Talk:Ludwig II of Bavaria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ludwig II of Bavaria article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Funding of Castle Construction

So, who is right here?

I wrote: Second, he funded the construction of his famous fairy-tale castles from his family's private property, not from the state budget.

but User:Krupo added: Ironically, despite nearly bankrupting Bavaria with his construction projects, the palaces have now turned into profitable tourist attractions.

Well, I only remembered having read it somewhere the first way. So, Krupo, are you sure about your variant? Simon A. 11:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just visited the place, and what I wrote is correct if the people I spoke to are to be believed. Here is the more complicated explanation: Ludwig borrowed heavily to build his castles. Unfortunately, the guarantors of his debts were his family members. I may have stretched things by making it sound like the Bavarian nobility is one and the same as the state, but what I can attest to is the fact that some very powerful people were upset with how he was doing things. Unfortunately what I'm not certain about is the connection between the nobility and the state itself during that part of the 19th century. I'm going to change "Bavaria" to "Bavaria's royal family" immediately, which should help. Krupo 00:14, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, this way, it makes sense. Maybe it is formally correct to equate the royal family with the state, but it misses the point from the view of ordinary people. That's because for them, Ludwig's building enterprises actually flushed money back from the treasury of the royals back into their pockets. It was mainly the workers in the region who carried out all the work and got paid for it. Simon A. 11:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The only problem with that approach, of course, is what happens when he's flushing money he doesn't have - the debts, and their effect on the state. I know little about that last topic, but I suppose it's not too critical to tying up this part of the article, eh? :) Krupo 20:33, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)


I recently visited Neuschwanstein and Herrenchiemsee and I was informed by the tour guides that the people of Bavaria hated Ludwig for draining the national funds to build his castles. Construction of his castles halted on his death day because absolutely no one wished to continue pouring money into seemingly pointless and overly opulent palaces. The statement, "Second, Ludwig funded the construction of his famous castles with his personal income, not from the state budget," should either be cited or altered. Silverbay312 (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lieutenant-Colonel Washington

Who was KARL THEODOR Freiherr von WASHINGTON, Lieutenant-Colonel, assumed murder of King Ludwig II. of Bavaria?
see:
1.: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/8171/GeorgeWashington.html
2.: http://www.camerama.demon.nl/was/
3.: http://www.internet-erding.de/notzing/chronik.HTM
Dietmar 20:33 Apr 15, 2005


I removed

  • It is alleged in 2005 that Ludwig was murdered by Lieutenant-Colonel Washington.

This was added by the same anon who wrote the above paragraph. The web references don't seem to support this conspiracy theory and the name Washington does not appear in the German Wikipedia. Let's get some more documentation before we restore this.RJFJR 22:04, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I just checked the talk page in the German wikipedias and it does have the name Washington on it (several times). My german isn't good enough to tell what it says without a lot of time with a dictionary.RJFJR 22:08, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


Lieutenant-Colonel Baron von Washington was an aide-de-camp who was among the delegation sent from Munich to Hohenschwangau on 8 June to take King Ludwig into custody. (The others in the delegation were Baron Krafft von Crailsheim (minister of the royal house and of foreign affairs, and a joint legal guardian appointed for the king), Count Maximilian von Holnstein, Baron R. von Malsen (grand master of the king's household), Count Clemens von Toerring-Jettenbach (another joint legal guardian for the king), Karl von Rumpler, and Dr. Bernhard von Gudden.) By most accounts, Baron Washington was the man who found the bodies of King Ludwig and Dr. Gudden after they drowned. He is known to have made the King's pocketwatch, which suggested a problematic time of death, "disappear".- Nunh-huh 01:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Where is the murderer? See http://www.erzabtei.de/html/Aktuelles/Projekte/Ludwig/Leseproben/Leseprobe2.pdf. See also the original telegrams of Lieutenant-Colonel Baron von Washington: http://www.shopping-kl.de/Aktuell/Geschichten/Ludwig/Ludwig-7.html . See an interview with King Ludwig II of Bavaria. Lieutenant-Colonel Karl Theodor Baron von Washington was a very great enemey of King Ludwig II. He was the son of Jakob Baron von Washington (Baron=Freiherr, Jakob=James), who promoted to lieutenant general—the same rank held by George Washington. --Dietmar 22:30, 7 May 2005

[edit] "Mad King" Ludwig

Referring to him as "Mad King" Ludwig is isn't NPOV, calling someone a "Mad King" is a perjorative term and I request that it be changed to "Mentally Challenged Person of Royal Birthage as Head of State".

