A tragic destiny was that of most of the posterity of that John Christopher Königsmark, who commanded at the storm of the suburbs of Prague, the last deed of arms of the Thirty Years' War. John Christopher himself was born at Kotzlin in the Mark on Feb. 25, 1600, and from his brother descended the Königsmarks of the Mark. He fought first in the imperial service and in Italy, but afterwards joined the Swedes, and after the peace was Stadtholder of Bremen and Vredun, became Count and Royal Councillor (Reichsrath), and left behind him at his death in 1663 property worth 130,000 thalers yearly. He had three sons; the second, John Christopher, died in 1653 at Rottemburg, in Swabia, by a fall from his horse. The youngest, Count Otto Wilhelm, was born at Minden on June 3, 1639; studied under Esaias Pufendorf, and in 1654 was Rector Magnificus at Jena; served different powers as soldier and diplomatist; distinguished himself as general of the Venetians in the Morea; and died on September 16, 1688, of fever, when before Negropont. He was married to a Countess de la Gardie, of the well-known Swedish family. He probably was that Count Königsmark to whose protection John Leyser (Theophilus Alethaus) fled when he forfeited his offices of preacher and inspector at Pforta, which he had held since 1664, on account of, although himself chaste and virtuous, having defended polygamy; was pursued, taken, placed in prison, and died at Amsterdam in extreme poverty in 1684. The eldest son, Konrad, was first in the Swedish, then in the Dutch service, and fell a lieutenant-general at the siege of Bonn in 1673. He had married Marie Christine, daughter of Marshal Hermann Wrangel, and the Pfalzgravine Amalie Magdalene of Sulzbach, who bore him three sons and two daughters; one son died young. Which of the two others was the elder is doubtful. Certain it is that the one, Karl Johann, who is generally, though on no sufficient grounds, held to be the elder, was born in 1659, at Nieuburg on Fuhnen; studied till 1674 at Hamburg and Stade; then travelled in Holland, England, France, and Italy; fought so bravely on board the Maltese galleys, that on his departure in 1678 he, although a protestant, received the grand cross of the order. He then visited Rome, Florence, Genoa, Venice, Madrid, Paris, Holland, Hamburg, Stockholm, Windsor; set out in all haste when Tangiers was attacked, to take share in the battle; and, as the fleet was delayed by contrary winds, made his journey to Tangiers through France and Spain; from thence back again to Madrid and Paris; then again to Gibraltar, and three times to Africa; was with the English before Algiers; wandered round in Holland, England, and Germany; was with the French before Courtrai; and in Catalonia fought bravely under his uncle at Argos, and died in Greece on August 26, 1686.
The most mysterious episode of his life was brought on by his sueing for England's richest and highest heiress, Elizabeth, daughter of Josceline, second Earl of Northumberland.
The other brother, Count Philip Christopher, was involved in the well-known tale of the unfortunate wife of George I., the unhappy Sophia Dorothea of Zelle, afterwards Duchess of Ahlden, and met his death under circumstances of much mystery. According to the Duchess's assertion, he was the elder brother, as she states he was born in 1656.
The sisters were—Amalie Wilhelmina, and the well-known mistress of Augustus II., Maria Aurora, the mother of Marshal Saxe. Amalie married the Count Charles Gustavus of Löwenhaupt.
Extract from Von Bulau's Geheime Geschichten, vol. iii., article on "Count Löwenhaupt."
BOILING CRIMINALS TO DEATH.
(Vol. v., pp. 32. 112.)
MR. JOHN GOUGH NICHOLS'S observations upon the reply you favoured me by publishing upon this subject, require from me some few observations in further support of it. When I wrote the article in question, I had not had an opportunity of consulting the statute of 22 Hen. VIII. itself. In making the assertion that, prior to the case of Roose, "there was no peculiarity in the mode of punishment," I did so principally on the authority of Blackstone, who says—
"Of all species of deaths the most detestable is that of poison, because it can of all others be the least prevented either by manhood or forethought, and therefore by the statute of 22 Hen. VIII. c. 9. it was made treason, and a more grievous and lingering kind of death was inflicted on it than the common law allowed, namely, boiling to death."
Upon a perusal of the statute (as published by you at p. 33.), I am confirmed in my opinion that the statute was "retrospective in its enactments as against" Roose, and was more extensive in its operation than (as MR. NICHOLS appears to consider) merely depriving the culprit of the "advantage of his clargie." The Act, after reciting the facts of the case, enacted that the particular act of poisoning should be deemed high treason; and that the said "Richard" should be attainted of high treason: and because that offence, then "newly practised," required condign punishment, it was further enacted, that the said Richard Roose should be boiled to death without benefit of clergy.