Former monarchies historic discussion: France, Germany, Russia etc..

[drezzle]

Well onto an examination of the next idea on the Mayerling Mystery.   Back in 1915, a book was written by a member of the secret service and privy counselor to the German Kaiser called The Secrets of the Hohenzollerns by a Dr. Armgaard Karl Graves.  Several years before he also wrote The Secrets of the German War Office.          
http://tinyurl.com/2wmukme

Needless to say this fellow had become a rogue agent and was hounded for years by the authorities in the US, Germany and other countries and finally ended up in prison.  He did know an amazing amount of detail to have made it all up, and he was taken seriously enough to prosecute to the fullest extent.  

His book, The Secrets of the Hohenzollerns is the earliest published report of which I am aware of the champagne bottle in the brain story for the cause of Rudolf's death.  Parts of it were later corroborated by several different books approaching the mystery from a different point of view, including the books by Marie Larisch, the private secretary of Rudolf, the forgotten son R, and by Ferdinand IV of Tuscany, perhaps the closest thing to a real friend accepted by Emperor Franz Joseph.

So here is the 1915 explanation for the death starting on pg 218:

 

"Erherzog Rudolph, the archduke, next in succession, was mysteriously killed at Mayerling, an obscure little hunting lodge in upper Austria. Much has been written and many conjectures made about the cirumstance of this lamentable tragedy. The real reason, so vast in its importance, has of necessity never been divulged.

   "On a blustery and cold January night in 1889 His Royal Highness and the Baroness Marie Vetzera (Vetchera) were familiarly seated around a plain but daintily spread supper table in the hunting lodge of Mayerling. They were attended by Max and Otto K----, two brothers much trusted in the archducal household. Supper was nearly finished and the Prince, who was very fond of a certain brand of champagne, had just given the order to Otto for another couple of bottles, when the deep baying of the Prince's favorite deerhound gave notice of the approach of strangers. A dull thud and agonized yelp of the dog made the Prince jump up and stride toward the door, which was guarded by Max. Pushing the servant aside, His Royal Highness pulled the door open. Three men muffled up to their eyes in great coats forced their way into the room. In a trice the leader of the trio pinioned Max to the wall. The Archduke, who had jumped back startled and was reseating himself behind the supper table, demanded the reason for this intrusion, when the smallest of the three, supposedly the brother of the Baroness Vetzer, laid hold of a bottle of champagne and brought the weapon down with terrific force on his unprotected head, completely crushing the skull. The Baroness, who apparently had recognized one of the three intruders, was hysterically screaming and uttering dire threats and vengeance against the perpetrators of this foul deed. As she stood there, gripping the edges of the table, the third, standing at the door, raised his Stutzen (a short hunting gun in great favor in the Austrian Alps), and fired point blank at the unfortunate woman, almost blowing her head to pieces.

   "The commotion brought Otto from the wine cellar, and, taking in the situation at a glance, he threw himself fiercely upon the intruders, ably assisted by his brother Max, who also began attacking his captor. They managed to dispose of one of the assailants when again the gun rang out, sending Max to the floor with his chest almost torn to ribbons. The next moment Otto received a Hirsch-fanger (a hunting dagger) between his shoulders. Dragging their wounded conspirator with them, the two assassins disappeared into the night. From that day to this there have never been any arrests made or any one held to account for this dastardly deed.

   "Otto, who was left for dead, on regaining sufficient strength decently covered the bodies with table cloths and napkins, and left a short pencil written account of the occurrences pinned on to his brother's clothes. He also disappeared in the night; for he well knew the consequences attached to an even entirely innocent witnessing of such a royal family tragedy. Old, gray and bent, Otto is living to this day the quiet life of a hermit and exile not five hundred miles from New York City. Money would never make Otto talk, but some day the upheaval in Europe may provide an occasion when this old retainer of the House of Habsburg may unseal his lips; and then woe to the guilty.

   "The above account of the tragedy of Mayerling, notwithstanding the 'proof' of the Crown Prince's supposed suicide contained in the letters alleged to have been written by him to his confidant and friend Ambassador Szoegyenyi and to the 'Duke of Braganza,' is the correct one, and will be proved when the venerable head of the House of Habsburg shall have passed away. The Author."

Armgaard Karl Graves also suggested that Prussia might be responsible for the deaths by the following:

"...Prussian diplomacy had gained such an ascendancy over the House of Habsburg and the affairs of Austria, that Austria has been and is a staunch ally and supported by Germany in all its aims and ambitions. This alliance is developed to such an extent that even an heir apparent to the Austrian empire unless acceptable to and identified with Prusso-Germanic interests finds it impossible to ascend the throne............."    "Rudolph of Habsburg had to the full the proud instinctive dislike to, and rooted disinclination against, the ever increasing Germanic influence in and over his country. He died."

[drezzle]

Here's an excerpt from "Francis Joseph And His Court: From The Memoirs Of Count Roger De Resseguier"  (1917) that also supports the champagne bottle in the brain story.  Count Roger De Resseguier was the son of FJ Court Chamberlain.  This book was written a couple years after the one by the rogue German agent mentioned above, but the details differ considerably.

"..................it was now that her brother or cousin, Baron Baldazzi, appeared on the scene and was betrothed to the wayward girl.  But he was not the man one might have thought.  He soon proved to be rather the guardian to the family's honour than the convenient bridegroom.  He installed the reign of terror...................................

Night was closing in.  The usual orgy took place at Meyerling that evening to the accompaniment of much champagne while snow reigned over the whole world without.......................from a solitary pine tree which stood like a sentinel at the side of the road, death came to them.

For at a very late hour, Baron Baldazzi, stood beside it.  There is a ditch between the road and the castle so that the trunk of the pine tree is on a level with the first floor.  Baldazzi looked through the window and beheld a revolting scene in the flickering light.  In the background, on a bed in the alcove, the Archduke Rudolph and Mary Vecsara slept in each other's arms.  On a divan, on the floor, even under the table, lay Philip of Coburg, Count Hoyos and the 2 Apanjagers, all dead drunk.  Empty bottles of champagne were scattered about all over the place.  The candles were expiring in their sockets.

Then Baldazzi fired without the least hurry or excitement.  He fired at his betrothed and at the heir to the Austrian throne.  He was a crack shot and he struck both through the heart. 

Then he was seized with mad fury.  He threw away his gun which was later found by servants of the Abbey, swung himself up to the low window whose panes had been broken, entered the room, seized an empty bottle and battered the heads of the two dead lovers.  Bits of glass were later found right inside their brains.

Very early the same morning, Count Hoyos and Philip of Coburg, hurried off to Vienna to announce the death of the Archduke................naturally the police stopped its feverish secret inquiries as soon as they found it was leading where they didn't want to go..................."

The where had to do with how Franz Joseph had an affair with both Mary Vetsera's mother and sister:  The Baldazzi sisters from Greece, and he treated them so badly, that one killed herself in the Danube, and the other gave birth to Mary, FJ's child, and was quickly married off to some newly created baron.  It was this tangled past that fed the rage of the Baron Baldazzi as avenger. 

