Imperial Envoys at the English and British Court (1660–1740): Reception Ceremonies and Disputes over Titles

Abstract

In this article the author first analyses the development of the first audiences attended by Imperial envoys at the court of St James’s between 1660 and 1750. It focuses on the types of these audiences, their venues, and in particular on the ceremonial rules and the role of the Master of the Ceremonies. A key focus is on the crucial changes that were introduced by James II in the 1680s when the English king declined to acknowledge the privileged position of the Holy Roman Emperor in the royal hierarchy of Europe and attempted to unify ceremonial rules for the reception of all envoys. Second, this article outlines the periods of long-lasting conflict between English kings and Habsburg emperors regarding the appropriate title that should be given to the English king by the emperor and his Imperial Court Chancellery (Reichskanzlei); the former was given the ‘Serenitas’ title by Vienna but desired instead to be addressed as ‘Majestas’. To analyse both of these phenomena, this article employs a sample of approximately twenty diplomats in service of the Austrian Habsburgs who reached the shores of England during this period, based on the written instructions given to, and subsequent reports written by, these diplomats, as well as reports in the English daily press. Only two of the diplomats sent as ‘envoys’ later gained the higher rank of ‘ambassador’ during their stay in Great Britain, suggesting the Habsburg emperors held their ground in these ceremonial debates. However, this article demonstrates that although successive British and Austrian rulers did find ways to navigate the rules in order to communicate diplomatically, nevertheless, the previously unchallenged Imperial primacy amongst Christian sovereigns was gradually lost.

Notes

1 Moravský zemský archiv Brno [Moravian Land Archive Brno], Kaunitz Family Archive, inv. no. 2454, cart. 273, instruction, Vienna, 11 October 1686.

2 See William J. Roosen, The Age of Louis XIV: The Rise of Modern Diplomacy (Cambridge, MA, 1976), pp. 117-19; Klaus Müller, Das kaiserliche Gesandtschaftswesen im Jahrhundert nach dem Westfälischen Frieden (1648–1740) (Bonn, 1976), pp. 129-37; André Krischer, ‘Souveränität als sozialer Status: Zur Funktion des diplomatischen Zeremoniells in der Frühen Neuzeit’, in Ralph Kauz, Giorgio Rota and Jan Paul Niederkorn (eds), Diplomatisches Zeremoniell in Europa und im mittleren Osten in der frühen Neuzeit (Vienna, 2009), pp. 1-32; Barbara Stollberg-Rillinger, ‘Honores regii. Die Königswürde im zeremoniellen Zeichensystem der Frühen Neuzeit’, in Johannes Kunisch (ed.), Dreihundert Jahre Preußische Königskrönung. Eine Tagungsdokumentation (Berlin, 2002), pp. 1-26. Regarding contemporary authors, the key role of the ceremony is described by Johann Christian Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale Historico-politicum I–II (Leipzig, 1719–20); Gottfried Stieve, Europäisches Hof-Ceremoniel (Leipzig, 1723).

3 One of the few exceptions is presented by Carl Brinkmann, ‘The Relations between England and Germany, 1660–1688’, The English Historical Review 24 (1909), no. 94, pp. 247-77 and no. 95, pp. 448-69.

4 For example, Anna Keay, The Magnificent Monarch: Charles II and the Ceremonies of Power (London and New York, 2008), pp. 92-119.

5 Onno Klopp, Der Fall des Hauses Stuart II–III (Vienna, 1875–76); Alfred Francis Pribram (ed.), Österreichische Staatsverträge, England. Erster Band 1526–1748 (Innsbruck, 1907).

6 Elke Jarnut-Derbolav, Die österreichische Gesandtschaft in London (1701–1711). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Haager Allianz (Bonn, 1972); Christoph Kampmann, ‘Ein großes Bündnis der katholischen Dynastien 1688? Neue Perspektiven auf die Entstehung des Neunjährigen Krieges und der Glorious Revolution’, Historische Zeitschrift 294 (2012), pp. 31-58; Idem, ‘The English Crisis, Emperor Leopold, and the Origins of the Dutch Intervention in 1688’, Historical Journal 55 (2012), no. 2, pp. 521-32. See Charlotte Backerra, Wien und London, 1727–1735. Internationalen Beziehungen im frühen 18. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 2018), pp. 255–67.

