The Mad King Ludwig

[Onyx_TKD]

...
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  ). 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.)

[Peggy Gus]

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".

[MadMadge43]

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.

[Suze]

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.....

[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.)

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!

[KimberlyRose]

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.

[Carnation]

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?

[Sophia]

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"

[DangerMouth]

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

[kglory]

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.

[DangerMouth]

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.

[kglory]

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.

[Waltraud]

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

[squashedfrog]

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.

[AbbyW]

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.