Etiquette Hell

General Etiquette => Etiquette of the Rich and Famous => Topic started by: MadMadge43 on November 16, 2010, 11:30:01 PM

Title: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: MadMadge43 on November 16, 2010, 11:30:01 PM
So I keep thinking back at this and am wondering what you guys think.

When I was in Bavaria I went on a tour of Mad King Ludwigs castles. They were pretty impressive. I have to admit I didn't know a thing about the King before I went.

But there was one thing that pretty much stood out when hearing his story, he was g*y. Between the lavish castles, his fantasy world, his broken engagement and murder you can pretty much figure it out.

So while we're all thinking it a few people asked at the end of the tour asked about his sexuality. The tour guide became very upset and said they were rude for speculating and it was none of their business.

But when I think about it , isn't it? I mean it would explain so much about him and the times. Not to mention royalty is supposedly "chosen" by God, but in Christianity hom*sexuality is wrong, so there for a g*y king would question all monarchies. And that would have been especially bad in the 1880's when the States were doing so well without monarchies, and there was already a movement to get ride of them.

Tour guides have no problem discussing Henry the VIII's sexuality and deviancees, or many other famous people's deviancees. So why would this "speculation" be considered so wrong, especially with the concept that it could have changed history if it had been widely known at the time?
Am I missing something here, or were the tourguides jsut sick of being asked this?

Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Calypso on November 17, 2010, 12:42:19 AM
I'm a bit surprised, because I know tour guides are so well trained in Germany, I would have thought they'd be used to hearing everything and be ready with an answer for it. I don't find the question particularly rude, although I doubt there's anything in the historical record one way or the other. Perhaps the guide was just annoyed that, instead of discussing what she'd told you about, you were speculating.

Aside from that, I've got nothing. But I think you definitely win Best Thread Title for the day  ;D
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: MadMadge43 on November 17, 2010, 12:47:44 AM
I actually did look it up on Wikipedia after I posted this. He has personal diaries that show a very strong h*omosexual tendency. So there is some historical evidence.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Winterlight on November 17, 2010, 07:55:57 AM
I think it's a legitimate question. There is historical evidence to suggest that he was g@y, so I can see why people would ask. I would say it's no less appropriate to ask about this than to ask at Mount Vernon about George Washington's putative son by a slave woman. (I say putative because DNA shows that the man's family was definitely descended from a Washington, but cannot tell whether it was George Washington or a brother.)
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: guihong on November 17, 2010, 08:27:30 AM
He probably was, but maybe you were the 1,000,000th group to ask that, his feet were hurting from a day of guiding, and he considered the castles much more interesting than his personal life.  That's all I have :).

gui
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Sharnita on November 17, 2010, 08:49:57 AM
I don't know.  This is somebody who is characterized as "mad" and perhaps there is concern that focusing on or even discussing orientation will make people think that was part of his madness.  I don't think there is as much danger of somebody saying that if the individual is heterosexual so I don't know that it would/should automatically be aaddressed exactly the same way.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Giggity on November 17, 2010, 09:14:22 AM
I think it's a legitimate question. There is historical evidence to suggest that he was g@y, so I can see why people would ask. I would say it's no less appropriate to ask about this than to ask at Mount Vernon about George Washington's putative son by a slave woman. (I say putative because DNA shows that the man's family was definitely descended from a Washington, but cannot tell whether it was George Washington or a brother.)

I think you might be thinking about Thomas Jefferson ... I'm unaware of General Washington being accused of fathering a child with a slave.

However, you get major points for using "putative," which is a word I don't get nearly enough of. Sorta like "egregious."
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Sophia on November 17, 2010, 09:37:06 AM
I would guess it is just a personal issue of the tour guide.  It seems to be a standard question for any historical figure.   Particularly if the man isn't either a woman chaser, a devoted husband, or lacking in male friends. 

Funny, I did that tour and that question never occurred to me.  But, then I love interesting buildings and the original windows so distracted me that I didn't hear a hunk of the tour. 
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: magdalena on November 17, 2010, 09:41:57 AM
I think it's a legitimate question. There is historical evidence to suggest that he was g@y, so I can see why people would ask. I would say it's no less appropriate to ask about this than to ask at Mount Vernon about George Washington's putative son by a slave woman. (I say putative because DNA shows that the man's family was definitely descended from a Washington, but cannot tell whether it was George Washington or a brother.)

I think you might be thinking about Thomas Jefferson ... I'm unaware of General Washington being accused of fathering a child with a slave.

However, you get major points for using "putative," which is a word I don't get nearly enough of. Sorta like "egregious."

you mean egre-goose, right?
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: squashedfrog on November 17, 2010, 10:09:41 AM
Quite a few of the British kings have been, its never really been denied by biographers.

Edward II (didn't end too well for him)
James I (of the King James bible fame)
Richard I (as in Richard the Lion Heart)

though in earlier biographies, they refer to them as having male "favourites" which I think is kinda sweet.

Modified to change spelling
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: magicdomino on November 17, 2010, 10:23:47 AM
At the Liberace Museum in Las Vegas, the tour guides carefully side-stepped the question of whether or not Liberace was gay.   Which pretty much says that he was, since they would have said "no" if he definitely wasn't.  It may have made a difference that these were older women who may well have had a crush on him when he was alive and popular. 
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: BatCity on November 17, 2010, 10:31:30 AM
You know, I noticed something interesting when I visited Neuschwanstein Castle.

It's pretty common knowledge that Ludwig was mad, and elsewhere in Germany it's accepted as fact.  However, in the town of Fussen and the area right around the castle, I noticed that people seemed to hold him in a higher regard, referring to him as a "dreamer" or a "visionary" who "loved the arts".

Maybe part of it is because he was, after all, royalty.  Or maybe it's because the tourist money coming in from that castle hasn't hurt the local economy.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Peggy Gus on November 17, 2010, 10:34:33 AM
At the Liberace Museum in Las Vegas, the tour guides carefully side-stepped the question of whether or not Liberace was g*a*y.   Which pretty much says that he was, since they would have said "no" if he definitely wasn't.  It may have made a difference that these were older women who may well have had a crush on him when he was alive and popular. 

That's like asking if water is wet?
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: SkyTalon on November 17, 2010, 10:50:02 AM
Reading the OP reminded me of the tourguide from the episode of Family Guy where Stewie and Brian visited Germany. "But, Germany invaded Poland in 1939..." "No! We were invited! Punch was served!"
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: guihong on November 17, 2010, 10:57:08 AM
Quite a few of the British kings have been, its never really been dined by biographers.

Edward II (didn't end too well for him)
James I (of the King James bible fame)
Richard I (as in Richard the Lion Heart)

though in earlier biographies, they refer to them as having male "favourites" which I think is kinda sweet.

Queen Anne, who gave her name to a kind of home architecture, and Queen Mary (the one married to William of Orange), both had intense friendships with other women.  So did Marie Antoinette in France.  It's total speculation as to the real nature of the relationships, as their enemies at the time were quick to spread rumours.

gui
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Onyx_TKD on November 17, 2010, 12:06:19 PM
...
But there was one thing that pretty much stood out when hearing his story, he was g*y. Between the lavish castles, his fantasy world, his broken engagement and murder you can pretty much figure it out.

So while we're all thinking it a few people asked at the end of the tour asked about his sexuality. The tour guide became very upset and said they were rude for speculating and it was none of their business.
...

I don't see a problem with asking what is known about his sexuality or indulging in minor speculation, but if people were phrasing it the way you phrased the bolded section, as if it were absolutely 100% self-evident, no question about it, then I find that very distasteful. He built lavish castles, had a wild imagination, and never married, therefore he was definitely gay? Maybe be was asexual and didn't care for relationships of any sort; maybe he was heterosexual and disliked his intended bride; maybe he was bisexual (sorry, the asterisk string meaning he liked both, not the one meaning he was a woman who liked women  ;D). Honestly, after touring some of his castles, I got the impression that the guy loved his castles and fantasy world above all else, including relationships with either gender. In any case, I think claiming to definitely know anyone else's sexuality is pretty nervy. Speculation along the lines of "if he was gay/straight/bi/asexual, that might explain X, Y, and Z" is one thing, but I find speculation that "He did X, Y, and Z--he must have been gay/straight/bi/asexual" pretty offensive.

I think the tour guide was out of line to scold you for asking or speculating, but I would not fault him at all for saying "I don't know, and I do not wish to speculate on the matter." And if pressed further "I am not going to discuss Ludwig's sexuality; I don't feel that it's my business." (If I had been on the same tour as y'all, I would not have appreciated this line of speculation continuing for very long; if the tour guide didn't want to discuss it, then I personally think asking more than a question or two would be inappropriate.)
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Peggy Gus on November 17, 2010, 02:08:03 PM
I don't think it is necessarily rude to ask but I'm not really sure why people need to know.

