Discussion:
Gay royals?
(too old to reply)
Pablo
2003-07-01 06:07:57 UTC
Permalink
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
jlk7e
2003-07-01 09:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
The 1st Duke of Kent was bisexual, and had a homosexual relationship
with Noel Coward, I believe. Or are you referring to currently living
people?
Rick
2003-07-01 14:20:40 UTC
Permalink
Grand Duke Konstanine was gay but he married anyway
Post by jlk7e
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
The 1st Duke of Kent was bisexual, and had a homosexual relationship
with Noel Coward, I believe. Or are you referring to currently living
people?
jlk7e
2003-07-01 19:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
Grand Duke Konstanine was gay but he married anyway
Grand Duke Konstantine? Which one? Konstantine Pavlovich?
Konstantine Nikolayevich? Konstantine Konstantinovich?
A Tsar Is Born
2003-07-01 23:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by Rick
Grand Duke Konstanine was gay but he married anyway
Grand Duke Konstantine? Which one? Konstantine Pavlovich?
Konstantine Nikolayevich? Konstantine Konstantinovich?
I believe he means Konstantine Konstantineovich.

In any case, none of them, IIRC, were descendants of Queen Victoria.

(Nor was any other Grand Duke before Alexei Nicolaevich and Vladimir
Kyrilovitch.)

Jean Coeur de Lapin
jlk7e
2003-07-02 05:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Post by jlk7e
Post by Rick
Grand Duke Konstanine was gay but he married anyway
Grand Duke Konstantine? Which one? Konstantine Pavlovich?
Konstantine Nikolayevich? Konstantine Konstantinovich?
I believe he means Konstantine Konstantineovich.
In any case, none of them, IIRC, were descendants of Queen Victoria.
(Nor was any other Grand Duke before Alexei Nicolaevich and Vladimir
Kyrilovitch.)
Jean Coeur de Lapin
They were all, however, descendants of the Electress Sophia, through
their descent from the elder Empress Marie Feodorovna, a Württemberg
princess.
A Tsar Is Born
2003-07-02 10:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by A Tsar Is Born
In any case, none of them, IIRC, were descendants of Queen Victoria.
(Nor was any other Grand Duke before Alexei Nicolaevich and Vladimir
Kyrilovitch.)
Jean Coeur de Lapin
They were all, however, descendants of the Electress Sophia, through
their descent from the elder Empress Marie Feodorovna, a Württemberg
princess.
That's as may be -- the thread began when someone asked about gay
descendants of Victoria, not Sophia.

J C de L
Stan Brown
2003-07-01 20:50:20 UTC
Permalink
Please don't post upside down.
One's sexual orientation and whether or not one is married are totally
separate from one another. Many gays (male & female) also parent children -
inside and outside of marriage. There are many instances of married
bisexuals or married homosexuals (with or without children) among the
royalty of the world. As countries follow The Netherlands, Belgium, and
Canada and allow for same-sex marriage -- or follow Denmark and now
apparently, the United Kingdom and allow a civil union for same-sex couples;
Denmark was actually the last of the Big Three Scandinavian
countries (1994): Sweden and Norway were before her.
such partnerships should begin to appear in the royal and aristocratic
circles as they are in the common world.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Stan Brown
2003-07-03 02:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Denmark was actually the last of the Big Three Scandinavian
countries (1994): Sweden and Norway were before her.
I'm sorry, I was wrong. I misremembered the newspaper article. When
I went back and reread it, I saw that Denmark was _first_ (1989).
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
jlk7e
2003-07-01 20:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rick
Grand Duke Konstanine was gay but he married anyway
One's sexual orientation and whether or not one is married are totally
separate from one another. Many gays (male & female) also parent children -
inside and outside of marriage. There are many instances of married
bisexuals or married homosexuals (with or without children) among the
royalty of the world. As countries follow The Netherlands, Belgium, and
Canada and allow for same-sex marriage -- or follow Denmark and now
apparently, the United Kingdom and allow a civil union for same-sex couples;
such partnerships should begin to appear in the royal and aristocratic
circles as they are in the common world.
Speaking of gay marriage in Canada...what if the British monarch (I'll
ignore heirs, as that brings in the RMA, which complicates things)
were to contract a same-sex marriage in Canada? Would said marriage
be recognized in the UK, and said partner be recognized as a royal
consort? If not recognized in the UK, could it still be recognized in
Canada?
Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
2003-07-01 21:42:07 UTC
Permalink
An interesting book by the late Theo Aronson is "Prince Eddy and the
Homosexual Underworld".
Also I understand that the GD Serge (uncle of Nicholas II) husband of
the GD Elizabeth (sister of the Empress Alexandra) was gay. And tho' he
was murdered by revolutionaries he has not been canonized because he was
gay.
Additionally there are the delightfully scandalous stories of the last
reigning Grand Duke of Hesse -- his first wife supposedly caught him
dallying with a stable boy on the day she and the Grand Duke were married.

