light on a dimension of Hitler’s foreign policy tactics hitherto ignored.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 09/05/15, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

PART
I
Go-betweens before
Hitler
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

1
What are Go-Betweens?

I n L. P. Hartley’s novel The Go-Between, a 12-year-old boy is used by two

lovers as a go-between. The affair ends tragically for all parties, overshad-
owing the boy’s later life.
Go-betweens do not necessarily have tragic fates. Far from it. In the
modern academic sub-discipline of ‘network analysis’, for example, they
are regarded as having certain inbuilt advantages: ‘People whose network
connections allow them to act as go-betweens in organizations, connect-
ing otherwise disconnected individuals and groups, tend to garner many
benefits.’1
It is of course exactly those benefits that attract them to the task.
Historians and political scientists know everything about the official side of
diplomacy, but rarely stray onto its unofficial side. There are many things
which statesmen are reluctant to put into writing. The picture therefore
gained by historians can be incomplete. Well hidden from the public eye,
statesmen often want to send a message to their opposite numbers that can
be very different from their public utterances; in some extreme cases, even
the opposite. To achieve this balancing act, they have to use a go-between.
But what exactly are political go-betweens?
So far there exists no proper definition. In Britain various terms are
used to describe the phenomenon: they are called ‘unofficial contacts’ or
‘backroom diplomats’. The Americans call them ‘back channels’ or ‘track II
diplomacy’.2 In Germany their work is labelled as ‘Substitutionsdiplomatie
(substitute diplomacy)’, ‘personal diplomacy’, or ‘secret diplomacy’.
Since go-betweens have no defined job description and no official stand-
ing, it is easy to dismiss them as men and women of no importance. That
they are overlooked is understandable. At the conclusion of treaties it is
the politicians and diplomats who make the photo shoot and later get most
of the attention from historians. However, a wider aperture can be useful.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

8 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

Out of focus, in the shadows are other figures. It is these people, the cam-
era-shy, who will be drawn to the centre of the stage in this book.
Go-betweens are not part of the government or parliament.They are not
elected and they are never civil servants. They are off the books and
everything they say is off the record. Because they are not part of a hierarchy
they cannot be controlled. They only have to answer to one person—their
employer, who is a high-ranking politician, the head of state, or the head of
the government.
Though they have things in common, go-betweens are not lobbyists
or mediators. Mediators have to be impartial, whereas go-betweens are used
by one party and therefore represent the interests of that party. They are also
not lobbyists. Lobbyists try to cultivate their ‘target’ because of a single issue
they want to push. But go-betweens usually know ‘their targets’ already in a
completely different context.They have history. As one modern day go-be-
tween explained: ‘I knew XY well. When I approached him he was open
because we had known each other for a long time in a different capacity.’
In some ways aristocratic go-betweens are a throwback to the old form
of ad hoc diplomacy which had ended with Cardinal Richelieu institution-
alizing the diplomatic service in 1626. Up to that date ambassadors had
often been connected to sovereigns by blood (or the connection was made
artificially, resulting in the expression Ambassador de Sang). With Richelieu
a professionalization had set in. The new concept meant that one did not
send diplomats on special occasions, but employed a permanent representa-
tive, showing continuity in one’s relations with other countries.3
So are go-betweens just atavistic, a throw-back to the age before Richelieu?
Some want us to believe this. At the Munich security conference in 2007
Vladimir Putin expressed the opinion that the ‘system of international rela-
tions is equal to mathematics. There are no personal dimensions.’4
Indeed, international relations are not like personal relations, as any pol-
itician confused on this point will find out at his peril. National or ideolog-
ical interests always outweigh even the most loyal partners. But this does not
mean that the personal element cannot play a part. Go-betweens symbolize
and use that personal element. They think of international relations as their
relations. With this simple approach they work in the antechambers of
power, circumventing normal diplomatic channels.
Their work is based on the assumption that only in an ideal world do
people act rationally all the time. Cultural and social backgrounds, peer
group pressure, and emotions have an influence on decision-making pro-
cesses. These are factors to which go-betweens can appeal.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 9

Up to 1939 go-betweens were chosen from among people with high-level

international contacts. Those who offered such contacts were traditionally
members of the higher aristocracy (slowly joined by international business-
men and journalists). They were ideal because they were blood-related or
connected by friendship to the elites of many other countries. It would
indeed be wrong to assume that, with the rise of the middle classes in the
nineteenth century, aristocratic spheres of influence were completely taken
over by a new elite. A once powerful group does not just vanish into the
night. When displaced, it finds new niches. One of them was go-between
work. Their international network made them ideal for such work. It was a
network that had grown organically over several generations and had gained
them many advantages. Nobles had always been naturals for international
relations. In the early modern period it had not been unusual for aristocrats
to have different homelands at different stages of their lives. The Prince von
Nassau-Siegen, for example, was the son of a German-Dutch family, born
in 1743 in France. He became a grandee of Spain, married a Polish countess,
and worked as a Russian admiral until 1794.5 Aristocratic families had for
centuries acted like a fund-manager who lays bets on different companies
to diversify assets: they married off their children or put them in military
service in different countries, hoping to open up new branches of the
house. As a result many aristocrats had expert knowledge of countries that
were seen at the time as rather ‘obscure’. The German Prince Wilhelm of
Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (1864–1927), brother of the King of Romania,
for example, knew Romanian society well. As will be shown, he was there-
fore used for unofficial contacts during the First World War. So was the
Nazi go-between Prince Max Hohenlohe (1897–1968), twenty years later.
Hohenlohe still thought of his family as truly international because they
had produced: ‘a German chancellor, a French Marshal, a Roman Catholic
Cardinal, a number of Austro-Hungarian Field Marshals, Generals of Prussia
and Baden, hereditary Marshals of Württemberg, and ADCs General to
the Russian Tsar’.6 Such international reach was clearly a source of con-
siderable pride.
This genealogical and professional internationalism existed in the higher
aristocracy more often than in any other class. Whereas in the eighteenth
century most people never even left their own town or village, aristocrats
already had the highest mobility rate in Europe. Before the term Weltbürger
(citizen of the world) was invented, the ‘aristocrat of the world’ existed. The
German novelist Thomas Mann was an admirer of this type. He described
the most famous exponent of the 1920s—Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi—as
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

10 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

a man who made ‘the average German feel provincial’. Coudenhove’s blood
had been ‘mixed by the international aristocracies of Europe, he was of gen-
teel humanity, a man who was used to thinking in continents’.7 Viscount
Lymington made a similar observation in his memoirs of 1956: ‘What was
and still is, interesting is that there is a sort of international aristocratic family
freemasonry which permeates Europe even now.’8
As a consequence integration into other countries remained easier for
nobles than for any other social group. According to the Nazi Prince Rohan
this was because: ‘[we] are united beyond all national passion by a common
heritage, blood that has often mixed, a common social level and attitude to
life’s problems’.
As we will see aristocrats had languages—more than that, they had native
instruction. Others had to learn what they knew already.9 They answered to
a decisive form of communication, which the up and coming middle classes
could not copy: a common social code, based on an idealized medieval code
of honour, courtesy rules, and a strong ancestral cult. They also shared a
common European memory. The cornerstones of this memory were the
threats of 1789, 1848, and 1917.
The details of an aristocratic lifestyle could vary from country to country,
but everywhere in Europe the maxim was: aristocrats have access to other
aristocrats.10
A further reason why easy access was obtainable not just to other aris-
tocrats but, as we will see, to democratic politicians as well, was the power
of their names. Marcel Proust demonstrated in his novel À la recherche du
temps perdu the irresistible glamour of old names. They seem to have had
their own aura and ‘pull’ over people—Hitler included. Someone with a
‘big name’, a name that evoked historical grandeur—a Habsburg, a
Hohenzollern, a Coburg—was, well into the 1930s, much more easily
received in the drawing rooms of power than somebody without such an
illustrious family name.
Of course the question arises, why were diplomats not used for deli-
cate missions since, well into the 1930s, they too were from aristocratic
families?
Indeed, some diplomats and civil servants thought of go-betweens as
unwelcome rivals. The Permanent Under Secretary at the Foreign Office
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst wrote in 1917 about go-betweens:
We have had considerable experience of unofficial action in these matters [peace
feelers] and it generally contains an element of danger, however sound the motive.11
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 11

Diplomats warned of missions that were not run by diplomats. Naturally

they feared commitments would be made behind their backs which could
not be delivered (or, worse, had to be delivered).
But using diplomats had its drawbacks. It gave the missions an official
character. Conversations were recorded in dispatches and eventually
became public in the ‘blue books’ in Britain (or in the ‘white books’ in
Germany). Formalities had to be observed and openness showed weakness.
Indiscretions and leaks after talks were also more likely, because others
were also involved in the process.The Austrian Foreign Minister v. Czernin
believed that ‘every political secret is known to one hundred people—the
civil servants in the Foreign Ministry, the encipher clerks, the embassies,
the envoys and the staff ’.12
Go-betweens on the other hand hid behind face-to-face conversations
and (usually) avoided leaving any written record.They could be much more
creative at problem solving and float ideas. They could also make them-
selves ‘invisible’: unlike diplomats whose comings and goings are noticed,
the sudden appearance of aristocratic go-betweens in other countries was
not registered by the press. It was assumed that they were simply visiting
relatives and friends. Also go-betweens did not fall under the scrutiny of
parliament and could not be checked up on by a commission. When one
wanted to keep talks unrecorded and secret it was therefore ideal to use a
go-between.
Another reason for using ‘outsiders’ instead of ‘in house people’ can also
be that the head of government does not trust his own diplomats. This was
the case with Hitler who until 1938 suspected his own Foreign Ministry of
not being fully ‘nazified’.13 Diplomacy in its traditional form was despised
by him. He therefore preferred his chosen Nazi aristocrats to deliver impor-
tant messages for him. Three of them, the Duke of Coburg, Princess
Stephanie Hohenlohe, and Prince Max Hohenlohe, will be analysed in this
book. But they are only the tip of a much bigger iceberg.
Guarding one’s turf and distrust of one’s own civil servants can also be
the reason for using go-betweens in a democratic country. In the inter-
war years, foreign affairs were an embattled field in democracies where
players tried to establish their own backroom channels, independent of
their Foreign Offices. Heads of governments often saw themselves as for-
eign affairs experts and they therefore used go-betweens to carry out their
own policy. President F. D. Roosevelt preferred to use go-betweens to
circumvent Cordell Hull at the State Department; John F. Kennedy
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

12 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

employed a long-­established go-between during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Such channels were also popular with US adviser on national security
Henry Kissinger and German Chancellor Willy Brandt, neither of whom
had sufficient confidence in their own diplomatic representatives but
wished to sustain a public policy at variance with reality.14 The British
were not averse to this kind of tactic either. As will be seen, Chamberlain
chose the go-between option for his appeasement policy. In history books
he could find many examples for it. The Stuart King Charles II, for exam-
ple, had learnt in exile to use the ‘back stairs’, people he trusted in untrust-
worthy times.15
Naturally not everyone who was well connected made a good go-between.
To carry out missions go-betweens needed to have fairly stable characters,
coping with stressful situations (particularly when they were employed dur-
ing a war). Their work could be immensely frustrating, varying between
times of high tension and total idleness.
They therefore needed a lot of patience and stamina. A study of peace
negotiators in the twenty-first century stated: ‘only vicars have to drink
more tea in the course of their duty than peace mediators.Well tea or coffee
or Coca Cola.’16 Apart from Coca Cola, this was not so very different from
a go-between in the first half of the twentieth century.
They also needed a very good memory. Since nobody wanted to commit
anything to paper, go-betweens had to try to remember verbatim the argu-
ments of the people involved. Of course this did not guarantee that they
passed them on correctly. As in every conversation they could misinterpret
the subtext or the tone of voice (threatening, consoling).They could be too
eager to hear things that were not actually said. To please their ‘employer’
they could also raise hopes that were misplaced. Flattered by the mission,
they could even oversell themselves to both sides.The better and longer they
had known their opposite number, the higher the chance they understood
the message.What one German go-between would call ‘the study of people’
(Menschenbeobachtung) was a prerequisite for the job. Nowadays it is quoted
as the key to conflict resolution theory: ‘the historical setting, the culture,
the character of the people involved.’17
All of this is, of course, common sense. And that is another prerequisite
for go-betweens. They had to understand emotions, they played to a cer-
tain degree the politics of emotions, ‘Gefühlspolitik’ as one German called
it, but they could never get emotional themselves. Since aristocrats believe
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 13

in Affektkontrolle (the control of one’s emotions) they were well prepared

for this.
They also needed to be good at lighting upon the right windows of
opportunity, occasionally exclude controversial topics, and bring in new
ideas at the right time. Consequently many of the people involved in secret
negotiations were often good chess players, thinking strategically.They even
used occasional chess language to explain their moves—one go-between
was arguing the whole war should be ended and a ‘partie remise’ (replaying
the game later) declared.
So why did aristocrats offer themselves as go-betweens?
First of all the human ego should never be underestimated. Even though
these were clandestine missions, they could bring great prestige. Those in
the know would remember what a go-between had achieved and compen-
sate them in some form for it. This would not necessarily be financial.
Go-between work was not lucrative work per se, but ‘only for honour’.
A major exception in this book is the go-between Stephanie Hohenlohe
who made sure she received very expensive ‘thank you’ presents.
Another reason for undertaking this job was that many aristocrats thought
of themselves as entitled to play a political role. Simply to be asked restored
their political relevance.
So in which situations were these go-betweens actually used?
As the following chapters will show, there was a great difference
between their work in peacetime and their work during wars. In peace-
time go-betweens were mainly employed to solve misunderstandings
between heads of states and governments or to establish a channel for future
crisis situations.
In times of war, go-betweens could play an even more useful role. When
embassies were closed down and every meeting between diplomats inter-
preted as a possible overture, go-betweens could put out peace feelers and
work in an undetected way.
Yet, despite its important role, thus far no one has done any scholarly
work on this phenomenon. One reason for this may well be that historians
are usually middle class and do not make the connection. They may have
been aware of the international networks of the aristocracy but they did not
enquire what they were used for. Because no equivalent phenomenon exists
among the middle classes, it was simply not looked for in other classes.
Instead the aristocracy was dismissed as an anaemic group, entirely passé,
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