If I toured Abraham Lincoln's home and then asked the tour guide if AL was a heterosexual, I would expect him to look at me funny and change the subject. I see no difference between the two, even though I know people equate g*y with scandalous at times. Just like when you read a bio about someone, if the person is g*y, their bio will state that Super Fabulous Celebrity "is openly g*y", yet I never see it written that a celebrity is "openly heterosexual".
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: MadMadge43 on November 17, 2010, 03:03:29 PM
Quote
If I toured Abraham Lincoln's home and then asked the tour guide if AL was a heterosexual, I would expect him to look at me funny and change the subject. I see no difference between the two, even though I know people equate g*y with scandalous at times. Just like when you read a bio about someone, if the person is g*y, their bio will state that Super Fabulous Celebrity "is openly g*y", yet I never see it written that a celebrity is "openly heterosexual".

I think it's kind of like you would mention if a king were blind, but you wouldn't mention that a king could see because it would be automatically assumed. By today's standards hom*sexuality isn't that big of a deal. But in 1880 to have an openly g*y monarch would have caused all sorts of issues. So it is a very contextual thing.

Kind of like no one  would think twice if Hilary Clinton wore pants, but if Queen Mary did it would have been scandalous.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Suze on November 17, 2010, 03:18:57 PM
intresting thread

I was in the castles when I was 10 (like a million years ago)

the thing I remember from the tours was them saying that they found him and his Dr both floating in the lake.....
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Winterlight on November 17, 2010, 04:12:10 PM
I think it's a legitimate question. There is historical evidence to suggest that he was g@y, so I can see why people would ask. I would say it's no less appropriate to ask about this than to ask at Mount Vernon about George Washington's putative son by a slave woman. (I say putative because DNA shows that the man's family was definitely descended from a Washington, but cannot tell whether it was George Washington or a brother.)

I think you might be thinking about Thomas Jefferson ... I'm unaware of General Washington being accused of fathering a child with a slave.

However, you get major points for using "putative," which is a word I don't get nearly enough of. Sorta like "egregious."

I 've been reading a book about Washington which suggests that it was possible that he fathered a child named West Ford. And oops, I just skipped to that chapter and I was wrong. There has been no DNA analysis by the time of writing in 2003. It's also possible it was his brother or a nephew who did so- I don't think the DNA can be broken down to a perfect match. The book is An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America by Henry Wiencek.

And I will take my putative points, and thank you!
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: KimberlyRose on November 17, 2010, 08:52:40 PM
Just like when you read a bio about someone, if the person is g*y, their bio will state that Super Fabulous Celebrity "is openly g*y", yet I never see it written that a celebrity is "openly heterosexual".

Moving OT here, but I went on a training course to teach a s*e*xuality education program this summer.  One of the trainers said that one of her students (I think 8th or 9th grade) took the program to heart and decided it was time to come out to his parents and tell them he was straight.  Gotta love it.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Carnation on November 17, 2010, 09:47:46 PM
At the Liberace Museum in Las Vegas, the tour guides carefully side-stepped the question of whether or not Liberace was g*a*y.   Which pretty much says that he was, since they would have said "no" if he definitely wasn't.  It may have made a difference that these were older women who may well have had a crush on him when he was alive and popular. 

Who are you calling old? ;)
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Sophia on November 17, 2010, 10:34:24 PM
I don't think it is necessarily rude to ask but I'm not really sure why people need to know.

If I toured Abraham Lincoln's home and then asked the tour guide if AL was a heterosexual, I would expect him to look at me funny and change the subject. I see no difference between the two, even though I know people equate g*y with scandalous at times. Just like when you read a bio about someone, if the person is g*y, their bio will state that Super Fabulous Celebrity "is openly g*y", yet I never see it written that a celebrity is "openly heterosexual".

Actually, there is speculation on Lincoln because he had a male roommate.  Look up the group called "Log Cabin Republicans"
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: DangerMouth on November 17, 2010, 10:50:54 PM
I think it's a legitimate question. There is historical evidence to suggest that he was g@y, so I can see why people would ask. I would say it's no less appropriate to ask about this than to ask at Mount Vernon about George Washington's putative son by a slave woman. (I say putative because DNA shows that the man's family was definitely descended from a Washington, but cannot tell whether it was George Washington or a brother.)

I think you might be thinking about Thomas Jefferson ... I'm unaware of General Washington being accused of fathering a child with a slave.

However, you get major points for using "putative," which is a word I don't get nearly enough of. Sorta like "egregious."

I 've been reading a book about Washington which suggests that it was possible that he fathered a child named West Ford. And oops, I just skipped to that chapter and I was wrong. There has been no DNA analysis by the time of writing in 2003. It's also possible it was his brother or a nephew who did so- I don't think the DNA can be broken down to a perfect match. The book is An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America by Henry Wiencek.

And I will take my putative points, and thank you!

Wait, didn't I just hear something about how both Obama and Bush are distant descendant's of Geo. Washington?

No, sorry, had that wrong. But they apparently are related, along with Palin and Limbaugh:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-13/obama-shares-ancestors-with-palin-bush-limbaugh-genealogy-website-shows.html
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: kglory on November 17, 2010, 11:54:09 PM
I think it's a legitimate question. There is historical evidence to suggest that he was g@y, so I can see why people would ask. I would say it's no less appropriate to ask about this than to ask at Mount Vernon about George Washington's putative son by a slave woman. (I say putative because DNA shows that the man's family was definitely descended from a Washington, but cannot tell whether it was George Washington or a brother.)

I think you might be thinking about Thomas Jefferson ... I'm unaware of General Washington being accused of fathering a child with a slave.

However, you get major points for using "putative," which is a word I don't get nearly enough of. Sorta like "egregious."

I 've been reading a book about Washington which suggests that it was possible that he fathered a child named West Ford. And oops, I just skipped to that chapter and I was wrong. There has been no DNA analysis by the time of writing in 2003. It's also possible it was his brother or a nephew who did so- I don't think the DNA can be broken down to a perfect match. The book is An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America by Henry Wiencek.

And I will take my putative points, and thank you!

Wait, didn't I just hear something about how both Obama and Bush are distant descendant's of Geo. Washington?

No, sorry, had that wrong. But they apparently are related, along with Palin and Limbaugh:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-13/obama-shares-ancestors-with-palin-bush-limbaugh-genealogy-website-shows.html

Obama's father was an African who immigrated to the U.S., not a descendant of African-American slaves.  So if President Obama shares ancestry with Palin and Limbaugh, it is probably through his Caucasian ancestors from his mother's side. 

So even if they were all descended from Washington, it wouldn't show whether Washington had a child with a slave.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: DangerMouth on November 17, 2010, 11:56:08 PM
I think it's a legitimate question. There is historical evidence to suggest that he was g@y, so I can see why people would ask. I would say it's no less appropriate to ask about this than to ask at Mount Vernon about George Washington's putative son by a slave woman. (I say putative because DNA shows that the man's family was definitely descended from a Washington, but cannot tell whether it was George Washington or a brother.)

I think you might be thinking about Thomas Jefferson ... I'm unaware of General Washington being accused of fathering a child with a slave.

However, you get major points for using "putative," which is a word I don't get nearly enough of. Sorta like "egregious."

I 've been reading a book about Washington which suggests that it was possible that he fathered a child named West Ford. And oops, I just skipped to that chapter and I was wrong. There has been no DNA analysis by the time of writing in 2003. It's also possible it was his brother or a nephew who did so- I don't think the DNA can be broken down to a perfect match. The book is An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America by Henry Wiencek.

And I will take my putative points, and thank you!

Wait, didn't I just hear something about how both Obama and Bush are distant descendant's of Geo. Washington?

No, sorry, had that wrong. But they apparently are related, along with Palin and Limbaugh:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-13/obama-shares-ancestors-with-palin-bush-limbaugh-genealogy-website-shows.html

Obama's father was an African who immigrated to the U.S., not a descendant of African-American slaves.  So if President Obama shares ancestry with Palin and Limbaugh, it is probably through his Caucasian ancestors from his mother's side. 

So even if they were all descended from Washington, it wouldn't show whether Washington had a child with a slave.

Yeah, I didn't say anything about slaves. Just remarking on the strange coincidence.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: kglory on November 18, 2010, 01:33:13 AM
I think it's a legitimate question. There is historical evidence to suggest that he was g@y, so I can see why people would ask. I would say it's no less appropriate to ask about this than to ask at Mount Vernon about George Washington's putative son by a slave woman. (I say putative because DNA shows that the man's family was definitely descended from a Washington, but cannot tell whether it was George Washington or a brother.)

I think you might be thinking about Thomas Jefferson ... I'm unaware of General Washington being accused of fathering a child with a slave.

However, you get major points for using "putative," which is a word I don't get nearly enough of. Sorta like "egregious."

I 've been reading a book about Washington which suggests that it was possible that he fathered a child named West Ford. And oops, I just skipped to that chapter and I was wrong. There has been no DNA analysis by the time of writing in 2003. It's also possible it was his brother or a nephew who did so- I don't think the DNA can be broken down to a perfect match. The book is An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America by Henry Wiencek.

And I will take my putative points, and thank you!

Wait, didn't I just hear something about how both Obama and Bush are distant descendant's of Geo. Washington?

