Talk:Ludwig II of Bavaria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funding of Castle Construction[edit]

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)[reply]

What an interesting assertion, given that Ludwig was actually *beloved* by the common people of Bavaria, right up to and after his death. One wonders if today's tour guides in modern Germany have a political agenda, since the guides in the Seventies when I was growing up in Oberbayern were quite firm in the assertion that no State (tax) funds were used. Yes, there was a firm distinction between the Treasury and the Privy Purse.
The conspirators had plenty of political reasons to get rid of Ludwig, and other Wittelsbachs had good reason to fear he was bankrupting the family; but there's simply no grounds upon which to assert he was draining the State to build castles.Solicitr (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In ignorance of the true facts of the case, it is always stated that Ludwig II. had wasted the state's money and taxes for the building of his castles. It is even suggested that he brought the country to the edge of bankruptcy. However, the true facts are such that the King only used money from his own privy purse (that is, from his own personal fortune) and from the Civil List (his 'salary' as Monarch of a country.) As this money was not always sufficient, Ludwig II. worked on credit which, after his death, was paid back by his family. According to the main audit books of the Royal Cabinet, which are still in the secret House Archives of the House of Wittelsbach, the building of Schloß Neuschwanstein, up to the end of the year 1886 cost 6,180,047 Goldmarks."

Solicitr (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant-Colonel Washington[edit]

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)[reply]

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

"Mad King" Ludwig[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

the above sounds extremely ridiculous. :-D

Non-substance related addiction and social phobia: http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/press/news/press341_e.html Robocon1 (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His sexuality[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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
There is no evidence that Ludwig was homosexual. He was accused of insanity, if there was any suggestion in his lifetime of homosexuality that would surely gave been included in the dossier of "evidence" of insanity. The conspirators used whatever means at their disposal to concoct evidence of anything suggesting insanity. If there was even the slightest hint of homosexuality, do you not think that they would have included this? The complete absence of any such suggestions effectively proves that Ludwig was not homosexual.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completetely false : it is absolutely proven that he was homosexual, except for homophobic Bavarian historians who act like homophobic Russian authorities with Tchaikovsky. It is known from his diary (begun in the 1860s), private letters, and other surviving personal documents, that he had strong homosexual desires. Frimoussou (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My revert[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

>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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Most royalty, and modern politicians, have favourites amongst their advisers and servants. I doubt many would be sexual favourites! Do not see sex everywhere.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of this king, it is documented, that's all.
Documented? Really? Actually it isn't. Solicitr (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Documented ? Is it ? Yes, actually it is. Frimoussou (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General Revision and Death Theories[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Continued reverts[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The problem with the "diary entries" is that our only source for them is the excerpts surreptitiously copied by Minister-President Lutz as part of the deposition conspiracy; the accuracy of Lutz's "diary" can't be checked against the genuine article because Ludwig's diaries were destroyed during WWII. Solicitr (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the most explicit details have certainly not been copied by Minister-President Lutz because they would have considered as too shocking for theses days. Frimoussou (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying sanity charges[edit]

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)[reply]

The Bavarian government. Berlin had no say whatsoever in the Bavarian succession, indeed in Bavarian domestic affairs at all. Bavaria preserved more autonomy than any other state in the Empire, and Ludwig was not reduced to a British-model figurehead. Part of the problem faced by the Government in 1886 was that the King, who had real executive power, had completely abandoned his governmental duties. Solicitr (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airship pioneer[edit]

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))[reply]

Elizabeth's Nickname ???[edit]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

The link Dietmar refers to appears to be based on one particular time where Elisabeth was at the the North Sea coast, which would explain a temporary (humourous) change to the name. TINYMARK 05:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality[edit]

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)[reply]
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. -- Yep, and to a devout 19th-century Catholic, which Ludwig was, the same would have applied to heterosexual urges outside of marriage. Solicitr (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, the actually explicit homosexuality of Louis II was not the "same" that "heterosexual urges" in theses days : it's absolutely not the same thing. Frimoussou (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT royalty[edit]