14 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

which no longer constituted a relevant political and economic factor. Sir

David Cannadine described the British aristocracy more or less gracefully
vanishing into the historical background after 1918. He had no interest in
international relations and also ignored their impressive survival techniques
which have made them an economic and social success to this day. Only a few
historians, like Arno Mayer, have believed in the longevity of aristocratic
power, pointing out that they still played at least an economic and social role.18
Added to this class-determined narrow vision, the aristocracy and
monarchies did not exactly make it easy for historians to find out more
about them. They simply gave a stylized picture of themselves, cleansed of
any political haut gout. To this day the private archives of many aristo-
cratic families do not allow research on twentieth-century material. The
most famous are the Royal Archives at Windsor.They have a strict embargo
on royal correspondence for the inter-war years. Another problem has
been that aristocratic go-betweens did not leave many traces behind.They
did not write down their instructions and later did not ‘confess’ about
them in a sensationalized autobiography. He (or in many cases she) was
discreet and loyal. Since their work was not to be mentioned in any offi-
cial documents, diplomatic historians could get a lopsided view. The
Permanent Undersecretary of the Foreign Office, Sir Robert Vansittart,
was well aware of this problem: ‘It is perhaps difficult for the pure histo-
rian to write contemporary history. It cannot be written on documents
only—above all on diplomatic ones. I know too much of what lies behind
them, too much of what does not appear.’19
He meant the characters of the people involved and the unwritten
assumptions. But he also meant back channels. Vansittart himself actually
used go-betweens as will be shown in Chapter 6.
So how can one find out about such missions if there are no sources?
It is certainly not easy and most missions will probably never come to
light. But one can reconstruct some by finding a way in by the backdoor.
Traces, if they exist at all, can be found mainly among private papers.
Occasionally missions are made public by new archival discoveries, e.g. files
of the security services. They will therefore play an important part in this
book. Even a failed mission can be invaluable to the historian. For instance,
after the disastrous ‘Sixtus’ mission came to light in 1918 (of which more
later), the people involved were eager to protest their innocence in their
memoirs. The same was true for the go-betweens Hitler used, many of
whom wanted to rewrite their life after 1945.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 15

Just because it is difficult to research these missions does not mean one
should ignore them. It would entail missing out an important dimension
and just relying on official documents. This could easily turn into what
E. H. Carr called ‘documentary fetishism’. A historian who does not develop
a feel for the gaps in the sources misses out on important connections. He
might end up like the Pulitzer prize winner A. Scott Berg, who wrote a
biography of Charles Lindbergh without apparently noticing that Lindbergh
led a double life in Germany—including having several children.
When it comes to political double lives, go-betweens illuminate a hith-
erto well-hidden world.

A common language?
At the heart of this book is the question: ‘what’ did aristocratic go-betweens
talk about? We should also have a brief look at how they talked. How did
they use language to establish a closeness with their ‘targets’? And what was
their lingua franca? English, German, or French?
If one follows Ludwig Wittgenstein’s conclusion that ‘the limits of my
language mean the limits of my world’, then an analysis of the language
spoken by aristocratic elites would yield not only an insight into their com-
munication skills but also help us to understand their mentality. Of course,
it has to be established first how aristocratic language differed from the lan-
guage of other social groups.
Aristocrats were considered to have a particularly exclusive language.20
Since medieval times, the ideal of knights and their chivalrous vocabulary
had become part of how the aristocracy was seen. By the nineteenth cen-
tury what was assumed to be an artificial mode of speech had become a
special focus of attack. Particularly in Germany and France the aristocracy
was ridiculed for its ‘unnatural’ discourse and effeminate gestures, which
were seen as ‘insincere’. Well into the 1950s a critic of the Austrian aristoc-
racy commented on their ‘bad German, which is littered with foreign
words’.21 This was not just an Austrian phenomenon. In Britain, the letters
of the Mitford sisters show the peculiarity of aristocratic language in the
twentieth century. To this day these aristocratic siblings are seen as odd
because the two most beautiful of them, Diana and Unity, were infatuated
with Hitler, whereas a less glamorous one, Jessica, chose Stalin. It was there-
fore no surprise that the eldest sister, Nancy Mitford, quite sensibly mined
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

16 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

her family as material for her novels. But apart from indulging in extreme
politics the Mitfords are also famous for communicating in their own spe-
cial vocabulary. Today people think of their letters either as charming or
highly obnoxious. Yet whatever the standpoint, these letters stood for much
more than eccentricity.
Aristocratic women were cocooned in an insular world, usually tutored at
home while their brothers went off to boarding schools, the army, or univer-
sity. This upbringing made aristocratic women the guardians of an exclusive
language. It was Nancy Mitford who wrote the decisive essay on the lan-
guage of the British upper classes, which to this day has no German or
French equivalent. Her essay was inspired by the linguist Alan S. C. Ross. He
had written an article on U (upper-class) and non-U (non-upper-class) lan-
guage.While for example ‘toilet’ or ‘mirror’ were non-upper-class words, ‘loo’
and ‘looking-glass’ were upper class. Together with other prominent contrib-
utors Ross and Mitford then published in 1956 Noblesse Oblige:An Enquiry into
the Identifiable Characteristics of the English Aristocracy. It caused a furore, making
many middle-class people change their vocabulary overnight.
Even though Mitford’s analysis was delivered in an ironic tone, it is not
an accident that a female member of the upper class helped Ross in his
research. These women followed a strict policy of linguistic exclusion,
thereby watching over their family’s social contacts. Aristocratic and upper-
class women also employed a special diction. This ‘affected’ pronunciation
naturally upset members of other classes who felt excluded. When Nancy
Mitford served in a firewatching unit in 1940, other watchers—from the
middle and working class—wanted her fired.22 They misunderstood her
accent as mockery. Mockery was not her intention, but it was an accent so
ingrained in female upper-class girls that even Nancy’s rebellious sister
Jessica Mitford never dropped it. She became a committed communist who
sounded like a duchess.
Such artificial diction was less marked among aristocratic and upper-class
men, though. Recordings of upper-class male voices well into the 1930s
sounded relatively ‘normal’. To have a local accent was also common for
male aristocrats in Germany. Chancellor Otto von Bismarck identified with
‘simple country people’ for whom he could switch into a local dialect.
Kaiser Wilhelm II often sounded like a Berliner. This was recounted in
many anecdotes and is one reason for his surprising popularity.23 His ‘com-
mon touch’ was intended to lessen social tensions. He tried to use language
as a means of sustaining a sense of shared experience and became a master
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 17

of the popular catchphrase. His ‘soundbites’ were unforgettable and often

unforgivable. He famously described the Chinese as the ‘yellow peril’,
advised women to stick to ‘Children, kitchen, church’ (Kinder, Küche, Kirche),
and called socialists ‘fellows without a fatherland’ (vaterlandslose Gesellen).
The fact that the Emperor delivered these soundbites in a manly Berlin
accent appealed to the average German.
Even though aristocratic men belonged to a closed group, it would
therefore be wrong to see them as socially autistic. Unlike female aristocrats,
men often had a greater variety of interlocutors.They talked to members of
reigning houses, their own peer group, professional elites (the local doctor,
the lawyer), their staff, and farmers. Ideally an aristocrat had to react with
different languages to these very different social groups. Indeed, many tried
to become experts in varied forms of communication.
When it came to corresponding with monarchs, aristocrats used an
extremely formal language. This was the case in Britain, but even more so
in Austria-Hungary and Germany. Despite his ‘common touch’, when talk-
ing to his Berliners, the Kaiser expected an almost byzantine writing style
from members of his court. His ‘favourites’, Prince Eulenburg and Prince
Fürstenberg, managed to perfect this. Even relatives of the Kaiser had to
follow this rule, as did the Kaiser’s uncle, Chlodwig von Hohenlohe-
Schillingsfürst, who became German Chancellor in 1894. Whereas he was
addressed by Wilhelm II as ‘uncle’, he had to answer the Kaiser as ‘your
Majesty’s humble, loyal servant’. Hohenlohe explained such servility with
the words: ‘one is not related to sovereigns.’24
However, between sovereigns there existed equality, even if one side
came from a tiny state while the other was a British king. The reigning
Prince Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen used the German ‘Du’ when he talked
to King George V. The King, who had learnt German in Hesse, reciprocated
and made statements to Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen that he would not have
made to anyone outside this closed circle. On 24 May 1914 he said to
Hohenzollern, for example: ‘Du (you) will see that Grey will drag us into a
disaster before long.’25 He was probably referring to the problems in Ireland
at the time. Yet the fact that the King distrusted Grey, his own Foreign
Secretary, was quite a useful piece of information for Hohenzollern-
Sigmaringen. It was one of many remarks he passed on to the German
Foreign Ministry.
Equality also existed amongst the group that ranked below the reigning
houses, the aristocrats. In the case of France, the sociologist Monique de
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

18 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

Saint Martin has shown that to this day there exists a tradition in the aristo-
cratic French Jockey Club that ‘two members sitting next to each other at
dinner, who have never met before do not introduce themselves to each
other. Since they belong to the same world, they have to act as if they had
known each other all their lives.’26
A similar tradition exists in the Bavarian aristocracy where members
address each other on a first name basis, even if they are not related or
friends. It was this ‘linguistic closeness’ that would become useful for go-be-
tween missions.To be on first name terms with many of the people they had
to approach naturally helped to make conversations more relaxed and open.
However, ladders were pulled up when it came to communication with
the middle classes.To deter social climbers, the aristocracy used insider jokes
and endless pet names. Today research in private archives is sometimes
extremely frustrating because nobody can any longer identify the addressees
of letters.Who was dear ‘Mossy’ or darling ‘Dodi’ who got ‘tons of love from
Rolly’? Many of these childhood pet names stuck for life. The youngest
daughter of Alfred Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, for example, remained
in the family correspondence the ‘Baby’. As an old lady she signed off letters
to her sister, the Queen of Romania, with ‘love from your old baby’. This
‘infantilization’ of family members had several causes. Traditionally aristo-
cratic families often used the same first names for their children. Consequently
there might be an inflation of Victorias, Wilhelms, Franz, Heinrich, Ernst,
or Louis in one house. To have such a popular first name, a Leitname as the
Germans called it, was a sign of prestige and status within the family. By
using pet names internally their holders could be identified more easily.
Apart from this practical approach there was another important reason for
pet names—it worked perfectly as a form of exclusion, as the writer and
director Julian Fellowes has shown. Fellowes has written many screenplays
about the aristocracy whose accuracy can be questioned, but he has identi-
fied correctly why pet names were vital:
Everyone is ‘Toffee’ or ‘Bobo’ or ‘Snook’. They themselves think the names imply a
kind of playfulness, an eternal childhood, fragrant with memories of nanny and
pyjamas warming by the nursery fire. But they are really a simple reaffirmation of
insularity, a reminder of shared history that excludes more recent arrivals; yet
another way of publicly displaying their intimacy with each other. Certainly the
nicknames form an effective fence. A newcomer is often in the position of knowing
someone too well to continue to call them Lady So-and-So but not nearly well
enough to call them ‘sausage’, while to use their actual Christian name is a sure sign
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 19

within their circle that one doesn’t really know them at all. And so the new arrival
is forced back from the normal development of friendly intimacy that is customary
among acquaintances in other classes.27