[drezzle]

Beautiful little youtube about:

The Crown Prince - Who Wants To Live Forever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p4-jnUCaMA&feature=related

[drezzle]

One of the earliest books about Mayerling I've read in part thusfar was published in 1899 called The Martyrdom of an Empress  by Marguerite Cunliffe-Owen and there was something unexpected that caught my eye.  This author stated that Crown Princess Stephanie refused to accompany her husband on his trip to England to celebrate Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee because Stephanie could not face the humiliation of having her husband run after a girl who should still be in school, namely Mary Vetsera and furthermore Stephanie had heard that Rudolf was meeting the Vetsera girl even in Vienna before the planned trip to London.

Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee was held in June 1887, almost 1.5 years before Rudolf and Vetsera were suppose to have started their relationship!!

So I did a little checking to see where this information might be supported other than this book written in 1899 -- and it was verified in a book written about 5 or 6  years later by Joachim von Kürenberg in his coversations with Katherine Schratt where she stated that Crown Princess Stephanie had told her of her stress and worry about Rudolf and Vetsera's relationship in mid 1887. 

This little discrepancy of at least 1.5 years lopped of the relationship of Rudolf and Mary is amazing.  Then the elaborate explanations to ensure that it was known their relationship was not consummated before only a little over 2 weeks before their deaths?  Was that suppose to rule out speculation on some pregnancy?  What was the point?  Why was it so important to shorten the known relationship? 

[drezzle]

One good proven source deserves some more attention to the book published in 1899 called The Martyrdom of an Empress by Marguerite Cunliffe-Owen.  Countess Cunliffe-Owens was a New York gossip columnist and novelist where she moved with her husband from France.  Frederick Cunliffe-Owen wrote newspaper editorials and society columns concerning, for the most part, European affairs and the social life of the nobility, becoming an editor of the New York Herald Tribune in 1889.

The Martyrdom of an Empress was first published anonymously and was thought to be ghost-written for a close lady-in-waiting to the Empress Sissi from the time of her marriage to her death.  However true the entire book may or may not be, it is one of the first books written about the Mayerling deaths and so is widely quoted/plagiarized and its theme no doubt is the source for the romance and drama in the movies about the events at Mayerling.

Unfortunately, the book is rather extreme in its biases, i.e., Rudolph and his parents couldn't be more wonderful while the Crown Princess Stephanie and Marie Larisch could not have been more evil, but those extremes rarely represent the truth.

...............that justice has never been done to the motives which led this plucky, courageous, honorable, and also sincerely religious young man to give himself to death. It was rumored at the time, and it also has been declared since, that before committing an act so severely condemned by the Catholic Church he had actually killed with his own hand the woman whom he loved better than life. This is thoroughly and shamefully untrue. Marie Yetsera died during the night of the 29th to the 30th of January, 1889, and she did die in the arms of the Crown-prince, but it was not he, as everybody persists in believing, who killed her. It has been authentically proved that it was she herself who cut short her fair and beautiful existence while Rudi had absented himself for a moment from the salon where they had been talking together.

My objections to the above is that I'm fairly certain Rudolph was not sincerely religious although his parents might have assumed such.  I also doubt that he loved Marie Vetsera better than life, or maybe that's some of my own bias?  It's as his ADC stated in 1914 -- she was not his usual type of girlfriend and he had a hard time to understand the attraction. 

However it is reasonable to believe, given the supposed nature of Mary Vetsera and her youth that she might have killed herself when Rudolf told her for whatever reason that they had to stop seeing each other.

The awful disclosure which the young man made to her was truly of a nature to unbalance the steadiest brain, and Loschek, the valet, said later on that he had heard, when passing the door, on different occasions, the muffled sound of violent sobbing...............................The crumpled letter which Marie had written to her mother was not the only one of the sort found, for when her dress was removed another sheet of paper, evidently torn out of a book, was discovered secreted in the corsage. It was intended for her sister, and I give here a copy of it:
" He has told me all. I cannot tell you what he did tell me. I can never be his now. I am alone for a moment, while he has gone down to send away Bratflsch. I knew that something dreadful would happen to prevent our being happy, so I brought the poison with me, and I am going to drink it. When he returns it will be too late to save me, and I will die in his arms, happy to be with him till the last............

I can't help but notice that all the letters of eternal love come from Vetsera and none from Rudolph? 

Contrary to the later idea, perhaps started by Marie Larisch, that Vetsera was found nude and wounded (eye out of socket), this author states that:

......................On the lounge near the window lay the body of Marie Vetsera, still dressed in her dark serge gown, but with all the violets of her two bouquets scattered about her....................Her white face, outlined against the silk of the cushion upon which her head was resting, seemed cut out of marble.

And Vetsera's death

....................has been more than disproved by the autopsy performed upon Marie, which revealed the fact that she had died from strychnine poisoning, and that her death had preceded that of the Crown-prince by more than two hours.

And this was followed by: 

Could anything have been more dreadful than the despair of the unfortunate young man when, after having disclosed to his beloved the true reason which made it impossible for him to fulfil his promise of marrying her as soon as he had succeeded in obtaining the dissolution of his union, he found that she had swallowed the deadly drug which she had brought with her ? When, a few minutes later, she breathed her last in his arms, no wonder indeed that, seeing his honor jeopardized, his hopes dashed to the earth, and his entire existence ruined, he should have decided to end his own career without any further delay!

Also in contradiction to the claims of Marie Larisch and usually accepted today, Vetsera's body was not removed from Mayerling under the macrabre circumstances of being supported by some broomstick but instead: 

By the care of Count Bombelles, the Crown-prince's tutor and best friend, who had been sent immediately by the Emperor to take charge of everything at Mayerling, the fair body of Marie Vetsera was concealed in a room which Count Bombelles himself locked with his own hands.

On the night of the 31st of January a small posterndoor in the northern wing of the castle was stealthily opened, and another black, unadorned coffin was carried by four trustworthy attendants into the depths of the woods, where another fourgon awaited it. It was conveyed as secretly as possible to the chapel of Heiligenkreutz, and from there, twenty-four hours later, to a distant railway station, where it was embarked for Trieste, and taken thence to Venice.

Alas, this glorious and sweet drama was not to stick -- but how and why did it get derailed?  Part of the answer might be right in this book itself.  Despite its absolute support of the crown prince, it also revealed something about him that totally shocked me.   Maybe I over react, and maybe that was considered normal back then, but I found this behavior of Rudolph no less than chilling............................to be continued later.   ;)

[drezzle]

One of my favorite photos of Rudolph:

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/5749/18september20102.jpg

He certainly was a handsome fellow -- also with charm and intelligence.................his mind sparkled and his tongue flashed and he could be irresistible when he wanted.  Unfortunately, it seemed he also had some enemies.

The official version – despite contemporaries' doubts – was that of suicide and yet, especially in recent years, historical research has revealed new elements that suggest the possibility of a double homicide. This homicide was an epilogue to a complex, international plot organized between Paris and Vienna in order to place Rudolf on the throne as quickly as possible to put an end to his father's pro-German policies. However this project hadn't taken two things into account: first Rudolf's psychological fragility and then the extreme efficiency of Bismarck and William the Second's German secret services...

