[nowarninglabel]

I believe the subtle point is that Struensee did these actions for the good of the people, only for the people to then use these new tools against him.

I'm not sure we know of Struensee's motivations, but we can see that he advocated for and temporarily obtained some outcomes that can be seen as almost universally good for the people.

Regardless, maybe one takeaway can be, just because you have given your life towards something good for others, don't expect to be thanked.

[Svip]

It's generally well accepted that Struensee was an Enlightenment and liberal thinker. He believed in these values deeply, and when he saw an opportunity to impose them on a people, he took it. Plus, I'd imagine that Struensee was a man of Enlightened Absolutism, believing in a strong benevolent executive, preferably a King, and was possibly against a Republic.

The thing about Struensee is that he went way too far. The fact that he never spoke any Danish, speaking only German, did not make him a favourite among the populace. Additionally, to help his government reforms, he would often dismiss entire departments (without pension and compensation, no less!) with people of his own likening.

The fact that a German was running Denmark was a scandal of the highest order. And with the free press laws granted, they went out and wrote anti-Struensee pamphlets.

Just because you give them some favours, doesn't mean they will look the other way at your other less popular actions.

[AnimalMuppet]

Giving the people freedom of the press was good for the people? Probably. Having a kid with the queen was good for the people? Probably not.

So, was the criticism for giving them freedom of the press? Or for having the kid with the queen? Or was it for using his position as a doctor to put himself in political power in the first place?

[oh_sigh]

Having a kid with the queen seems neutral, especially if the alternative is for a severely mentally ill man to be the father.