Pet names were therefore a useful strategy to avoid unwelcome advances

from middle-class outsiders. Nancy Mitford described such advances as pure
torture. She hated to be addressed as ‘Nancy’ by people she hardly knew.
Though the aversion to the social climbing middle classes was obvious
among aristocratic and upper-class families, feelings towards the ‘lower
classes’ could be very different. Mitford’s essay on U and non-U language
already gives an indication of this. The language of the upper classes in
England was closer to that of the working classes. They shared much of the
same traditional vocabulary. Furthermore, while the working classes had
their cockney slang, their upper-class counterparts showed a similar prefer-
ence, according to Ross: ‘There seems no doubt that, in the nineties and at
least up to 1914, U-speakers (particularly young ones) were rather addicted
to slang.’28 This is illustrated, for example, in P. G. Wodehouse’s Blandings
Castle where the son of Lord Emsworth constantly uses slang words and
addresses his enraged father as ‘guv’nor’.29
The relative closeness between the ‘upper’ and the ‘lower classes’ was not
just an English phenomenon. In Germany many aristocrats lived during the
first stages of their lives in the countryside; it was here that they learned
dialects from the local staff (often to the horror of their middle-class nan-
nies). In later life many male aristocrats actually preferred the company of
‘common people’ to mingling with the educated middle classes. This was
something Prince Castell-Castell mused about in a letter to his wife. Like so
many members of his peer group he experienced during the First World
War a clash of classes at the front. Many of his officers were middle-class
men and Castell-Castell came to the conclusion that aristocrats could get
on much better with simple soldiers. ‘Less educated people’, as he called
them, were more agreeable than bourgeois show-offs. Of course, one reason
for this was that the middle-class officers were from urban centres and could
not understand Prince Castell’s rural world. He cared about issues like the
latest harvest results and therefore had more to talk about with a farmhand
turned soldier than with a dentist turned officer. The dentist had different
subjects and vocabulary. Wolfgang Frühwald even claimed that the German
middle classes developed their own ‘educated dialect’ in clear demarcation
from the nobility and the ‘common people’.30
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

20 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

The British middle classes were much less critical of their social superiors
than their German counterparts. But even they had serious comprehension
problems. In one of his short stories, Aldous Huxley satirized the erratic con-
versation techniques of the higher aristocracy: Lord Badgery, a member of an
old family, constantly changes the subject during a disastrous dinner party.
Such an associative conversation was seen as a sign of esprit by the aristocracy,
but Badgery’s middle-class guests cannot keep up with the pace.31 Badgery in
turn is deeply bored by their company. Long, educational monologues by
professionals were perceived as an imposition.The aristocratic ideal was to be
a dilettante in as many fields as possible (to them dilettante still had a positive
meaning, stemming from the Latin word delectare, to delight).To their annoy-
ance professional middle-class men did not want simply to delight, but rather
to ‘specialize’. At the end of the twentieth century, the Duke of Devonshire
therefore saw it as courageous of his wife ‘Debo’ to sacrifice a whole day once
a year talking to the local dignitaries. In his eyes they were far from interesting.
Luckily, Debo was an unusual Mitford girl, not known for the famously sharp
Mitford tongue. She was careful not to upset—as Lord Cecil of Chelwood
had put it once—‘the middle class monsters’.32
When it came to actual correspondence with the middle classes the aris-
tocracy was in fact very careful to avoid any such thing. In Germany and in
England, a polite, politically correct tone was used. This fastidiousness was
characteristic of speeches in front of a ‘mixed’ audience. Prince Castell-
Castell referred to his middle-class listeners in a church sermon as ‘alongside
people’ (Nebenmenschen).
Apart from the court language, the internal peer group language, and the
politically correct language for the middle classes, almost all members of the
higher aristocracy also had foreign languages in common. In Germany
the aforementioned Prince of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, for example,
read newspapers in three languages:The Illustrated London News, Indépendence
romaine, and the Bukarester Tageblatt. Language training started early. Prince
Hans Pless had at the age of 8 to summarize articles from The Times and the
Figaro for his father.33 French governesses had groomed the Russian aristoc-
racy and gentry from the time of the Empress Catherine and therefore
French was still important, but English had become more fashionable by the
later nineteenth century. Armies of British nannies invaded the Continent
and left their mark:
Before the war it would have been hard to exaggerate the sway of British nannies
among some central European children; toes kept count of pigs going to market
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 21

before fingers learnt to bead and Three Blind Mice rushed in much earlier than
inklings of the Trinity.34

By the beginning of the twentieth century it was seen as a social stain not
to know about blind mice. The Dutch noblewoman Victoria Bentinck
commented that her ‘poor’ niece Mechthild had married down linguis-
tically: ‘She made a marriage of convenience to a German Count. As he
couldn't speak any other language but his own, he was rather a “fish out of
water” in our family at Middachten, where four languages were constantly
being spoken sometimes in the same breath. She was the sort of woman
who ought to have married a diplomat instead of a country gentleman. In
the diplomatic service she would have been in her element.’35
Indeed, Mechthild was not happy about her indolent German husband
who had missed out on learning languages properly. The British born
Daisy Pless made a similar mistake. She married in 1891 into one of the
richest German aristocratic families and for forty years survived on a
rather limited German vocabulary.36 One reason for this was that all her
German friends, Kaiser Wilhelm II included, insisted on talking English to
her. In this regard she ‘benefited’ from the dominance of English as the
new language of the aristocracy. But she should have listened to the advice
of her friend King Edward VII, who had admonished her for not learning
proper German. In British royal circles German was, until 1914, quite
important. Edward VII made sure his older sons learnt it. His son George
(later George V) was sent on a refresher course to Hesse when he became
Prince of Wales.
Learning foreign languages remained an important way of keeping inter-
national friendships and family networks alive. It also demonstrated ubiq-
uity. Royal houses were generally seen as the role model by aristocrats. The
Emperor Franz Joseph spoke French, Italian, Czech and a bit of Hungarian,
so he could talk to the majority of his subjects in their own languages.’
In Germany, the Pless children learnt Polish, because their father had
Polish speaking tenants. Language skills were used as a tool to overcome
ethnic differences within one’s domain and to demonstrate rights to the land.
To speak Polish or Czech showed allegiance to that region, too. By learning
Polish, Prince Pless also wanted to defuse social and political tensions. He
did not want to be seen as an ‘alien element’. He knew that families who
neglected such language skills could suffer. A former servant of the south
German Prince Oettingen-Wallerstein commented on such a failure: ‘the
young Prince had a Czech teacher, but he did not want anything to do with
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

22 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

Czech ideas.’37 To the disappointment of his parents Oettingen-Wallerstein

never developed an interest in the family’s Bohemian properties.
Prince Max Egon II zu Fürstenberg made no such mistake. He was
brought up bilingually because his family had property in Czech speaking
Bohemia and in Germany. When he became a member of the Austro-
Hungarian upper house, his Czech language skills repeatedly helped him to
sort out political discord.
However, as will be seen in Chapter 2, it was exactly this cosmopolitan-
ism that came into collision with the German middle classes. In the nine-
teenth century they had been at the forefront of the nationalist movement
and attacked the ‘linguistic degeneracy’ of the higher aristocracy. The
German gentry (niederer Adel) agreed on this issue: Hans von Tresckow
feared in 1907, like many members of the German gentry, a lack of national
feeling among the aristocracy. A symptom seemed to be their mania for
foreign languages:
Count Maltzahn had invited me to breakfast with him in the Hotel Kaiserhof. I
met there Prince Brion, Prince Schönaich-Karolath and a Polish Count
Skorczewski—all members of the Prussian upper house, which is currently discuss-
ing the expropriation act aimed at the Poles. I sat at a separate table with Maltzahn,
because these ‘pillars’ of the Prussian throne were conversing in French out of
consideration for their Polish colleague, who by the way speaks German well. This
is really the height of snobbery. The government is supporting a policy of german-
isation and the worthy members of the upper house are talking in the German
capital with a Prussian citizen of Polish descent, French. Maltzahn was outraged. He
is a really good German, who isn’t infected by the internationalism of the great
families.38

The ‘great families’ had a lot of reasons not to give up their language skills.
They helped them to keep their widespread property arrangements and
their social networks going. And it was their multi-layered communication
skills which would eventually make them ideal go-betweens.

Networks before 1914: the Protestant network

There existed two main networks in aristocratic and royal circles: a
Protestant and a Catholic one. Both were based on faith and family. Both
were competing for international connections. An overlap of networks was
rare, as Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, explained in 2009:
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 23

The princely families of Europe knew each other. They met each other a lot and it
was all the way across. France being Roman Catholic, there were few matrimonial
connections. There was some with Belgium, but that was fairly distant. Of course,
there was Scandinavia. But the nearest other Protestant country that produced
wives and husbands was Germany, so there was much more familial contact that
way.39

While the Catholic network was dominated by the Habsburgs, the Protestant
network had the British royal family at its centre.There were several reasons
for this. For Protestant aristocrats all over Europe it had always been appeal-
ing to cultivate their British counterparts. Especially since the nineteenth
century, Britain was an attractive model that was admired, envied, and cop-
ied.40 British aristocrats seemed to have adapted best to the social challenges
of the Industrial Revolution and profited well from it economically.
Furthermore they had an empire at their disposal that offered investments
and jobs for their second sons.They had brought their middle classes ‘under
control’ by reforms and kept deference intact.
This was something a continental aristocrat wanted to be connected
with. The best route to Britain was via the royal networks. Already the
German wives of the Georges had brought in their relatives and so did
Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. They were related to a variety of minor
German princelings (most importantly the Coburgs, the Leiningens, and
the Hohenlohes). Members of these families eventually became Anglo-
German, effortlessly moving between the two countries. It was these fami-
lies who would form the basis for many go-between missions in the
twentieth century.
The Coburg network turned out to be the most successful one of them
all because it was close-knit. In a secret memorandum Prince Albert’s
brother, Duke Ernst II of Coburg (1818–93), described how to keep it that
way: most important was Vertrauen, trust, among family members. Above all:
‘bitterness, irony, must be alien to us, as much as avarice and jealousy.’ Ernst
II appealed to comradeship. Picking up on Dumas’s The Three Musketeers, a
novel published in 1844, Ernst pointed out that his ‘house’ could achieve
greatness as long as all the members stayed united—‘one for all and all for
one’.41
Of course there were many reasons why the members should respond to
such an appeal. The family network was a perfect insurance system and for
many poorer relatives a ‘meal ticket’. To leave it could mean financial and
social suicide. The name Coburg therefore offered its members what the
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

24 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has labelled as ‘symbolic capital’ (titles), ‘cultural

capital’ (knowledge, education, taste), and ‘social capital’ (contacts).42
It was common sense to remain a part of and support such a network.
But apart from the rational arguments there was also an irrational reason
that kept the network together: the power of emotion. In fact, taken as
a whole, aristocratic and royal families were experts at managing such
emotion.
To this day there is bizarre disagreement about whether the aristocracy
was capable of ‘genuine’ emotion or not. The one extreme of the debate is
represented by media personalities like Julian Fellowes, of Downton Abbey
fame, and the journalist Peregrine Worsthorne, who portray aristocrats as
caring individuals who looked after family members and staff well. Their
opponents at the other extreme see aristocrats and dynasties as emotionally
autistic. Their counter-scenario reminds one of the Great Gatsby narrative.
Like Scott Fitzgerald’s portrayal of the super-rich they would agree that
aristocrats are ‘careless people (who) smashed up things and creatures and
then retreated back into their money . . . and let other people clean up the
mess they had made’.43
Both portrayals are naturally caricatures. Fellowes is clearly idealizing the
aristocracy. On the other hand it is contradictory to accuse a class that is so
obsessed with the idea of family of a lack of emotional bonding. The topos
of the ‘cold’ ruling classes and their loveless family life was in fact used as a
line of attack by the rising middle classes, as one historian has pointed out:
‘the criticism of aristocratic family life by professional men was among the
earliest forms of class consciousness.’44 This was not just directed against the
upper classes.45 The working classes were also portrayed as dysfunctional
and incapable of bringing up their children. Upper-class families, however,
remained the worst culprits: they handed over children to nurses and mar-
ried them off for material advantage and not for affection—apparently
unlike middle-class people. According to this argument, only the middle
classes married for love and looked after their family altruistically. Of course
this was a completely idealized representation, but this class fight over emo-
tion was continued by historians. Lawrence Stone, for example, was attacked
by E. P. Thompson for his theory that the romantic ideal had started in the
upper classes. According to Thompson other classes, including the working
classes, also loved romantically.Who loved more or better remains subject to
ideological dispute to this day.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 25