-- Stephen
A Tsar Is Born
2003-07-01 23:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
Additionally there are the delightfully scandalous stories of the last
reigning Grand Duke of Hesse -- his first wife supposedly caught him
dallying with a stable boy on the day she and the Grand Duke were married.
No, it was not till they had been married some years that this occurred,
shortly after her return from a visit to her sister in Bucharest.

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
2003-07-02 02:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Post by Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
Additionally there are the delightfully scandalous stories of the last
reigning Grand Duke of Hesse -- his first wife supposedly caught him
dallying with a stable boy on the day she and the Grand Duke were married.
No, it was not till they had been married some years that this occurred,
shortly after her return from a visit to her sister in Bucharest.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Damn -- I had heard wedding day -- that's a lot more fun!!!
David / Amicus
2003-07-02 06:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Maybe it was the first husband GD Olga (the sister of Nicholas II) who
spent his wedding night with another fellow? One of the reasons their
marriage was annuled was for non consumation wasn't it?
Steven Lavallee
2003-07-02 10:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Maybe it was the first husband GD Olga (the sister of Nicholas II)...
One of the reasons their marriage was annuled was for
non consumation wasn't it?
Also a problem for Queen Victoria's granddaughter,
Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein. Her chaste marriage
to Prince Aribert of Anhalt (later Regent of Anhalt) was
ended abruptly by a summons from her family telling
her to pack up and come home as she was to be divorced.
Her husband had been involved in a homosexual scandal.
Neither party, by the way, ever remarried.
marlenekoenig
2003-07-03 18:46:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Lavallee
Maybe it was the first husband GD Olga (the sister of Nicholas II)...
One of the reasons their marriage was annuled was for
non consumation wasn't it?
Also a problem for Queen Victoria's granddaughter,
Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein. Her chaste marriage
to Prince Aribert of Anhalt (later Regent of Anhalt) was
ended abruptly by a summons from her family telling
her to pack up and come home as she was to be divorced.
Her husband had been involved in a homosexual scandal.
Neither party, by the way, ever remarried.
However, Marie Louise did have a long term relationship with a male
friend. But she never considered herself divorced.
Paul Hilditch
2003-07-05 00:31:10 UTC
Permalink
surely Prince Eddy was gay
he was the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII)
who died in his 20s and therefore his next younger brother became king
as George V
he was a user of the gay brothel involved in the case against the
Irish writer whose name escapes me at the moment
David / Amicus
2003-07-05 02:17:43 UTC
Permalink
<< ...of the gay brothel involved in the case against the Irish writer
whose name escapes me at the moment>>

The famous Cleveland Street scandal.

Irish writer - Oscar Wilde?
Dan Willis
2003-07-02 01:22:21 UTC
Permalink
As you say, there are always rumors, but openly gay is always a
question of defining "openly". There are several individuals through
history that were homosexual and that it was known to those close to
them or anyone else that may have a reason to know such information.