No, sorry, had that wrong. But they apparently are related, along with Palin and Limbaugh:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-13/obama-shares-ancestors-with-palin-bush-limbaugh-genealogy-website-shows.html

Obama's father was an African who immigrated to the U.S., not a descendant of African-American slaves.  So if President Obama shares ancestry with Palin and Limbaugh, it is probably through his Caucasian ancestors from his mother's side. 

So even if they were all descended from Washington, it wouldn't show whether Washington had a child with a slave.

Yeah, I didn't say anything about slaves. Just remarking on the strange coincidence.

It is a strange coincidence!  I guess for people whose ancestors have been in this country for a long time, there's a chance they will be related.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Waltraud on November 18, 2010, 01:58:03 AM
May I chime in to the original topic. I'm practically living at the foot of King Ludwig's castles, and 150 years ago I would have been one of his faithful subjects.  ;) I'd like to add my PoV as a Bavarian.

1. Yes, he probably had homosexual tendencies. But he was a catholic monarch in the 19th century with very high ideals about a conduct of life worthy of a king etc. AFAIK he preferred shapely young men as his valets and collected photographies of beautiful men. But according to his diary, he tried veryvery hard to suppress any unchaste desires.

2. As a young man, he was considered extremely attractive and stood very much in the spotlight. Now imagine the 19th century Prince William proposing to his long-term boyfriend Daniel von Wetterstein.  ;) A crown prince, especially a beautiful, charismatic, popular, educated one whose picture can be found in many Bavarian girls' bedrooms is. not. gay.

3. He often preferred the company of "simple people", ie farmers, woodworkers, farmhands, maidservants, dairymaids etc to his obligations at court. He loved wandering or riding alone in the Alps and when he met some poor workers he talked to them and gave them presents like a pocket watch or something. And he gave many of them jobs in building his castles. Of course, the poor folk loved their "Kini" (local dialect for "king") for it. And being very conservative and catholic to this day, they would not hear of their popular monarch to have some "unnatural" desires. (In the opinion of 19th century Bavarian mountain farmers. )

4. It is entirely possible that your tour guide was one of the latter group who admired King Ludwig for his imagination and love to his simple subjects and did not like his being reduced to a gay madman. It reminds me a bit of an interview with actor Sir Ian McKellan who complained that every interview, no matter the subject, turned sooner or later to his sexual preferences.

5. I, as a subject to house Wittelsbach  ;), think that the Kini wasn't exactly mad. He probably had to suppress his sexuality, which is never a good thing, and there must have been some genetic predispositions for mental ilness because of the close relationships between families of the European nobility. Apart from that, he was a visionary who loved fantasy worlds but unlike any of us who love spending some time at Hogwarts or in Middle Earth, he had the money and power to make them become reality.  I think he simply did what he enjoyed most. And btw he was declared insane by a doctor who never had examined him in person.

Whew. Thanks for letting me wax all historical. ;)

Waltraud
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: squashedfrog on November 18, 2010, 04:40:36 AM
Quite a few of the British kings have been, its never really been dined by biographers.

Edward II (didn't end too well for him)
James I (of the King James bible fame)
Richard I (as in Richard the Lion Heart)

though in earlier biographies, they refer to them as having male "favourites" which I think is kinda sweet.

Queen Anne, who gave her name to a kind of home architecture, and Queen Mary (the one married to William of Orange), both had intense friendships with other women.  So did Marie Antoinette in France.  It's total speculation as to the real nature of the rel@tionships, as their enemies at the time were quick to spread rumours.

gui

True, but Anne also had 16 children, though alas they did not survive her. I think she was pretty intense all round really. I think they are interred in the Tomb of Mary Queen of Scots.   Or is it Bloody Mary's tomb (Elizabeth's sister)?  hmmm let me check.

And they suggest that Marie Antoinette's relationships may also have been propaganda against her. Though I guess we will never know, pretty much a party court altogether that one.  She had male lovers, certainly.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: AbbyW on November 18, 2010, 05:26:29 AM
I think for George Washington, it's speculated that he was actually infertile due to an illness he had as a young teenager (13).  Martha Washington had four children in her first marriage and she married George when she was 27.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Gyburc on November 18, 2010, 05:46:25 AM
DH and I went to Neuschwanstein on a guided tour a few years ago and had a great time. What I only realised then was how strong the Bavarian identity is and how proud they are of their history (perhaps particularly because it's still pretty much taboo to be 'proud' of one's German history...). It's possible that the guide feels rather protective about his former monarch's reputation.

Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: iridaceae on November 18, 2010, 06:37:50 AM

But there was one thing that pretty much stood out when hearing his story, he was g*y. Between the lavish castles, his fantasy world, his broken engagement and murder you can pretty much figure it out.

Murder never has been proven; he had a brother (younger, I believe) who was mentally ill and locked up and Ludwig did not want to end up like him. Suicide is a possibility. 

As for the lavish castles and fantasy worlds- as I said after visiting Venus's Grotto: he would have loved Disneyland. Can't you see him going through the Haunted Mansion again and again? Having his own musician playing along to the music in Pirates of the Caribbean?

As for the broken engagement I was under the impression that it was at least partially due to his fiancee breaking the engagement.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: scotcat on November 18, 2010, 06:48:39 AM
 Anne also had 16 children, though alas they did not survive her. I think she was pretty intense all round really. I think they are interred in the Tomb of Mary Queen of Scots.   Or is it Bloody Mary's tomb (Elizabeth's sister)?  hmmm let me check.

Mary Queen of Scots. Some are buried at Windsor I believe.

Richard I acknowledged at least one son
Edward II and his queen had four children.
James I and his wife had at least five children

so all were probably bisexual
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: wolfie on November 18, 2010, 08:51:44 AM


True, but Anne also had 16 children, though alas they did not survive her. I think she was pretty intense all round really. I think they are interred in the Tomb of Mary Queen of Scots.   Or is it Bloody Mary's tomb (Elizabeth's sister)?  hmmm let me check.

And they suggest that Marie Antoinette's rel@tionships may also have been propaganda against her. Though I guess we will never know, pretty much a party court altogether that one.  She had male lovers, certainly.

I don't think a woman's marital state or wether she had children really means anything. In that time period it's not like she actually had the ability to say "no I won't marry" or say no to her husband's advances.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: DangerMouth on November 18, 2010, 08:54:22 AM
Anne also had 16 children, though alas they did not survive her. I think she was pretty intense all round really. I think they are interred in the Tomb of Mary Queen of Scots.   Or is it Bloody Mary's tomb (Elizabeth's sister)?  hmmm let me check.

Mary Queen of Scots. Some are buried at Windsor I believe.

Richard I acknowledged at least one son
Edward II and his queen had four children.
James I and his wife had at least five children

so all were probably ********

Hm, does that starred word begin with b-i-...?

I think, no matter what their personal leanings, it's considered part of a monarch's duty to produce heirs. And apparently some still feel that way, even when the monarchy is about as useful as an appendix. I was struck by this quote regarding a recent engagement:

"A strong, stable marriage one that lasts decades and produces heirs could go a long way toward undoing the damage from Charles' and Diana's ugly squabbling and televised confessions of adultery.

"This is their chance to rejuvenate the dynasty," said Patrick Jephson, former private secretary to Diana. "This is an opportunity for a welcome national celebration."


Charles was pressured or persuaded to pick a young, fertile, 'appropriate' young woman as his bride**, instead of the woman he loved. Dianna was pretty much a sacrifice on the altar of Britain's irrational 'need' for a continuous monarchy. At least Willian got to choose freely, and not from a pool of sufficiently aristocratic young women.

**Advice to Charles from his uncle Mountbatten: "In a case like yours, the man should sow his wild oats and have as many affairs as he can before settling down, but for a wife he should choose a suitable, attractive, and sweet-charactered girl before she has met anyone else she might fall for... It is disturbing for women to have experiences if they have to remain on a pedestal after marriage."

(hmm, that was a bit of a tangent, lol)
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: MadMadge43 on November 18, 2010, 09:57:30 AM
Quote
Wink A crown prince, especially a beautiful, charismatic, popular, educated one whose picture can be found in many Bavarian girls' bedrooms is. not. g*a*y.

I think you're saying this tongue in cheek, but there are many people who actually believe this. That's why I think it's important that if he was that it be known so people realize that g*ays have contributed a lot to society. And as to ruining his reputation, I don't think the 21st century crowd would be that upset over it (although some would be very upset, hence why it's even more important to know which historical figures were g*y).
Quote
But according to his diary, he tried veryvery hard to suppress any unchaste desires.

Just because you don't act on it, doesn't mean you're not actually g*y. I would even go so far as to say, that as for the "mad" it could have been very well knowing he was different and needing different outlets than others.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Waltraud on November 18, 2010, 10:19:09 AM
Quote
Wink A crown prince, especially a beautiful, charismatic, popular, educated one whose picture can be found in many Bavarian girls' bedrooms is. not. g*a*y.

