This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
It's said that she died in childbirth; was her child the King's- or if not, whose was it? Does anyone know the baby's name/sex, and whether the baby did survive? I'm just curious. Tabbycatlove (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not seem to have been the king's child. The reference does not say that she actually had sexual intercourse with him, as she never showed any enthusiasm for the idea. The source say, that she finally agreed to encourage the king because doctor Struensee told her that it was her duty to the nation to do what she could to improve the king's mental health, and at least make him more calm and easier to control, which would benefit the nation. She therefore agreed to be more attentive to him to investigate if the doctor was right. She came to the conclusion that the kings health would not be improved if she became his sexual partner, and refused to "go through with it". While the text does not say so explicitly, the impression indicate that she did not actually have sex with him, but only flirted with him, perhaps in private, enough to see if Struensee was right, and when she saw that this did not seem to make him better, she refused to actually become his mistress (that is to say, have sex with him) because she did not care for the idea in the first place, and would only have agreed to it if there had been any signs that it would indeed have a good effect on the king's health.
As the child is not mentioned to have been the kings child, nor illegitimate at all (which it would have, if that had been the case), it was at least officially the child of her spouse. In reality it could very well have been the child of a lover other than the king, that she chose for her own recreation, which was accepted in her circles, and that her spouse acknowledged the child as his to avoid scandal, which was the normal procedure in her circles when a married woman gave birth to the child of her lover. Had it been, or regarded to be, the king's, it would definitely have been mentioned, but as it is, the child is only mentioned in passing as an insignificant phenomena and would therefore not have been regarded as anything out of the ordinary. The reference only say of the child: "... the melancholy of Mrs Gabel had increased to a great degree, and after having giving birth to a dead daughter, she died in mid August 1769".--Aciram (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see! I sped-read the first paragraph and totally missed that she was even married! I can't believe he tried to hook up a married woman with the king... But, times were different! Thank you for answering my question!! :) Tabbycatlove (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually much more scandalous to hook up an unmarried woman with the king than a married one - in those days, only married women could have lovers, because unmarried women was forced to be virgins on their wedding night and could not give birth, while married women could always say their husbands was the father of their child, so married women could have lovers while unmarried ones certainly could not! Yes it was different, in those days people did not marry for love as they do now, so the view upon married and adultery was, because of that, totally different from now. Your'e welcome.--Aciram (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