I'm not sure why this theory would be seriously considered only in recent years.  It was spelled out quite clearly in "The Last Days of the Archduke Rudolf" published in 1915. 

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.storiainrete.com/&ei=uCOWTKT2IoqmngfRle3QCA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dstoriainrete.com%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3D3I1%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Div

[drezzle]

The Barbarity of Emperor Francis Joseph and his mother the Archduchess Sophie:

---From what I read in "The Martrydom of an Empress" Elizabeth could have been a good mother to all but Gisele with whom she seemed to fail to bond.  She was forced out of Rudolf's life when he was still a tiny baby.  They were able to convince her she'd be a bad mother to the future emperor, and prevented her from nursing him or visiting him often or when she wanted.  That loss of contact with a child so young can do a lot of damage to a parent, and alone can explain her need to escape and constantly be on the move.  When she was finally invited back into young Rudolf's life, it was too late to reestablish the bond as first formed -- although they did manage to eventually develop some kind of relationship.   It was insensitive at best on the part of Francis Joseph, and cruel and insensitive on the part of Archduchess Sophie to force Sisi apart from baby Rudolf.

---Clearly there wasn't an easy two-way street between Hungary and Austria.  In hind sight it might not have been for the best that one of Rudolf's teachers with whom he developed a strong life-time bond starting when he was around age 12 taught him his truth of Hungarian History and this was J.J. Ronay.  It is believed he eventually told Rudolf "about his father's extreme cruelty to the Hungarian insurgents.  Between 1848 and 1853, Francis Joseph signed and confirmed more death warrants than any other European ruler during the whole of the 19th century".  (Judith Listowel in A Hapsburg Tragedy)  He also told him about the unexpected execution of one of Hungary's heros by orders of Archduchess Sophie since by legend, he rejected her amorous advances.  Sophie then insisted the execution be done by garotte since that was considered an insult to the Hungarian Aristocracy, and not by firing squad.  I won't go into further details since it gets worse, but there was reason for the loathing to work both ways between Hungary and Austria.

However, what's important in this thread is the diary of JJ Ronay which showed this kind of historical information clearly upset the young and sensitive Rudolph.  How could this kind of knowledge have affected Rudolf at such a young age when the only, or at least strongest, moral authorities in his life at that time were Francis Joseph and the Archduchess Sophie?   Considering this, one starts to understand why Rudolf might have made bloody drawings of an alien-type foreign-looking chieftain with a sword holding up a decapitated head.  Was this his way of trying to distance himself from the brutal insensitivity he'd learned was in the nature of his beloved father and grandmother? 

[drezzle]

Although the above relates to a problem in the nurture arena, perhaps the greatest pity is that Francis Joseph understood his son only too well.  I'll remain a fan of Rudolf because he did have a very fine side, but I'm also starting to see the tell-tale signs of something very dark, and it's not quite so simple as the depression/physical decline/dissipation/suicidal ideation etc. that is usually generated from a conflicted upbringing.

Back to one of the earliest books written about Mayerling, The Martyrdom of an Empress (1899), and totally supportive to Rudolf and his parents was the following little bit of information about the interior design of Mayerling:

Quote

His apartments resembled more a museum, or the rooms of a professor of natural history, than those of a high and mighty prince. One of the salons was arranged so as to represent a forest, with grottos of rock, trees and shrubs planted in enormous boxes concealed under moss and trailing ivy, and was decorated with magnificently disposed and lifelike animals. A huge bear, the first which the Crown-prince had shot when staying at Munkdcs, seemingly clung to a pine-trunk, and several superb eagles looked as if they were about to swoop down from their elevated positions near the ceiling. Owls, lynxes, pheasants, foxes—nay, even deer and stags —were all to be found in this wonderful room.

One of the most cherished possessions of the Crown prince was contained in a large glass-case, and was nothing less than the carcass of a horse in the act of being devoured by vultures, hawks, and ravens, the whole group being wonderfully prepared and executed, and giving one an exact idea of the gruesome thing itself. These birds were shot by Rudolph during his trip of " fifteen days on the Danube" which he described in one of his books, and also in Spain, in Egypt, and on the island of Plawnik, in the Quarnero.

The Prince's study at Mayerling was decorated with wonderful specimens of foreign and domestic arms— guns, carbines, pistols, matchlocks, swords, kandjars, and yataghans inlaid with gold, silver, and mother-of-pearl. These rested on the antlers of the many deer which Rudi had shot or forced. The magnificent snow-white Eddhirsche (noble deer) which he shot in Bohemia were perhaps the most remarkable items of this beautiful collection.

Now I have no problem with stuffed animals everywhere and decorations of weapons of war covering many walls but I just thought "Oh My!" when it came to the predatory/prey display in the glass-case with the horse as the most unfortunate creature.  Perhaps I'm just being silly, but this suggests something to me that is far from normal behavior?  There's only been one other person I know of who had his predator/prey art everywhere and therein was the heart of a killer.  And again, a horse of all creatures!  His mother's favorite and closest animal...............?

Another pre-sign I noticed that is consistent with the above was a statement, that at the time seemed apparently just left to dangling in nonsense, from the book, "My Past" by Marie Larisch (niece of Sisi).  She claimed the Empress Sisi told her to be careful around Rudolf -- he could not be trusted and he was dangerous.  At the time it did not fit anywhere and I had not the slightest idea why such a strange statement should be attributed to a mother of all people. 

Another pre-sign that seems unrelated, but fits in with this general theme comes from a book by Archduke Leopold of Tuscany, a friend and cousin of Rudolf and someone who loved him but wasn't blind to his other side.  He said something like ~~ Rudolf failed to show any empathy in his behavior concerning his multiple relationships with women, but then he could certainly understand how this might happen since Rudolf was never shown what love was from either parent. 

Next -- the manner of death described by 2 credible witnesses that is consistent with this dark side which is' much worse than the official version of what happened at Mayerling.  Again, I may be way off-base here, but I'm still considering all possibilities and seeing where the best evidence leads.

[drezzle]

Ah well, muddling on here to try and see what the actual physical cause of death was to Rudolf.  This is of pivotal importance since it will give a good indication of the possible reasons leading to Rudolf's death.  Its importance can be seen in the desperate scramble to find something, anything that would stick.  The very first word was that Rudolf had been murdered, then poisoned, then he died from such natural causes as apoplexy and heart stoppage before finally settling on the suicide theory.  This vacillation is the cause of why today so many still doubt the official story of suicide, along with all the tears in the fabric of the primary witness testimony.

http://www.mayerling.de/images/loschek.jpg

The first primary witness was Johann Loschek, Rudolf's valet, who claimed that he could see immediately that Rudolf had killed Vetsera and then himself with 2 well-aimed shots that he heard soon before breaking down the 1st floor door and discovering the bodies.  Immediately it is apparent that this contradicts the later testimony that Mary was dead at least several hours before Rudolf.  It also suggests some amazing powers of observation in someone not trained in forensic or police science.