Sorry, that's what they called him. Isn't it terrible that people were so politically incorrect in those days? Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard of him called "Ludwig the Mad" only "Mad King Ludwig". I amg changing it to that, all in quotes.-- Hugh7 22:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Mentally Challenged Person of Royal Birthage as Head of State".

the above sounds extremely ridiculous. :-D

[edit] His sexuality

Must we be so coy? In "The Dream King" Wilfred Blunt makes it very clear from Ludwig's diaries and notes to himself that his attraction to Kainz and Hornig (and Wagner?) was sexual, and that he sometimes acted on his feelings, felt very guilty about it, and promised never to do it again - until the next time. Or does all of Bavaria revert it if we put that in? -- Hugh7 22:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Blunt's book was considered highly speculative. And it must be remembered that ways of speaking back then, even words themselves, held a very different meaning than they do today. Saying that you loved someone back then could mean something totally different than it does now.
However, if you wanted to include something that was well-cited within this article, it might remain. But I'm afraid that any mention at all carries the risk of it being reverted, due to its provacative subject matter and the public image that Ludwig holds. - Maaya 02:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The original diary page: Am 16ten über Heiterwang, Lermos (Rast), Partenkirchen. - Über das 18te Jahr gelesen, um 11 fort über Walchensee, Urfeld, S.h.R.H.H., Mondschein, Kesselberg, - Kochelsee, Penzberg, in die Stadt - (horribile dictu) - Aussöhnung mit Richard, theurer Meiner Seele [Note: theurer=teurer=treuer, faithful man of my soul, and not: beloved of my soul] Am 21. dem Todes-Tage des reinen u. erhabenen König Ludwig XVI. symbolisch allegorisch letzte Sünde, durch jenen Sühnungstod u. jene Catastrophe vom 15.d.M. geheiligt, gereinigt von allem Schlamm, ein reines Gefäß v. Richards Liebe und Freundschaft. - In den Fluten wird der Ring geweiht, geheiligt, verleiht dem Träger Riesenstärke, Entsagungskraft. - Kuß heilig u. rein ein einziges Mal. Ich der König [Note: page 24:] d. 21. Jan. 1872 - Vivat Rex et Richardus in aeternum - pareat malum in aeternum [Note: Long lives the king and Richard in eternity - down with the bad one in eternity] 3.Febr - Hände kein einziges Mal mehr hinab, bei schwerer Strafe! Y.E.R. - Im Jan. Richard hier dreimal bei mir, gesungen, Residenztheater (Dekoration Louis XIV), am 31. Hofball, Ritt mit R. in Nymphenburg (Amalienburg). Am 28. Lohengrin! - Doch bei dem Ringe selbst und mein Gedenken [Note:page 25, Richard is writing, not Ludwig:] De par le Roy - Bei unserer Freundschaft sei es geschworen, auf gar keinen Fall mehr vor 3ten Juni ...[Note: last page 104:] 1. Juni endgültig letzter Sündenfall, 2 Monate 3 Wochen vor 41. Denken Sie daran, Sire, denken Sie daran, denken Sie daran, künftig nie mehr, von nun an künftig nie mehr!! Künftig nie mehr!!! Geschworen im Namen des großen Königs und die die machtvolle Hilfe des Erlösers anrufend. Linderhof, Louis [Note: Alfons Weber is writing:] Auch der Küsse streng enthaltend. Ich schwöre im Namen des Königs der Könige. Alfons 7. Juni (Book: Das geheime Tagebuch König Ludwigs II. von Bayern : 1869 - 1886 / erl. und kommentiert von Siegfried Obermeier², München 2000, ISBN: 3-485-00862-1) Alfons Weber is saying:The king never showed a trace of mental disorder (Der König zeigte niemals eine Spur von Geisteskrankheit), in: [1], and Josef Kainz - a woman hero - is writing: The king showed the border hair-sharp, which he wanted to pull. (Der König zeigte haarscharf die Grenze, die er gezogen wissen wollte.), in: [2]
Dietmar 20:03, Jan 11, 2006

"And it must be remembered that ways of speaking back then, even words themselves, held a very different meaning than they do today. Saying that you loved someone back then could mean something totally different than it does now."

