The Mad King Ludwig

[Gyburc]

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.

[iridaceae]

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.

[scotcat]

 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

[wolfie]

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.

[DangerMouth]

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)

[MadMadge43]

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).

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.

[Waltraud]

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).

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

[Twik]

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. 

[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.

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!

[Calypso]

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).

[artk2002]

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?

[DangerMouth]

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...

[Hushabye]

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

[DoubleTrouble]

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 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?!?!?!?!?

[Wendy Moira Angela Pan]

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?