The resulting lack of credibility in relying on Loschek as the first and primary witness to make the official case of suicide was that Loschek told too many tales.  At one time one author estimated there were at least a hundred different versions about what happened from Loschek.  His explanation for doing this was that he liked to talk and he liked to drink and he was worried that the truth would slip out, and so this is how he covered his tracks.  But ah-hah, this is exactly where he gives himself away, in that the official version he gave must not be the truth.  By all reports, Loschek was devoted to Rudolf, so then it follows that what he was so desperate to hide must have had something to do with protecting the memory of Rudolf.  Of course this assumes that Loschek's first allegiance was to Rudolf and not to someone else, and again, this seems to be the case since Loschek had a reputation for not being liked by anyone outside of Rudolf's immediate circle and this was thought to be because Loschek refused to release any information about Rudolf that might be demanded of others particularly in the Emperor's court.

Johann Loschek made his last official statement soon before he died to his son about what happened at Mayerling and this was published in 1932.  In this statement he reinforced the official version of suicide and he also stated that the presence of a third person or that glass shards stuck in Rudolf's head are like so much about Rudolf's death fictitious.  One has to wonder why of all the other theories, Loschek would specifically disclaim only these 2 – the glass shards and more bodies?  Could it be these 2 were the only serious threats to protecting the memory of his beloved Rudolf?

As an interesting aside, in his last statement, Loschek stated, "...........I knelt down, put my head on Rudolf's arm and wept bitterly;  A knock startled me, it was already Dr. Widerhofer and a secretary, whom took up the facts according to my data."  This "secretary" wrote a book in 1915 called "The Last Days of Archduke Rudolph" in which he describes arriving in the room with Dr. Widerhofer.  Incidentally, the claim of this private secretary was that Rudolf was not suicidal or mentally or physically sick but in top form.  The secretary was in the area since he had arranged to deliver some manuscripts Rudolf had asked him to get from a library in Vienna so he could work on a book while at Mayerling, which certainly suggests an absence of planned suicide by Rudolf.

The only other witness at Mayerling who gave a statement was Count Josef Hoyos-Sprinzenstein.

http://www.mayerling.de/images/hoyos.jpg


His account was finally discovered ~30 years later and published by Baron von Mitis in his "The Life of the Crown Prince Rudolph of Habsburg", but as various authors have since noted, he obviously had many "memory lapses" in his account.  Apparently his first account of the tragedy was rejected by Franz Joseph who saw the lies in it immediately and reprimanded him severely.  This was followed by Hoyos ~~offering to fall on his sword for forgiveness~~ from the Emperor, and later he wrote a more careful statement of what happened at Mayerling.  However as Listowel pointed out in her book "A Habsburg Tragedy", the timing he gave in his later statement was impossible – so one is left to conclude that Rudolf must have died several hours at least before the time claimed by Hoyos or Loschek. 

Other than the timing and the number of people present, the official testimony of Hoyos and Loschek was more or less in agreement.
However, there was another reported statement from Hoyos several years after the Mayerling deaths where he told a friend that Rudolf had been killed by a blow from a champagne bottle doing something – (can't remember what the circumstances were now and can't find it).  The Emperor found out he had sent this other statement and was very upset and made him retrieve it, burn it and retract his statement. 

So it would seem the glass-shards-in-the-brain-story was quite a sensitive taboo to the official story of how Rudolf died.  Naturally, the next question is how could Rudolf's death from a blow to the head by a champagne bottle be seen as so much worse than a self-inflicted gunshot wound? 

[drezzle]

Here's a little information and a photo I found on the author of "He did not Die at Mayerling" who claimed to be the first child of Rudolf, H.R. van Deventer.

http://oi54.tinypic.com/j13n6o.jpg

Can't tell if he looks like Rudolf or not?  The photo on the left is a photo of Rudolf as a child, the one on the right is of Deventer.

He was a patent attorney and inventor including founding a company called Domestic Elec Refrigeraid Co. (H.R. Van Deventer, Inc., New York) which was interesting since he claimed John Oth and Rudolf made their living by shipping refrigerated beef from El Salvator to Europe. 

He wrote "Ignition Hand Book". By H. R. Van Deventer. 1911. Gift of Sumter Telephone Mfg. Co.

I also saw where he had a patent on some self-generating power source in the early 1900s.

Here's a little blurb about him from the Sumter Company:

Mr. H. R. Van Deventer, electrical and sales engineer, is one of three brothers who made electrical pursuits their life work.  After completing a collegiate education and obtaining the degrees of B. S., E. E., Mr. Van Deventer took up general engineering work being employed in responsible positions by several of the larger operating companies.  Realizing the field for independent telephony in the South, Mr. Van Deventer became associated with the Sumter company.

Immediately the advantage of his fifteen years of practical experience in the operating field was apparent, especially in connection with actual service tests, and the design of special circuits to meet certain conditions.  The United States government specifications are particularly rigid as to inspection, and the technical details of the apparatus to be furnished, and Mr. Van Deventer has been remarkably successful in devising tests to locate imperfections in raw or finished material, with the result that every order of Sumter apparatus submitted has been inspected and approved without change or rejection in any particular.  By means of a fully equipped laboratory, with connections through cable to the city exchange, many miles of cable being in circuit if desired, Mr. Van Deventer has attained actual service conditions for tests, which all Sumter  apparatus must undergo before leaving the factory.

Mr. Van Deventer is a well known contributor to the technical press on various subjects of a practical nature.  Being a registered patent attorney and member of the various engineering societies, he also realized the necessity of collecting and preserving the literature of the telephone art.  To this end he has for many years gathered date, models of apparatus - especially early designs of Mr. Mason, etc., some of which have but recently proved of great value in patent litigation of vital importance to Independent telephony.

Mr. Van Deventer has long desired to contribute something of permanent value to telephone literature, and, after more than two years labor, has just completed Telephonology, a work of nearly 600 pages with over 700 illustrations, describing in detail modern apparatus, systems, and methods, written especially for the practical man, and valuable to the large and small exchange.  This work incorporates date never before obtainable outside the engineering offices and laboratories of the larger operating companies and manufacturers.  The appearance of this work is awaited with interest.

Mr. Van Deventer handles the advertising, and usually represents the Sumter company at conventions, and in other ways booms Sumter products.  Throughout the South he is widely known as a through Independent, and practical telephone man.

[Scarlet Flowers]

Thanks for finding all that information, Drezzle.  Rock on, girl!

[drezzle]

Thank you Miz Scarlet  ;)

In attempting to put the puzzle pieces together for what happened at Mayerling, there is one piece of evidence that seems to be ignored or vigorously denied, but unfortunately, of all the so-called evidence, it has perhaps the least reason to be discounted.  This testimony comes from Ferdinand IV of  Tuscany via the books of his children Archduke Leopold and Louise, ex-Crown Princess of Saxony.  Ferdinand IV or "Nando" as the emperor called him was probably the closest thing to what the emperor had in the way of a friend and referred to him as his "best friend".   (also in "Clash of Generations" by Cassels)  On the day Rudolph died, Nando received a telegraph from the emperor to come to Vienna, that Rudolph was dead.   He arrived the next morning on 1/31 at about 6:30am and found the emperor in a state of shock and unable to talk other than to say Rudolph..............Rudolf..........