I think you're saying this tongue in cheek, but there are many people who actually believe this. That's why I think it's important that if he was that it be known so people realize that g*ays have contributed a lot to society. And as to ruining his reputation, I don't think the 21st century crowd would be that upset over it (although some would be very upset, hence why it's even more important to know which historical figures were g*y).
Quote
But according to his diary, he tried veryvery hard to suppress any unchaste desires.

Just because you don't act on it, doesn't mean you're not actually g*y. I would even go so far as to say, that as for the "mad" it could have been very well knowing he was different and needing different outlets than others.

Regarding the OP, I actually believe that the tour guide might have tried exactly that - showing the public the many achievements of the King, only to be asked about some rumours about Ludwigs psyche and private life.

But IMO it's wrong to claim that a historical person was homosexual without tangible proof. And AFAIK, it is very hard to prove in the case of the king. I mean, his diary entries are, IIRC (read about it years ago) about "sinful desires" that must be suppressed at all costs because they did not fit in with his personal ideal of a monarch. He did not exactly write: "I'd love to play scrabble with that beautiful blue-eyed stableboy but since we're in 1852 and I'm king of Bavaria, let's continue playing hetero instead." ;)

I also believe that only a handful of hardcore Ludwig fans would be truly shocked if Ludwig's homosexuality could be proven. The majority of Bavarians could not care less.

Waltraud
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Twik on November 18, 2010, 10:29:00 AM
Getting back to the topic on hand...

Perhaps the guide was annoyed because guides have to follow a certain script. It's not like they can just go off on prolonged tangents. And since tours are usually family-friendly, indepth discussions of anyone's sexuality are not usually part of the script. Also, if they disagree with you, they're not in a position to say, in effect, "Nope, you're wrong, that's completely off base, and here's why..." because then many customers would complain to their employer.

If you want to debate the topic, one should take it to history class. Or a website.  ;)
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Onyx_TKD on November 18, 2010, 12:12:33 PM

But there was one thing that pretty much stood out when hearing his story, he was g*y. Between the lavish castles, his fantasy world, his broken engagement and murder you can pretty much figure it out.

Murder never has been proven; he had a brother (younger, I believe) who was mentally ill and locked up and Ludwig did not want to end up like him. Suicide is a possibility. 

As for the lavish castles and fantasy worlds- as I said after visiting Venus's Grotto: he would have loved Disneyland. Can't you see him going through the Haunted Mansion again and again? Having his own musician playing along to the music in Pirates of the Caribbean?

As for the broken engagement I was under the impression that it was at least partially due to his fiancee breaking the engagement.

After touring Neuschwanstein, especially after going through the random little hallway-cave, it is my fervent hope that Ludwig II was reincarnated as Walt Disney, and finally got his finished castle!
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Calypso on November 18, 2010, 01:54:22 PM
Waltraud, I am loving your historical input---thank you!
Also, jealous here, because you live in such an exquisite part of the world (I've met Germans who came to my area of Northern California and said they felt at home, landscape-wise, but really Germany is much greener year round, and Bavaria is just awesome).
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: artk2002 on November 18, 2010, 07:53:37 PM
I don't think it is necessarily rude to ask but I'm not really sure why people need to know.

If I toured Abraham Lincoln's home and then asked the tour guide if AL was a heterosexual, I would expect him to look at me funny and change the subject. I see no difference between the two, even though I know people equate g*y with scandalous at times. Just like when you read a bio about someone, if the person is g*y, their bio will state that Super Fabulous Celebrity "is openly g*y", yet I never see it written that a celebrity is "openly heterosexual".

Actually, there is speculation on Lincoln because he had a male roommate.  Look up the group called "Log Cabin Republicans"

Fairly weak speculation, based in part on a lack of knowledge of how people lived in the early- to mid-19th century.  It was certainly not unusual for otherwise unrelated people to share a bed.  Of course, even today having a male roommate would be no grounds for speculation: I've had seven -- what would that say about me?
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: DangerMouth on November 18, 2010, 08:16:56 PM
I don't think it is necessarily rude to ask but I'm not really sure why people need to know.

If I toured Abraham Lincoln's home and then asked the tour guide if AL was a heterosexual, I would expect him to look at me funny and change the subject. I see no difference between the two, even though I know people equate g*y with scandalous at times. Just like when you read a bio about someone, if the person is g*y, their bio will state that Super Fabulous Celebrity "is openly g*y", yet I never see it written that a celebrity is "openly heterosexual".

Actually, there is speculation on Lincoln because he had a male roommate.  Look up the group called "Log Cabin Republicans"

Fairly weak speculation, based in part on a lack of knowledge of how people lived in the early- to mid-19th century.  It was certainly not unusual for otherwise unrelated people to share a bed.  Of course, even today having a male roommate would be no grounds for speculation: I've had seven -- what would that say about me?

You slut, you. Oh, no wait... ;D
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Hushabye on November 18, 2010, 08:21:17 PM
I don't think it is necessarily rude to ask but I'm not really sure why people need to know.

If I toured Abraham Lincoln's home and then asked the tour guide if AL was a heterosexual, I would expect him to look at me funny and change the subject. I see no difference between the two, even though I know people equate g*y with scandalous at times. Just like when you read a bio about someone, if the person is g*y, their bio will state that Super Fabulous Celebrity "is openly g*y", yet I never see it written that a celebrity is "openly heterosexual".

Actually, there is speculation on Lincoln because he had a male roommate.  Look up the group called "Log Cabin Republicans"

Fairly weak speculation, based in part on a lack of knowledge of how people lived in the early- to mid-19th century.  It was certainly not unusual for otherwise unrelated people to share a bed.  Of course, even today having a male roommate would be no grounds for speculation: I've had seven -- what would that say about me?

Depends.  Were you wearing a ring or not?  http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=86507.0
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: DoubleTrouble on November 18, 2010, 10:52:16 PM
I don't think it is necessarily rude to ask but I'm not really sure why people need to know.

If I toured Abraham Lincoln's home and then asked the tour guide if AL was a heterosexual, I would expect him to look at me funny and change the subject. I see no difference between the two, even though I know people equate g*y with scandalous at times. Just like when you read a bio about someone, if the person is g*y, their bio will state that Super Fabulous Celebrity "is openly g*y", yet I never see it written that a celebrity is "openly heterosexual".

I would say that in some cases knowing if a king or queen was g*y would be relevant because presumed same-sex relationships can and have directly effected the world around them. Taking the previous examples stated:

Richard I acknowledged at least one son - Haven't read any books on Richard specifically, however as there were no children of his marriage it led to a small war between King John and Arthur of Brittney who was considered to Richard's heir based on the rights of succession; Arthur's subsequent murder is attributed to have been done personally by King John but has never been proven.

Edward II and his queen had four children - his supposed affair with Piers Gaveston directly lead to a war with the barons and the murder of Piers as well as several peers of the realm. As for the supposed affair with Hugh Dispenser the Younger it directly lead to Edward's queen leaving England and then returning, overthrowing Edward, and putting their son, Edward III, on the throne. It's interesting to note that Hugh was castrated in addition to the normal traitor's execution (hanged then drawn & quartered); castration is not a normal part of a traitor's execution and was not included in any of the other executions related to the overthrowing of Edward II including Hugh's own father (who was considered equally as accountable for the tyranny of Edward).

James I and his wife had at least five children - I have a few good biographies but haven't read them yet ;D Getting there!

So yes it's a valid question as even though nothing can been proven (i.e. "Look we have photographs!" hard to do before the 1860's) because wars have been brought about by subjects thinking a king (or queen) was g*y and that said relationship was detrimental to the kingdom. I don't think it's right but then we have to remember that we are looking through the viewpoint of living in the 21st century; different ages had different morals and values.

I would think a good tour guide would be able to address the issues, not in depth of course, but at least to understand that it is something that people are curious about and it will come up.

And Waltraud? Can I come visit you? Please?!?!?!?!?
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Wendy Moira Angela Pan on November 19, 2010, 12:08:40 AM
But IMO it's wrong to claim that a historical person was homosexual without tangible proof. And AFAIK, it is very hard to prove in the case of the king. I mean, his diary entries are, IIRC (read about it years ago) about "sinful desires" that must be suppressed at all costs because they did not fit in with his personal ideal of a monarch. He did not exactly write: "I'd love to play scrabble with that beautiful blue-eyed stableboy but since we're in 1852 and I'm king of Bavaria, let's continue playing hetero instead." ;)

I also believe that only a handful of hardcore Ludwig fans would be truly shocked if Ludwig's homosexuality could be proven. The majority of Bavarians could not care less.

Waltraud

Wouldn't it also be equally wrong to speculate about whether some one was straight? Or anything else about them that is unprovable?
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Waltraud on November 19, 2010, 02:00:49 AM
But IMO it's wrong to claim that a historical person was homosexual without tangible proof. And AFAIK, it is very hard to prove in the case of the king. I mean, his diary entries are, IIRC (read about it years ago) about "sinful desires" that must be suppressed at all costs because they did not fit in with his personal ideal of a monarch. He did not exactly write: "I'd love to play scrabble with that beautiful blue-eyed stableboy but since we're in 1852 and I'm king of Bavaria, let's continue playing hetero instead." ;)

I also believe that only a handful of hardcore Ludwig fans would be truly shocked if Ludwig's homosexuality could be proven. The majority of Bavarians could not care less.