7 The reports are in the Österreichisches Staatsarchiv [hereafter ÖStA] Wien, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv [hereafter HHStA], Staatenabteilungen [hereafter StA], England. The sections concerning the ceremony are sometimes available in the copies in ÖStA Wien, HHStA, Reichskanzlei, Zeremonialakten, cart. 7, fasc. 8.

8 Mainly the newspaper The London Gazette, published continuously since 1665. All issues are available digitally from https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices [last accessed 11/17/2020].

9 Pribram (ed.), Österreichische Staatsverträge, pp. 130-40.

10 Ludwig Bittner and Lothar Groß (eds), Repertorium der diplomatischen Vertreter aller Länder seit dem Westfälischen Frieden (1648–1715) (Oldenburg and Berlin, 1936), p. 139.

11 See Brinkmann, The Relations between England and Germany, pp. 247-77, 448-69.

12 For more details see Jarnut-Derbolav, Die österreichische Gesandtschaft.

13 Esp. Pribram (ed.), Österreichische Staatsverträge; Jiří Kubeš et al., V zastoupení císaře. Česká a moravská aristokracie v habsburské diplomacii 1640–1740 [On behalf of the Emperor. Bohemian and Moravian Aristocracy in Habsburg Diplomacy 1640–1740] (Prague, 2018), Chapter II. 3, pp. 246-69.

14 Stieve, Europäisches Hof-Ceremoniel, p. 272.

15 Esp. Bittner and Groß (eds), Repertorium, pp. 216-18 (France), pp. 355-57 (the Netherlands), pp. 489-90 (Sweden) and pp. 517-18 (Spain); Phyllis S. Lachs, The Diplomatic Corps under Charles II and James II (New Brunswick, 1965), pp. 97-8 and elsewhere; Susan Tipton, ‘Diplomatie und Zeremoniell in Botschafterbildern von Carlevarijs und Canaletto’, Riha Journal 8 (2010), URL: http://www.riha-journal.org/articles/2010/tipton-diplomatie-und-zeremoniell.

16 Kubeš et al., V zastoupení císaře, pp. 256-59.

17 Friedrich Hausmann (ed.), Repertorium der diplomatischen Vertreter aller Länder seit dem Westfälischen Frieden (1648), II: 1716–1763 (Zürich, 1950), p. 65; Backerra, Wien und London, pp. 182-83, 227. But Starhemberg received two sets of credentials in 1722. One of them addressed him as ambassador, the other one as minister plenipotentiary. He used the second set at the audience, ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 62, report from 5 September 1722.

18 The general rules about the reception of ambassadors and envoys in Great Britain were briefly summarised by Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale, vol. I, pp. 475-77; Jean Rousset de Missy, Le cérémonial diplomatique des cours de l'Europe […] (Amsterdam and The Hague, 1739), vol. II, esp. pp. 495-97. Regrettably, they do not specify the date to which the information is related and whether the rules in England changed in any respect.

19 Müller, Das kaiserliche Gesandtschaftswesen, pp. 138-40.

20 If not stated otherwise this table was drawn up based on the information from the sources cited in note 7. The majority of the diplomats were counts (fifteen out of sixteen); only Ignaz Johann von Wasner had a baronial title.

21 Königsegg’s audiences are described by Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale, vol. I, pp. 623-24. No reports by Königsegg survived in ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England.

22 Waldstein’s audience was described by Jiří Hrbek, Barokní Valdštejnové v Čechách, 1640–1740 (Prague, 2013), pp. 535-38.

23 In Wasner’s case, the time lag between his arrival in the country and the granting of the first audience was caused by the fact that George II stayed in Hanover in the second half of 1736. Wasner came to England from Portugal and then waited for the King’s arrival for a long time. See his letters to Court Chancellor (Hofkanzler) Sinzendorf and his reports to the Emperor at ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 71 and 72.

24 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 25, a report dated 22 May 1694 from The Hague. Auersperg arrived there on 10 April and expected the imminent arrival of the King from England. But William III did not reach the Continent until mid-May and Auersperg received a private audience on 21 May 1694. Auersperg and the King travelled to London as late as November 1694. ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 25, a report from 23 November 1694.