Here's a photo of Ferdinand IV (front left) with his brothers.  Johann Orth is behind him on your left.

http://oi52.tinypic.com/2yl7huu.jpg

Apparently this was soon after Dr. Weiderhofer, the court physician, told FJ the truth about Rudolf's death and that he wasn't poisoned, or maybe the truth had just sunk in or maybe he could allow himself to all of a sudden feel in shock in the presence of his friend, since the day before, after hearing about the death of his only son, he was still functioning well enough to send out many telegrams.  

So Nando took the emperor by the arm and led him into the bedroom where Rudolf was lying and there saw Dr. Weiderhofer pulling long shards of green glass out of Rudolf's brain and surmised, or was told it was the remnants of a champagne bottle.

As a witness, Nando has to be one of the best available in the whole Mayerling Affair, since he was close/part of the Imperial family, but not so close that he would have any motive for telling other than the truth since he was not dependent on the court in any way.  Besides, he had a reputation for being a very truthful man with a wife and many children who loved and respected him to the highest degree.  IOW, there is no basis for ignoring this testimony of Ferdinand IV of Tuscany.

Now assuming that Rudolph did die at Mayerling, this puts everything into a whole new point of view.  Firstly, it mostly rules out the possibility of suicide, although Franz Judtman made a valiant attempt to explain how Rudolf could have killed himself with a champagne bottle!!  So much for the glories of a romantic suicide!   Next, it probably also rules out the exciting intrigue of some political assassination since who could imagine Roll Commando Sharpshooters resorting to something as plebeian as a champagne bottle as their weapon of choice?  

This is not to say that suicide was not planned (by someone) or even that some political assassination was not in the planning works, but they are just a coincidence to how Rudolf actually died at Mayerling.

So without suicide and without some political assassination, what would account for the death of Rudolf, while still accounting for all the accepted/official evidence?  
http://oi52.tinypic.com/r89tp0.jpg

Before and after the autopsy and correction with wax and paint.

It's late......................more later.

[drezzle]

This picture doesn't look much like Rudolf, but then it doesn't look like a drawing or painting either so I'm not sure what to think about it?

http://oi52.tinypic.com/2gv108y.jpg

Besides the testimony of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the other support for the glass in the brain theory include:

-- The Italian Ambassador in Vienna, Count Constantin Nigra, who was at Mayerling before the bodies were removed, according to Franz Judtmann in "Mayerling: The Facts Behind the Legend, 1968".

-- In a book published in 1898 called "Society recollections in Paris and Vienna, 1879-1904"  the author George Greville Moore claimed that the ADC of Archduke Ferdinand told him Rudolf was killed by a blow to the head from a champagne bottle.   I'm not sure who Archduke Ferdinand was unless it was the Emperor's nephew and younger brother of Franz Ferdinand?   This author also stated that a friend of the daughter of Bratfisch (Rudolf's devoted shadow-cabdriver) told him the daughter had told her it was a blow from a lantern that killed the crown prince.

--  In "The Secrets of the Hohenzollerns", 1914, the author who claimed to be part of Germany's secret service also said that Rudolf was killed by a champagne bottle.

Although Franz Judtmann seems quite good at gathering evidence, fortunately he doesn't spend a lot of time trying to interpret it in his book since the results can be rather funny.   For example, he valiantly tried to discredit all the witnesses for the glass in the brain, but with flimsy reasons, and perhaps realizing how lame he was sounding, yet still desperate to support the suicide theory, he came up with the final interpretation for the little problem of the champagne bottle............. ♪♫•*•♫♪ ....................Rudolf decided to kill himself by aiming his pistol through a champagne bottle!   Hahaha, I guess he thought Rudolf was just really into making a big splash!   :shifty:

[drezzle]

     
The problem I have with the official position is  that they changed their story too often -- first death was by poisoning, then apoplexy and then heart failure before they settled on suicide.  Then they attempted to withhold any information about the presence of Mary Vetsera and fudged the autopsy results.  The Grand Duke of Tuscany never changed his story -- from the start to the end of his life.  I find it easier to trust someone with an impeccable reputation for honesty who states a direct observation than to believe second-hand hearsay and suicide notes and other documents that can be easily manufactured.  Grand Duke Ferdinand IV always maintained that  Rudolf's brain had glass shards sticking from it, Francis Joseph was in a state of shock the morning after, and that Rudolf's death had not been intentional. 

Not only were they willing to evade the truth before the official finding of suicide, but then many admitted in later letters that the truth was still not known:  (from Judtmann's book)

--The Emperor Francis Joseph to King Leopold II of the Belgians:  "Anything is better than the truth!"

--The Archduke Karl Ludwig in a letter to the Duchess Ludovika of Bavaria:  "The truth is so frightful that no-one can speak about it!"

--The Archduke Ludwig Viktor: "The whole truth is so frightful that one can never confess it."

--Prince Philipp of Coburg to his wife, the Princess Louise:  "...it is terrible, terrible!  I can't tell you anything about it!"

--Count Josef Hoyos to the Archduke Johann Salvator of Tuscany:  "His Highness is dead.  That is all I can say.  Do not ask me for details.  It is too frightful.  I have given the Emperor my word that I shall not say a word about what I have seen."

--Count Henrich Taaffee:  The son of Premier Eduard Count Taaffe said many years later that "the circumstances of the Mayerling affair are far worse than anyone imagines" and then would say no more.

--Hermann Widerhofer to Larisch in My Past:  "Dr. Widerhofer (court physician) was well accustomed to horrible sights in the exercise of his profession, 'but', he said, 'for the first time in my career I felt faint when Loschek threw aside the sheet which covered the basket.  There I saw the body of a woman -- nude except for a fine lawn and lace chemise, which had been pulled up over her head'..............."

--Leopold II of Belgium in a letter to his brother Philipp Count of Flanders:  "It is absolutely important to confirm and maintain the suicide version.  It may seem difficult in the eyes of our Catholic people to see a house with the views of the House of Habsburg insisting on the suicide version.  But suicide and disturbance of mind were the only way of avoiding an unheard-of scandal, the particulars of which I cannot entrust to my letter but which I shall relate to you in full detail.........."

--Dr. Heinrich Baron von Slatin, court secretary in the Lord Marshal's Office.   Slatin did the inventory for Rudolf's estate, and also was the one to write everything that the first and second commissions found at Mayerling:  "As a result, I had repeated contact with his domestic staff -- valets, hunt personnel, servants, etc............In consequence I gained a terrifying picture of the Crown Prince's nerve-racking way of life.  I do not wish to go into detail.........."

These men were all physicians and/or soldiers-hunters.  What could have been so unusual and frightening to them?

So considering the above, this once again brings me to the intrigue of the smashed door to Rudolf's bedroom which was on the ground floor.  According to both Loschek and Hoyos, there was some time that elapsed before they finally decided to smash in the door to find Rudolf and Vetsera dead on the bed in this ground floor bedroom.