Waltraud

Wouldn't it also be equally wrong to speculate about whether some one was straight? Or anything else about them that is unprovable?

Goodness, I seem to have more difficulty than usual finding the right words this time around. I apologize.  Please let me try again: In my personal opinion, it is quite acceptable to speculate about someone's sexual orientation. I just don't think it's really that important in the case of Ludwig. People can enjoy the castles and learn about the house Wittelsbach, the king's visions and plans etc without necessarily having someone stating: "Oh, by the way, the king was also probably homosexual." (If it comes up, it is IMO fine to mention, but again IMO not fascinating enough to discuss at length if yes or no ;))

Again, let me draw the parallel to actor Sir Ian McKellen who once complained that every interview invariably ended up with him being asked about his homosexuality. It is nothing absolutely nothing to be ashamed of or to keep a secret (German, even Bavarian culture is generally incredibly tolerant towards gay people) but sometimes it just does not matter.

BTW, thanks, I love living here!  ;D

Waltraud
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Wendy Moira Angela Pan on November 19, 2010, 02:28:57 AM
Oh, I'm sorry Waltraud. I did misunderstand what you were getting at. But I do think that one can enjoy the castles, but also be interested in his personal life. That's just as much part of his history, right? I always think it's fascinating to learn about the inner workings of great historical figures. It's amazing to see how people's minds fit together, you know?
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Sharnita on November 19, 2010, 05:54:08 AM
I don't think it is necessarily rude to ask but I'm not really sure why people need to know.

If I toured Abraham Lincoln's home and then asked the tour guide if AL was a heterosexual, I would expect him to look at me funny and change the subject. I see no difference between the two, even though I know people equate g*y with scandalous at times. Just like when you read a bio about someone, if the person is g*y, their bio will state that Super Fabulous Celebrity "is openly g*y", yet I never see it written that a celebrity is "openly heterosexual".

Actually, there is speculation on Lincoln because he had a male roommate.  Look up the group called "Log Cabin Republicans"

Fairly weak speculation, based in part on a lack of knowledge of how people lived in the early- to mid-19th century.  It was certainly not unusual for otherwise unrelated people to share a bed.  Of course, even today having a male roommate would be no grounds for speculation: I've had seven -- what would that say about me?

Exactly.  That kind of thing actually ticks me off.  He also had to rent a sleeping space in a loft which he shared with a family's kids at s point in his early adulthood in New Salem.  Is some moron going to write a book specualting that he was a child molestor because of that?  People get a little too eager for a TMZ version of histroy sometimes, even if they have to make it up.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Wendy Moira Angela Pan on November 19, 2010, 02:35:14 PM
I agree the the fact that Lincoln had a male roommate is very flimsy evidence for him being gay (my husband has had 9!). But there is some firmer evidence out there. I was just reading an article about this very subject, and apparently Lincoln wrote what are pretty much love letters to a male friend of his. I can't link to the article, though, since I lost the link. 
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: VorFemme on November 19, 2010, 03:18:05 PM
My personal opinion is that someone else's preference in such activities does not matter unless you want them to find you attractive for such activities and are crestfallen to find that they'd really never noticed YOU because you are not their preferred gender (species? remembering some idjit who "married" his dog). 

Sadly, much of the world seems to find speculating about the PRIVATE lives of everyone else in the world to be fascinating.

I just want to find out what they prefer to read and possibly sneak a peak at their library, thanks!  Well, maybe their kitchen and a recipe file or two............I like to read, cook, sew, and read about cooking & sewing.  I also like to read about cleaning house, but find that more fatiguing when it comes time to do it...............might be related to some of my allergies, though
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: artk2002 on November 19, 2010, 07:18:55 PM
I agree the the fact that Lincoln had a male roommate is very flimsy evidence for him being g*a*y (my husband has had 9!). But there is some firmer evidence out there. I was just reading an article about this very subject, and apparently Lincoln wrote what are pretty much love letters to a male friend of his. I can't link to the article, though, since I lost the link. 

Possibly... but are those letters being read in the context of 1840 or in the context of 2010?  Language that you and I would consider over-affectionate between non-romantic men now was much more the norm back then.  It's only in the last  90 or so years that it's become really unacceptable for men to express any kind of affection for each other.

Understand, please, that it makes no difference to me what Lincoln's (or anyone else's) orientation might be.  What bugs me are the retroactive "he's gay" statements based on either a desire to cut down a famous figure of the past, or on applying 21st century criteria to an earlier period.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: TeamBhakta on November 19, 2010, 07:44:48 PM
I agree the the fact that Lincoln had a male roommate is very flimsy evidence for him being g*a*y (my husband has had 9!). But there is some firmer evidence out there. I was just reading an article about this very subject, and apparently Lincoln wrote what are pretty much love letters to a male friend of his. I can't link to the article, though, since I lost the link. 

Possibly... but are those letters being read in the context of 1840 or in the context of 2010?  Language that you and I would consider over-affectionate between non-romantic men now was much more the norm back then.  It's only in the last  90 or so years that it's become really unacceptable for men to express any kind of affection for each other.

Understand, please, that it makes no difference to me what Lincoln's (or anyone else's) orientation might be.  What bugs me are the retroactive "he's g*a*y" statements based on either a desire to cut down a famous figure of the past, or on applying 21st century criteria to an earlier period.

This exactly. I didn't even know about that rumor until Gwyneth Paltrow was on Glee saying "Mary Todd Lincoln in the house. My husband was probably gay."
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Twik on November 19, 2010, 09:47:06 PM
I agree that while the acceptance of gay relationships has been a good thing over the past century, one thing that I think has been lost is an understanding of what I would call a "passionate friendship". People once had friendships so strong that they would risk much, even die for each other, without any romantic involvement. Then came Freud, and all of a sudden any affection between adults started to be seen as essentially sexual.

I recall on another board how one poster could not, simply could not, accept that the fact that a century ago men swam naked with each other in YMCA pools meant anything other than a wild orgy (as opposed to, say, the lack of suitable fabrics for comfortable bathing suits). They were practically snorting like Beavis and Butthead, "They were NEKKID!!!1!"
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: guihong on November 19, 2010, 10:50:48 PM
If you really want to go back, there's always King David and Jonathan, who was actually supposed to be king.  The whole interpretation of "your love is better than that of women" stuff. 

It's strange how mores change over history.  The later Roman Empire resembled our own time as far as tolerance went, rather than the 1840's.

gui
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: cnhartman2 on November 19, 2010, 10:57:37 PM
You're right: it usually is a very huge part of history.

In college, I majored in both English and history.  If ever we were learning about someone and there was even a small speculation that the person was g*a*y, it was brought up, usually by the professor.  Because it DOES say something about the time.  For example (warning: may be TMI): Edward II was killed by having hot pokers shoved up his backside because they thought he was g*a*y.  Do you know why they thought he was g*a*y?  Because he slept with too many women and being sexually promiscuous was considered a feminine trait.  That said A LOT about the time he lived in.  It DOES matter, as far as history is concerned, and it is not rude to ask that sort of thing for knowledge's sake.

Also, why does the word "g*a*y" have asterisks in it throughout this thread as if it's a bad word?  That bothers me a little.

@guihong: A new book came out called God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says by Michael Coogan that I felt was pretty good. It talks a little about David and Jonathan.  However, you probably shouldn't read it if you don't lean slightly to the liberal side.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: evely28 on November 19, 2010, 11:29:12 PM


Also, why does the word "g*a*y" have asterisks in it throughout this thread as if it's a bad word?  That bothers me a little.


It's to outsmart the ads. Same thing with rel@tionships. ;)
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: artk2002 on November 20, 2010, 09:45:49 AM
You're right: it usually is a very huge part of history.

In college, I majored in both English and history.  If ever we were learning about someone and there was even a small speculation that the person was g*a*y, it was brought up, usually by the professor.  Because it DOES say something about the time.  For example (warning: may be TMI): Edward II was killed by having hot pokers shoved up his backside because they thought he was g*a*y.  Do you know why they thought he was g*a*y?  Because he slept with too many women and being sexually promiscuous was considered a feminine trait.  That said A LOT about the time he lived in.  It DOES matter, as far as history is concerned, and it is not rude to ask that sort of thing for knowledge's sake.

You may have majored in History, but you're going to have to try harder on Edward.  Edward was deposed and imprisoned by his wife (Isabella) and her lover (Mortimer.)  He had to be killed to preserve the reign of her son (Edward III.)  The account of his death that you cite wasn't written until 25 years after the fact and is uncorroborated by contemporary sources.  The source of the canard was someone with a political ax to grind with regards to Mortimer, so that makes it very suspect.  Contemporary sources do indicate that Edward was abused as a prisoner, but they state that he either died of natural causes or was strangled/suffocated.