For the early twentieth century we still do not know much about emo-
tional bonding within aristocratic families. One reason is that the history
of royal and aristocratic families is written by middle-class historians who
have their own vantage point.They are also prevented from getting a better
view, because royal and aristocratic families seldom afford access to their
archives. As a result historians have to use aristocratic autobiographies.
These are, however, heavily filtered. According to the mores of the times
they don’t mention the family much. Wives are only referred to en passant
and usually described as ‘good comrades’. This is deceptive, because not to
talk about the family was part of the social articulation of feelings well into
the 1950s. That feelings were kept private does not mean, however, that
they did not exist. In fact the private letters by nobles that are accessible
show a surprisingly egalitarian relationship between many members of the
family network.
When Duke Ernst II wrote his Coburg memorandum he was aware of
the fact that all families can rise or fall depending on how well emotion
within the family was handled. The Coburgs invested a lot of time on this
issue. Every aristocratic family needed its members to stay loyal to the house
because it expected them to make great personal sacrifices. In general second
sons had to give up their inheritance to first born brothers. This kept great
estates intact, but could naturally cause enormous bitterness. Similar sacri-
fices were expected from daughters.They either had to be ‘exported’ abroad
for an advantageous marriage and therefore leave their homes at a young
age or they had to abstain from unsuitable marriages, to keep the family
exclusive (after all social permeability had to be avoided at all costs).
Making such demands on one’s family members meant that negative
emotions had to be constantly managed.This was not an easy task and fam-
ilies therefore developed a double strategy.To keep everyone in line was first
of all achieved by inheritance law and family contracts. But contracts were
not enough. One had to offer family members more, as Duke Ernst had
realized, and that was emotional attachment. Emotion in aristocratic fami-
lies was fostered on two levels: First of all, children were indoctrinated with
emotional stories about the family. It was usually the female members of the
family who were in charge of this task. They recounted every turn in history
connected to their own family history, they personalized and emotionalized
history and adapted it according to the needs of the time. In their stories,
there was usually a family hero, a martyr, and a black sheep—working as
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

26 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

examples or warnings. Such stories made the family history a highly emo-
tional business for its offspring. Impressionable children naturally wanted to
follow in the footsteps of the worthy ancestors, taking enormous pride in
the traditions of their house.46 Strong emotions were also aroused by retell-
ing stories of suffering. One example of this is the experience of Queen
Victoria’s German relatives, the Hohenlohes and the Leiningens. Both
houses had lost their reigning status at the beginning of the nineteenth cen-
tury. This was a trauma never forgotten. Such loss of status and prestige left
a deep impression on the next generation. These were powerful emotions
that bound one to the family.
There was another method of creating emotion: memorabilia. To this
day on entering a country house one can spot which ancestor is posi-
tioned at the centre of the family’s heritage. At the English country house
Broadlands in Hampshire, for example, the focus is not on perhaps its most
famous owner, the Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, but on an arguably
less significant figure, the Duke of Edinburgh’s uncle Lord Mountbatten.
He made sure that Broadlands became a shrine to his success. His tennis
and military trophies are on display and his private cinema shows clips
from his exploits during the Second World War. Aristocratic children were
surrounded by such family memorabilia to which highly charged emotions
were attached: a sword that had been used by the courageous family founder
or a helmet that was worn by the family’s military hero who died selflessly
on the battlefield.
Apart from managing the family through strong emotions, one also had
to manage the wider network of relatives and friends. It was important to
cultivate as many other families as possible. In aristocratic and royal circles
the more international contacts a house had up to 1914, the higher their
status within the peer group.
The cultivation of as many people as possible was achieved by constant
communication—letter writing and regular visits. German aristocrats called
it ‘Schlössern’, visiting each other’s country houses and castles (Schlösser).
Such visits could be expensive for the host as well as the guest, but they
created a closeness and were a good social training ground for the children.
They were also important for getting ahead at court where one needed
contacts as well as good psychological skills.
A man who was brought up within this Protestant network and greatly
benefited from its methods plays an important role in the following
chapters: Duke Carl Eduard of Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (Figure 1). He
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 27

Figure 1. The young Charles Edward, who would turn into Carl Eduard Duke
of Coburg, with his sister Alice.

would interpret Ernst II’s secret family motto ‘one for all and all for one’
in his own way. His interpretation would make it possible for him to survive
at two courts—the court of Kaiser Wilhelm II as well as the court of
Adolf Hitler.
If one wants to understand why the Duke of Coburg could become a
go-between for the Nazis, one has to examine his early life.
Carl Eduard was born Charles Edward. His father Leopold Duke of
Albany had been the most intellectual of Queen Victoria’s children. He had
studied properly at Oxford and became a friend of the author of Alice in
Wonderland, Lewis Carroll.
Leopold suffered from haemophilia and nobody expected him to live a
normal life, let alone father children. Yet in 1882 Queen Victoria managed
to find a bride for him, Helene Friedericke Auguste zu Waldeck und
Pyrmont. Helene was not informed about her husband’s illness and her
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

28 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

family was naturally pleased about the advantageous marriage. It lasted two
years. In 1883 their daughter Alice was born, named after Alice in Wonderland,
and a year later Charles Edward.
Leopold never saw his son; he died from a fall five months before Charles
Edward’s birth in 1884. Helene was a widow at 23 with two small children
and reduced status. Her frustration about this situation and her closeness to
her own family in Germany, the Waldeck Pyrmonts, would later have an
indirect effect on Charles Edward’s Nazi career.
While Leopold had been artistic and well read, his son Charles Edward
inherited no intellectual curiosity. What he did inherit, though, was poor
health. He was described as a highly nervous child who needed constant
protection by his older sister Alice (a pattern that would continue to his
death). Though Alice herself was extremely healthy, she was a carrier of
haemophilia and would pass it on to her own sons.
As one of Queen Victoria’s many grandsons, Charles Edward was
expected to lead a privileged and unspectacular life. Had he stayed in
England, he could have joined one of the fighting services, or he could have
lived as a gentleman of leisure. But unforeseen circumstances changed the
expected course of events. In 1899 after a family row his Coburg cousin
Alfred committed suicide. Young Alfred was the only son of Alfred Duke of
Coburg. The Duke himself had been unwell for some time and therefore a
new heir had to be found quickly. The first reaction of the British royal
family had been to order Queen Victoria’s next son in line to take over the
dukedoms. Yet the Duke of Connaught was a British general and German
newspapers immediately criticized this idea. To them the British royal
­family were foreigners who had no understanding of Germany, let alone
Coburg. They demanded a German Prince instead: ‘How shameful for the
people [of the dukedoms Coburg and Gotha] to be handed over into for-
eign hands, like some dead family heirloom.’47 The Leipziger Neueste
Nachrichten adopted the slogan ‘German thrones for German Princes’ and
the Berliner Tageblatt added:
The highest value that three bloody wars have given the German people is a newly
awakened national consciousness. The first Chancellor [Bismarck] praised the
reigning Princes as custodians and carers of the newly founded German Reich.
They have to be German Princes. It is impossible to have two souls inside one’s
breast—a German and a foreign one.48

This reference to Goethe’s Faust created a clichéd but effective picture.

‘Being hybrid’, having two ‘souls’, was seen as cancerous.The Faustian image
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 29

stuck. Because of this personality split, the Duke of Connaught might side
against Germany. A Cologne paper therefore came to the conclusion:
The German Reich has a direct interest in preventing a foreigner whose spiritual
life and interests are rooted abroad from succeeding to a German throne. . . . German
unity cannot flourish if there is not complete trust between the German reigning
houses . . . If one of them is a foreigner this important trust is violated.

For most German reigning families this must have sounded bizarre. Many
had foreign blood and ‘trust’ for them was based on completely different
criteria. They took the criticism extremely seriously, none the less.
Kaiser Wilhelm II, always sensitive to the press and therefore perpetually
hurt, decided to intervene. He made it clear that compromises had to be
found to satisfy national feelings. His grandmother Queen Victoria had her
own agenda. According to Charles Edward’s sister Alice ‘[grandmama] wrote
a letter to Sir Robert Collins, mother’s comptroller, informing him that
Uncle Arthur [Connaught], who was her favourite, could not leave England
owing to his military duties, and as his young son, Prince Arthur, could not
go to Germany alone and be separated from his family, Charlie, being next
in line would have to be trained for the dukedom.’49
In June 1899 Connaught was therefore obliged to ‘decline’ the dukedom
of Coburg. The Kaiser, Queen Victoria, and the ailing Alfred Duke of
Coburg settled on the 14-year-old Charles Edward instead. He was father-
less and still young enough to be turned into a ‘proper German’. The local
Coburg newspaper was pleased. After all Charles Edward’s mother was
already a ‘proper’ German and had agreed to live with her son permanently
in Germany. His education would be German and he would serve in the
German army.
Indeed, Charles Edward had become a test case. An increasingly self-­
confident public had asked openly whether international families were
capable of ‘genuine’ national feelings. If there were doubts, the ‘hybrids’
were rejected. The Coburg case gave all internationally connected families
of reigning houses as well as the higher aristocracy a foreboding of what was
to come in 1914.
Although the Kaiser recognized the signs of the times, Queen Victoria
was obviously out of touch with German affairs.To her, Coburg was still the
charming little town her husband came from, a sort of fairytale place. She
was not alone in seeing its harmless side. For the average British newspaper
reader Coburg was a Pumpernickel dukedom with a few toy soldiers—
politically negligible. These perceptions overlooked an important fact. The
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

30 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

dukedom of Coburg was the most nationalist in Germany. If one wants to

understand the growth of German nationalism, Coburg offers the ideal case
study: it developed from a dukedom that supported national unity in the
first half of the nineteenth century, into a highly chauvinistic place that
would after the First World War become a refuge for radical right wing
movements and eventually the first town in Germany to be governed by
the Nazis.50
Once the decision had been taken to turn Charles Edward into the
German Carl Eduard, the press hawkishly waited for the outcome of the
experiment. The family was now under intensive observation and had to
tread carefully. They did their best to avoid scandals. Even the smallest
detail was taken care of. It would have been obvious to send Carl Eduard
directly to Coburg. Duke Alfred was still alive at the time and wanted to
‘train’ his young successor. But the family turned Alfred down. To be
associated with him was too risky. He was perceived as too British and
on top of this suffered from alcoholism. Nobody gave him much longer
to live anyway. The offer by Queen Victoria’s daughter Vicky (Empress
Frederick) to find a Frankfurt Gymnasium for Carl Eduard was rejected
as well. The reason for this was anti-Semitism. Alice recorded in her
memoir that her brother ‘Charlie’ (Carl Eduard) could hardly have gone
to a school full of Jews:
Aunt Vicky [Empress Frederick] who, although she was dying of cancer, was con-
tinually meddling, wanted Mother to send him [Charlie] to a school in Frankfurt
which was supposed to be very modern but was mainly attended by the sons of rich
Jews.51

Instead the Kaiser took over the education of his young cousin. He pledged
to turn him into a Prussian officer—with the political views associated with
the role. As a schoolboy, Carl Eduard’s interest in politics had naturally been
limited. His grandmother Queen Victoria was by then a supporter of the
Conservative party and an ardent imperialist. However, she was wise enough
to hide her views from the public. This was not the style of Carl Eduard’s
new mentor, Kaiser Wilhelm II. The Kaiser was at war with the two rising
parties in Germany: the SPD (the German Socialist party) and the Zentrum
(the Catholic Centre party).The resentment towards them and the Reichstag
(parliament) in general was shared by many members of the Hohenzollern
family. It was in this strained political atmosphere that the young Carl Eduard
grew up. His mentor and cousin the Kaiser had no intention of bringing
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 31

him up to respect the Reichstag. On the contrary Carl Eduard would learn
to despise it. The Kaiser’s political grooming would work in the most sinis-
ter way.
On his arrival Carl Eduard was 15, the ideal age for a guinea pig. To the
Kaiser he became a ‘seventh’ son blending in with his own children. Since
Wilhelm II himself famously suffered from a ‘hybrid heritage’ turning Carl
Eduard into a German must have felt like correcting his own upbringing.
This time it had to succeed. Carl Eduard was enrolled in a military academy,
the Cadet school in Berlin Lichterfelde (a German equivalent to Sandhurst),
and his mother and sister Alice were put up in a nearby villa. Alice later
described their benefactor Kaiser Wilhelm as demanding but ‘naturally
kind and generous’. His wife and children in particular were ‘delightful’ and
enabled them to become ‘another brother and sister to them.’ The only
exception she made was the Kaiser’s son, the Crown Prince Wilhelm: ‘he
was rather spoilt and conceited.’52
Since Carl Eduard’s mother was a German princess, he did not have
much of a language problem when he moved to Potsdam. His German
essays were soon receiving higher marks than his English ones. The culture
shock was also softened by visiting relatives he had known all his life. He
spent the weekends at his mother’s villa in Potsdam and the holidays visiting
relatives in Germany and England. For a while he seemed to be safe from
any further disruption. But when Alfred Duke of Coburg died, the situation
became daunting. According to his relatives, Carl Eduard was utterly incon-
solable at the funeral. His emotional outburst was probably not so much due
to his love for a relatively distant uncle, but more to the challenges ahead.
He was only 16 and far from ready to take over any responsibilities.To soften
the blow, he was given five more years to finish his education. For a while
his old life could continue. But he was missing Britain and when his exams
come up in 1902 he wrote to his sister: ‘You cannot imagine how awful it
was to decide not to go to England.’53 Though on the outside Carl Eduard
had now turned into a German, on the inside he felt thoroughly English.
When his sister announced her engagement in 1903 he wrote to her:
Dearest Tigs,
You cannot tell how awfully pleased I am about your engagement, although it sep-
arates us . . . You really can’t understand how pleased I am that my brother in law is
an Englishman, I can’t help saying this although I ought not to. Algy always was a
good friend of mine so I can only say I am really very happy that he should be your
husband. I only hope he won’t have to go to Africa.54
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