25 Ostein had already received a private audience in Herrenhausen and wrote that everything took place ‘without any ceremonies’. ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 77, a report from 14 August 1740.

26 For these edifices in detail see Simon Thurley, Whitehall Palace: An Architectural History of the Royal Apartments, 1240–1698 (Yale, 1999); Idem, Hampton Court Palace (London, 1996); Edward Impey, Kensington Palace: The Official Illustrated History (London, 2003). The audience venues were regularly published in The London Gazette. The envoys usually did not specify the venues of their audiences. Other sources revealed that Charles II received ambassadors in the sumptuous Banqueting House in Whitehall while envoys were granted public audiences in the audience hall of the State Apartment. Private audiences took place in his Bedchamber: Keay, The Magnificent Monarch, pp. 108-9.

27 See Albert J. Loomie, ‘The Conducteur des Ambassadeurs of Seventeenth Century France and Spain’, Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 53 (1975), pp. 333-56; Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale, vol. II, pp. 1317-22.

28 Charles Cotterell (1641–1686) was followed by Charles Lodowick (1686–1710) and then by his son Clement Cotterell (1710–1758) and other family members who held the position until 1818: Timothy Venning, Compendium of British Office Holders (Basingstoke, 2005), p. 482. For the duties see John M. Beattie, The English Court in the Reign of George I (Cambridge, 1967), p. 48. More also in the National Archives, LC 5/2, diaries of royal Masters of the Ceremonies from 1660–1710.

29 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 22, Martinitz’s report from 22 June 1685.

30 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, Reichskanzlei, Zeremonialakten, cart. 7, fasc. 8, a copy of the report by Johann Karl von Kuefstein of 9 July 1709. It was customary at the English court to send a copy of the credentials to the Master of the Ceremonies whom Kuefstein called in French maître des cérémonies; the Master then passed it on to the Secretary of State to check it. For the key role of credentials in diplomacy see Stieve, Europäisches Hof-Ceremoniel, pp. 235-42.

31 Count Jörger wrote about it in his report in 1702, ÖStA Wien, HHStA, Reichskanzlei, Zeremonialakten, cart. 7, fasc. 8. Imperial envoys fell within the authority of the Secretary of State for the Northern Department. See URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/office-holders/vol2/pp22-58#h3-0002 (accessed 17 November 2020).

32 This fact is documented by ceremonial practice (Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale, vol. I, p. 477) as well as the experience of imperial envoys (ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 20, Thun’s report from 4 November 1680). All the sources from the second half of the seventeenth century record that the Master of the Ceremonies picked up the envoys at their house. In the case of the audience of Philipp Joseph Kinsky in 1728, Charlotte Backerra asserts that the royal carriage waited for the Count two miles away from Hampton Court and that Cotterell did not pick him up but instead welcomed him at the palace. See Backerra, Wien und London, p. 263.

33 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 60, a report from 31 May 1720.

34 William III arrived in The Hague as late as 17 May 1694. The Imperial envoy who awaited him there received at the King’s request just a private audience that substituted the public reception. The King let the envoy decide whether he also wanted an official audience after the King’s return to London in the autumn of 1694, but it did not materialise. See ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 25, Auersperg’s report from 18 May 1694.

35 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 52, a report from 26 November 1715. A retirade was a special cabinet in the apartment where its master could hold his private meetings. This word was used in Central Europe and the Mediterranean. See Johann Heinrich Zedler, Grosses vollständiges Universal Lexicon, Bd. 31 (Leipzig and Halle, 1742), col. 846. In England it was known as a Withdrawing Room.

36 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 60, a report from 31 May 1720. See The London Gazette, no. 5852, 17 May 1720, p. 4.

37 Strattmann had the first audience with the King in the Southern Netherlands, yet the royal couple granted him a public reception after their arrival in London. ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 24, a report from 13 November 1691.

38 Count Gallas had his first (private) audience in London as early as 23 February 1705, at 5pm, but the public one took place as late as September at Windsor Castle. It was caused by the death of Emperor Leopold I and the difficulties with the new accreditation of Count Gallas as the envoy of both Joseph I and Charles III, king of Spain. ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 39, reports from 24 February and 8 September 1705.