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

You guys have to keep in mind that it is undisputed that he had many jealous enemies and that he was slandered, his diary forged and he died a VERY mysterious death. Being a homosexual is no big deal nowadays - but back then it could have meant the end for someone (regardless of being actually homosexual or not - just accusing him was enough - or so his enemies must have thought). --Hoerth (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitively proven that he was homosexual. And if the diary were forged, it would be full of daily sodomy 90.35.178.50 (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only "proof" are the forgeries of his diaries written by his political enemies. The originals in his own handwriting where destroyed and where never found. Your only argument is that you are saying if the homosexuality part was made up by his enemies, they would have made it look more extreme and included explicit sexual content and the description of sexual practices. But if you forge something, you want it to be believable. Back in the day homosexuality was regarded as a mental ilness. So as long as they got people to believe that he was a homosexual, that in and of itself was already good enough to have him declared insane (at least that was the mentality back then and what his enemies must have thought).
Of course nowadays homosexuality is no longer something that would get you labelled insane and I can understand that in order to gain support the LGBT movement wants to be able to draw on the support of prominent historical figures. But there really is no "real" proof that he was a homosexual. And aren’t the LGBT people forgetting something? By using the forgeries his enemies made to have him declared insane as "proof" that he was a homosexual, aren’t they actually promoting the lies and propaganda of people who thought that being a homosexual would be reason enough to have someone declared insane and even murdered? Hoerth (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take your personal politics and musings somewhere else. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hoerth I maintain : if the diary were forged, it would be full of daily sodomy and that's not the case. They just indicate that he had homosexual feelings and very few sexual relationships. Except for homophobic Bavarian historians who act like homophobic Russian authorities with Tchaikovsky, it is known that his homosexuality is not an invention. Frimoussou (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His death[edit]

He may have had a heart attack and fell into tha lake and the other man jumped in to save him and ended up drownig 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)[reply]

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))[reply]
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)[reply]

The official autopsy does not show either drowning or a gunshot as cause of death. So what does it indicate was the cause? A heart attack or stroke would not have been "brought on by the extreme cold (12°C) of the lake during an escape attempt". 12 is not extreme cold!203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed[edit]

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)[reply]

Yeah, but being shot kinda does, doesn't it? see http://www.focus.de/wissen/bildung/Geschichte/tid-8484/koenig-ludwig-ii_aid_232430.html --Hoerth (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deposed[edit]

The article states that Otto became King at the onset of Luitpolds regency, three days before the death of the King. That is not right. Otto became Kings as a cosequence of Ludwigs death and Luitpolds regency continued under Otto. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change lead portrait?[edit]

Perhaps we might want to swap out the current, posthumous lead portrait, which seems almost deliberately calculated to make Ludwig appear maniacal, with the more flattering (but quite accurate by the photographs) coronation portrait:

Solicitr (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template suggestion[edit]

Just a thought-

I see how passionate many are about this article, and didn't want to make any changes (however minor) without bringing it up here. Would this template {Ludwig's buildings} perhaps be best placed under the section 'Ludwig’s castles', or perhaps under 'Buildings'? It just seems that the content in the template has less to do with 'Ludwig and the arts' (its current home section) than the other two. Just an observation, as I am stickler for organization and making articles look as aesthetically pleasing as possible.  :) Ruby2010 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of St. George[edit]

In a picture Ludwig is called Grand Master of the Knights of St George. Is it meant this order?? (just a curious reader) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.12.97.176 (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visit to England?[edit]

The article mentions a 1879 visit to England and to Wallace. I've read extensively on Ludwig, and NEVER have I found a reference to this trip. To my knowledge, Ludwig did travel: to Austria, to Switzerland and to France; but never to England. The footnote clearly says that this is an unlikely trip and probably a hoax: so why is it in the article?? It should be a footnote at most, if mentioned at all. Also, in the next paragraph, it is suggested that the tower of Falkestein was based on some church tower in Baldock: I looked up the two towers in question and found NO resemblance whatsoever - and again the footnote suggests this is a hoax. So my question is again: what is this 'fact' doing in the article?? I would only be too interested (and more than a bit surprised) if someone could provide any evidence of this link between England/Wallace and Ludwig! But till that time, I feel the two paragraphs in question should be stricken from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.236.129 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC) I found and bought Donald Mallett's The Greatest Collector, Macmillan London Limited, 1979, ISBN 0 333 24467 2. On p. 171 - the only place in the book where Ludwig II is mentioned - it says: 'Wallace's fame had spread also to the court of Ludwig II, the mad King of Bavaria. In his passion for building castles, the king must have decided that Wallace as a Scotsman was the best person to supply him with illustrations of castles he had never seen but which he imagined were perched on craggy mountains in the Highlands of Scotland. Wallace sent him photographs, drawings and engravings of castles and buildings in the British Isles with which Ludwig was well satisfied, for he is said to have wished to give him a decoration. This did not occur, but as a sign of his gratitude he sent him in 1883, through the German ambassador in London, an engraved portrait of himself which Wallace hung in his study. It is also probable that he may have advised the king on French eighteenth-century decoration and furnishing.' All this without a single reference or quote, but with a lot of 'must have', 'is said to have , 'probable' ... Thus: even this book states that no visit to England ever took place, as do all biographies of Ludwig, books on the architecture of his castles and the very well-documented catalogue of the Ludwig II Museum in Herrenchiemsee. Of course, this also is true for the presumed inspiration of St. Mary's Baldock on the design for Falkenstein. I'm willing to list all books I have checked on this subject, apart from the Wallace biography. Ludwig2002nl (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1[edit]

Note 1 makes no sense: He was originally named Otto Ludwig and Friedrich Wilhelm was his father, but on 8 Sept. 1845 he was called Ludwig, after his grandfather, who was born on the same day (St Ludwig's Day).