32 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

In Carl Eduard’s eyes ‘Algy’ was an Englishman even though he had

German roots. He was a Teck, the youngest brother of Queen Mary and
therefore the same Anglo-German mixture as Carl Eduard. But because
‘Algy’ was based in England and was about to make an English career, Carl
Eduard thought of him as an ideal brother-in-law. Algy lived the life he
would have loved to have lived if the family had not ordered him to
become German.
After finishing the Abitur (his results were never published) he spent
some time in Berlin, being briefed at the Prussian Ministry of the Interior
and the Ministry of Agriculture. In 1903 he was sent off to study law at
Bonn—the university his grandfather Albert had attended. Unlike the
­studious Albert, Carl Eduard did not seem to receive much intellectual
stimulation from this experience. During three terms at Bonn he was more
interested in the non-academic life offered to aristocratic students—joining
the Corps Borussia. Since his relationship with women seemed to be
ambiguous, his family decided to marry him off as soon as possible. As ever
Kaiser Wilhelm was eager to be the matchmaker. For Carl Eduard, he chose
his wife’s niece—Victoria Adelheid.Victoria was the daughter of the Duke
of Schleswig-Holstein Sonderburg-Glücksburg and considered to be stable.
Her loyalty to the Hohenzollerns combined with her maternal instincts
seemed ideal to control an immature young man like Carl Eduard. He was
ordered to propose and as usual he did as he was told. In 1905 he wrote to
Alice that he was visiting his ‘bride elect’: ‘Dearest Tigs, I am longing for the
time when you will see Victoria, she is such a dear. I am sure you will appre-
ciate my choice.’55 Not that he had much of a choice.
Possessed of a German education, a German mother, and a German wife,
Carl Eduard’s credentials seemed to be unassailable by the time he finally
took over the duchies in 1905. He was 21 years old and he knew that he had
to create a formidable first family based on the Victoria and Albert model.
He therefore quickly fathered an heir and a spare (as well as several daugh-
ters). He also joined almost every patriotic club available in Coburg and
Gotha to prove his commitment. Yet despite all these efforts he did not
become popular. This was particularly the case in Gotha, the poor twin
of Coburg. The Dukedom of Gotha had been merged with the Duchy
of Coburg in 1826. The merger had never been a success—for geographical
as well as for human reasons. Geographically Coburg and Gotha were
­separated by 100 km, divided by the forests of Thuringia. Sandwiched in
between was another territory, belonging to the house of Saxe-Meiningen.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 33

If they did not have to travel for business reasons, the people of Coburg and
Gotha avoided contact. A longstanding reason for this was also the antipa-
thy of the Gotha population to their hostile ‘takeover’ in 1826.56 Prince
Albert’s mother had been the heiress of Gotha when she married Duke
Ernst I of Coburg. If she had remained Ernst I’s wife, the people of Gotha
might have accepted the subsequent merger, but her marriage collapsed
and she was sent into exile. Afterwards the people of Gotha did not warm
to Duke Ernst I, feeling like the neglected twin of the newly created dual
duchies. Indeed Gotha and Coburg were economically and politically
worlds apart. Rich Coburg was conservative and therefore naturally more
attractive to the dukes than rebellious, chronically poor Gotha. During the
ninety-two years of their union the dukedoms would therefore stay ada-
mantly disunited. By 1905, Gotha was dominated by working-class families
who supported the socialist party (SPD). To them it seemed bizarre that
the new Duke Carl Eduard was indulging in an almost absolutist life at
court. The Coburgers were more tolerant, yet they had also found him too
aloof. They criticized the fact that on his walks around town Carl Eduard
was always accompanied by a policeman. His Englishness in particular
remained an issue. He continued to have an English accent and everyone
agreed that there was something foreign about him.57 He was even criti-
cized for keeping Scotch terriers. Like it or not, Carl Eduard remained a
stranger in his home. Ironically this ‘stain’ would eventually become an
asset. It was his Anglo-German identity that would turn him into a success-
ful go-between for Hitler.

The Catholic network: Prince Fürstenberg

and Kaiser Wilhelm II
As we will see later, the Duke of Coburg’s work as a go-between started
after the First World War. But a member of the higher aristocracy was work-
ing as a go-between long before him—Prince Max Egon II zu Fürstenberg
(1863 to 1941). Like Coburg he developed into an enthusiastic supporter
of Hitler.
Before Fürstenberg turned to the Nazis, he was the closest friend of
Kaiser Wilhelm II.This in itself was an impressive achievement. Fürstenberg
was Catholic and Austrian, two attributes that made a friendship with
Wilhelm II unusual.The Kaiser was fiercely Protestant and often wary of his
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

34 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

alliance partner Austria-Hungary. It was Fürstenberg’s brief to change this

attitude. For almost twenty years he worked as a private channel between
Vienna and Berlin trying to prop up the German-Austrian dual alliance.
When Germany finally stood by Austria in the July crisis of 1914 his dreams
seemed fulfilled.
His employers were the Habsburgs. Apart from Fürstenberg two other
people who saw the Habsburgs as their role model will be central to this
book later: Prince Max Hohenlohe-Langenburg (1879–1968) and Princess
Stephanie Hohenlohe (1891–1972). Like Fürstenberg they grew up in the
Habsburg monarchy and used the methods of the Habsburg network well
into the 1930s.
The fabric of this network was old and close-meshed. It had started in the
sixteenth century as a marriage network. At that time the Habsburgs could
genuinely claim ‘Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria nube’ (‘Let others wage war:
you, happy Austria, marry’). Yet for this concept one needed to produce
plenty of marriage partners and by the mid-seventeenth century, inbreeding
had resulted in a shortage of healthy children. As a consequence the Spanish
branch of the Habsburg family died out. The Austrian branch, however, was
saved by Empress Maria Theresia’s impressive stamina. She gave birth to six-
teen children, validating the phrase ‘felix Austria nube’ again. Her marriage
network made it possible in 1914 for members of the Habsburg family to be
still connected to all the royal houses in Catholic countries. This would play
an important part in go-between missions during the First World War.
Like the Protestant network Carl Eduard Coburg belonged to, members
of the Catholic network had many advantages—most importantly high
­status marriage partners and useful career opportunities. In return total sub-
mission was expected from all family members; the interests of the ‘house’
always outweighed the wishes of the individual member. Everyone was
expected to do his or her bit. This naturally included go-­between missions.
Max Egon Fürstenberg’s family had served the Habsburg network as
diplomats and military men for generations. It had been a beneficial arrange-
ment for both sides and Fürstenberg was eager to continue the tradition.
Unlike his brother, who became a diplomat, he chose to work mainly
behind the scenes. It would make him much more effective.
To understand why Fürstenberg’s go-between work before 1914 was so
valuable to the Habsburgs, one has to understand the conflicted relationship
between Germany and Austria-Hungary during the pre-war years. No one
has captured this better than the Austrian novelist Robert Musil. In his mas-
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 35

terpiece The Man Without Qualities he describes how a committee of patri-

otic Austrians in 1913 starts to plan festivities for their Emperor’s platinum
jubilee.58 Their idea is to celebrate Emperor Franz Joseph’s seventy years on
the throne in bombastic style—outshining Kaiser Wilhelm II’s upcoming
thirty years jubilee. The committee members are determined that their fes-
tivities will be far superior, demonstrating Austria-Hungary’s cultural and
intellectual wealth over upstart Germany. Their only problem is finding a
motto for the festivities. They are torn between ‘The Austrian Peace Year
1918’ or the ‘Austrian World Peace Year 1918’. This fictitious scene in Musil’s
novel is not just an ironic comment on Austria-Hungary’s pre-war society
and its obsession with the octogenarian Emperor Franz Joseph, who would
die in 1916. It also shows the competitiveness between Austria-Hungary and
Germany. Musil’s patriotic Austrians do not only get their timing wrong,
they seem to live in a perpetual Camelot, far away from the realities of
world politics, conveniently ignoring—among other things—that Austria is
in an alliance with Germany. Prince Maximillian Egon II Fürstenberg never
lost sight of its importance. His aim was to strengthen the Dual Alliance as
much as possible. This was not an easy task for several reasons.
That Germany would stay with its alliance partner Austria-Hungary was
far from clear when the alliance was formed in 1879. At the time, the
German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck had intended to keep it alive only
so long as it was useful to German interests. His successors, however, lacked
the skills to build an alternative alliance system. Despite efforts to win over
other countries, Germany remained ‘stuck’ with Austria-Hungary and later
the capricious Italy, in the Triple Alliance. The diplomatic history of this
alliance has been well researched.59 Yet what has been neglected is a look
behind the scenes—at the unofficial contacts. Who was supporting it? In
other words, how much real ‘life’ existed behind the political facade?
At first glance the answer would be not very much. The Austro-Prussian
war of 1866 naturally had a negative impact on mutual relations. Between
1867 and 1912, the postal services registered a decrease in communication
between the two countries.60 The relationship seemed to exemplify two
countries divided by a common language.
Of course, an interest in Austria-Hungary still existed in Germany but it
was difficult to quantify. Supporters were believed to be found among
German Catholics of all social classes who felt close to Austria for religious
reasons, and among German intellectuals who were drawn to Vienna
because of its cultural vibrancy.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

36 g o- b etwe e ns f or h itle r

However, the main group which in this period unflinchingly sustained

the Austro-German alliance were a handful of aristocrats. They were called
‘greater Germans’ (grossdeutsch) or Austro-Germans and advocated a close
relationship with Germany.61 Among them were leading Austro-German
families like the Fürstenbergs, the Hohenlohes, the Thurn and Taxis, and the
Oettingen-Wallersteins. They felt as much members of the Austrian as of
the German higher aristocracy. The Thurn and Taxis for example, were not
just connected to Austria-Hungary by marriage but also to Italy (and could
therefore claim to be the personification of the Triple Alliance).
These families often identified more with Vienna and the Habsburgs
than with Berlin and the Hohenzollerns. A look at the newspapers they
took makes this clear. Prince Oettingen-Wallerstein’s servant recorded in
1911 that his master was only reading ‘papers and magazines from Vienna
and Munich’ (obviously not from Berlin).62 Because these aristocrats were
landowners in both countries, they were the subjects of two emperors.
Reading their letters it is sometimes difficult to guess which emperor is
being discussed. The context is clearer in 1916 when Princess Therese
Waldburg-Zeil wrote: ‘The death of the old Emperor is affecting me very
much. For three generations he was the Emperor.’63 Though she was living
in Germany, ‘her’ Emperor remained the Austrian Kaiser Franz Joseph.
Because of this mental map, it came naturally to Austro-Germans to support
the alliance. It was also a way of staying politically relevant.
Fürstenberg had a great interest in staying relevant. From 1899 to 1918 he
‘commuted’ between Vienna and Berlin. What made him an ideal political
go-between was his intimate friendship with Kaiser Wilhelm II (Figure 2).
To this day Fürstenberg’s role in pre-war politics has been overlooked.
There exists no biography of him and in articles he is usually portrayed as
one of Wilhelm II’s ‘mates’, a man who loved dirty jokes. In fact Max Egon
Fürstenberg was much more than that, a homo politicus, who was eager to
manipulate Austro-German affairs via the Kaiser.64 His contemporaries
guessed as much. Some of them saw the friendship of an Austrian aristocrat
with the Kaiser as highly dangerous. The author of the contemporary book
‘Around the Kaiser’ certainly depicted Fürstenberg in this light:
[Fürstenberg] this Austro-German grand seigneur and millionaire, is the power
behind the German throne. No other man has the same influence, only very few
have ever enjoyed Wilhelm’s confidence in the same way. It is rumoured that the
Kaiser, asked his plutocratic bosom friend, to become Chancellor and to trade in
the part of the faithful friend to become the first adviser of the Crown.65
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 12/05/15, SPi

what are g o- b etwe e n s ? 37

Figure 2. Wilhelm II (1859–1941) Emperor of Germany from 1888–1918, right,

holding up a hunting trophy. The other figure is Max Egon zu Fürstenberg.