39 On 11 January 1701, Wratislaw had just a particular audienz, not a public audience. It was at his request because, as he informed Vienna, ‘meine equipage zu der öffentlichen audienz noch so baldt nicht könte fertig werden’. But he also wanted to inform the King about the news without delay; therefore, he requested the audience with the King at the earliest possible time. ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 33, a relation from 11 January 1701. It has not been ascertained yet whether he also had a public audience. He did not have an audience with the queen because she had been dead for several years.

40 In addition to Volckra and Starhemberg, the following envoys were granted just the first private audiences: Baron Ignaz Johann Wasner in March 1737, Count Heinrich Karl von Ostein in Herrenhausen in August 1740 and in London in December 1740, The London Gazette, no. 7595, 19 March 1736 (English dating, should be 1737); The London Gazette, no. 7934, 5 August 1740 (an incorrect date for the audience, 10 August, is recorded; it did not take place until 11 August 1740); The London Gazette, no. 7974, 23 December 1740.

41 The London Gazette, no. 7170, 17 February 1732: ‘St. James's, February 15. This Day Count Kinski, Ambassadour from the Emperour, had his first Private Audience of his Majesty in that Character; being introduced by the Right Honourable the Lord Harrington one of his Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, and conducted by Sir Clement Cottrell, Kt. Master of the Ceremonies.’ The audience with the Queen took place the next day.

42 This shift arises from the chancellery’s instruction issued on 5 July 1740 and received by Heinrich Karl von Ostein, which said that the place of the meeting with the King would be of great consequence, whether in England or in the Holy Roman Empire. In any case, the decision whether to ask for a private or a public audience was left to him and his evaluation of the situation, ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 75.

43 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 22, Martinitz’s report from 22 June 1685; cart. 23, Kaunitz’s report from 31 January 1687. Count Kinsky’s reception in 1728 was quite unique in this aspect because the Master of Ceremonies greeted Kinsky, but the Keeper of the Privy Purse (Augustus Schutz) accompanied him to the King to translate the proceedings for Kinsky (the audience was held in English). See Backerra, Wien und London, p. 263.

44 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 22, Martinitz’s report from 22 June 1685.

45 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 24, Königsegg’s report from 28 February 1690.

46 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 20, Thun’s report from 4 November 1680.

47 As described by Count Jörger in 1702 who arrived to congratulate Queen Anne on her accession to the throne and express his condolences for the death of William III. An extract from his report in ÖStA Wien, HHStA, Reichskanzlei, Zeremonialakten, cart. 7, fasc. 8.

48 Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale, vol. I, p. 476, writes about bows using the example of ambassadors (but envoys behaved the same way).

49 In addition to the above-mentioned authors of that time, the reception of ambassadors is further described by Stieve, Europäisches Hof-Ceremoniel, p. 284; Müller, Das kaiserliche Gesandtschaftswesen, pp. 130-31.

50 It is believed that no later than 1685 Louis XIV left one wing of the Audience Chamber’s door closed during the reception of Imperial envoys. Similarly, French kings adapted other gestures that had been applied to the audiences of their diplomats in Vienna. Müller, Das kaiserliche Gesandtschaftswesen, pp. 133-34.

51 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 20, Thun’s report from 4 November 1680; the description of the audience of Leopold Wilhelm von Königsegg in the spring of 1664 as described in Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale, vol. I, p. 623.

52 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 22, Martinitz’s report from 22 June 1685; cart. 23, Kaunitz’s report from 31 January 1687.

53 Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale, vol. I, p. 477.

54 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, Reichskanzlei, Zeremonialakten, cart. 7, fasc. 8, an extract from the report of Count Jörger of 1702.

55 In most cases they were not letters written in the Emperor’s hand but so-called chancellery letters (Kantzley-Schreiben) that the Emperor signed only. I conclude this from their copies. Those dating from the 1680s are deposited in The National Archives, Secretaries of State, State Papers Foreign, Entry Books, SP 104/58 and SP 104/59. As a rule, they start with the titles of Leopold I encompassing several lines and only at the end is his handwritten signature Serenitatis Vestrae bonus frater Leopoldus. See also Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale, vol. II, p. 57.