His father's name was Maximilian. - Jack of Oz [Talk] 08:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An omitted "no"?[edit]

The following sentence is puzzling for the last clause: "Ludwig was a very strong swimmer in his youth, the water was approximately waist-deep where his body was found, and he had expressed suicidal feelings during the crisis." Is it the case that he expressed no suicidal feelings, and the no has been omitted? Wibennett (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC) William Bennett[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Much of the article reads like an attempt to defend and rehabilitate the reputation of Ludwig II. This may be a hot topic in Bavaria, but the rest of us just want a neutral assessment of the man and his life. WP articles are not an appropriate place for advocacy. --Ef80 (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Ludwig needs anyone to "defend and rehabilitate" his reputation. His reputation was and is that of a harmless if extravagant eccentric, not a tyrant or mass-murderer. About the only 'crime' the poor nutter could be accused of would be dereliction of duty. Solicitr (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calls to exhume his body for new autopsy or tomography[edit]

While not giving equal time to conspiracy theories it should be presented that the family has been asked to exhume the body, more than once, to perform a modern autopsy or tomography.

To date, the Wittelsbach family has dismissed all murder theories and refused point blank to have the king's body exhumed. The latest attempt to persuade them to change their minds comes from the Berlin historian and author, Peter Glowasz, who wants to employ Swiss scientists to examine the corpse by giving it a computer tomography. He insists that while the procedure would not touch the body, it would show up any gunshot wounds.[1]

24.241.69.99 (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tony Paterson (2007 November 10). "Murder mystery of mad King Ludwig". The Independent. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

this article needs more references[edit]

There are paragraphs throughout the article that do not have any citations. Specifically, in the following sections:

  • Childhood and adolescent years (1 para)
  • Austro-Prussian War and Franco-Prussian War (1 para)
  • Engagement and sexuality (1 para)
  • Ludwig as patron
  • Ludwig and Wagner (4 paras)
  • Ludwig's castles (1 para)
  • Neuschwanstein (1 para)
  • Linderhof
  • Herrenchiemsee
  • Later projects (1 para)
  • Controversy and struggle for power (2 paras)
  • Deposition (2 paras + the quote)
  • Mysterious death (3 paras)
  • Buildings (2 bullet points + 1 para)
  • Ludwig and the arts (2 paras)
  • In popular culture (lots of bullet points)
  • Ancestry
  • Titles and styles

Please do not remove the maintenance tag until these have been resolved. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 00:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ludwig II of Bavaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
King Oak seen from the west
King Oak seen from the west
  • Comment: This is my fifth DYK nomination

Created by Amkgp (talk). Self-nominated at 16:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Both hooks are interesting and cited with foreign-language references that are accepted in goof faith. No QPQ is required yet. As for the article, there are a few paragraphs that need to be ended with references within the article before this is ready to go. Otherwise the article is new enough, long enough, and there are no instances of copyright violation detected by the Earwig tool. The image included here is free and clearly demonstrates the subject. Good work so far! Best, ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 02:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccunicano: I have added references to paragraphs you suggested. — Amkgp 💬 04:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there, I added tags to the spots that still need references. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 08:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccunicano: Fixed the issues. — Amkgp 💬 09:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, this passes. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 10:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All through the article, and in the page name, you call it King Ludwig Oak, not King Oak, so I'm promoting this with the full name. Yoninah (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy: ironic?[edit]

"Ironically, the very castles which were causing the king's financial ruin have today become extremely profitable tourist attractions for the Bavarian state"

Is this truly irony? Perhaps Ludwig's intention was not specifically to profit from the castles, but his continual building of these projects - as I understand it - was for the long-term gain of Bavaria, disregarding the short-term financial risks. If this is so, then it is not irony, merely an intended result — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewKkh (talk • contribs) 12:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claim Needs to be Sourced[edit]

The sentence which reads "His parents intended to name him Otto, but his grandfather insisted that his grandson be named after him, since their common birthday, 25 August, is the feast day of Saint Louis IX of France, patron saint of Bavaria (with "Ludwig" being the German form of "Louis")" needs to be sourced. I thought it was odd that a medieval French king would be made patron saint of a German kingdom, and a cursory bit of digging reveals no references to this fact at all. At least, I couldn't find any. The feast date is correct, though, which makes me think there's something factual here. Definitely some clarification required, though.

Thanks!

170.232.227.242 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludwig_II_of_Bavaria&oldid=1194334402"