"Openly gay" in the context that we think of it today is a pretty
modern concept. So I will keep my remarks to those who are living now
or have been living in the recent past.

Off the top of my head, none the Victoria descendants fall in this
category that I know of. But there are a couple of other cases in
other royal families. (Although I have my suspicions about one or two)

The most (in)famous is probably the late Johannes, Fürst von Thurn und
Taxis. He was definitely not above hamming it up a bit for the camera
with some young (sometimes very young) stud.

The only other person who has treated his homosexuality has a "fact of
his existence" without commenting directly on it is Prince Dmitri of
Yugoslavia. There have been rumors about his brothers, Michael and
Serge, as well.
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
Igor Sklar
2003-07-02 08:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Willis
As you say, there are always rumors, but openly gay is always a
question of defining "openly". There are several individuals through
history that were homosexual and that it was known to those close to
them or anyone else that may have a reason to know such information.
"Openly gay" in the context that we think of it today is a pretty
modern concept.
I think Henri III, Philippe I Duc d'Orleans, and Louis XVIII could be
called 'openly gay' (especially the first two).

In Russian history, Ivan the Terrible, False-Dmitry, and Peter the
Great allegedly had same-sex relationships though all this is a moot
point.

regards
Igor Sklar
2003-07-03 07:57:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Igor Sklar
Post by Dan Willis
As you say, there are always rumors, but openly gay is always a
question of defining "openly". There are several individuals through
history that were homosexual and that it was known to those close to
them or anyone else that may have a reason to know such information.
"Openly gay" in the context that we think of it today is a pretty
modern concept.
I think Henri III, Philippe I Duc d'Orleans, and Louis XVIII could be
called 'openly gay' (especially the first two).
Other possibles: Edward II, Richard II, James I, and William III in
England and Louis XIII in France.
For what I know, Henri III and James I were definitely gay, Edward II
and Louis XIII could have been bisexual, and William III was almost
certianly straight. I don't know about Richard II, but Richard I is a
reasonable possibility.

regards
A Tsar Is Born
2003-07-04 06:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Igor Sklar
For what I know, Henri III and James I were definitely gay,
And how do you know? How old ARE you?

James I fathered eight children (five dead in infancy) on his wife, Anne of
Denmark. Female, I believe.

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Igor Sklar
2003-07-04 12:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Post by Igor Sklar
For what I know, Henri III and James I were definitely gay,
And how do you know?
From the king's letters to Buckingham, where you'll find passages like
these:

"I naturally so love your person, and adore all your other parts,
which are more than ever one man had, that were not only all your
people but all the world besides set together on one side and you
alone on the other, I should to obey and please you displease, nay,
despise them all."

"I desire only to live in the world for your sake, and I had rather
live banished in any part of the world with you, than live a sorrowful
widow-life without you. And so God bless you, my sweet child and wife,
and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband."

Buckingham wrote to James asking "whether you loved me now... better
than at the time which I shall never forget at Farnham, where the
bed's head could not be found between the master and his dog... Your
most humble slave and servant and dog Steenie."

When in 1617 the Privy Council investigated Buckingham's relationship
with the king, Sir John Oglander testified before the Council that
"the King is wonderous passionate, a lover of his favourites beyond
the love of men to women. He is the chastest prince for women that
ever was, for he would often swear that he never kissed any other
woman than his own queen. I never yet saw any fond husband make so
much or so great dalliance over his beautiful spouse as I have seen
King James over his favourites, especially Buckingham."
Post by A Tsar Is Born
How old ARE you?
And how old are you if you assert that James I was the father of
Anne's children? IMHO one doesn't have to be of age to make
conclusions about historical events and persons.
Post by A Tsar Is Born
James I fathered eight children (five dead in infancy) on his wife, Anne of
Denmark. Female, I believe.
Do you really think that gays/lesbians are incapable of producing
offspring (especially when it's vitally important for dynastic
reasons)?