56 Johann Karl von Kuefstein only pretended to hand over his credentials because of the presence of other foreign diplomats since the Queen refused to receive him due to the dispute over the title. ÖStA Wien, HHStA, Reichskanzlei, Zeremonialakten, cart. 7, fasc. 8, a copy of Kuefstein’s report from 9 July 1709; see more details below.

57 It is for example evidenced by Kaunitz’s speech in 1687. ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 23, Kaunitz’s report from 31 January 1687. The French speech given by Count Gallas from 1705 has also survived. ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 39, appendix A of the report from 8 September 1705.

58 Müller, Das kaiserliche Gesandtschaftswesen, pp. 131-32.

59 Lünig, Theatrum Ceremoniale, vol. I, p. 623 (Königsegg); ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 20, Thun’s report from 4 November 1680.

60 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 22, Martinitz’s report from 22 June 1685 (he used Italian but the King answered in French).

61 Backerra, Wien und London, p. 64. The audience is also described in The Historical Register Containing an Impartial Relation of all Transactions, Foreign and Domestic (1728), vol. XIII, pp. 48-9.

62 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 75, a chancellery instruction from 5 July 1740.

63 E.g. Keay, The Magnificent Monarch, p. 108 or Ruth Frötschel, ‘Mit Handkuss: Die Hand als Gegenstand des Zeremoniells am Wiener Hof im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert’, in Irmgard Pangerl, Martin Scheutz and Thomas Winkelbauer (eds), Der Wiener Hof im Spiegel der Zeremonialprotokolle (1652–1800): Eine Annäherung (Innsbruck, 2007), pp. 337-56.

64 Count Volckra chose the same strategy in 1715. ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 52, a report from 12 November 1715.

65 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 33, a report from 11 January 1701. Count Volckra was also received in the Withdrawing Room in 1715: cart. 52, a report from 26 November 1715.

66 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 23, Kaunitz’s report from 3 February 1687; cart. 24, Königsegg’s report from 28 February 1690.

67 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 20, a report from 18 November 1680.

68 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 25, Auersperg’s report from 26 November 1694.

69 The dispute has previously briefly been examined by David Bayne Horn, The British Diplomatic Service 1689–1789 (Oxford, 1961), pp. 22, 208; further information based on research of Viennese sources was presented by Jarnut-Derbolav, Die österreichische Gesandtschaft, pp. 245-47. It must be explained that Serene Highness was already being used at the time by princes of lower rank, at least at the French court, like the prince of Monaco or the cadet princes of the House of Lorraine.

70 The dispute over the title of majestas in the 1650s and 1660s is described in Iskra Schwarcz, ‘Die kaiserlichen Gesandten und das diplomatische Zeremoniell am Moskauer Hof in der zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts’, in Ralph Kauz, Giorgio Rota and Jan Paul Niederkorn (eds), Diplomatisches Zeremoniell in Europa und im mittleren Osten in der frühen Neuzeit (Vienna, 2009), pp. 276-77; and Monika Konrádová and Rostislav Smíšek, ‘The Illusion of Power or Relentless Reality? Ceremonial and Ritual Practices at the Court of Moscow in the Middle of the 17th Century through the Eyes of the Imperial Diplomats’, Theatrum historiae 19 (2016), pp. 62-66. There was later also a conflict over the title of emperor. See Christian Steppan, Akteure am fremden Hof: politische Kommunikation und Repräsentation kaiserlicher Gesandter im Jahrzehnt des Wandels am russischen Hof (1720–1730) (Göttingen, 2016), pp. 200-312.

71 The National Archives, Secretaries of State, State Papers Foreign, Entry Books, SP 104/59 (1685–88), fol. 64r-65v, an instruction for earl of Carlingford, Whitehall, 16 January 1688 SV. Published by David Worthington (ed.), ‘The 1688 Correspondence of Nicholas Taaffe, Second Earl of Carlingford (d. 1690) from the Imperial Court in Vienna’, Archivium Hibernicum. Irish Historical Records 58 (2004), pp. 174-209, here pp. 182-83.