Do you have a citation for the reason for Edward's murder that you gave?  I haven't been able to find that stated -- I've seen his relationship with Gaveston given as a reason to believe him gay (and there is some fairly good evidence there), but nothing about his supposed promiscuity being evidence and being used as a reason to murder him.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Sharnita on November 20, 2010, 10:00:42 AM
I agree the the fact that Lincoln had a male roommate is very flimsy evidence for him being g*a*y (my husband has had 9!). But there is some firmer evidence out there. I was just reading an article about this very subject, and apparently Lincoln wrote what are pretty much love letters to a male friend of his. I can't link to the article, though, since I lost the link. 

Possibly... but are those letters being read in the context of 1840 or in the context of 2010?  Language that you and I would consider over-affectionate between non-romantic men now was much more the norm back then.  It's only in the last  90 or so years that it's become really unacceptable for men to express any kind of affection for each other.

Understand, please, that it makes no difference to me what Lincoln's (or anyone else's) orientation might be.  What bugs me are the retroactive "he's g*a*y" statements based on either a desire to cut down a famous figure of the past, or on applying 21st century criteria to an earlier period.

Exactly.  There's a documentary on young men who survived genocide in the Sudan and came to the U.S.  One of the things they learned is that men holding hands has romantic implications here while it didn't there.  Time and place can have a lot to do with how people understand and interpret meaning.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: DangerMouth on November 20, 2010, 01:18:18 PM
I agree the the fact that Lincoln had a male roommate is very flimsy evidence for him being g*a*y (my husband has had 9!). But there is some firmer evidence out there. I was just reading an article about this very subject, and apparently Lincoln wrote what are pretty much love letters to a male friend of his. I can't link to the article, though, since I lost the link. 

Possibly... but are those letters being read in the context of 1840 or in the context of 2010?  Language that you and I would consider over-affectionate between non-romantic men now was much more the norm back then.  It's only in the last  90 or so years that it's become really unacceptable for men to express any kind of affection for each other.

Understand, please, that it makes no difference to me what Lincoln's (or anyone else's) orientation might be.  What bugs me are the retroactive "he's g*a*y" statements based on either a desire to cut down a famous figure of the past, or on applying 21st century criteria to an earlier period.

Exactly.  There's a documentary on young men who survived genocide in the Sudan and came to the U.S.  One of the things they learned is that men holding hands has romantic implications here while it didn't there.  Time and place can have a lot to do with how people understand and interpret meaning.

Oh, absolutely. One of my fondest 'slice of travel memories' is being in Vientiane, Laos, and seeing two young soldier boys (about 17) walking down the street holding hands, their AK-47's slung over their shoulders... Not something you'd see in the US :)
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: MadMadge43 on November 20, 2010, 05:30:45 PM
Quote
What bugs me are the retroactive "he's g*a*y" statements based on either a desire to cut down a famous figure of the past, or on applying 21st century criteria to an earlier period.

See I don't see it as trying to cut down a famous figure, that would assume being gay was a bad thing. But understanding that there were powerful gay people who made a difference in history is something I think is important for many people to understand.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: artk2002 on November 20, 2010, 06:49:45 PM
Quote
What bugs me are the retroactive "he's g*a*y" statements based on either a desire to cut down a famous figure of the past, or on applying 21st century criteria to an earlier period.

See I don't see it as trying to cut down a famous figure, that would assume being g*a*y was a bad thing. But understanding that there were powerful g*a*y people who made a difference in history is something I think is important for many people to understand.

I left out the third facet that bugs me.  Trying to classify someone as gay (or of a particular ethinc group) in order to "claim" them.  There was a push a decade or so ago to identify Cleopatra as being "black."  Because, you know, Egypt is in Africa.  But this completely ignored the fact that she wasn't even Egyptian -- she was Greek.  So for me, any kind of scholarship that to retroactively classify someone requires very close scrutiny; knowing the motivations of the person making the claim is important.

You are right, though, that it is important and valuable when the classification is done right.  I just hate seeing the truth subverted for someone's personal or group agenda.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Sharnita on November 20, 2010, 07:47:15 PM
Quote
What bugs me are the retroactive "he's g*a*y" statements based on either a desire to cut down a famous figure of the past, or on applying 21st century criteria to an earlier period.

See I don't see it as trying to cut down a famous figure, that would assume being g*a*y was a bad thing. But understanding that there were powerful g*a*y people who made a difference in history is something I think is important for many people to understand.

I left out the third facet that bugs me.  Trying to classify someone as g*a*y (or of a particular ethinc group) in order to "claim" them.  There was a push a decade or so ago to identify Cleopatra as being "black."  Because, you know, Egypt is in Africa.  But this completely ignored the fact that she wasn't even Egyptian -- she was Greek.  So for me, any kind of scholarship that to retroactively classify someone requires very close scrutiny; knowing the motivations of the person making the claim is important.

You are right, though, that it is important and valuable when the classification is done right.  I just hate seeing the truth subverted for someone's personal or group agenda.
lol.  it bugs me because it also seems like it is done to make the individual more interesting or cutting edge.  Like Lincoln needs to be made more interesting.  It was the reason I was so annoyed when the movie Titanic came out.  The had to make up characters and some plot about a necklace or something because the actual people and disaster weren't quite enough for the modern viewer?
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: TootsNYC on November 20, 2010, 08:24:24 PM
You know, I noticed something interesting when I visited Neuschwanstein Castle.

It's pretty common knowledge that Ludwig was mad, and elsewhere in Germany it's accepted as fact.  However, in the town of Fussen and the area right around the castle, I noticed that people seemed to hold him in a higher regard, referring to him as a "dreamer" or a "visionary" who "loved the arts".

Maybe part of it is because he was, after all, royalty.  Or maybe it's because the tourist money coming in from that castle hasn't hurt the local economy.


And maybe it's because he was both, and they like to focus on the positive?
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: kareng57 on November 20, 2010, 08:29:04 PM
Quote
What bugs me are the retroactive "he's g*a*y" statements based on either a desire to cut down a famous figure of the past, or on applying 21st century criteria to an earlier period.

See I don't see it as trying to cut down a famous figure, that would assume being g*a*y was a bad thing. But understanding that there were powerful g*a*y people who made a difference in history is something I think is important for many people to understand.

I left out the third facet that bugs me.  Trying to classify someone as g*a*y (or of a particular ethinc group) in order to "claim" them.  There was a push a decade or so ago to identify Cleopatra as being "black."  Because, you know, Egypt is in Africa.  But this completely ignored the fact that she wasn't even Egyptian -- she was Greek.  So for me, any kind of scholarship that to retroactively classify someone requires very close scrutiny; knowing the motivations of the person making the claim is important.

You are right, though, that it is important and valuable when the classification is done right.  I just hate seeing the truth subverted for someone's personal or group agenda.
lol.  it bugs me because it also seems like it is done to make the individual more interesting or cutting edge.  Like Lincoln needs to be made more interesting.  It was the reason I was so annoyed when the movie Titanic came out.  The had to make up characters and some plot about a necklace or something because the actual people and disaster weren't quite enough for the modern viewer?

However, Titanic was fiction.  It wasn't a documentary.  The movie A Night to Remember from the 1950s was quite faithful as to the details, but many modern viewers would find it pretty dull.  It was based on the story by Walter Lord.  That's just the way it was.

And sometimes, whether or not a historical character was g*ay does make a difference.  Perhaps it should not have, by today's standards, but it might have then.  Decades ago, people who were closeted-g*ay could have been subject to blackmail.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Kendo_Bunny on November 22, 2010, 05:58:59 AM
I once read a book that suggested that the reason that Ludwig never married and built French-style gardens and salons in his palaces was that he had a sort of fixation on Marie Antoinette, despite the fact that she was killed before he was born. At least that it seemed to be a popular belief at the turn of the last century... he was also being described as "gloriously mad", rather than dangerous or subversive.

While it is interesting to speculate, what we would obviously interpret as homosexual or whatever is applying a modern lens to past events. Maybe Ludwig was a prototypical D&D nerd with the money and power to make his fantasies real. Maybe he was on the autistic spectrum, and being around people of the opposite sex made him uncomfortable. Maybe, as another poster suggested, he was asexual - though perhaps his "sinful desires" refer to autosexuality (unattracted to anyone but himself. Last I checked, that was frowned on too in the 1800's). Maybe he was impotent, or maybe he was somewhat agoraphobic. Maybe he was heterosexual, but was gynophobic. Flamboyant design taste is not necessarily the best indicator, or the Sun King was definitely very g*a*y. Not to mention Elvis Presley.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: iridaceae on November 22, 2010, 06:21:52 AM
Quote
What bugs me are the retroactive "he's g*a*y" statements based on either a desire to cut down a famous figure of the past, or on applying 21st century criteria to an earlier period.

See I don't see it as trying to cut down a famous figure, that would assume being g*a*y was a bad thing. But understanding that there were powerful g*a*y people who made a difference in history is something I think is important for many people to understand.

I left out the third facet that bugs me.  Trying to classify someone as g*a*y (or of a particular ethinc group) in order to "claim" them.  There was a push a decade or so ago to identify Cleopatra as being "black."  Because, you know, Egypt is in Africa.  But this completely ignored the fact that she wasn't even Egyptian -- she was Greek.  So for me, any kind of scholarship that to retroactively classify someone requires very close scrutiny; knowing the motivations of the person making the claim is important.