I won't be surprised if next time you'll be telling us that Leonardo,
Michelangelo, Beethoven, or Tchaikovsky were heterosexuals as well...

regards
jlk7e
2003-07-04 19:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Igor Sklar
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Post by Igor Sklar
For what I know, Henri III and James I were definitely gay,
And how do you know?
From the king's letters to Buckingham, where you'll find passages like
(snip letters strongly suggestive of a sexual relationship between
Buckingham and James)

I would agree with you that it's very likely that James engaged in
homosexual relations with Buckingham. On the other hand, that doesn't
necessarily make him "gay" by modern standards, which suggests a lack
of interest in members of the opposite sex. I wouldn't quibble with a
statement that James was almost certainly at least "bisexual".
DKM
2003-07-04 14:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Post by Igor Sklar
For what I know, Henri III and James I were definitely gay,
And how do you know? How old ARE you?
James I fathered eight children (five dead in infancy) on his wife, Anne of
Denmark. Female, I believe.
What does that have to do with anything? I had a co-worker come out of the
closet after 15 years of marriage and 5 kids.

DKM
Charles Stewart
2003-07-06 21:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKM
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Post by Igor Sklar
For what I know, Henri III and James I were definitely gay,
And how do you know? How old ARE you?
James I fathered eight children (five dead in infancy) on his wife, Anne
of
Post by DKM
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Denmark. Female, I believe.
What does that have to do with anything? I had a co-worker come out of the
closet after 15 years of marriage and 5 kids.
Okay, it doesn't *prove* anything. But it certainly is circumstantial
evidence in favor of his at least being bisexual. I would say that
the fact of fathering 8 children would tend to suggest that a person
is interested in women, although obviously it doesn't prove it.
Agreed that multiple paternity gives rise to a presumption of sexual
interest in women, so long as it is understood that plenty of
exceptions exist.

The two wives of Philippe de France Duc d'Orléans (1640-1701) were
pregnant at least a total of twelve times and bore four and three
children respectively. During their thirty years of marriage, his
second wife wrote hundreds of deliciously frank letters, in none of
which is she known to have ever suggested that her husband entertained
the slightest sexual interest in her, his previous wife or any other
woman, while much of her life was spent resisting the encroachments in
her household of his male lovers.

There is an old saying, "Conditions will make a monkey eat pepper." So
will societal expectations.

Charles Stewart
A Tsar Is Born
2003-07-15 04:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by DKM
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Post by Igor Sklar
For what I know, Henri III and James I were definitely gay,
And how do you know? How old ARE you?
James I fathered eight children (five dead in infancy) on his wife, Anne
of
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Denmark. Female, I believe.
What does that have to do with anything? I had a co-worker come out of the
closet after 15 years of marriage and 5 kids.
I was objecting to Igor's certainty that someone dead, lo, these 375 years,
was "definitely" gay, when so far as I am aware he was never caught actually
having sex with anyone and so the only acts we can be fairly sure he
indulged in were those that produced his eight children. That he was
probably bi is, I think, likely enough, but that's not the same thing as
"definitely" gay. Which others then pointed out could also be said of Henri
III.

Presumably your friend announced he was homosexual. James and Henri never
did.