72 The situation was complicated: the Emperor at that time granted the title of majestas to the king of Spain and the king of France, but not to the others. The Emperor first titled the king of Spain as Majesty, then the king of France won the title at the Peace of Westphalia. The Russian tsars and the English kings were others who claimed this honorific from the Emperor, originally intended for the Emperor alone. It was not until the first half of the eighteenth century that the title Majesty came into mass use among European kings. See Regina Dauser, Ehren-Namen. Herrschertitulaturen im völkerrechtlichen Vertrag 1648–1748 (Cologne, 2017), pp. 113-14.

73 Dauser, Ehren-Namen, pp. 206-17.

74 Jarnut-Derbolav, Die österreichische Gesandtschaft, pp. 245-46. See also Gallas and Hoffmann’s reports from May–September 1705 (esp. from 8 Sept 1705) in ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 39.

75 For Gallas and his stay in England, see most recently Martin Krummholz, ‘Gallasové. Barokní kavalíři a mecenáši (1630–1757)’, Ph.D. thesis (Charles University Prague, 2013), esp. pp. 78-87.

76 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, Reichskanzlei, Zeremonialakten, cart. 7, fasc. 8, a copy of Kuefstein’s report from 9 July 1709.

77 From the perspective of Imperial envoys, the situation in England deteriorated during 1709–11. As early as 1709, the Tories started to influence the Queen and the pro-imperial Whigs were no longer welcomed at court. For more see Krummholz, ‘Gallasové’, p. 84, and for the international political situation in that year see Jarnut-Derbolav, Die österreichische Gesandtschaft, esp. pp. 365-97.

78 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, Reichskanzlei, Zeremonialakten, cart. 7, fasc. 8, a copy of Kuefstein’s report from 9 July 1709. The Queen also provided her views via Charles Spencer, earl of Sunderland and the Secretary of State for the Southern Department as follows: ‘as soon as you prove that Your Imperial Majesty treat the kings in Spain and France only with the serenity title we will leave the claim to the majesty title.’

79 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, Reichskanzlei, Zeremonialakten, cart. 7, fasc. 8, a copy of Kuefstein’s report from 9 July 1709.

80 See Krischer, Souveränität, pp. 8-10; Michael Rohrschneider, ‘Das französische Präzedenzstreben im Zeitalter Ludwigs XIV.: Diplomatische Praxis — zeitgenössische Publizistik — Rezeption in der frühen deutschen Zeremonialwissenschaft’, Francia 36 (2009), pp. 135-79; for the Bohemian situation, see Kubeš et al., V zastoupení císaře, Chapters I. 1 and I. 2. On the difficulties that the Bohemian electoral-envoys (Czech nobles appointed to represent the Bohemian king in his character of an elector) faced during the election of Charles VI as the new Holy Roman Emperor in 1711 see Jiří Kubeš, ‘Volba a korunovace Karla VI. římským císařem v roce 1711’ [The Election and Coronation of Charles VI as Roman Emperor in 1711], Český časopis historický 111 (2013), pp. 805-41, here pp. 816-7.

81 See Jarnut-Derbolav, Die österreichische Gesandtschaft, p. 247; ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 57, Volckra’s report from 26 November 1715.

82 James Waldegrave (1684–1741) worked in Vienna during 1728–30; then he assumed the position of ambassador to France. See Hausmann (ed.), Repertorium, pp. 146, 150.

83 Compare the wording of the instruction of George I from June 1727: ‘But as the Impl. Chancery in answer to the former [Latin] makes use of the Stile of Serenitas, and in answer to the latter [French] gives us the Title of Majesty, we would insensibly avoid receiving any Latin Letters from the Court of Vienna, & rather keep to the Correspondence as settled for some time past by Letters of Cachet, wherein the Title of Majesty is mutually given; […].’ Quoted from Backerra, Wien und London, p. 266.