You are right, though, that it is important and valuable when the classification is done right.  I just hate seeing the truth subverted for someone's personal or group agenda.
lol.  it bugs me because it also seems like it is done to make the individual more interesting or cutting edge.  Like Lincoln needs to be made more interesting.  It was the reason I was so annoyed when the movie Titanic came out.  The had to make up characters and some plot about a necklace or something because the actual people and disaster weren't quite enough for the modern viewer?

Many fictional stories are told about events, wars, etc. because it allows the creator to focus in on what they want to tell.  Uncle Tom's Cabin- fiction- was as important to the abolitionist movement as the lectures escaped slaves would give or the autobiographies they published.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Sharnita on November 22, 2010, 06:40:56 AM
Quote
What bugs me are the retroactive "he's g*a*y" statements based on either a desire to cut down a famous figure of the past, or on applying 21st century criteria to an earlier period.

See I don't see it as trying to cut down a famous figure, that would assume being g*a*y was a bad thing. But understanding that there were powerful g*a*y people who made a difference in history is something I think is important for many people to understand.

I left out the third facet that bugs me.  Trying to classify someone as g*a*y (or of a particular ethinc group) in order to "claim" them.  There was a push a decade or so ago to identify Cleopatra as being "black."  Because, you know, Egypt is in Africa.  But this completely ignored the fact that she wasn't even Egyptian -- she was Greek.  So for me, any kind of scholarship that to retroactively classify someone requires very close scrutiny; knowing the motivations of the person making the claim is important.

You are right, though, that it is important and valuable when the classification is done right.  I just hate seeing the truth subverted for someone's personal or group agenda.
lol.  it bugs me because it also seems like it is done to make the individual more interesting or cutting edge.  Like Lincoln needs to be made more interesting.  It was the reason I was so annoyed when the movie Titanic came out.  The had to make up characters and some plot about a necklace or something because the actual people and disaster weren't quite enough for the modern viewer?

Many fictional stories are told about events, wars, etc. because it allows the creator to focus in on what they want to tell.  Uncle Tom's Cabin- fiction- was as important to the abolitionist movement as the lectures escaped slaves would give or the autobiographies they published.

I am aware of that.  That is not what I am referring to however.  There is a trend in adding to/speculating about/fictionalizing significant historical events and individuals simply to make them edgier for today's audiences. 
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: iridaceae on November 22, 2010, 06:51:17 AM
Quote
What bugs me are the retroactive "he's g*a*y" statements based on either a desire to cut down a famous figure of the past, or on applying 21st century criteria to an earlier period.

See I don't see it as trying to cut down a famous figure, that would assume being g*a*y was a bad thing. But understanding that there were powerful g*a*y people who made a difference in history is something I think is important for many people to understand.

I left out the third facet that bugs me.  Trying to classify someone as g*a*y (or of a particular ethinc group) in order to "claim" them.  There was a push a decade or so ago to identify Cleopatra as being "black."  Because, you know, Egypt is in Africa.  But this completely ignored the fact that she wasn't even Egyptian -- she was Greek.  So for me, any kind of scholarship that to retroactively classify someone requires very close scrutiny; knowing the motivations of the person making the claim is important.

You are right, though, that it is important and valuable when the classification is done right.  I just hate seeing the truth subverted for someone's personal or group agenda.
lol.  it bugs me because it also seems like it is done to make the individual more interesting or cutting edge.  Like Lincoln needs to be made more interesting.  It was the reason I was so annoyed when the movie Titanic came out.  The had to make up characters and some plot about a necklace or something because the actual people and disaster weren't quite enough for the modern viewer?

Many fictional stories are told about events, wars, etc. because it allows the creator to focus in on what they want to tell.  Uncle Tom's Cabin- fiction- was as important to the abolitionist movement as the lectures escaped slaves would give or the autobiographies they published.

I am aware of that.  That is not what I am referring to however.  There is a trend in adding to/speculating about/fictionalizing significant historical events and individuals simply to make them edgier for today's audiences. 

Many times it isn't so much speculating or making them edgier but tearing away at the myth of the person.   Henry Ford was anti-Semitic. Saying so is not sensationalizing him but rather admitting what was hidden to make him seem More Of A Hero.  Benjamin Franklin went after just about every young woman he ran across. Should that be whitewashed, too?
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Sharnita on November 22, 2010, 07:26:56 AM
But we have just looked at some examples that aren't proven but can't be absolutely be disproven either and people clamor for those stories. 
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: iridaceae on November 22, 2010, 07:33:58 AM
But we have just looked at some examples that aren't proven but can't be absolutely be disproven either and people clamor for those stories. 

People like to speculate. It's very human. It ranges from "Was Mad King Ludwifg mad?" to "I hear that tramp Debbie is pregnant again; do you think it's her husband's?" to "Was Akhenaton really a monotheist?  What did he think about the other Gods?" to "Do you think that Montague John Druitt was really Jack the Ripper?"
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: DoubleTrouble on November 22, 2010, 06:39:01 PM
But we have just looked at some examples that aren't proven but can't be absolutely be disproven either and people clamor for those stories. 

People like to speculate. It's very human. It ranges from "Was Mad King Ludwifg mad?" to "I hear that tramp Debbie is pregnant again; do you think it's her husband's?" to "Was Akhenaton really a monotheist?  What did he think about the other Gods?" to "Do you think that Montague John Druitt was really Jack the Ripper?"

pffff. Everyone knows Jack the Ripper was really the Duke of Clarence  ;D
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: padua on January 05, 2011, 08:48:21 PM
many people are fascinated by royalty. and by every aspect of their lives, not just their royal decrees. i don't read the tabloids, but even i know about prince william and various aspects of his love life. it's hard to avoid, actually. people speculating about a historical figure's sexuality isn't much different than their wanting to know how the royalty buttered their bread and engaged in their passions (whether it be music or sexual partners). it's fascinating. that's why the period movies and the historical fictions (which i adore, by the way).

ludwig is one of those deliciously fascinating men people want to know everything about. his relationship with wagner is intriguing in and of itself (can you imagine having someone like wagner around? regardless of how distasteful he was reputed to be?). when i lived in austria, i gobbled up everything related to Sissi (ludwig's cousin, kaiserin elisabeth, married to franz josef). it's hard not to get swept up in the unrelatable, surreal life of kings and queens past.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Musicwoman on January 06, 2011, 07:47:04 AM
You know, I noticed something interesting when I visited Neuschwanstein Castle.

It's pretty common knowledge that Ludwig was mad, and elsewhere in Germany it's accepted as fact.  However, in the town of Fussen and the area right around the castle, I noticed that people seemed to hold him in a higher regard, referring to him as a "dreamer" or a "visionary" who "loved the arts".

Maybe part of it is because he was, after all, royalty.  Or maybe it's because the tourist money coming in from that castle hasn't hurt the local economy.


As an opera freak, I definitely have to thank Ludwig for his love of the arts.  All of Wagner's late works (including the Ring Cycle) were written under Ludwig's patronage. Rock on, Ludwig.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Wonderflonium on January 06, 2011, 08:08:10 AM
So.... this thread is making me feel really ignorant. It's also making me REALLY want to research Ludwig. I gotta say, he sounds kind of awesome.  ;D
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Twik on January 06, 2011, 08:57:08 AM
many people are fascinated by royalty. and by every aspect of their lives, not just their royal decrees. i don't read the tabloids, but even i know about prince william and various aspects of his love life. it's hard to avoid, actually. people speculating about a historical figure's sexuality isn't much different than their wanting to know how the royalty buttered their bread and engaged in their passions (whether it be music or sexual partners). it's fascinating. that's why the period movies and the historical fictions (which i adore, by the way).

As fascinating as the topic may be, it is not, in my opinion, appropriate to start discussing these things with a tourguide who is trying to follow a script, and also keep things family-friendly. As they say, there's a time and place for such things, and in the middle of a group tour, one has to basically "go with the flow".
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Waltraud on January 06, 2011, 09:27:04 AM
So.... this thread is making me feel really ignorant. It's also making me REALLY want to research Ludwig. I gotta say, he sounds kind of awesome.  ;D

From an US point of view, I live basically in the shadow of Neuschwanstein  :D and I have to agree. Ludwig WAS kind of awesome, a great promoter of modern technology and architecture and a great lover of the arts. But he was also REALLY lonely and somewhat strange, avoiding human company and dining with Louis XIV and Madame Pompadour. BTW, try and research his untimely death - one of the few unsolved mysteries left over in our times...

His cousin Sissi also spent parts of their childhood quite close to where I live. She was an extraordinary person as well - a bit of a special snowflake, though.

And speaking of family-friendliness - only very few people in Germany would bat an eye in this context, assuming that smaller children don't listen to the tourguide anyway and older ones know what "gay" means and don't really care either way.