Jean Coeur de Lapin
jlk7e
2003-07-03 09:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Igor Sklar
I think Henri III, Philippe I Duc d'Orleans, and Louis XVIII could be
called 'openly gay' (especially the first two).
I agree there's s little doubt about Henri III. But I raised the
possibility about Louis XVIII a few months ago, and I found the
posted refutations pretty convincing.
Again, I've read fairly strong refutations on Henri III, surprisingly
enough. Yeah, so he was rather extravagant towards his very close
male friends who were quite pretty and were called his "mignons"...
but supposedly this only seems indicative of homosexual behavior to
our jaundiced 20th century eyes, and, I imagine, to the hostile
pamphleteers who wrote nasty things about poor Henri back then, and
for some time thereafter. Supposedly, the idea that the mignons were
particularly effeminate is, in fact, a myth - they duelled all the
time, and such. And Henri's cross-dressing habits certainly don't
suggest that he was into men, or anything...In any event, despite the
seeming implausibility of this, the account I read was both quite
recent (from the 90s, so obviously not some post-Victorian whitewash),
and fairly convincing in its arguments (it was R.J. Knecht's "Rise and
Fall of Renaissance France", I believe). In any event, Henri's
failure to have children, at the least, can be attributed not to him
not sleeping with his wife, but to her having a nasty miscarriage
early in the marriage, which likely left her unable to have children.
(On the other hand, unlike his brother, father, grandfather, and
brother-in-law, he had no illegitimate children either.

Of course, part of the problem here is trying to apply modern
definitions to early modern and medieval people. The idea of being
homosexual, as opposed to simply committing homosexual acts, would not
have been familiar to anyone before the late 19th century, I think.
So while it's certainly likely that, say, James I had sexual
relationships with other men, to say that he was "gay" doesn't really
have much meaning (and, despite his same sex relationships, his
relationship with his wife seems to have been fairly loving, as far as
early modern royal marriages go).

What are the arguments back and forth
Stan Brown
2003-07-03 14:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Of course, part of the problem here is trying to apply modern
definitions to early modern and medieval people. The idea of being
homosexual, as opposed to simply committing homosexual acts, would not
have been familiar to anyone before the late 19th century, I think.
I wholeheartedly agree. I would say that that few if any people
identified themselves _to_ themselves as "homosexual" (using any
words) before then.
Post by jlk7e
So while it's certainly likely that, say, James I had sexual
relationships with other men, to say that he was "gay" doesn't really
have much meaning (and, despite his same sex relationships, his
relationship with his wife seems to have been fairly loving, as far as
early modern royal marriages go).
Again, I should point out that even today many self-identified gay
men have loving relationships (including loving _sexual_
relationships) with women. A self-identified gay man might possibly
be a little less likely to get married to day, but it's still very
common, and married gay men I've talked with are often very
conflicted because they genuinely love their wives and don't want to
hurt their marriage.

And now I'm conscious that this is veering off topic, so I'll stop
here.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Igor Sklar
2003-07-03 15:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by Igor Sklar
I think Henri III, Philippe I Duc d'Orleans, and Louis XVIII could be
called 'openly gay' (especially the first two).
I agree there's s little doubt about Henri III. But I raised the
possibility about Louis XVIII a few months ago, and I found the
posted refutations pretty convincing.
Again, I've read fairly strong refutations on Henri III, surprisingly
enough. Yeah, so he was rather extravagant towards his very close
male friends who were quite pretty and were called his "mignons"...
but supposedly this only seems indicative of homosexual behavior to
our jaundiced 20th century eyes,
Henri's reputation was severely flawed before the 19th century. Dumas'
descriptions of Henri's court, for instance, leave no doubt what he
thought about mignons' and their relationship to the king.
Post by jlk7e
and, I imagine, to the hostile
pamphleteers who wrote nasty things about poor Henri back then, and
for some time thereafter.
Why didn't they write such things about, say, Henri IV?
Post by jlk7e
Supposedly, the idea that the mignons were
particularly effeminate is, in fact, a myth - they duelled all the
time, and such.
As i understand, mignons were active, and Henri was a passive
homosexual. So it's not clear to me how their duelling habits may
refute homosexuality of the king.