Though the last sentence was an exaggeration, Fürstenberg’s role was not
discussed just in sensational publications. He was also feared by members of
diplomatic and court circles. In 1909 a Prussian diplomat reported from
Baden, Fürstenberg’s home in southern Germany:
From various discriminating people I have heard recently that the special trust and
the friendship with which his Majesty the Kaiser honours Prince Fürstenberg is
not politically welcomed. One is of the opinion here that [Fürstenberg] influences
our Emperor in a perhaps damaging way, he is too temperamental, often one-sided
and not informed ...only when it comes to our relationship with Austria has he,
without a doubt, improved it for the better. I only know the Prince superficially
and can therefore not give my opinion, but I would like to pass on in confidence
this widely held impression, especially since the political influence of [Fürstenberg]
is also often discussed in a negative light at court.66
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
and a wallet on the other, in which the vine-dresser had placed some
provisions, he started again. If Morin had sent his officers after him,
they might have passed by the fugitive reformer under this rustic
disguise.
=CALVIN IS RECOGNISED.=
He was not far beyond the suburbs of Paris, however, when he
saw a canon whom he knew coming towards him. The latter with
astonishment fixed a curious look on the vine-dresser, and fancying
him to be very unlike a stout peasant, he drew near, stopped, and
recognised him. He knew what was the matter, for all Paris was full
of it. The canon immediately remonstrated with him: 'Change your
manner of life,' he said; 'look to your salvation, and I will promise to
procure you a good appointment.' But Calvin, 'who was hot-headed,'
replied: 'I shall go through with it to the last.'[515] The canon
afterwards related this incident to the Abbot de Genlis, who told it to
Desmay.[516]
Is this a story invented in the idle talk of a cloister? I think not.
Some of the details, particularly the language of the canon, render it
probable. It was also by the promise of a 'good appointment' that
Francis de Sales endeavoured to win over Theodore Beza. Simony is
a sin so innocent that three priests, a canon, an abbot, and a doctor
of the Sorbonne, combine to relate this peccadillo. If the language of
the canon is in conformity with his character, Calvin's answer, 'I will
go through with it to the last,' is also in his manner. Although we
may have some trouble to picture the young reformer disguised as a
peasant, with his wallet and hoe, we thought it our duty to relate an
incident transmitted to us by his enemies. The circumstance is really
not singular. Calvin was then beginning an exodus which has gone
on unceasingly for nearly three centuries. The disciples of the Gospel
in France, summoned to abjure Christ, have fled from their
executioners by thousands, and under various disguises. And if the
gravity of history permitted the author to revert to the stories that
charmed his childhood, he could tell how many a time, seated at the
feet of his grandmother and listening with attentive ear, he has
heard her describe how her mother, a little girl at the time of the
Revocation in 1685, escaped from France, concealed in a basket
which her father, a pious huguenot, disguised as a peasant, carried
carefully on his back.
Calvin, having escaped his enemies, hurried away from the capital,
from his cherished studies and his brethren, and wandered up and
down, avoiding the places where he might be recognised. He
thought over all that had happened, and his meditative mind drew
wholesome lessons from it. He learnt from his own experience by
what token to recognise the true Church of Christ. 'We should lose
our labour,' he said in later days, thinking perhaps of this
circumstance, 'if we wished to separate Christ from his cross; it is a
natural thing for the world to hate Christ, even in his members.
There will always be wicked men to prick us like thorns. If they do
not draw the sword, they spit out their venom, and either gnash
their teeth or excite some great disturbance.' The sword was already
'drawn' against him: acting, therefore, with prudence, he followed
the least frequented roads, sleeping in the cottages or the mansions
of his friends. It is asserted that being known by the Sieur de
Hasseville, whose château was situated beyond Versailles, he
remained there some time in hiding.[517]
The king's first movement, when he heard of Cop's business and
the flight of Calvin, was one of anger and persecution. Duprat,
formerly first president of parliament, was much exasperated at the
affront offered to that body. Francis commanded every measure to
be taken to discover the person who had warned Cop of his danger;
he would have had him punished severely as a favourer of heresy.
[518] At the same time, he ordered the prosecution of those persons

whom the papers seized in Calvin's room pointed out as partisans of

the new doctrine.
=MANY EVANGELICALS QUIT PARIS.=
There was a general alarm among the evangelicals, and many left
Paris. A Dominican friar, brother of De la Croix, feeling a growing
thirst for knowledge, deliberated in his convent whether he ought
not to remove to a country where the Gospel was preached freely.
[519] He was one of those compromised by Calvin's papers. He

therefore made his escape, reached Neufchatel, and thence

proceeded to Geneva, where we shall meet him again.
The greater part of the friends of the Gospel, however, remained
in France: Margaret exerted all her influence with her brother to
ward off the impending blow, and succeeded in appeasing the
storm.[520] Francis was always between two contrary currents, one
coming from Duprat, the other from his sister; and once more he
followed the better.
The Queen of Navarre, exhausted by all these shocks, disgusted
with the dissipations of the court, distressed by the hatred of which
the Gospel was the object among all around her, turned her face
towards the Pyrenees. Paris, St. Germain, Fontainebleau, had no
more charms for her; besides, her health was not strong, and she
desired to pass the winter at Pau. But, above all, she sighed for
solitude, liberty, and meditation; she had need of Christ. She
therefore bade farewell to the brilliant court of France, and departed
for the quiet Béarn.

Adieu! pomps, pleasures, now adieu!

No longer will I sort with you!
Other pleasure seek I none
Than in my Bridegroom alone!
For my honour and my having
Is in Jesus: him receiving,
I'll not leave him for the fleeting!...
Adieu, adieu![521]

Margaret arrived in the Pyrenees.

[483] Théod. de Bèze, Hist. Eccl. i. p. 9.
[484] Calvini Opera.
[485] The document is in the library of Geneva (MS. 145). It
has on the margin: 'Hæc Johannes Calvinus propria manu
descripsit, et est auctor.' Dr. Bonnet came upon it in the course
of his researches for his edition of Calvin's Letters, and gave
the author a copy.
[486] 'Hac qui excellunt, tantum prope reliquæ hominum
multitudini præstare mihi videntur, quantum homines belluis
antecedunt.'—Geneva MSS. 145.
[487] 'Sola Dei gratia peccata remittit.'—Ibid.
[488] 'Spiritum sanctum, qui corda sanctificat et vitam
æternam adfert, omnibus christianis pollicetur.'—Ibid.
[489] 'Motus animi turbulentos, quasi habenis quibusdam.'—
Geneva MS.
[490] 'Ut tota nostra oratio illum laudet, illum sapiat, illum
spiret, illum referat. Rogabimus ut in mentes nostras illabatur,
nosque gratiæ cœlestis succo irrigare dignetur.'—Ibid.
[491] Bellarmine, De Controversiis.
[492] Crévier, Hist. de l'Université, v. p. 275.
[493] Crévier, Hist. de l'Université, v. p. 276.
[494] Lettres de la Reine de Navarre, i. p. 287.
[495] 'In aulam.'—Bezæ Vita Calvini.
[496] 'Hanc tempestatem Dominus, reginæ Navariensis, piis
tunc admodum faventis, intercessione, dissipavit.'—Ibid.
[497] 'Ibique perhonorifice ab ea accepto et audito Calvino.'—
Ibid.
[498] Théod. de Bèze, Vie de Calvin, p. 14. Calvini Opera,
passim.
[499] Calvini Opera, i. pars iii. pp. 1002, 1003.
[500] 'Citatus rector sese quidem in viam cum suis
apparitoribus dedit.'—Bezæ Vita Calvini.
[501] 'Ut sibi ab adversariis caveret.'—Bezæ Vita Calvini.
[502] 'Domum reversus.'—Ibid.
[503] Maimbourg, Hist. du Calvinisme, p. 58.
[504] 'Ablato secum, forte per imprudentiam, signo
universitatis.'—Bucer to Blaarer, Jan. 18, 1534.
[505] 'CCC coronatos ei qui fugitivum rectorem, vivum vel
mortuum adducat.'—Ibid.
[506] Flor. Rémond, Hist. de l'Hérésie, liv. vii. ch. viii.
[507] Maimbourg, Hist. du Calvinisme, p. 58.
[508] Gaillard, Hist. de François I. iv. p. 274.
[509] Théod. de Bèze, Hist. des Egl. Réf. i. p. 9.
[510] Varillas, Hist. des Revolutions Religieuses, ii. p. 467.
This writer is not always correct.
[511] Drelincourt, Défense de Calvin, pp. 35, 169.
[512] Acts ix. 25.
[513] 'Morinus, cujus adhuc nomen ab insigni sævitia
celebratur.'—Bezæ Vita Calvini.
[514] 'Deprehensis, inter schedas, multis amicorum litteris, ut
plurimi in maximum vitæ discrimen incurrerent.'—Ibid.
[515] 'Je poursuivrai tout outre.'
[516] Desmay, Jean Calvin Hérésiarque, p. 45. Drelincourt,
Défense de Calvin, p. 175.
[517] Casan, Statistique de Mantes. France Protestante, i. p.
113.
[518] Registres du Parlement.
[519] Crespin, Martyrologue, fol. 106.
[520] Gaillard, Hist. de François I. iv. p. 275.
[521] Les Marguerites de la Marguerite, i. p. 518.
 CHAPTER XXXI.
CONFERENCE AND ALLIANCE BETWEEN FRANCIS I. AND PHILIP OF HESSE AT

BAR-LE-DUC.

(Winter 1533-34.)