However, Dr. Widerhofer, Henrich Taaffe and Grand Duke Ferdinand IV all indicated that Rudolf and Mary Vetsera were lying dead in the upstairs bedroom instead.  So what might this tell-tale smashed door be suggesting???

[drezzle]

Rudolf with some of this dogs:
http://oi51.tinypic.com/1zecj92.jpg

One of the last photos taken of Rudolf:
http://oi51.tinypic.com/2n1u9gl.jpg
http://www.imageshugger.com/images/zmpwg0pzdjr2yc6d95q.jpg

From ONB:  15 year old Rudolf had a hard time in getting his tie on straight!
http://oi52.tinypic.com/15s99ir.jpg

=============================

Below is another photo of Rudolf with some men whose names I don't recognize except for one of his private secretaries:  standing in back on the left.

Arthur Giesl von Gieslingen was mostly involved with military intelligence it seems and was perhaps sent to keep tabs on Rudolf.  He started with him a couple years before his death.  The author of "The Last Days of the Archduke Rudolf" also clearly had ties with military intelligence and said he started as secretary to Rudolf a couple years before the events at Mayerling.  However, the author claimed to be several years younger than Rudolf whereas Gieslingen is a year or 2 older.   Here's an interesting bio on Giesl von Gieslingen:  

http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/biog/giesla.htm


According to this bio, Gieslingen was the true mastermind behind the Mayerling coverup -- insuring total confusion to hide the truth.

To enlarge, right click to select "view image" then left click for the + sign:

http://oi55.tinypic.com/alonba.jpg

[drezzle]

http://oi51.tinypic.com/f107eg.jpg

The real story about the state of mind and health of Rudolf towards the end of his life is about as different from the official story as the photos above.
The one on the left is the real last photo of Rudolf taken according to Judtmann.  The one on the right is the drawing of this photo showing a countenance that has little to do with the reality.

Here's another contrasting example:

http://www.archive.org/stream/lastdaysofarchdu01gran#page/280/mode/2up

On page 245 of the above book link "The Last Days of the Archduke Rudolf", this is what the secretary had to say about a group of friends last meeting with Rudolf on January 26, 1889:

".....had the Archducal ménage been a source of fretfulness to him or even had his health of mind and body suggested anything like life-weariness, then I might have admitted a strong presumption for the view that he had premeditated self-destruction.  None of these conditions, however, pointed any way" to this view and ....................."the tragedy of Mayerling, to those who were with him in that final symposium, came with a shock that well-nigh unseated reason itself."

The man who wrote this book had to be Lt.  Victor Fritsche (younger than Rudolf by several years), listed as Secretariat Chancellor, in the last establishment of Rudolf's according to Judtmann's book "Mayerling: the Facts behind the Legend" from a draft prepared by Count Bombelles.  The other secretary was "Head of the Secretariat, Heinrich Ritter von Spindler, who had been with Rudolf for years and had grown children.  The other possibility was Giesl von Gieslingen who was about Rudolf's age, but was preferably known as an Aide-de-Camp.

Now here's the contrast!:  
In the book by Carl Lónyay, Stephanie's nephew-in-law, he repeatedly cites the statements and personal communication of both Victor Fritsche and Giesl v Gieslingen to say that not only was Rudolf seriously suicidal, but that he asked each of these men to join him in suicide!!  They supposedly told Rudolf they were flattered by the invitation but politely declined.   Fritsche also supposedly told Lónyay that Rudolf was so cruel, spiteful and insane towards his Archducal ménage that it was most difficult to find anyone willing to work in Rudolf's establishment/household.  Fritsche also told Lónyay that Rudolf would continuously brag about his romantic  conquests because he couldn't perform in bed.  (in the book by the secretary, he specifically said Rudolf never talked about his personal love life)  

Another tidbit I remember is that Giesl apparently told Lónyay that according to Rudolf's personal physician, Franz Auchenthaler, Rudolf had also given gonorrhea to Mary Vetsera.  However, in Judtmann's book, which is most thorough on documentation, Auchenthaler never did any autopsy/exam on Vetsera.

Unfortunately for the truth, the book by Carl Lónyay, "Rudolph: The Tragedy Of Mayerling" is often provided as a reputable source of facts about Mayerling.   The trouble here is that for whatever reason, justified or not, Carl Lónyay was so bitter and filled with hate towards the Habsburgs that most everything he said has to be suspect.  I don't understand why this point was/is not made about his book the same way it is readily made about those of Countess Larische and Princess Louise (sister of Stephanie) where it is often stated that whatever they say can be discounted because of their spite?  

[drezzle]

Whether these secretaries or aids-de-camp to Rudolf who came from military intelligence were worshiping his memory as in "The Last Days of the Archduke Rudolf" or demolishing it in later statements to those only too willing to listen and document, they can't be faulted for their lack of credibility.  After all, those trained in military intelligence by definition are masters of the art of deception and they are trained to do a job as demanded by the powers of the day.  

My guess is "The Last Days of the Archduke Rudolf" was written in 1916 probably with the blessing of at least Emperor Karl who was trying to establish a separate peace with France, the US and other countries by an end run around Germany.  In this case it wouldn't hurt to establish in the minds of some that Emperor Wilhelm II was ultimately responsible for the death of the beloved Crown Prince Rudolf.

Then later, after WWI was long over, a different tune could be played as politically needed which obviously involved once again stressing the suicide of a distressed prince.

The one book I have thus far encountered for which I can find no doubt in its claims is that by Archduke Leopold Ferdinand of Tuscany, later Leopold Wolfling, who wrote "... from Archduke to Grocer".  He presented as a charming and endearing but hapless fellow incapable of duplicity.  He, along with his younger sister Louise, ex-crown princess of Saxony, and his one and only true love for life, the Infanta Elvira de Bourbon all experienced the greatest difficulties in living a little too openly and honestly.  

Here's a photo labeled as Archduke Leopold Salvator but I'm sure it's of the Archduke Leopold Ferdinand instead.

http://oi51.tinypic.com/2i9077.jpg

Here's another one of Leopold Ferdinand that is in his book:

http://oi55.tinypic.com/2vsnbye.jpg

[drezzle]

The truth about Mayerling probably has a far darker side than anyone wants to see.  For instance, who else was killed that night besides Mary Vetsera?   According to many different sources, there were several people that disappeared from Austria the night of the Mayerling murders never to be seen or heard again.  As I mentioned before this included the servants Max and Otto according to "The Secrets of the Hohenzollerns".  There was also the "suicide" that morning of one of the gamekeepers by the name of Werner (The New York Times of Feb. 2, 1889).  Another death that very well might have happened at Mayerling that night was of Countess Anastasia Wimpffen.

The book, "The Last Days of the Archduke Rudolph" probably written by his secretary Victor Fritsch (rumored to be the illegitamate son of a king of Württemberg) refers to Countess Wimpffen as Madame "Larricarda" who was the hostess of the salon of "vaudeville gaiety" in Vienna that was frequented by Rudolph and his friends, and was the most common meeting place for Rudolph with Mary Vetsera.

