Sarah Ann Franks, age eight, sentenced 1857. Crime, stealing peppermints.

There were two ways a child ended up in a gaol in Victorian times. They were either born there or admitted in with a nursing mother. Not exactly an ideal place for an infant and they were supposed to be removed by 12 months--yet that did not always happen. Some lucky ones got shipped off to relatives others went from prison to the workhouse.

I was shaking my head at what I was reading. In this era it was not considered a bad thing for a child to be in a prison for they 'brought life' to troubled women incarcerated. Yet what of the psychological impact? Many of these innocents ended up learning from their elders. And who were their elders yet thieves and murderers!

In the example of Sarah Ann Franks, she was ordered to prison by the courts. And in my research was not the youngest ever sent!

Enter a woman who was passionate about child advocacy, Mary Carpenter a Bristol philanthropist. Taking on street youths and and sending reform demands to the House of Lords, led to the Youthful Offenders Act passed in 1854 allowing children ages two to five to be sent to reform schools instead of prison. Yes--two to five year old children were sentenced to prison. Pardon me for my soapbox for a moment, yet no child in this age group knows the ins and outs of right from wrong. This is the age of experimentation and exploration! Forty-five reform schools were established come 1857 yet still were connected to the prison system.

It was not until 1908 and the Children Act that imprisoning any child under the age of fourteen was abolished and guidelines established for those between fourteen and sixteen. That same year the Prevention of Crime Act promoted a regime consisting of education, trade and physical training.

I am no expert in child advocacy and prison reform. Yet every so often we all hear of the eight year old child some court wants to try as an adult. We've come a long way from the Victorian era, yet with so many children still fighting to understand how their youth was shaped...

... have we?

LETTERS OF LOVE OR LOVE LETTERS

My dear Lady:

I ask you to accept the enclosed souvenir as an expression of my warmest appreciation of the fact that you have given yourself the trouble to sit for the Agenli portrait…

The gift was an emerald ring.

The love between the hero and heroine of my latest historical is that of a royal and his official mistress. He, a man bound by blood to love his country, to think his family second only to God and she a real girl, fed by an unusual view of the world who longs to be accepted by a society where image is everything and status a brass ring. Their sentiments sent me searching for a royal love affair that was poignant and bittersweet. I needed to look no further than Austria.

The above letter began a relationship in 1885 between Kaiser Franz-Josef and Katherina Schratt, a Viennese actress. It would last until the old gentleman's death. Many biographers of Franz-Josef have tried to make it seem that this was a platonic friendship. Other biographers have avoided the question all together. In reading the letters between Franz-Josef and Katherina there is no doubt in this author's mind that theirs was a deep and sexual relationship. In Schratt, the Kaiser found his kindred spirit and the better half of himself and I found the model for my novel. No proof exists of a sexual relationship between the two; there were no cameras in the apartments or spies in the shrubbery. But Franz-Josef was a notoriously introverted man (except in affairs of the army) and his letters seem far too poignant to suggest anything else. These words were written by a man too circumspect to pen endearments, knowing his words would most likely be preserved by posterity. Yet they read eloquently and the reader cannot help but be struck by their sentiment.

Fear of public opinion rang in them. Each assured the other they did no wrong in being 'only friends' and they need not worry about public thought. One wonders who was jesting more. The official mistress was frowned upon by the latter part of the 19th century when the public no longer wanted to support the idea of 'governmental harlots.' Slowly, a way of life was breaking down that began in the 16th century.

The Renaissance brought a new age to Europe. Societies started to stand on their own without being held down by the thumb of the Vatican. The printing press brought books and literacy to thousands. Diaries became fashionable, and more and more monarchs took to letter writing. In these letters it became clear that the role of women was shifting. Their influence on society was becoming apparent. The woman was not only intelligent, but a beautiful and a powerful tool.