=PROPOSED GERMAN ALLIANCE.=

A LMOST about the same time, Francis bent his steps towards the
Rhine. The establishment of the Reform throughout Europe
depended, as many thought, on the union of France with protestant
Germany. This union would emancipate France from the papal
supremacy, and all christendom would then be seen turning to the
Gospel. The king was preparing to hold a conference with the most
decided of the protestant princes of Germany. Rarely has an
interview between two sovereigns been of so much importance.
Francis I. had hardly quitted Marseilles and arrived at Avignon,
when he assembled his council (25th of November, 1533), and
communicated to it the desire for an alliance which the German
protestants had expressed to him. A certain shame had prevented
him from moving in the matter, amid the caresses which papacy and
royalty were lavishing upon each other at Marseilles. But now that
Clement was on board his galleys, nothing prevented the King of
France, who had given his right hand to the pontiff, from giving his
left to the heretics.[522] There were many reasons why he should do
so. The clergy were not allies for whose support he was eager: the
best orthodoxy, in his eyes, was the iron arm of the lansquenets.
Besides, the opportunity was unprecedented: in fact, he could at one
stroke gain the protestants to his cause, and inflict an immense
injury on Austria—that is to say, on Charles V.
It will no doubt be remembered that the young Prince of
Wurtemberg, whom the emperor was leading in his train across the
Alps, having escaped with his governor, had loudly demanded back
the states of which Austria had robbed his father. Francis was chiefly
occupied about him at Avignon. 'At this place,' says the historian
Martin du Bellay, 'the king assembled his council, and deliberated on
a request made to him not only by young Duke Christopher of
Wurtemberg and his father, but by his uncles, Duke William and
Duke Louis of Bavaria. Christopher himself had written to Francis I.:
"Sire," he said, "during the great and long calamity of my father and
myself, what first made hope spring up in our hearts was the
thought that you would interpose your influence to put an end to our
misery.... Your compassion for the afflicted is well known. I doubt
not that, by your assistance, we shall soon be restored to our
rights."'[523]
Francis, always on the watch to injure his rival, was delighted at
this proceeding, and did not conceal his joy from the privy council. 'I
desire much,' he said, 'to see the dukes of Wurtemberg restored to
their states, and should like to help them, as much to weaken the
emperor's power as to acquire new friendships in Germany. But,' he
added, 'I would do it under so colourable a pretext, that I may affirm
that I have infringed no treaty.'[524] To humble the emperor and to
exalt the protestants, without appearing to have anything to do with
it, was what Francis desired.
=DU BELLAY SENT TO GERMANY.=
William du Bellay urged the king to return the duke a favourable
answer. A friend of independence and sound liberty, he was at that
time the representative of the old French spirit, as Catherine de
Medici was to become the representative of the new—that is to say,
of the Romish influence under which France has unhappily suffered
for nearly three centuries. It has been sometimes said that the cause
of France is the cause of Rome; but the noblest aspirations of the
French people and its most generous representatives condemn this
error. Popery is the cause of the pope alone; it is not even the cause
of Italy; and if the contrary opinion still exists in France, it is a
remnant of the influence of the Medici.
 The transition from Marseilles to Avignon was, however, a little
abrupt. To ally the eldest son of the Church with the protestants at
the very moment he left the pope's arms, in a city which belonged to
the holy see, and in the ancient palace of the pontiffs, seemed
strange to the French, whose eyes were still fascinated by the pomp
of Rome. This was noticed by Du Bellay, who, wishing to facilitate
the transition, explained to the council 'that a diet was about to be
held at Augsburg, where the reparation of a great injustice would be
discussed; that an innocent person implored the king's assistance;
that it was the practice of France to succour the oppressed
everywhere; that precious advantages might result from it ...
besides, there could be no doubt of success, and as the cause of
Duke Christopher would be conducted in the diet according to the
rights, usages, immunities, and privileges of the German nation, the
emperor could not prevent justice being done.... Let us send an
ambassador,' added Du Bellay, 'to support the claims of the dukes of
Wurtemberg, and Austria must either restore these princes to their
states, or arouse the hostility of all Germany against it.'[525] Francis
was already gained. He hoped not only to take Wurtemberg from
Austria, but also to get up a general war in Germany between the
protestants and the empire, of which he could take advantage to
seize upon the states which he claimed in Italy. When his detested
rival had fallen beneath their combined blows, the religious question
should be settled. The king, who had meditated all this in the
intervals of his conferences with Clement VII., ordered Du Bellay to
proceed to Augsburg forthwith, and charged him 'to do everything in
his power, with a sufficiently colourable pretext, towards the re-
establishment of the dukes of Wurtemberg.'[526] Du Bellay was
satisfied. He wished for more than the king did; he desired to
emancipate France from the papal supremacy, and with that object
to draw Francis and protestantism closer together. That was difficult;
but this Wurtemberg affair, which presented itself simply as a
political question, would supply him with the means of overcoming
every difficulty. This was where he would have to set the wedge in
order to split the tree. He thought that he could make use of it to
counteract the effects of the conference which the king had just held
with the pope by contriving another between the two most anti-
papistical princes in Europe. Du Bellay departed, taking the road
through Switzerland.
=DU BELLAY IN SWITZERLAND.=
He had his reasons for adopting this route. The emperor and his
brother consented, indeed, that their rights should be discussed in
the diet, but it was only that they might not appear to refuse to do
justice: everybody knew that Ferdinand had no intention of restoring
Wurtemberg. The balance was at that time pretty even in Germany
between Rome and the Gospel, and the restitution of Wurtemberg
would make it incline to the side of the Reformation. If Austria would
not give way, she would have to be constrained by force of arms. Du
Bellay desired, therefore, to induce the protestant cantons of
Switzerland, bordering on Wurtemberg, to unite their efforts with
those of protestant Germany in wresting that duchy from the
Austrian rule. Francis, who knew how to manage such matters, had
conceived the design of placing in the hands of the Helvetians,
probably through Du Bellay, a certain sum of money to cover the
expenses of the campaign. But it seems that the protestant cantons
did not agree to the arrangement.[527]
When Du Bellay arrived at Augsburg, he met the young Duke
Christopher. He entered into conversation with him, and they were
henceforth inseparable: this prince, so amiable, but at the same time
so firm, was his man. He is to be the lever which the counsellor of
Francis I. will use to stir men's minds, and to unite Germany and
France.... The first thing to be done was to restore him to his throne.
The French ambassador paid a visit to the delegates from Austria.
'The king my master,' he said, 'is delighted that this innocent young
man has at last found a harbour in the midst of the tempest. His
father and he have suffered enough by being driven from their
home.... It is time to restore the son to the father, the father to the
son, and to both of them the states of their ancestors. If entreaties
are not sufficient,' added Du Bellay firmly, 'the king my master will
employ all his power.'[528] Thus did France take up her position as the
protector of the distressed; but there was something else
underneath: the chief object of the king was to strike a blow at the
emperor; that of Du Bellay, to strike the pope.
Christopher, who received encouragement from every quarter,
appeared before the diet on the 10th of December, 1533. He was no
longer the captive prince whom Charles had led in his train. The
poor young man, who not long ago had been compelled to flee,
leaving his companion behind him, hidden among the reeds of a
marsh in the Norican Alps, stood now before the German diet,
surrounded by a brilliant throng of nobles, the representatives of the
princes who supported his claims, and having as assistants (that is,
as espousing his quarrel) the delegates of Saxony, Prussia,
Brunswick, Mecklenburg, Luneburg, Hesse, Cleves, Munster, and
Juliers. The King of Hungary pleaded his cause in person: 'Most
noble seigniors,' he began, 'when we see the young Duke
Christopher of Wurtemberg deprived of his duchy without having
done anything to deserve such punishment, disappointed by the
Austrians in all the hopes they had given him, unworthily treated at
the imperial court,[529] compelled to make his escape by flight,
imploring at this moment by earnest supplications your compassion
and your help—we are profoundly agitated. What! because his father
has done wrong, shall this young man be reduced to a hard and
humiliating life? Has not the voice of God himself declared that the
son shall not bear the iniquities of the father?'
=UNION TO ASSIST WURTEMBERG.=
The Austrian commissioners, finding their position rather
embarrassing, began to temporise, and proposed that Christopher
should accept as compensation some town of small importance. He
refused, saying: 'I will never cease to claim simply and firmly the
country of my fathers.'[530] But Austria, fearing the preponderance of
protestantism in Germany, closed her ears to his just request. At this
point France intervened strongly in favour of the two protestant
princes. Du Bellay, after reminding the diet that Ulrich had confessed
his faults, and that he was much altered by age, long exile, and
great trials, continued thus: 'Must the duke see his only son, a
young and innocent prince, who ought to be the support of his
declining years, for ever bearing the weight of his misfortunes? Will
you take into consideration neither the calamitous old age of the
one, nor the unhappy youth of the other? Will you avenge the sins
of the father upon the child who was then in the cradle? The dukes
of Wurtemberg are of high descent. Their punishment has been
permitted, but not their destruction. Help this innocent youth
(Christopher), receive this penitent (Ulrich), and reestablish them
both in their former dignity.'[531]
The Austrians, who were annoyed at seeing the ambassador of
the King of France intermeddling in their affairs, held firm. The
deputies of Saxony, Hesse, Prussia, Mecklenburg, and the other
states, now made up their minds to oppose Austria; they told the
young duke that they were ready to cast their swords in the balance,
and Christopher himself requested Du Bellay 'to change his
congratulatory oration into a comminatory one.'[532]
=DU BELLAY PLEADS AND MENACES.=
When the French envoy was admitted again before the diet, he
assumed a higher tone: 'My lords,' he said, 'will you lend your hands
to the ruin of an innocent person?... If you do so ... I tell you that
you will bring a stain upon your reputation that all the water in the
sea will not be able to wash out. This prince, in heart so proud, in
origin so illustrious, will not endure to live miserably in the country
whose sovereign he is by birth; he will go into a foreign land. And in
what part soever of the world he may be, what will he carry with
him?... The shame of the emperor, the shame of King Ferdinand, the
shame of all of you. Every man, pointing to him, will say: That is he
who formerly.... That is he who now.... That is he who through no
fault of his own.... That is he who, being compelled to leave
Germany.... You understand, my lords, what is omitted in these
sentences; I willingly excuse myself from completing them ... you
will do it yourselves. No! you will not be insensible to such great
misery.... I see your hearts are touched already.... I see by your
gestures and your looks that you feel the truth of my words.'
Then, making a direct attack upon the emperor and his brother, he
said: 'There are people who, very erroneously in my opinion, consult
only their wicked ambition and unbridled covetousness, and who
think that, by oppressing now one and now another, they will
subdue all Germany.'
Turning next to the young Prince of Wurtemberg, the
representative of Francis I. continued: 'Duke Christopher, rely upon it
the Most Christian King will do all that he can in your behalf, without
injury to his faith, his honour, and the duties of blood. The court of
France has always been the most liberal of all—ever open to receive
exiled and suffering princes. With greater reason, then, it will not be
closed against you who are its ally ... you who, by the justice of your
cause and by your innocence, appear even to your enemies worthy
of pity and compassion.'[533]
The members of the diet had listened attentively to this speech,
and their countenances showed that they were convinced.[534] The
cause was won: the Swabian league, the creature of Austria and the
enemy of the Reformation, was not to be renewed. Du Bellay left
Augsburg, continued his journey through Germany, and endeavoured
to form a new confederation there[535] against Austria, which
Francis I. and Henry VIII. could join. 'If any one should think of
invading England,' the latter was told, 'we would send you soldiers
by the Baltic sea.'[536] It is to be feared that this succour by way of
the Baltic would have arrived rather late in the waters of the
Thames. But the main thing in Du Bellay's eyes was action, not
diplomatic negotiations. His idea was to unite Francis I. and the
protestants of Germany in a common movement which would lead
France to throw off the ultramontane yoke; but there were only two
men of sufficient energy to undertake it. The first was the king his
master, to whom we now return.
Francis, after leaving Avignon, had gone into Dauphiny, thence to
Lyons and other cities in the east of France. In January 1534, he
reached Bar-le-Duc, thus gradually drawing nearer to the German
frontier. The winter this year was exceedingly severe, but for that
the king did not care: he thought only of uniting France and the
protestants by means of Wurtemberg, as the marriage of Catherine
had just united France and the pope.
=THE LANDGRAVE'S PROJECT.=
The second of the princes from whom an energetic course might
be expected was the Landgrave of Hesse. Of all the protestant
leaders of Germany he was the one whose heart had been least
changed by the Gospel. Without equalling Francis I. in sensuality, he
was yet far from being a pattern of chastity. But, on the other hand,
none of the princes attached to the Reformation equalled him in
talent, strength, and activity. By his character he was the most
important man of the evangelical league, and more than once he
exercised a decisive influence on the progress of the protestant
work. Philip, cousin of the Duke of Wurtemberg, often had him at his
court; Ulrich had even taken part in the famous conference of
Marburg. Moved by the misfortunes of this prince, delighted at the
trick Christopher had played the emperor, touched by the loyalty of
the Wurtembergers, who claimed their dukes and their nationality,
impatient to win this part of Germany to the evangelical faith, he
desired to take it away from Austria. To find the men to do it was
easy, if only he had the money ... but money he had none.
Du Bellay saw that there lay the knot of the affair, and he made
haste to cut it. The clergy of France had just given the king a
considerable sum: could a better use be made of it than this? The
French envoy let Philip know that he might obtain from his master
the subsidies he needed. But more must be done: he must take
advantage of the opportunity to bring together the two most
enterprising princes of the epoch. If they saw and heard one
another, they would like each other and bind themselves in such a
manner that the union of France and protestant Germany would be
effected at last. Philip of Hesse received all these overtures with
delight.
=LUTHER OPPOSES THE WAR.=
But fresh obstacles now intervened. The theologians of the
Reformation detested these foreign alliances and wars, which, in
their opinion, defiled the holiest of causes. Luther and Melanchthon
waited upon the elector, conjuring him to oppose the landgrave's
rash enterprise; and Du Bellay found the two reformers employing
as much zeal to prevent the union of Francis and Philip as he to
accomplish it. 'Go,' said the elector to Luther and Melanchthon, 'and
prevail upon the landgrave to change his mind.'
The two doctors, on their way from Wittemberg to Weimar, where
they would meet Philip, conversed about their mission and the
landgrave: 'He is an intelligent prince,' said Luther, 'all animation and
impulse, and of a joyous heart. He has been able to maintain order
in his country, so that Hesse, which is full of forests and mountains
where robbers might find shelter, sees its inhabitants travelling and
roaming about, buying and selling without fear.... If one of them is
attacked and robbed, forthwith the landgrave falls upon the bandits
and punishes them. He is a true man of war—an Arminius. His star
never deceives him, and he is much dreaded by all his
adversaries.'[537] 'And I too,' said Melanchthon, 'love the Macedonian'
(for so he called Philip of Hesse, because, in his opinion, that prince
had all the shrewdness and courage of his namesake of Macedon);
'for that reason,' he added, 'I am unwilling that, being so high, he
should risk so great a fall.'[538] The two theologians had no doubt
that a war undertaken against the powerful house of Austria would
end in a frightful catastrophe to the protestants.
When they reached Weimar the two reformers saw the landgrave,
and employed 'their best rhetoric,' says Luther, to dissuade him.[539]
The doctor held very decided opinions on this subject. An alliance
with the King of France, what a disgrace! A war against the emperor,
what madness! 'The devil,' he said, 'desires to govern the nation by
making everybody draw the sword. With what eloquence he strives
to convince us that it is lawful and even necessary! Somebody is
injuring these people, he says; let us make haste to strike and save
them! Madman! God sleeps not, and is no fool; he knows very well
how to govern the world.[540] We have to contend with an enemy
against whom no human strength or wisdom can prevail. If we arm
ourselves with iron and steel, with swords and guns, he has only to
breathe upon them, and nothing remains but dust and ashes.... But
if we take upon us the armour of God, the helmet, the shield, and
the sword of the Spirit, then God, if necessary, will hurl the emperor
from his throne,[541] and will keep for us all he has given us—his
Gospel, his kingdom.' Luther and Melanchthon persevered in their
representations to the landgrave, in order to thwart Du Bellay's
plans. 'This war,' they said, 'will ruin the cause of the Gospel, and fix
on it an indelible stain. Pray do not disturb the peace.' At these
words the prince's face grew red; he did not like opposition, and
gave the two divines an angry answer.[542] 'They are people who do
not understand the affairs of this world,' he said; and, returning to
Hesse, he pursued his plans with vigour.
He had not long to wait for success. The King of France invited the
landgrave to cross into Lorraine to come to an understanding with
him: he added, 'without forgetting to bring Melanchthon.'[543] Then
Philip held back no longer: a conference with the mighty King of
France seemed to him of the utmost importance. He started on his
journey, reached Deux-Ponts on the 18th of January, 1534; and
shortly afterwards that daring prince, who, by quitting Augsburg in
1530, had thrown the diet into confusion, and alarmed the cabinet
of the emperor,—the most warlike chief of the evangelical party, the
most brilliant enemy of popery, Philip of Hesse, arrived at Bar-le-
Duc, where Francis received him with the smile which had not left
his lips since his meeting with Clement.[544]
=CONFERENCE OF PHILIP AND FRANCIS.=
The two princes first began to scrutinise each other. The landgrave
was thirty years old, and Francis forty. Philip was short, his eyes
large and bold, and his whole countenance indicated resolution of
character. Politics and religion immediately occupied their attention.
The king expressed himself strongly in favour of the ancient liberties
of the Germanic empire, which Austria threatened, and pronounced
distinctly for the restoration of the dukes of Wurtemberg. Coming
then to the grand question, he said, 'Pray explain to me the state of
religious affairs in Germany; I do not quite understand them.'[545]
The landgrave explained to the king, as well as he could, the causes
and true nature of the Reformation, and the struggles to which it
gave rise. Francis I. consented to hear from the mouth of a prince a
statement of those evangelical principles to which he closed his ears
when explained to him by Zwingle or by Calvin. It is true that Philip
presented them rather in a political light. Francis showed himself
favourable to the protestant princes. 'I refused my consent to a
council in Italy,' he said; 'I desire a neutral city, and instead of an
assembly in which the pope can do what he pleases, I demand a
free council.' 'These are the king's very words,' wrote the landgrave
to the elector.[546] Philip of Hesse was delighted. Assuredly, if
Germany, France, England, and other states should combine against
the emperor and the pope, all Europe would be transformed. 'That is
not all,' added the landgrave; 'the king told me certain things ...
which I am sure will please your highness.'[547]
The secret conference being ended: 'Now,' said Francis to the
landgrave, 'pray present Melanchthon to me.' He had begged the
German prince, as we have seen, to bring this celebrated doctor with
him; the King of France wished for something more than a
diplomatic conference, he desired a religious one. But the landgrave
had not forgotten the interview at Weimar; and far from inviting
Melanchthon, he had carefully concealed from the Elector of Saxony
the resolution he had formed, notwithstanding his representations,
to unite with the King of France in hostilities against Austria. Philip
having answered that Melanchthon was not with him: 'Impossible!'
exclaimed the king, and all the French nobles echoed the word.
'Impossible! you will not make us believe that Melanchthon is not
with you!'—'Everybody wished to convince us that we had Philip with
us,' said the landgrave.—'Show him to us,' they exclaimed, 'almost
using violence towards us.'[548]
 It was indeed a great disappointment. Melanchthon was the most
esteemed representative of the Reformation. Some of those who
accompanied the king had reckoned upon him for a detailed
explanation of the evangelical principles; there were some even who
desired to consult him on the best means of insuring their success in
France. In their eyes Melanchthon was as necessary as Philip. 'As he
is not here,' said they, 'you must send for him.'—'Really,' said the
landgrave, smiling, 'these Frenchmen desire so much to see
Melanchthon, that, if we could show him to them, they would give
us as much money as Tetzel and all the indulgence vendors ever
gained with their sanctimonious paper rubbish.'[549]
=THE TREATY SIGNED.=
They consoled themselves for this disappointment by holding a
new conference on the mode of delivering Wurtemberg. The king
said that he could not furnish troops, as that would be contrary to
the treaty of Cambray. 'I do not require soldiers,' answered the
landgrave, 'but I want a subsidy.' But to supply funds for a war
against Charles V. was equally opposed to the treaty. An expedient
was sought and soon found. Duke Ulrich shall sell Montbéliard to
France for 125,000 crowns; but it shall be stipulated, in a secret
article, that if the duke repays this sum within three years (as he
did) Francis will give back Montbéliard. It would appear that England
also had something to do with the subsidy.[550] The treaty was signed
on the 27th of January, 1534. It is worthy of notice that the French
historians, even those free from ultramontane prejudices, do not
speak of this conference.
Several other interviews took place. The landgrave was not the
best type of the true Reformation, but he had with him some good
evangelicals, who, in their pious zeal, could show the King of France,
as Luther would have done, the way of salvation. Solemn
opportunities are thus given men of leaving the low grounds in
which they live, and rising to the heights where they will see God.
Francis I. closed his eyes. That prince possessed certain excellent
gifts, but his religion 'was nothing but vanity and empty show.' At
Bar-le-Duc he took the mailed hand of the landgrave, but had no
desire for the hand of Jesus Christ.
The landgrave went back into Germany, and the King of France to
the interior of his states. Returning from the two interviews, he
congratulated himself on having embraced the pope at Marseilles
and the protestants at Bar-le-Duc. In proportion as the conference
with Clement had been public, that with Philip had been secret; but,
on the other hand, it had been more confidential and more real.
These two meetings, these two facts in appearance so different, had
been produced by the action of the same law. That law, which
Francis wore in his heart, was hatred and ruin to Charles V. Were not
the pope and the landgrave two of the princes of Europe who
detested the emperor most? It was therefore quite logical and in
harmony with the science of Machiavelli for the king to give one
hand to Clement and the other to Philip. Internal contradictions
could not fail to show themselves erelong. In fact, the Landgrave of
Hesse, supported by France, was about to attack Austria, and
establish protestantism in Wurtemberg in the place of popery....
What would Clement say? But before we follow the landgrave upon
this perilous enterprise, let us return into France with the king.
[522] Du Bellay, Mémoires, p. 206.
[523] Martin du Bellay gives Duke Christopher's letter.
Mémoires, pp. 207, 208.
[524] Du Bellay, Mémoires, p. 208.
[525] Du Bellay, Mémoires, p. 209.
[526] Ibid. p. 210.
[527] 'Regem Franciæ deposuisse certam pecuniæ summam
in bellum pro restitutione junioris ducis Wurtembergensis apud
Helvetios.'—State Papers, vii. p. 539.
[528] Du Bellay, Mémoires, p. 211.
[529] 'Coactus qui fuerit ex ea curia in qua tam indigne
tractabatur, sese subducere.'—Johannes rex Hungariæ, manu
propria, State Papers, vii. p. 538.
[530] Ranke, after Gabelkofer and Pfister, iii. p. 453.
[531] Du Bellay, Mémoires, pp. 213-219. He gives his
brother's speech at full length.
[532] 'Changer son oraison gratulatoire en oraison
comminatoire.'
[533] Du Bellay, Mémoires, pp. 220-232.
[534] Du Bellay, Mémoires, p. 232.
[535] 'Eum (Du Bellay) laborare inter certos Germaniæ
principes, ut fœdus novum inter se creent.'—Mont to
Henry VIII., State Papers, vii. p. 539.
[536] 'Ipsi vero militem per mare Balticum nobis mitterent, si
quis Majestatem Vestram invadere vellet.'—Ibid.
[537] 'Der Landgraf ist ein Kriegsmann, ein Arminius.'—
Lutheri Opp. xxii. p. 1842.
[538] 'Ego certe τὸν Μακεδόνα non possum non amare et
nolim cadere.'—Corp. Ref. ii. p. 727.
[539] 'Und brauchten dazu unsere beste Rhetorica.'—Lutheri
Opp. xxii. p. 1843.
[540] 'Gott schläfet nicht, ist auch kein Narr: Er weiss sehr
wohl wie man regieren soll.'—Ibid. x. p. 254.
[541] 'Den Kayser von seinem Stuhl stürzen.'—Ibid. xi. p. 434.
[542] 'Da ward S. F. G. gar roth und erzumte sich drüber.'
[543] 'Der König von Frankreich an uns beghert hat, das wir
zu Ihm kommen wolten.'—The Landgrave to the Elector,
Rommel's Urkundenbuch, p. 53.
[544] Sleidan, i. liv. ix. p. 358.
[545] 'Wie doch die Saclien und Zwiespalten der Religion
standen.'—The Landgrave to the Elector, Rommel's
Urkundenbuch, p. 53.
[546] 'Und sind das eben die Worte des Konigs.'—Ibid.
[547] 'Es haben sich zwischen dem Könige und uns Reden
zugetragen ... daran E. L. gut gefallen haben werden.'—Ibid.
[548] 'Der König und die grossen Herrn und jedermann
wolten uns mit Gewald uberreden, wir hätten Philippum bey
uns.'—The Landgrave to the Elector, Rommel's Urkundenbuch,
p. 53.
[549] Rommel's Urkundenbuch, p. 53.
[550] State Papers, vii. p. 568.
 CHAPTER XXXII.
TRIUMPH AND MARTYRDOM.