Totally true (the oldest homophobic chestnut), but a facile argument. The verbal expression of human sexual desire remains a constant. See similar letters from known sexually active same sex lovers of the period.

"But I'm afraid that any mention at all carries the risk of it being reverted, due to its provacative subject matter and the public image that Ludwig holds."

The most patently ridiculous statement of all.

Engleham
User Engleham does not know anything. He even cannot write the correct spelling of the name "Alfons Weber". At this time, there was another writing in Germany (love, kisses, and so on by everybody, even another hand-writing: [3]. Even the publisher of the book "The secret diary" (see above) is writing: Note: In my opinion Ludwig was not a homosexual. (Note: An dieser Stelle sei angemerkt, daß nach Meinung des Herausgebers eine eindeutige homosexuelle Beziehung des Königs auch zu Richard Hornig nicht bestand.(page 26))
Dietmar, 13:30, Jan 14, 2006

[edit] My revert

It is not homophobic to remove unvalidated material. Please cite your sources. -Maaya 04:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Engleham- I do not wish to get into an edit war here. Please cite your sources or I will revert it back again. If you have no sources, please say so. Otherwise, it will be a simple thing to put them in. -Maaya 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If I may butt in, I don't think there can be any doubt that Ludwig II "had a succession of handsome male favourites, including his chief equerry Richard Hornig, Hungarian theatre star Josef Kainz, and courtier Alfons Weber." There is some room to debate whether Ludwig had any sexual or romantic interest in these men, but they were all good-looking young men and when they were in his good graces Ludwig certainly did treat them as "favourites". Any decent biography of Ludwig should mention this, and it's well supported by surviving period letters. CKarnstein 06:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! I also agree that he probably did, but I merely wish to see some references. I have been watching this page for some time, and any time unreferenced potentially controversial material is put in, the article gets cut to pieces in a series of edit wars. I am not against having it in the article, I merely wish to have references. -Maaya 06:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll echo Engleham's recommendation below of the Blunt, King, and McIntosh biographies, which along with Desmond Chapman Huston's 1955 Bavarian Fantasy make up the major English-language works on Ludwig II. (I personally think Blunt's book is the best.) All of these books discuss, for instance, Ludwig's friendship with actor Josef Kainz. I don't think it's really necessary to provide a cite for the fact that Ludwig showed Kainz special favor (giving him expensive gifts, inviting him along for a vacation in Switzerland) as this is well documented, historically undisputed, and well-known within the field. But it probably would be helpful to expand the list of biographical references in the article. I can do a bit of work on that myself. CKarnstein 15:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It is a bad statement dead humans to slander. Many authors - who did have no notion - wanted only to make money with their books. It does not exist hundreds, but thousands of books concerning King Ludwig II. It would be a better idea to select only well investigated books. Like that Richard Hornig was not his short term favourite, but his secretary, in the years 1867 - 1885! Ludwig loved the poetry and the poets, and nothing different one. For above assumptions the smallest proof does not exist in the diary!!. If someone want to write such a sentence, put out the word "diary", or better: write more sentences! We write today the year 2006, and still wrong statements are affirmed. And with falsifications of a prostitute called Hildegard Rixinger to enter is more than ridiculous. Quotation: "This woman had falsified the signature of the king. (Dieser Freundin bediente er sich außerdem, um durch Fälschungen der Unterschrift des Königs erhöhte Summen von der Kabinettskasse zu erlangen)", in: [4]. Why isn't a better idea someone occupied dearer and more meaningfully with Lieutenant-Colonel Washington (see above), who was staying in castle Berg in the death-night, together with King Ludwig? --Dietmar 12:00, 20 January 2006

>Please cite your sources or I will revert it back again.