The secretary relates how he took the train to Baden for a few days vacation while Rudolph was in Mayerling, and on the train, he saw Mary Vetsera with "Madame Larricarda".  He then noticed that the 2 women get off the train at Baden and got into an "ordinary hackney coach  of the provincial type; its direction was the road to Mayerling."   This of course contradicts the official story that Mary Vetsera was driven by Bratfisch in an imperial coach to Mayerling.

So here we have a report of 2 women traveling to Mayerling, and in a short time, they were both dead.  Madame "Larricarda" or Countess Anastasia Wimpffen was reported as a death by suicide (poisoning) about 3 weeks later.  Naturally, I have to wonder, considering all the official cover-up of actual events at Mayerling, when did Countess Wimpffen really die?

An interesting side-light about Countess Wimpffen is that through her, a decendent of the Baltazzi family  (Mary Vetsera's mother was a Baltazzi) was finally joined in holy matrimony to a decendent of the Habsburgs.  A few years after her death, her oldest son married the eldest daughter of Count Georg von Stockau, by his wife, Countess Eveline, daughter of Theodorus Evangelis Baltazzi, of Constantinople.  Their granddaughter, Countess Johanna von Wimpffen. b. at Budapest, Hungary, 25th May 1936. married at Vienna, Austria, 27th April 1957, H.S.H. Prince Otto Ernst Wilhelm zu Windisch-Graetz, grandson of Crown Prince Rudolf's only daughter.

http://4dw.net/royalark/Georgia/dadan3.htm

[drezzle]

Back to the attempt to crack the Mayerling code haha!

What is it about Mary Vetsera that makes for the most mystery in Mayerling?   There's something strange about Mary.

To recap:  The unquestionable Grand Duke Nando with perfect means, motive and opportunity gave some indisputable truths about what happened at Mayerling:

1)  Rudolf died from a blow to the head from some strong glass object -- possibly a champagne bottle
2)  Rudolf's death was manslaughter -- there was no intention to kill him.
3)  The Emperor Francis Joseph was in a state of shock the morning after Rudolf's death when Nando arrived.

And something else I read this weekend according to telegrams seen by the excellent documentarian Fritz Judtmann, Grand Duke Nando
told Papal Nuncio Galimberti (also shown in the German Ambassador Ruess's report to Otto von Bismarck as well as a 2nd independent confirmation in Marie Larisch's "My Past' from what Dr. Wiederhofer told her) that:

4)  Mary Vetsera had a bullet wound at the top of  head as well as other wounds

The above gives a high probability that Rudolf did not kill himself, he was killed accidentally and there was no political assassination (although there may have been separate plans for that).   There is also a high probability that Mary was not killed accidentally -- in other words, one accidental killing is plausible.  A 2nd killing the same night in the same location is most unlikely to be accidental also.

So why would anyone want to murder Mary?  Sadly her death appears not to be a Love Kill from some Romantic Pact after all.  This is where it starts to get quite strange.

The popular myth is that Mary Vetsera only met Rudolf a few months before their deaths by writing him a letter professing her love.  Next, what do the best sources actually say about when Rudolf really met Mary Vetsera and why the rush to minimize their time together?

[drezzle]

http://oi53.tinypic.com/103iov9.jpg

Above is a photo of Marie Valérie, Rudolf's younger sister and or Marie Larisch, Rudolf's first cousin.  

It's always intrigued me why Marie Larisch was banned from court forever for reasons that don't make a lot of sense.  She facilitated a few meetings between Rudolf and Mary Vetsera after their relationship was already established, and was possibly paid for doing so in part at least to pay off gambling debts.  (Access for cash to pay off gambling debts seemed to be a common practice for many aristocrats in those days including Rudolf as well as his good friend, Albert Prince of Wales, later Edward VII.)

By most reports, Rudolf was a libertine, a real Lothario who had many girlfriends – so many he couldn't remember their names.  This kind of behavior was more or less accepted among most archdukes since they were expected to marry for political reasons and so finding love elsewhere was typical.  Rudolf also had his main long-term mistress Mitzi Caspar and she was mostly accepted as a part of his life.  Stephanie may not have liked it, but then again, the Emperor and Empress seemed to not care a great deal what Stephanie wanted.  Why, of all Rudolph's girlfriends, was only his relationship with Mary Vetsera objected to with such urgency – by not only the Emperor, who usually winked at his amorous adventures, but also by the Empress who usually showed little interest in her son's love life?

Similarly, why did Josel Hoyos and Philipp of Coburg both go to such great lengths to deny any knowledge of the presence of Mary Vetsera at Mayerling even to the Emperor at first – considering it was common knowledge that Rudolph had entertained numerous women at Mayerling?  

Now where the story gets even more confusing or perhaps it's merely the flip side of the same coin is why did Marie Larisch become "demented" and go into a panic when she took Vetsera to see Rudolf, and he decided to keep her for a couple days contrary to what they agreed?  At first in reading her book "My Past" I just assumed this was her way of excusing herself by showing how distraught she was and that she had been misled – supposedly possible only in hindsight anyway.  However, Fritz Judtmann saw a couple of letters that Marie Larisch had written to the Police Chief Krauss who kept them in his secret files on Mayerling, and these letters asking him to help find Mary clearly showed that Marie Larisch was in a genuine state of panic.  

So what are the possibilities?

A.    Larisch was in a state of panic since her part in helping a romance between Rudolf and Mary might be exposed and considered to be unforgivable behavior on her part for some mysterious reason.

B.   Larisch was afraid for the personal safety of Mary.......of Rudolf........or for both?

C.   Both A and B

http://oi52.tinypic.com/35a3itv.jpg

[drezzle]

Should Marie Larisch have the last word on when Rudolph and Mary Vetsera first became acquainted?

In an earlier post we saw where K Schratt (the Emperor's long-time girlfriend) in letters told how an upset Crown Princess Stephanie told her she refused to go to  Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee in 1887 since she didn't want to have to witness Rudolph chasing after that school girl Mary Vetsera.   That was ~ 1.5 years before the official position on when they met.

In her book, My Own Affairs, Louise of Coburg (Stepanie's sister and wife of Rudolf's good buddy Philipp of Coburg) stated that Rudolph and Vetsera's affair had lasted for 3 years.  Princess Louise also said that the Emperor was so anxious for Rudolph to break it off with Mary Vetsera that he told Rudolph Mary Vetsera was his half-sister from an affair he'd had with her mother, but Rudolph just laughed it off.

In the book by Rudolph's private secretary "The Last Days of the Archduke Rudolph", the author made this observation:  "Many of those who were prominent in the personal entourage of the Empress were Greek men and women; some of her ladies of honour, one of her private secretaries, her favorite reader, were all Levantine Greeks.  The Empress often invited Mary Vetsera as a young debutante to their Monday "Home Days"", where Rudolph was usually also present.  Elsewhere, the author made the remark that Home Days were for the Imperial Family only!