A royal mistress was a coveted prize. The mistress became as important as the prime minister in many royal houses. They were expected to perform certain duties, including sexual favors in exchange for titles, honors, pensions, and a coveted place in court. She promoted the arts (a patronage require by nobles in many countries) and encouraged a love of literature, theater, music, architecture and more. She was the pacifier to the ruler, expected at all times to be gentile, available, and religiously minded. Never was she to speak ill of anyone. Her face was to be plastered with a smile even if she was violently sick, all in exchange for a life of 'comfort.' However, as the centuries progressed the mistress was more a lover than prize and come the latter half of the 19th century the aristocracy began to care about public opinion. Slowly, mistresses were tucked away as noble secrets.

The relationship of Franz-Josef , Katherina and the public's opinion of their relationship gave me a feel for how to craft the love affair between my hero, Klaus, and heroine, Adelrune. My novel is set when this attitude shift toward mistresses was just beginning.

In many of the letters I have come across, I can feel an underlying sense of caution holding back their love. Below are letters from Franz-Josef to Katherina:

1887: …your portrait in mourning dress with the famous angel around your neck (a gift from the Kaiser) I had framed to keep it here and to look at it constantly. This portrait, so like you, reminds me of unforgettable hours…

1888: … fourteen days have past since I talked to you and Sunday it will be as long since I saw you if only from afar. This period seems to me an eternity…

February 14, 1888: … Your letter I will treasure as a precious jewel and as proof of your love. Preserve for me that place I occupy in your great heart…

1890: … I take advantage of the early morning hours to address a few lines to you and to tell you that I think of you constantly and that I long for you incessantly.

Jealousy rears its head when Schratt caught the attention of Graf Philip Eulenburg the German ambassador to Vienna:

1896.. . he may soon push me out of your heart! That is why black thoughts pursue me constantly. It is high time that you quiet me down and that I once again see your dear, clear eyes.

There were times that their letters overflowed with emotion. These 'Gedankenbriefe' were deeply introspective and each urged the other to destroy their written feelings. I cannot tell you how often I reread your dangerous letter. Please lock this letter along with the others extra carefully…' Franz-Josef wrote of her 'stille Woche' or quiet week, known to most women as a menstrual cycle. your quiet week ought to postpone our meeting… and Your quiet week arrived a day too early according to my calculation. Tell me, do you speak of such intimate subjects with platonic male friends?

True to the role of royal mistress, Schratt had private apartments attached by a special door to the Kaiser's villa in Ischl. Franz-Josef did not conceal his early morning walks through the garden at her side. Schratt was treated well having received an annual salary of about 30,000 gulden or 60,000 dollars. Franz-Josef arranged for her financial independence upon his death.

Historically, the mistress was no secret to the wife. The twist in this affair is that Franz-Josef's wife, Elisabeth, arranged and encouraged the relationship. She feared her husband's loneliness while she traveled Europe in search of the independence she lost and yearned for. But I think Elisabeth did not anticipate a profound love to have developed between the Kaiser and the actress. And her jealousy could be easily understood, especially when Elisabeth was a woman who no longer wanted her man! Franz-Josef and his bride were ill-matched from the beginning: Elisabeth too young to wear the robes of Austria and too weak to fend off the over-bearing influences of his mother, and Franz-Josef, blind to understanding her insecurities.

This is one of the most famous imperial affairs in history. It is not the story of a mistress taking over the reins of the royal household or the Lola Montez raising the cockles of royals and commoners. Here is a lonely Kaiser finding friendship in a hausfrau that bloomed to gain the respect and approval of the Viennese--despite its nature.

Thinking on that and the bittersweet tone of many of these letters, I wrote the passage that stems from my black moment. A letter from Klaus to Adelrune, finally admitting the noble secret he keeps from her:

You have captured my love and bound its wings! Though I can never wed you, I you are the companion of my life. I cannot take back the words you now hold against me. But I can at least tell you my reasons in hope that some day you will forgive. You must know, despite how I have hurt you, I see you for who you are and the better half of myself. Could I drain the blood that is in my veins I would, but I am a prisoner to the life that pulses unrelentingly the title of the sultry woman I am born to obey: Austria.