Why don't you practise the courtesy of doing some basic historical reading first? No, that might be too much to expect! Absolutely NO biography of Ludwig published in English by a reputable historian in the last 50 years disputes he struggled with homosexuality. See for example The Swan King: Ludwig II of Bavaria by Christopher McIntosh, The Mad King: The Life and Times of Ludwig II of Bavaria by Greg King, or The Dream King, Ludwig II of Bavaria by Wilfrid Blunt. Indeed, you can do a word search within in the text of the first one I've mentioned on Amazon for 'homosexual' and read the references if you're so bone ignorant. The only people disputing Ludwig's homosexuality are a minority of whacked out German royalists for whom he remains a hero who can't be "sullied with the taint of unnatural desire". -- Engleham

Not everyone who comes to wikipedia has read those books. I am not disputing the fact that he was possibly homosexual. I am merely asking you to please cite your sources. If you cite your sources and others revert it, then I will help you change it back.
I also do not appreciate you calling me 'bone ignorant' or a 'whacked out German royalist'. Please watch your tone as I have been nothing but civil towards you.
Maaya 15:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you all work out some agreement here before making any more changes to the article. Repeatedly reverting each other doesn't go anywhere and will just get people blocked. Let me point out that the three-revert rule is not a license to revert three times in every twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison Talk 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

>I am merely asking you to please cite your sources.

I cite the sources (see above), and then you state "Not everyone who comes to wikipedia has read those books". WTF? Let me try this again for the final time: see The Swan King: Ludwig II of Bavaria by Christopher McIntosh pp 155-157, and you can read it yourself online. Go to this link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1860648924/ then type 'homosexual in the text search box, and look for references on the pages I've listed. McIntosh himself cites other sources. I've previously listed specific textural references but they've been deleted. What I am reverting is a suitably qualified reference to his homosexuality -- that any mention of such is being aggressively deleted here when the fact is so thoroughly supported by reputable historians is merely shameful and reprehensible bigotry. -- Engleham

You have to cite them within the article itself, not just here because not everyone who reads the article knows that there's more information on the talk page. See the wikipedia page on citing sources, particularly the Footnotes section. You don't have to worry about adding in the references anymore because CKarnstein already did that for you. Just put in footnotes to your edits and I will help you revert anyone who tries to take it out. By putting footnotes pointing to the references from where, exactly, you got the information, then there will be no reason for anyone to remove your edits. -Maaya 16:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Engleham needs to cool off a bit, but I agree with him that there doesn't seem to be any real reason to cite the claim that Ludwig II showed Kainz, et al., special favor. Which bio should the footnote point to when every one of them discusses Ludwig's gifts to Kainz, his personal invitations to have Kainz visit the royal castles and attend special theater performances, and their holiday together in Switzerland? They even had their photo taken together at the end of the trip! I'd expect a cite for a claim that Ludwig and Kainz were actually lovers (or that Ludwig and anyone were actually lovers), but I don't see that this is necessary for the simple claim that Kainz was, for a time, a favorite of the king. CKarnstein 17:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I am glad to speak about a very good sentence: "It was first alleged in 1887 by his enemies (!!) in the government that Ludwig was a homosexual and that he developed mental problems after repeatedly trying to suppress his desires unsuccessfully." Even authors are enemies. Only one example: A criminal statement by enemy-author Wilfrid Blunt: It is criminal to say, King Ludwig`s girl-friend called "Sophie" would be a very good friend of a man called "Hanfstaengl" (Blunt bezeichnet es als "gemeine Verleumdung" und eines der niederträchtigsten Gerüchte, Sophie habe ein Verhältnis mit dem Hofphotografen gehabt(german page 86), weil (because!)"Ich kannte sie von Jugend auf, liebte sie stets als eine treue Verwandte, treu und innig wie eine Schwester, schenkte ihr mein Vertrauen, meine Freundschaft, aber nicht Liebe!" But what is the truth?? A documentary proof: [5] It would be a good idea to show in such a way the documentary proofs. ---Dietmar 17:17, 20 January 2006
Dietmar, I understand that English is not your native language, but your posts here do not make any sense. I have no idea what you're trying to say. With all due respect, you may want to work with the German version of Wikipedia instead. CKarnstein 17:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Dietmar, I can see that you are trying, but your revisions don't help. I have my copy of Blunt's book right here, and after some work I figured that you are talking about this quote (page 107 of the original English text): "Among the most odious of these rumors was a base slander that Sophie had been having an affair with the Court photographer." But I honestly have no idea why you are bringing this up, what point you are trying to make, or why you are calling Blunt an "enemy" and "criminal". Maybe you have some serious idea, but in English it's nonsense. CKarnstein 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I can tell you that Ludwig had a knowledge about this love-affair by his secret agents (documentary proofs), and all people in the town Munich were speaking about this (not with negligence). That is the matter --Dietmar 1:01, 21 January 2006
Even if this is true, why does it make Blunt an "enemy" and "criminal"? More importantly, what does it have to do with whether or not Kainz was a special friend of Ludwig's many years later? Why are you wasting everyone's time writing things that have nothing to do with this discussion and are almost impossible to understand anyway? Please, take my advice and go to the German Wikipedia. Whatever you are trying to do here, it isn't working. CKarnstein 04:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