In any event, despite the
Post by jlk7e
seeming implausibility of this, the account I read was both quite
recent (from the 90s, so obviously not some post-Victorian whitewash),
and fairly convincing in its arguments (it was R.J. Knecht's "Rise and
Fall of Renaissance France", I believe). In any event, Henri's
failure to have children, at the least, can be attributed not to him
not sleeping with his wife, but to her having a nasty miscarriage
early in the marriage, which likely left her unable to have children.
(On the other hand, unlike his brother, father, grandfather, and
brother-in-law, he had no illegitimate children either.
Of course, part of the problem here is trying to apply modern
definitions to early modern and medieval people. The idea of being
homosexual, as opposed to simply committing homosexual acts, would not
have been familiar to anyone before the late 19th century, I think.
So while it's certainly likely that, say, James I had sexual
relationships with other men, to say that he was "gay" doesn't really
have much meaning (and, despite his same sex relationships, his
relationship with his wife seems to have been fairly loving, as far as
early modern royal marriages go).
" ... Le roi, comme l'on dit, accole, baise et lèche,
de ses poupins mignons le teint frais, nuit et jour ;
eux, pour avoir argent, lui prêtent tour à tour
leurs fessiers rebondis, et endurent la brèche ...

" ... Tandis que vous branlez, sans faire sang, la pique,
et que, des voluptés, se paie votre désir
votre couronne choit, et l'on veut s'en saisir
par ruses et accords que l'étranger pratique.

Je sais que vous direz que le grand Jupiter
ne fait rien dans le ciel que culs et cons fouter
et que pour tout cela il ne perd sa couronne

il est plus fort là-haut que vous n'êtes ici
il a des fils vaillants, vous n'êtes pas ainsi
votre semence choit en terre qui n'est bonne ... "

" ... Ores, en votre lieu, sont les fesses molettes,
et les culs blancs de chair, de tout poil découverts,
les culs plus que les cons sont maintenant ouverts,
les mignons de la cour y mettent leurs lancettes.

Le roi ne m'aime point, pour être trop barbu,
il aime à semencer le champ qui n'est herbu,
et, comme un vrai castor, chevaucher le derrière,

lorsqu'il foute les culs, qui sont cons rétrécis,
il tient du naturel de ceux des Médicis,
en prenant le devant, il imite son père. ..."

This is what Pierre de Ronsard thought about his king. The court poets
like Philippe Desportes were of different opinion:

" Ce mignon si frisé qui sert d'homme et de femme
à votre esprit léger nouvellemement surpris,
il est votre Adonis, vous êtes sa Cyprie,
il vous nomme son coeur, vous l'appelez votre âme. "

regards
jlk7e
2003-07-03 23:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Igor Sklar
Post by jlk7e
Post by Igor Sklar
I think Henri III, Philippe I Duc d'Orleans, and Louis XVIII could be
called 'openly gay' (especially the first two).
I agree there's s little doubt about Henri III. But I raised the
possibility about Louis XVIII a few months ago, and I found the
posted refutations pretty convincing.
Again, I've read fairly strong refutations on Henri III, surprisingly
enough. Yeah, so he was rather extravagant towards his very close
male friends who were quite pretty and were called his "mignons"...
but supposedly this only seems indicative of homosexual behavior to
our jaundiced 20th century eyes,
Henri's reputation was severely flawed before the 19th century. Dumas'
descriptions of Henri's court, for instance, leave no doubt what he
thought about mignons' and their relationship to the king.
Yes, and Dumas also argued that Anne of Austria had a sexual
relationship with the Duke of Buckingham. I should have said that
nineteenth century mores are probably as much to blame as twentieth
century stuff. In the nineteenth century, the weakness of Henry III,
and such kings, was associated with effeminacy and, implicitly,
homosexuality. Twentieth century people, reading nineteenth century
accounts which thus imply homosexuality, assume that nineteenth
century historians are being delicate, and that the person was
actually gay, when what they are actually reading is basically
nineteenth century slurs against the monarch.
Post by Igor Sklar
Post by jlk7e
and, I imagine, to the hostile
pamphleteers who wrote nasty things about poor Henri back then, and
for some time thereafter.
Why didn't they write such things about, say, Henri IV?
Well, Henri IV was obviously very heterosexual. And he wasn't a weak
king.
Post by Igor Sklar
Post by jlk7e
Supposedly, the idea that the mignons were
particularly effeminate is, in fact, a myth - they duelled all the
time, and such.
As i understand, mignons were active, and Henri was a passive
homosexual.
What's the basis for such a claim?