If only Adelrune knew how to read…

THE ROYAL MISTRESS

Mistresses abound in all ages. Today, if a man takes a mistress he is a sinner but years ago--he was a shrewd businessman. Prostitution is the oldest occupation on the planet and the role of the mistresses… right behind it.

The advent of the royal mistresses begins in the 16th century. The Renaissance brought a new age to Europe. Societies started to stand on their own without being held down by the thumb of the Vatican quite so hard. The printing press brought books and literacy to thousands. Diaries became fashionable, and more and more monarchs took to letter writing. In these letters it became clear that the role of women was shifting. Slowly, their influence on society was becoming apparent. The woman was not only intelligent, but a beautiful and a powerful tool.

A royal mistress became a coveted prize. Say mistress and one immediately thinks of governmental harlots. The mistress became as important as the prime minister in many royal houses. They were expected to perform certain duties, including sexual favors in exchange for titles, honors, pensions, and a coveted place in court. She was to promote the arts(a patronage require by all nobles) and encourage a love of literature, theater, music, architecture and more. She was the pacifier to the ruler, expected at all times to be gentile, available, and religiously minded. Never was she to speak ill of anyone. Her face was to be plastered with a smile even if she was violently sick, all in exchange for a life of 'comfort'.(And it was not truly a comfortable life. One poor mistress was forced to hold her bladder…for a long cross-county trip. Heaven forbid she act human and not be available for the King!)

Most royal mistresses thrived in a royal marriage. These marriages were arranged affairs of cousins wedding cousins, Uncles marrying nieces. The purpose of such royal marriages and many marriages within the nobility of the 19th century was not love. It was property and the need for an heir. The wife was to be a purse and a brood mare.

If the wife was a womb, then the mistress was the King's sanity. They were chosen with just as much pomp as the wife. However, noblemen and royals were usually involved in sexual relationships with several women at one time. But only one woman received the title of Maitesse-en- titre--official mistress. And, despite the honor, the official mistress sat quietly embroidering while her royal lover was off betwixt the legs of another woman. And the wife? Ignore her. She was most likely pregnant anyway…

Sexual prowess was only one requirement of a mistress. A king or Emperor could take who he wanted sexually when he wanted… from his prime minister's wife to the unsuspecting chamber maid.

If the royal could not wed the mistress then what was to become of them? Most held the title for years. Why? Usually love did develop. Royals wives where arranged affairs however a King selected their mistresses. And the fruits of love became the royal bastards--hundreds of illegitimate, untitled children ran amok through Europe. Most royals bestowed some form of rank to these children, granting them grand dukes and duchesses with all the money and power of their royal half brothers and sisters. But they could never inherit the throne. Many royals legitimized their children in written decrees. Officially and publicly noting they were of their seed and were to be respected by the public more so then their less loved fully royal siblings.

All this changed come the latter half of the 19th century. Royal mistresses were frowned upon by a public that began seeing them as 'morally improper.' Much of this had to do with view of society, in particular the views of France. In a work published in 1883 in Paris, there were three types of marriages recorded: contracts of convenience, those produced by sympathy or love, and those of duty. Across Europe a sort of interest developed in France and the social ladders the French climbed. It was right and good to do as the French did…

Money and power played such a huge role in marriage--royal and commoner--with sexual relations subject to many restrictions. Inevitably adultery and prostitution were essential to the working of the 19th century. (Marriage of the bourgeoisie was a great means of social ascension. The larger the dowry obtained by the son the better the situation he could buy and the more optimistic his prospects. For the lower common bourgeoisie, a combination of two fortunes was used to set up businesses.)