A friend is inserting a footnoted reference. If this is reverted, I shall presume there is no further point in making rational discussion, and shall post details of this dispute for the users of the net's leading gay message board so they can take it over, which I'm sure they'll delight in. And this is for Dietmar: let me give you some advice. If you're going to delete references to Ludwig's homosexuality and make ridiculous arguments that he was straight, I suggest you do it on the German version of Wikipedia, as your command of English is so poor you're only making yourself a comic figure here. So if I was you, before worrying about Ludwig, I'd worry about your own education. No need to thank me, you're welcome. -- Engleham

I don't think it's helpful to threaten a flame war. On Wikipedia you have to expect some tedious back-and-forth on any issue that's remotely controversial, but it's best to try and stay civil. CKarnstein 18:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the word "struggled" appropriate in describing Ludwigs possible homosexuality as in "he struggled with homosexuality". While he may of been ashamed of it to me it sounds a tad judgemental as if homosexuality is a disease that one struggles with such as cancer. -- jn 16 April

[edit] General Revision and Death Theories

I've just done some general revision that involved cleaning up some awkward grammar and phrasing, moving or removing sentences that didn't flow properly, fixing some names and Wiki links, and rewriting material that appeared to be plagiarized from other sources. I've also added a few lines about alternate theories for the cause of Ludwig's death. I think it's best not to get into too much detail or appear to give more weight to one theory over another, but as his mysterious death is an important part of Ludwig's continuing appeal I think the subject merits mention. CKarnstein 08:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The translation of Ludwig's proclamation was a bit clunky, so I revised it using the text of the same quote on the German Wiki as the original (hopefully that text is, at least, accurate). Al Cibiades 17:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a little info about the final resting place of Ludwig's heart (as opposed to the rest of his body) to this section. CKarnstein 06:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continued reverts

Since I posted the above, I see we're bordering on three-revert rule violation again. Everyone, knock it off.

Dietmar, your changes are no good and should not remain part of the article. The phrase "Since 1869 it exists a diary" is not proper English grammar. "But there is no proof for homosexual actions and until today it is searched for it in vain" is poor grammar and doesn't even say what you mean -- "until today" implies that proof was found today. It also is not NPOV to say that people are searching in vain for proof. The article does not claim that Ludwig ever actually had sex with anyone, so why insist that there is no proof that he did? Besides, what real proof could there be about his sex life now? It's not as if he could have made a personal sex video. The surviving diaries are the best we have. CKarnstein 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse my excessive zeal, but why do you know exactly that exist two diaries surviving and not only one?? --Dietmar 20:30, 22 January 2006
I don't even know what you're asking me here. CKarnstein 21:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
"The surviving diaries are the best we have." How much? --Dietmar 22:04, 22 January 2006
How much what? You don't make any sense at all.
It was sloppy of me to say "surviving diaries" though, because Ludwig's original diaries were reported destroyed during WWII. I should have said "surviving copies of entries from his diaries." CKarnstein 22:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This sentence "surviving copies of entries from his diaries by Ludwig´s enemy Johann Freiherr von Lutz" could go into the article. This so called DIARY is only a fragment of many diaries, built and sketched by "Son-in-law" of Johann Freiherr von Lutz, see also: [6] Many historians are also saying: This diary is a falsification.---Dietmar 23:11, 22 January 2006
Calling Lutz "Ludwig's enemy" is not NPOV, and his version of the diary is not the only source for copies of diary entries. British biographer Desmond Huston-Chapman was allowed access to Ludwig's original diaries in the 1930s, and his translations of selected entries have been used by English-language biographers ever since. The published German version of the diaries has also been used by some English-language authors, but while it may have been heavily edited it has never been proven a forgery. However, I think mentioning in the article that the original diaries are lost would be appropriate. I'll add a line about that. CKarnstein 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Story of a DIARY:[7] ,pages 11 and 12: "Der bayrische Staatsminister Freiherr von Lutz (1826-1890), dem Ludwig II. trotz manchen Anfeindungen nie das Vertrauen entzog, gelangte nach des Königs Tode in den Besitz der beiden Bände. Nach dem ersten Weltkrieg ließ es der Stiefsohn des Freiherrn von Lutz in sehr geringer Auflage in Lichtenstein drucken. Die Originalbände sind während des 2. Weltkrieges verloren gegangen." --Dietmar 0:20, 22 January 2006
Dietmar, I'm trying not to be rude, but do you not realize that this is the ENGLISH version of Wikipedia? The posts and articles here are for people who read English. German posts and links to German sources are not appropriate. (A book review is not a serious source anyway, no matter what the language.) I can read German a bit, but most English Wikipedia users do not understand German at all. "On the English Wikipedia, use English, unless you're mentioning a name or abbreviation that has no known English translation." [8] Since you like to write in German and your English is so poor, you should go to the German Wikipedia. Posting in German here is both useless and against the rules. CKarnstein 03:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dietmar doesn't make sense K because he doesn't comprehend english. He's using machine translation: if you enter some of the sentences from the German website of the Ludwig fanatic which he references into Google Translate, you'll see they come out garbled in English exactly as he entered them here. In fact, everything he types is clearly also machine translated, hence the nonsense. Ludwig's diary entries aren't the only evidence of his homosexuality. Various oaths exist in Ludwig's handwriting, etc. Even Ernst Hanfstaengil in his autobiography writes of discovering a superb love letter of Ludwig's to a male servant. It was presented to Hitler. -- KittKatt

