The Mad King Ludwig

[MadMadge43]

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?

[Calypso]

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 

[MadMadge43]

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.

[Winterlight]

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.)

[guihong]

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

[Sharnita]

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.

[Giggity]

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."

[Sophia]

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. 

[magdalena]

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?

[squashedfrog]

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

[magicdomino]

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. 

[BatCity]

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.

[Peggy Gus]

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?

[SkyTalon]

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!"

[guihong]

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