One decline in the use of mistresses was the spread of gynecological disease. In 1865 one estimate suggested that 80% of women in Paris suffered from leucorrhea (Dr. Louis Seraine: De La sante des gens maries. 1865, 136) In further study another doctor attributed female irritations such as inflammations, tumors, hemorrhages etc to amateur contraceptives. An analysis published in 1872 said that of 325,000 young men of twenty: 109,000-one third-were ill or deformed; most likely due to issues of 'moral standing.'(Armand Hymen: Le Mariage, 1872.243)

The bogy the moralists used to attempt to keep people chaste and from straying in marriage was syphilis (Which I use and reference in book two of The Madrigals) It was essentially Frances' blight. The Dictionary of Received Ideas defines it as common as the cold: 'More or less every boy is affected by it' which means-commoner and royal alike. Between the Crimean War and Prussian War it was suggested that 1/10th of the population suffered from it (4 million people, 140,000 deaths annually. Half caught it between the ages of 14-21. Most bourgeoisie males did so in school)

Mostly this was treated as a moral disease not a disease of the body. Until 1871 the main hospital in Paris, Lancine, had cells underground for the punishment and treatment of the 'morally reprehensible patients'. In 1882 an ordinary hospital saw 31,000 cases. The myth: prostitutes were responsible and the only need was to control them-not the bourgeoisie or the aristocracy that 'buttered multiple buns.'

'It is rare' wrote Dr. Louis Faux in 1880, 'to find in our present state of our moral, boys who are virgins after seventeen or eighteen' (Dr. Louis Faux: La Femme le marriage et le divorce 1880,43)

Most visits to prostitutes began in school, encouraged by the massive war waged against masturbation (a prime obsession of the 19th century moral code). The effort to extirpate it bordered on that of witch-hunts. Priest and teachers fought against it urging self control, which in their eyes, should last until 25 years of age. (Thinking young fathers would produce feeble children) Some church schools were said to have bled pupils with 'excessive sexuality' (Dr. J. Agrippa: La Premiere Fletrissure, 3rd edition 1877)

Therefore, prostitution and the loss of virginity for the majority of French boys played an important role. In 1880 an inquiry among practicing Catholic married males revealed 60% admitted to premarital sexual activity; 47% with prostitutes.

In a study in 1883 by Pierre Veron, adultery after marriage was inevitable. Men placed fidelity first as a quality sought in a wife, but 84% thought it was possible to deceive ones wife without ceasing to love her. 18% of women agreed. 'I make love to my wife when I want a child… the rest of the time I make love with my mistresses' one industrialist is quoted in 1880, ' Wives are to produce heirs. For pleasure men seek mistresses…'

In 1850 Paris was estimated to have 34,000 prostitutes. Until 1946 the state regulated their activity. Public opinion was less outraged by the trade then the trade being carried out publicly. Prostitutes therefore were required to live in brothels. The official brothel numbers in Paris: 1810=180; 1840=200; 1870=145; 1881=125; 1892=59; between 1871-1903 155,000 women were registered as prostitutes.

A lasissez-faire attitude was the norm, but in1880 the government attempted to reform the brothel. Rules of prostitution were established requiring medical visits twice a week to once a month. Regulating brothels under police control had little effect (much to went lax after the Crimean war.)

The brothel of the 19th century was place of relaxation-ordinary and commonplace (and commonplace in book two of The Madrigals as well) Brothel tokens mixed among coins in the pockets of many noblemen. Historically they catered to the rich, until all classes became involved and a department store attitude was developed. By the latter half of the century, while there was still sexual freedom, views of the moral standing on promiscuity became more prevalent. To do as the French was in vogue, to regulate and attempt to govern public views on sex became the thing to do. Mistresses, whether a housefrau, a prostitute or a royal, became something to frown upon.

Societies no longer appreciated government money supporting sex. Mistresses became royal secrets. They did not rule the roosts of the aristocracy, but quietly faded into the background--a necessary evil of a sexual century.