Thanks for your comments, KittKatt. I think I've reached the end of my patience with Dietmar anyway. Also thank you for reminding me about Ludwig's letters. Somehow they'd slipped my mind in the discussion here! CKarnstein 04:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Clarifying sanity charges

The current first line of the section "his death" is "On 10 June 1886, Ludwig was officially declared insane by the government". The relevant question becomes, by which government. By the Bavarian gov't, or by the German Imperial gov't? there are to very divergent possible readings: the Imperials could theoretically have done it to further weaken Bavarian power, whereas the Baviarians could have done it as a last ditch effort to strengthen their own. samwaltz 00:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Airship pioneer

Appears he was ahead of his time with his plans for flying cars [9] [10] and it would be worth including a mention on this (as well as being part of his body of work it also relfects somewhat on the issue of his sanity). (Emperor 16:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Elizabeth's Nickname ???

I'm pretty sure that Ludwig's nickname for Elizabeth was "Taube", which is dove in German and not seagull. Unfortunately, I haven't found any evidence of either so far and I can't remember where I heard the information in the first place.

Does anyone know about this ?

I'm anonymous but you may call me Mark! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.22.11.117 (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

They both loved nature and poetry, and nicknamed each other "the Eagle" (Ludwig) and "the Seagull" (Elisabeth). See also the original letters: The Eagle and the Seagull --Dietmar 21:30, 5 June 2007

In all of the books I've read on him, she's always been referred to as the dove. (Which included the Mad King by Greg King. Narmowen 11:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexuality

You gotta keep in mind that nobody ever found out what the content of his original diary was, and that he was wanted out of the way, and in that time homosexuality for example would be a liable reason to take him out of power and into a mental hospital. Basicly i am saying that besides a diary which was not written by his hand and is most likely fake, there is no other indication that "throughout his life he struggled with homosexuality and controlling his sexual desires".

Struggled with controlling his sexual desires? Nice. Apparently it's a disease now. Why not just put in a section about his presumed or suspected homosexuality and lock the damn article. That way everyone wins, though it's sad when his may/may not be gay status makes a dead king of a minor Germanic fief into a modern contraversy. Were it not for that, would there even be a talk page?

