As you can tell the weather is great today.
Countess Danner is a remarkable figure.
Much villified in her time, not because she was a golddigger, that does not seem to be the case, but for her background.
Then as now there is a lot of snobbery in regards to who marries into a royal family, from high as well as low-born.
The nobility looked down on her for being way below her in status, and now they more or less had to bow to her.
The lower classes looked down on her for being a usurper and for rising above her station, a clear case of the tall poppy syndrome.
And she did come from a very poor background and not even a respectable poor background. People can after all be poor, but still considered respectable, just look at H C Andersen and his mother.
And she was an actress! Basically only one step above being a prostitute. - And perhaps she was even forced to cross that line, who knows.
Whatever her background she and the King, clearly hit it off. Somehow they understood each other.
She would have been bright without necessarily being very intelligent and she tried to do good with what influence she had - and that's not the worst epitaph to have.
Coming from a very poor background with firsthand knowledge of abuse in all it's forms, desperate poverty and unhappy marriages and in a time in Danish history where women really had very few rights. Women's rights in the 1800s DK were worse than in medieval times in most aspects. And certainly worse than during Viking and pre-Viking times.
So she established what will forever be her most admirable legacy: An official, protected, shelter for abused women. The first of its kind in DK.
It didn't just out of the blue, of course. And she wouldn't have been able to set up such a shelter on her own. Nor would such a shelter even have been accepted if there wasn't already a considerable focus on abuse of poor women at the time.
- Women of wealthier families usually relied on their families and friends and other connections if they ended up in an abusive marriage and that was hushed down by the involved families.
And of course the lowest class couldn't expect any understanding or help, they were in respectable papers at the time referred to as a "madamme" = bag/hag or a "fruentimmer" = nag. Who basically deserved the life they had and it wouldn't hurt society if such a personage got a month on bread and water in the local gaol.
But there was a considerable focus on the plight of otherwise respectable working-class women who, often due to alcoholism, ended up with their husbands being abusive. And if was for such women this first shelter was created.
Here they could go and stay in safety with their small children. And perhaps get some support, both legal and otherwise. Pretty much as it is today.
Because at the time, and especially before this first shelter was build, a husband could law in hand demand his wife being handed over to him and then "correct her" once again at home.
That too was changing. We all know that women are irrational and often get hysterical and as such sometimes they need a loving but firm hand. But beating them to a pulp! That's over the top.
In a society and time when violence was not only much more common but also much more accepted this Countess Danner Foundation was by no means capable of even sheltering a fraction of the women who needed help, but it was a beginning and an inspiration. Because even though the view on women's rights and male dominance at the time was very different from now, many men, also very influential men, had experienced abusive marriages first hand. Some having seen their mothers being beaten up and they were supportive of this and future shelters.
There is IMO an unfortunate tendency to acknowledge that the struggle for women's rights were first and foremost championed by women, but in the background there were many men without whose support and influence that struggle would have been much more difficult. People, even men, back in the 1800s could be just as progressive, in their way, as today.
Example: My maternal great-grandfather, I think it must be, had a father who regularly caned his children. My great-grandfather who by any account was a kind man, promised never to strike his own (five) children. He did strike his only son once and immediately regretted it and gave the son 0.25 DKK, a considerable sum for a child back in the 1920s!
Anyway, I'm glad, but not surprised, to see that Queen Mary supporting and honoring Countess Danner for her shelter.
Unfortunately these shelters are still needed today some 175 years later. Women are still being abused and even killed by their partners as we all know and children still witness their mother being beaten up.
However today, the majority of women seeking shelter are now immigrant women. And I choose to see that as a good thing. Both because they can find help and support but also because they know they can find help and support. That despite some, not all but enough, imans trying to maintain the old female-oppressive cultural pattern for the sake of the honor within the families.
)
www.hola.com
www.instagram.com
www.kongehuset.dk
www.seoghoer.dk