(Winter 1533-34.)

=THE GOSPEL IN THE PARIS CHURCHES.=

T HE consequences of the meeting at Marseilles were to be felt at

Paris. After Calvin's flight, the Queen of Navarre, as we have
seen, had succeeded in calming the storm; and yet the evangelical
cause had never been nearer a violent persecution. The prisons
were soon to be filled; the fires of martyrdom were soon to be
kindled. During the year 1533 Lutheran discourses had greatly
multiplied in the churches. 'Many notable persons,' says the
chronicler, 'were at that time preaching in the city of Paris.'[551] The
simplicity, wisdom, and animation of their language had moved all
who heard them. The churches were filled, not with formal auditors,
but with men who received the glad-tidings with great joy.
'Drunkards had become sober; libertines had become chaste; the
fruits which proceeded from the preaching of the Gospel had
astonished the enemies of light and truth.'
The doctors of the Sorbonne did not wait for the king's orders to
attack the evangelicals; his interview with the pope, and the news of
the bull brought from Rome, had filled the catholic camp with joy.
'What!' they exclaimed, 'the king is uniting with the pope at
Marseilles, and in Paris the churches are opened to heresy! ... let us
make haste and close them.'
In the meanwhile Du Bellay, the Bishop of Paris, who had made
such a fine Latin speech to Clement VII., and who went at heart
half-way with his brother, arrived in the capital. The leaders of the
Roman party immediately surrounded him, urged him, and
demanded the realisation of all the hopes which they had
entertained from the interview at Marseilles. The bishop was
embarrassed, for he knew that his brother and the king were just
then occupied with a very different matter. Yet it was the desire of
Francis that, for the moment, they should act in conformity with his
apparent and not with his real action. The bishop gave way. The
pious Roussel, the energetic Courault, the temporising Berthaud, and
others besides, were forbidden to preach, and one morning the
worshippers found the church doors shut.[552]
=PRIVATE MEETINGS.=
Great was their sorrow and agitation. Many went to Roussel and
Courault, and loudly expressed their regret and their wishes. The
ministers took courage, and 'turned their preaching into private
lectures.' Little meetings were formed in various houses in the city.
At first none but members of the family were present; but it seemed
that Christ, according to his promise, was in the midst of them, and
erelong friends and neighbours were admitted. The ministers set
forth the promises of Holy Scripture, and the worshippers exclaimed:
'We receive more blessings now than before.'
There were others besides Parisian faces which Courault, Roussel,
and their friends saw on the humble benches around their little
table: there were persons from many provinces of France, and even
from the neighbouring countries. Among them was Master Pointet, a
native of Menton, near Annecy, in Savoy, 'who practised the art of
surgery in the city of Paris.' He had been brought to a knowledge of
the Gospel in a singular way. 'Monks and priests,' says the chronicler,
'used to come to him to be cured of the diseases peculiar to those
who substitute an impure celibacy for the holy institution of
marriage.'[553] Pointet, observing that godliness was not to be found
among the priests, sought for it in the Scriptures; and, having
discovered it there, began to remonstrate seriously with those
unhappy men. 'These punishments,' he told them, 'proceed from
your accursed celibacy: they are your wages, and you would do
much better to take a wife.' Pointet, while reading these severe
lessons, loved to go and learn in the lowly assemblies held by the
Welcome to Our Bookstore - The Ultimate Destination for Book Lovers
Are you passionate about books and eager to explore new worlds of
knowledge? At our website, we offer a vast collection of books that
cater to every interest and age group. From classic literature to
specialized publications, self-help books, and children’s stories, we
have it all! Each book is a gateway to new adventures, helping you
expand your knowledge and nourish your soul
Experience Convenient and Enjoyable Book Shopping Our website is more
than just an online bookstore—it’s a bridge connecting readers to the
timeless values of culture and wisdom. With a sleek and user-friendly
interface and a smart search system, you can find your favorite books
quickly and easily. Enjoy special promotions, fast home delivery, and
a seamless shopping experience that saves you time and enhances your
love for reading.
Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and
personal growth!

ebookgate.com