The word "struggle" does not imply "disease". Have you read any of the relevant documents? Ludwig never makes explicit the nature of his sexual urges, but it's quite clear that he considered them sinful, shameful, and something that he needed to work to overcome. Given his upbringing and cultural and religious background he could hardly have felt otherwise. There is no real controversy among historians as to whether or not Ludwig II was homosexual. It's generally accepted that he was. The "controversy" here on Wikipedia was largely due to a single poster. Oh, and Bavaria is the largest state in modern Germany, a region with great historic and cultural significance. It was never "a minor Germanic fief". CKarnstein 00:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Wrong statements in Wikipedia: Dove or seagull ?? Homosexuality or not?? There is no real controversy among English speaking historians as to whether or not Ludwig's nickname for Elisabeth was "Taube", which is dove in English and not seagull. Therefore it is a wrong statemant calling Elisabeth as seagull. Most historians generally accepted that Elisabeth was called "dove". This homepage The Eagle and the Seagull is an error. This homepage do not exist. This primary source - The Eagle and the Seagull (a wikisource !) - is an absurd statement because most historians generally accepted that Elisabeth was called "dove". You must believe these 20 historians - and not primary sources. Therefore, you must remove seagull in the article at once - without discussion!! This diary, this so called diary - written by Ludwig's enemey - is not a diary: it is a fragment of sentences of many diaries. Give me a proofe about: "Ludwig never makes explicit the nature of his sexual urges, but it's quite clear that he considered them sinful, shameful, and something that he needed to work to overcome". I have written and copied the most important sentence in this discussion-side in 11 January 2006 - see above !!! It is a bad statement dead humans to slander. Many authors - who did have no notion - wanted only to make money with their books. It does not exist hundreds, but thousands of books concerning King Ludwig II. It would be a better idea to select only well investigated books. For example Richard Hornig was not his short term favourite, but his secretary, in the years 1867 - 1885! Ludwig loved the poetry and the poets, and nothing different one. Not the smallest proof about homosexuality does exist in this so called diary!!. -- Dietmar 21:03, 1 October 2007
Ah, our old friend Dietmar is back. This is the "single poster" I mentioned above. I see he still hasn't learned to write intelligibly in English. CKarnstein 00:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This Dietmar is completely stupid. It is a fact that Ludwig was homosexual. This is a common homophobic tactic to deny every proof of homosexuality. I think there is no need to take into consideration homophobic people. For instance, have a look on contemporary Tchaïkowsky's case : there is a dishonest Petr Beckmann who state that the composer was not a homosexual, but an alcoholic. But his interpretation is completely nonsensical since there is a lot of biographer who had a look on Tchaïkovsky's papers, some of them censured but still readable, dealing with his homosexuality and, first of all, the Autobiography of his brother Modest, who state that Piotr and himself were homosexual. So, that Petr Beckmann can't ignore that ; he is simply a dishonest homophobic people who prefer travesty the truth rather than admit it. That Dietmar, a german, is a man like that. He must be a German and be sorry that another German was homosexual. I don't know. Homophobic people don't really care about the truth. But like that homophobic and dishonest Beckmann he is trying to hidd the truth, simply because he hates homosexuals. Every serious people and historian can't have another conclusion unless to be dishonest.

Nachdem ich am 5.9.2001 das von Holzschuh vor kurzenmveröffentlichte Buch mit den am 3.9.1999 für DM 180.000 ersteigerten und echt zertifizierten 27 Briefen einsehen konnte, ergibt sich nunmehr ziemlich sicher, daß Ludwig II. ab 1881/82 seine Homosexualität mit jungen Männern "niederen" Standes ausgelebt hat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.3.96.63 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:LGBT royalty

Sure Ludwig II of Bavaria was gay. 212.95.118.35 23:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His death

Article originally stated he could not have drowned because he had no water in his lungs. Dry drowning would explain that. I certainly don't mind a conspiracy theory - but we can not represent that as fact. Article edited. 71.110.138.79 02:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is important to keep things balanced but we also have to try and avoid adding original research - it is always possible he drowned and the autopsy of the day was inadequate.
Anyway there is a good new article on the topic of his death examining both angles [11] which should be enough to present both sides of the argument and back it up with solid references. From what it says in that article it is clear things aren't going to be resolved any time soon. (Emperor 01:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC))
And in the absence of any hard fact, I've done a quick bit of editing to remove terms like 'His death has never truthfully been explained' and 'It was therefore impossible that he drowned'. I've not taken out any of the theories or references, buit the wording to the article presented the conspiracy theories as absolute, unquestionable facts. Presenting other thoeries is fine as long as we stay NPOV. Indisciplined (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed

The absence of water in the lungs does not prove that someone did not drown (see dry drowning). TINYMARK 23:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)