Now, going back a few more years -- in "The Lonely Empress" by Joan Haslip, Countess Festetics, Sisi's stuffy lady-in-waiting, did not approve of how Hélène Vetsera was "in hot pursuit of the crown prince".  Countess Festetics related how she laughingly told Rudolph "that the lady could make her assignations with His Imperial Highness elsewhere, but not in her drawing room" when Rudolph was attempting to get her to receive them together.  This book also described how Franz Joseph would tease Rudolph about the attentions of Hélène Vetsera and found it all amusing, whereas the Empress was mostly indifferent. 

Then in "My Past", Marie Larisch said the Empress introduced her to Hélène Vetsera, and this was when Larisch was still a teenager.  (Larisch and Rudolph were the same age).  The Empress told Larisch that "Rudolph was generally supposed to have found Hélène Vetsera extremely sympathetic when his thoughts first turned to love".  When does a boy's thoughts generally first turn to love -- around age 12 or 13?

http://oi55.tinypic.com/2luf3w5.jpg

By Golly!   I do think I see a resemblance.....

Rudolf's older sister Archduchess Gisele on left and Mary Vetsera on the right.

[drezzle]

A little more about the impressions of Marie Larisch -- here's one of their first encounters as described in 'My Past':

"When he entered the room I experienced a curious feeling of uneasiness. Perhaps my subconscious self knew the danger which Rudolph was destined to become in my life, and my nervousness increased when I saw that he watched me narrowly out of the corners of his eyes. The Crown Prince sat next to me and commenced to tease me unmercifully, and, boy though he then was in years, he seemed to possess the intelligence of a man. He was handsome, and for some time I racked my brains to remember what wild animal he recalled to me, for he had a curious look not altogether human. Then, I knew—Rudolph reminded me of a wolf; his eyes blazed green at times, and he seemed almost ready to spring. "Was he as cruel as a wolf?" I wondered, and then an icy chill went down my spine as I recalled the Empress's words to me before dinner when I had gone to show her my pretty gown. "Marie," she had said, "to-night you will see Rudolph. I warn you against him, because he will turn on you if ever he gets the chance.""

http://oi53.tinypic.com/24wr1mw.jpg            

http://oi52.tinypic.com/2n1vqfb.jpg

And then years later, during the mess with Mary Vetsera when he was enlisting the help of Larisch:

The maid, who looked flustered, said to me in an agitated whisper, "The Crown Prince is here," and the words were hardly out of her mouth when a tall figure, dressed in a military cloak, walked into my room. It was my cousin.

Rudolph had turned up the collar of his cloak; he wore his kepi well down over his eyes, and for some moments I stared at him in astonishment. Then he stepped forward and kissed my hand, saying as he did so, "I hope you'll forgive this informal call, Marie." I was silent, and my cousin looked at me with his mocking smile.

Rudolf is usually referred to as tall -- I wonder how tall he was?   Anyway, here's the usual description of Rudolph as a tall, handsome and charming prince with impeccable manners -- but did it hide a soul of darkness combined with the ultimate in imperial arrogance?  

Later on at this same meeting was a most odd exchange:  http://tinyurl.com/2vjchem

Rudolph:  "You know all about the little Vetsera girl and myself?"

Larisch:  "I know something," I replied, at once on my guard.  "Well, perhaps I do, but I am not too sure."

Rudolph:  "I hope you don't imagine that this is a platonic friendship?" said the Prince, "because if you do I had better disillusion you at once. The affair is not at all innocent; in fact I'm in the devil of a mess in more ways than one............................

Now I have to wonder why would Rudolph assume Marie Larisch could think the affair between him and Marie Vetsera should be only platonic?  

[Hale]

Your doing stalwart work here drezzle.   <3

[drezzle]

You just watch -- I'm getting ready to crack this Ducker.   :banana:

........................... the next day Arthur boasted and said,  "I have been deep in Spain".  

I like your sig picture.  Is it of Spain?   :teehee:

[drezzle]

Schena buab!?   Yes you're right Lucien, Marie Larisch became a major problem for the Imperial Family.  One has to remember though that through no fault of her own, she was born into no-man's land.  She was the illegitimate daughter of the Empress's brother Ludwig Wilhelm, Duke in Bavaria and his actress girlfriend Henriette Mendel whom he later married morganatically.   Then the Empress wanted the young Marie with her in Austria -- partly for her horsemanship -- but it was a thoughtless arrangement that forever left Marie on the outside for all practical purposes.

Although Marie Larisch had beauty, brains, style, passion and was a bit of a wild child, her marriage prospects due to her birth were nil -- especially in the Austrian Court.  It's not hard reading between the lines to see that that Marie Larisch was probably in love with Rudolf, and under other circumstances, she might have been an ideal mate for him.  But there was to be no marriage for her to the Crown Prince.  In any case, Rudolf was duty-bound and he wanted to reach across the hated Germany and make an alliance with Belgium through marriage.  There was also to be no marriage to an Archduke for Larisch and she was not permitted to even marry for love.  Instead Empress Elizabeth arranged a marriage for her niece with a dull but good-natured fellow in the hopes that he would not interfere with Marie's primary duty to be a companion to the Lonely Empress.  Needless to say, this all had to be a very bitter pill for Marie to swallow, and it was probably a mistake on the part of the Imperial Family to assume that Marie knew the score in its entirety. 

It is interesting that by the time of Marie's marriage, she had already come to dread black pearls.  The Empress didn't like to wear diamonds but she loved pearls, especially black pearls.  Here's an excerpt about this from her book My Past: 

The Empress gave a soiree for me in the evening before my wedding, and just as I was coming down the staircase, I met the Crown Prince Rudolph, who was going up. He stopped and informed me that I was the very person he wanted to see. "I have something to give you—here it is," and, as he spoke, he handed me a flat morocco case. "Open it," he added, "and tell me whether my little souvenir meets with your approval."

I opened the case, which contained a brooch set with an enormous black pearl. I started in dismay, for I have always had a dread of wearing black pearls.

My cousin asked:  "My dear Marie, you are making your own misfortune in life by this foolish marriage; do you not honestly think it is a very mad scheme? Surely it is only to please mamma?"

The Larisch marriage was not a happy one and before long Marie found herself in a clandestine affair with Henrich Baltazzi:

http://nd01.jxs.cz/023/371/6cfe6c0d05_46581573_o2.jpg

Before or after this there developed a close friendship between Marie Larisch and Baltazzi's sister Hélène Vetsera, Mary's mother. 

Now there's an alliance made in hell:  Marie Larisch -- compelled to find justice for the cruel loss of her marriage prospects, and the cunning and Ambitious Hélène Vetsera!  Thick as thieves, they later turned on each other, so it wasn't hard to see from where they were coming.

So the fire was neatly laid and the two women quickly realized the match to light the bon-fire to destroy the marriage and reputation of the Crown Prince was the stars in the eyes of the young Mary Vetsera whenever she looked at Rudolph who in turn was too much of a gentleman to ever say no to a lady.

Now one has to realistically consider the question:  did Mary Vetsera as a very young and rather plump and unattractive yet experienced coquette put a love spell on the great Lothario or was it in reality Shake Down Time where Rudolph found himself eternally unable to shake off the amorous attentions of Mary Vetsera and this inability had little to do with love?