84 Backerra, Wien und London, p. 267.

85 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, Reichskanzlei, Zeremonialakten, cart. 7, fasc. 8. The letter has no date but it must have been written in the spring or summer of 1749. The writer primarily refers to the birth of the daughter of the princess of Wales (it must have been Princess Louise, born 19 March 1749) and there is a later remark that the letter was never sent but that the information was included in the instruction issued for the Imperial envoy Count Heinrich Hyacinth von Nay-Richecourt, who resided in Britain from September 1749 to May 1752 (Hausmann (ed.), Repertorium, p. 66). The imperial Vice-Chancellor (Reichsvizekanzler) Rudolf Josef Colloredo most likely wrote the letter.

86 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, Reichskanzlei, Zeremonialakten, cart. 7, fasc. 8, a letter with no date to the legation secretary Anton von Zöhrern [1749]. Thomas Robinson (c. 1695–1770) was the envoy to Vienna during 1730–1748. See Hausmann (ed.), Repertorium, pp. 146-47, 157.

87 Robert Keith († 1774) was the envoy to Vienna in the years 1748–57; later he represented the King in Russia. Hausmann (ed.), Repertorium, p. 147. He had a public audience with Maria Theresa on 8 September 1748. See Rudolf Khevenhüller-Metsch and Hanns Schlitter (eds), Aus der Zeit Maria Theresias. Tagebuch des Fürsten Johann Joseph Khevenhüller-Metsch, kaiserlichen Oberhofmeisters, Bd. 2: 1745–1749 (Leipzig and Wien, 1908), p. 260.

88 Schwarcz, Die Kaiserlichen Gesandten, pp. 275-6.

89 See note 86.

90 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, Reichskanzlei, Zeremonialakten, cart. 7, fasc. 8, a letter with no date to the legation secretary Anton von Zöhrern [1749].

91 Count Starhemberg writes in one relation that the King ‘hates festive entries and public audiences immensely’. ÖStA Wien, HHStA, Reichskanzlei, Zeremonialakten, cart. 62, a report from 5 September 1722.

92 Abel Boyer, The History of the Reign of Queen Anne, Digested into Annals. Year the Tenth (London, 1712), pp. 252-53. For the context of his dismissal see Jarnut-Derbolav, Die österreichische Gesandtschaft, pp. 508-15.

93 ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 78, a letter of the envoy Heinrich Karl von Ostein from 20 January 1741.

94 There is also evidence that other crowned heads of England refused to accept documents with inappropriate titles. For example, Dominik Andreas von Kaunitz was refused an audience by the Dowager Queen Catherine of Braganza in 1687. ÖStA Wien, HHStA, StA, England, cart. 23, Kaunitz’s letter from 21 February 1687. The Count writes that during the audience he gave the credentials from the Empress to the Dowager Queen but the Master of the Ceremonies returned it to him unopened because it was equipped with the wrong title principissae Bregantinae instead of the correct one infantis Portugalliae. Kaunitz asked Vienna to correct it and send it back to him soon.

95 Starhemberg and Kinsky were not awarded ambassadorial rank for several different reasons. One of them was reciprocity; the British king did not send ambassadors to Vienna either. Kinsky was also at first not appointed with the rank of ambassador because of internal differences over personnel in Vienna (i.e. the post was first promised to a member of the Sinzendorff family; raising the younger Kinsky to ambassador would have caused too many problems). See Backerra, Wien und London, p. 127. In Starhemberg’s case the Emperor was pushed into it by the behaviour of the French ambassador to London and Hanover who requested precedence before the Imperial diplomats. The Emperor’s advisors originally advised him not to appoint Starhemberg as ambassador, but later changed their opinion. More in Kubeš et al., V zastoupení císaře, pp. 258-9.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jiří Kubeš

Jiří Kubeš

Jiří Kubeš is a historian at the Institute of History at the University of Pardubice. He received his PhD at the University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice in 2006. Jiří is a specialist of the history of the early modern Austrian Habsburg monarchy, as well as the history of the nobility and their lifestyle. His published books focus on the grand tours taken by the Czech and Austrian nobility (2013), and on elections and coronations in the Holy Roman Empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (2009). His recent research examines the history of Imperial diplomacy, for which topic he has edited a special issue of the journal Theatrum historiae (2016), and published a book (2018) with his project team on the Czech and Moravian aristocracy in the diplomatic service of the Austrian Habsburgs, 1640–1740.