I still think the tourguide was a bit tired of comments about "Ludwig the gay Madman *chortlesnicker*" when he was trying to show a more comprehensive and detailed picture of Ludwig's life and merits. Note: I don't say the OP was tactless or crude or had no right to ask but perhaps she was the 500th person on this day to do so. Waltraud
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Jan74 on January 06, 2011, 10:33:35 AM
I love the Sissi movies.  ;D
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: evely28 on January 06, 2011, 10:34:37 AM
I'd just like to clarify that it wasn't the OP that had asked the question but other tourists.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: padua on January 06, 2011, 10:54:38 AM
I love the Sissi movies.  ;D


i just watched them. really well done for their time.
perhaps this is just too kitschy, but i loved 'elisabeth' the musical.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Jan74 on January 06, 2011, 11:09:50 AM
I love the Sissi movies.  ;D


i just watched them. really well done for their time.
perhaps this is just too kitschy, but i loved 'elisabeth' the musical.

I've never seen the musical. Now I have to.

It sure helps that Romy Schneider was just so lovely as well. There are many women my mother's age, born in the mid-50s, named "Romy" here due to the Sissi movies.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: pierrotlunaire0 on January 06, 2011, 11:10:42 AM
I don't think it is necessarily rude to ask but I'm not really sure why people need to know.

If I toured Abraham Lincoln's home and then asked the tour guide if AL was a heterosexual, I would expect him to look at me funny and change the subject. I see no difference between the two, even though I know people equate g*y with scandalous at times. Just like when you read a bio about someone, if the person is g*y, their bio will state that Super Fabulous Celebrity "is openly g*y", yet I never see it written that a celebrity is "openly heterosexual".

Actually, there is speculation on Lincoln because he had a male roommate.  Look up the group called "Log Cabin Republicans"

Fairly weak speculation, based in part on a lack of knowledge of how people lived in the early- to mid-19th century.  It was certainly not unusual for otherwise unrelated people to share a bed.  Of course, even today having a male roommate would be no grounds for speculation: I've had seven -- what would that say about me?

Well, if you had had SIX roommates, I would venture to say that Snow White is looking for you guys.

(Ducks and runs for cover)
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: padua on January 06, 2011, 05:12:38 PM
I've never seen the musical. Now I have to.

It sure helps that Romy Schneider was just so lovely as well. There are many women my mother's age, born in the mid-50s, named "Romy" here due to the Sissi movies.

the musical concentrated more on the tragic parts of her life. it's really well done. uwe kroeger has the voice of an angel.
it was quite popular (not so sure now). in fact, it was a Big Hit in japan. i think it's been translated into 7 languages. if you like musicals... if you like the habsburgs... if you like singing along in german... it's a must-see.

no cameos by ludwig, however.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Jan74 on January 06, 2011, 05:31:23 PM
I don't speak German, but I'm in anyway.  ;D
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Giggity on January 06, 2011, 06:18:50 PM
Maybe Ludwig was a prototypical D&D nerd with the money and power to make his fantasies real.

Can you imagine the uber-pimpy dice he'd use, being king and all?  ;D
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Giggity on January 06, 2011, 06:19:48 PM
People like to speculate. It's very human. It ranges from "Was Mad King Ludwifg mad?" to "I hear that tramp Debbie is pregnant again; do you think it's her husband's?" to "Was Akhenaton really a monotheist?  What did he think about the other Gods?" to "Do you think that Montague John Druitt was really Jack the Ripper?"

pffff. Everyone knows Jack the Ripper was really the Duke of Clarence  ;D

What? Debbie's a tramp?!!?!
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: LauraKat on January 06, 2011, 11:40:35 PM
From what I understand (and this mostly comes from the game Gabriel Knight: The Beast Within, a brilliant game if anyone is interested :) ) Ludwig was the last king of Bavaria, a fairytale king type character who is still held in very high esteem by many Bavarians. I get the impression he's thought of in a similar way to how Princess Diana is by people in England. It's possible the tour guide was brought up with this idealised view of Ludwig instilled in him and that's why he reacted so strongly to the question. Someone's sexuality could be considered a base characteristic and not something you want to think about when you admire someone.

That said, I still think he was rude to react the way he did. It's hard to imagine he would last very long as a tour guide if he isn't able to handle such questions with grace.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: PaddedPaws on January 07, 2011, 12:27:46 AM
Ludwig was the last king of Bavaria, a fairytale king type character who is still held in very high esteem by many Bavarians. I get the impression he's thought of in a similar way to how Princess Diana is by people in England. It's possible the tour guide was brought up with this idealised view of Ludwig instilled in him and that's why he reacted so strongly to the question. Someone's sexuality could be considered a base characteristic and not something you want to think about when you admire someone.

The thing is, the person wasn't asking about his sexuality. They were asking if he was romantic with males. I don't think it would have been inappropriate to ask if he had female lovers. Similarly, I don't thin k it was inappropriate to ask if he had male lovers.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: ghost on January 07, 2011, 11:18:40 AM
If Ludwig were alive right now, I think a lot of people would be calling out about interesting assumptions. I do think it's a little rude and presumptuous to speculate about the personal lives of anyone - alive or dead - when it really isn't any of our (in the general sense) business. That's how I try to look at things.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: jayhawk on January 07, 2011, 04:05:59 PM
. Apart from that, he was a visionary who loved fantasy worlds but unlike any of us who love spending some time at Hogwarts or in Middle Earth, he had the money and power to make them become reality.  I think he simply did what he enjoyed most. And btw he was declared insane by a doctor who never had examined him in person.

Whew. Thanks for letting me wax all historical. ;)

Waltraud

kind of like Michael Jackson
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: DangerMouth on January 07, 2011, 04:09:47 PM
. Apart from that, he was a visionary who loved fantasy worlds but unlike any of us who love spending some time at Hogwarts or in Middle Earth, he had the money and power to make them become reality.  I think he simply did what he enjoyed most. And btw he was declared insane by a doctor who never had examined him in person.

Whew. Thanks for letting me wax all historical. ;)

Waltraud

kind of like Michael Jackson

*snorfle!*
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Jan74 on January 08, 2011, 06:09:12 AM
If Ludwig were alive right now, I think a lot of people would be calling out about interesting assumptions. I do think it's a little rude and presumptuous to speculate about the personal lives of anyone - alive or dead - when it really isn't any of our (in the general sense) business. That's how I try to look at things.

But people do speculate about the love life of for example, Henry VIII, when they visit a place historically connected with him. Or of Marie Antoinette. So I agree with PaddedPaws that whether one considers any speculation about the private lives of historical figures appropriate or not (without going into the issue that most historians find private lives a very important part of history), the fact that his speculation is of a homosexual nature does not make it any less appropriate.
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: iridaceae on January 08, 2011, 06:21:36 AM
People like to speculate. It's very human. It ranges from "Was Mad King Ludwifg mad?" to "I hear that tramp Debbie is pregnant again; do you think it's her husband's?" to "Was Akhenaton really a monotheist?  What did he think about the other Gods?" to "Do you think that Montague John Druitt was really Jack the Ripper?"

pffff. Everyone knows Jack the Ripper was really the Duke of Clarence  ;D

What? Debbie's a tramp?!!?!

You mean you didn't know?!
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Nibsey on January 08, 2011, 10:28:58 AM
If Ludwig were alive right now, I think a lot of people would be calling out about interesting assumptions. I do think it's a little rude and presumptuous to speculate about the personal lives of anyone - alive or dead - when it really isn't any of our (in the general sense) business. That's how I try to look at things.

But people do speculate about the love life of for example, Henry VIII, when they visit a place historically connected with him. Or of Marie Antoinette. So I agree with PaddedPaws that whether one considers any speculation about the private lives of historical figures appropriate or not (without going into the issue that most historians find private lives a very important part of history), the fact that his speculation is of a homosexual nature does not make it any less appropriate.

Yeah I'm doing my thesis on a king x's court and it's very important as part of my thesis to at least speculate whether a certain person close to said king was gay because if they were gay it puts an entirely new spin on a knock on effect which directly influenced court politics. (And I'm not giving the person name because I don't want anyone stealing my thesis idea until it's done.  ;) )
Title: Re: The Mad King Ludwig
Post by: Jan74 on January 08, 2011, 11:15:40 AM
If Ludwig were alive right now, I think a lot of people would be calling out about interesting assumptions. I do think it's a little rude and presumptuous to speculate about the personal lives of anyone - alive or dead - when it really isn't any of our (in the general sense) business. That's how I try to look at things.

But people do speculate about the love life of for example, Henry VIII, when they visit a place historically connected with him. Or of Marie Antoinette. So I agree with PaddedPaws that whether one considers any speculation about the private lives of historical figures appropriate or not (without going into the issue that most historians find private lives a very important part of history), the fact that his speculation is of a homosexual nature does not make it any less appropriate.

Yeah I'm doing my thesis on a king x's court and it's very important as part of my thesis to at least speculate whether a certain person close to said king was gay because if they were gay it puts an entirely new spin on a knock on effect which directly influenced court politics. (And I'm not giving the person name because I don't want anyone stealing my thesis idea until it's done.  ;) )

That sounds like it is gonna be a cool thesis.