m Replace magic links with templates per local RfC - BRFA
|
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Germany}}, {{WikiProject Bavaria}}, {{WikiProject LGBT studies}}.
|
||
(23 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Ludwig 02 Of Bavaria|1= |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Biography |
{{WikiProject Biography|royalty-work-group=yes|royalty-priority=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject Germany |
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject Bavaria |
{{WikiProject Bavaria|importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject LGBT studies| |
{{WikiProject LGBT studies|person=yes}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{OnThisDay|date1=2008-06-13|oldid1=218974356|date2=2009-06-13|oldid2=296193794|date3=2010-06-13|oldid3=367802673|date4=2012-06-13|oldid4=497397074|date5=2014-06-13|oldid5=612611929|date6=2015-06-13|oldid6=666450220|date7=2016-06-13|oldid7=724895722}} |
{{OnThisDay|date1=2008-06-13|oldid1=218974356|date2=2009-06-13|oldid2=296193794|date3=2010-06-13|oldid3=367802673|date4=2012-06-13|oldid4=497397074|date5=2014-06-13|oldid5=612611929|date6=2015-06-13|oldid6=666450220|date7=2016-06-13|oldid7=724895722}} |
||
==Funding of Castle Construction== |
==Funding of Castle Construction== |
||
Line 55: | Line 54: | ||
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". |
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? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup |
:Sorry, that's what they called him. Isn't it terrible that people were so politically incorrect in those days? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]][[User_talk:Jayjg|<sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</sup>]] 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.-- [[User:Hugh7|Hugh7]] 22:57, 16 November 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.-- [[User:Hugh7|Hugh7]] 22:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC) |
||
Line 282: | Line 281: | ||
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). '' |
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. - [[User:JackofOz|< |
His father's name was Maximilian. - [[User:JackofOz|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;">Jack of Oz</span>]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|<span style="font-family:Papyrus;"><sup>[Talk]</sup></span>]] 08:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
== An omitted "no"? == |
== An omitted "no"? == |
||
Line 296: | Line 295: | ||
== Calls to exhume his body for new autopsy or tomography == |
== Calls to exhume his body for new autopsy or tomography == |
||
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. |
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. |
||
<blockquote>''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.''<ref>{{cite web|title=Murder mystery of mad King Ludwig|publisher=The Independent|date= 2007 November 10|author=Tony Paterson|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/murder-mystery-of-mad-king-ludwig-399742.html}}</ref></blockquote> |
<blockquote>''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.''<ref>{{cite web|title=Murder mystery of mad King Ludwig|publisher=The Independent|date= 2007 November 10|author=Tony Paterson|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/murder-mystery-of-mad-king-ludwig-399742.html}}</ref></blockquote> |
||
[[Special:Contributions/24.241.69.99|24.241.69.99]] ([[User talk:24.241.69.99|talk]]) 20:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
<references /> |
|||
{{ref talk}} |
|||
== this article needs more references == |
== this article needs more references == |
||
Line 322: | Line 322: | ||
* Titles and styles |
* Titles and styles |
||
Please do not remove the maintenance tag until these have been resolved. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 00:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC) |
Please do not remove the maintenance tag until these have been resolved. Thanks. <span style="font-family:Verdana; ">—'''[[User:Howcheng|<span style="color:#33C;">howcheng</span>]]''' <small>{[[User talk:Howcheng|chat]]}</small></span> 00:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC) |
||
== External links modified == |
|||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|||
I have just modified 2 external links on [[Ludwig II of Bavaria]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/819265841|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041023235510/http://schwangau.de/646.0.html to http://schwangau.de/646.0.html |
|||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140420023743/http://www.bellinger-art.com/interior-of-the-moroccan-house-at-linderhof-castle-c-1881 to http://www.bellinger-art.com/interior-of-the-moroccan-house-at-linderhof-castle-c-1881 |
|||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|||
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 11:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
==Did you know nomination== |
|||
{{Did you know nominations/King Ludwig}} |
|||
== Legacy: ironic? == |
|||
"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 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:AndrewKkh|AndrewKkh]] ([[User talk:AndrewKkh#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AndrewKkh|contribs]]) 12:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Claim Needs to be Sourced == |
|||
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! |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/170.232.227.242|170.232.227.242]] ([[User talk:170.232.227.242|talk]]) 00:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC) |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ludwig II of Bavaria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 13, 2008, June 13, 2009, June 13, 2010, June 13, 2012, June 13, 2014, June 13, 2015, and June 13, 2016. |
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 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]
"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]
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
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]
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".
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]
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]
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]
"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.
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]
>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
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
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
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
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]
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]
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
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]
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]
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]
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]
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?
Sure Ludwig II of Bavaria was gay. 212.95.118.35 23:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 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]
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]
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]
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
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(help)
There are paragraphs throughout the article that do not have any citations. Specifically, in the following sections:
Please do not remove the maintenance tag until these have been resolved. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 00:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: promotedbyYoninah (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
)
Created by Amkgp (talk). Self-nominated at 16:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
King Ludwig Oak, not King Oak, so I'm promoting this with the full name. Yoninah (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"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]
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]