So it's not clear to me how their duelling habits may
Post by Igor Sklar
refute homosexuality of the king.
It doesn't, obviously. I was trying to refute the implication that
the mignons were effeminate. Per the pattern I suggested earlier,
nineteenth century historians described effeminacy, which twentieth
century people have inferred to mean homosexuality.

(snip interesting poems)

The poems certainly show accusations of homoerotic activities. On the
other hand, what we think of now as homoerotic activities probably
raised fewer issues back then. Not to say that Henri III did not
engage in sexual activity with his mignons, just that I'm not sure the
case is all that strong.
Pierre Aronax
2003-07-04 09:50:46 UTC
Permalink
<...>
Post by jlk7e
Post by Igor Sklar
As i understand, mignons were active, and Henri was a passive
homosexual.
What's the basis for such a claim?
Post by Igor Sklar
" ... Le roi, comme l'on dit, accole, baise et lèche,
de ses poupins mignons le teint frais, nuit et jour ;
eux, pour avoir argent, lui prêtent tour à tour
leurs fessiers rebondis, et endurent la brèche ...
etc.

is rather amusing.

Incidently, the verse "et que, des voluptés, se paie votre désir" is
particularly beautiful.

Pierre
Igor Sklar
2003-07-04 11:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by Igor Sklar
Post by jlk7e
Post by Igor Sklar
I think Henri III, Philippe I Duc d'Orleans, and Louis XVIII could be
called 'openly gay' (especially the first two).
I agree there's s little doubt about Henri III. But I raised the
possibility about Louis XVIII a few months ago, and I found the
posted refutations pretty convincing.
Again, I've read fairly strong refutations on Henri III, surprisingly
enough. Yeah, so he was rather extravagant towards his very close
male friends who were quite pretty and were called his "mignons"...
but supposedly this only seems indicative of homosexual behavior to
our jaundiced 20th century eyes,
Henri's reputation was severely flawed before the 19th century. Dumas'
descriptions of Henri's court, for instance, leave no doubt what he
thought about mignons' and their relationship to the king.
Yes, and Dumas also argued that Anne of Austria had a sexual
relationship with the Duke of Buckingham.
No, he didn't. Buckingham's liaison with Anne was essentual for the
plot. OTOH Dumas' ribald puns and jokes about the king in "La Dame de
Monsoreau" had nothing to do with narrative.
Post by jlk7e
I should have said that
nineteenth century mores are probably as much to blame as twentieth
century stuff. In the nineteenth century, the weakness of Henry III,
and such kings, was associated with effeminacy and, implicitly,
homosexuality. Twentieth century people, reading nineteenth century
accounts which thus imply homosexuality, assume that nineteenth
century historians are being delicate, and that the person was
actually gay, when what they are actually reading is basically
nineteenth century slurs against the monarch.
Homosexual pracitices of Henri III were recorded by numerous
contemporaries, from his relatives to foreign writers such as Marlowe
(himself a gay).

" Samson force aux cheveux avait,
et Maugiron l'eût au derrière. "

" Tu ne peux, bougeron, petit bougre Saint-Luc,
recevoir de Brissac aucun fruit ni lignée
ta semence se perd en la main potelée
de ce grand qui promet te faire nouveau duc."

"Mignons, qui portez doucement,
en croupe le sang de la France,
ne battez les dos seulement,
mais le cul qui a fait l'offense."

regards
jlk7e
2003-07-03 23:25:22 UTC
Permalink
The most recent thesis in French on that subject is Nicolas Le Roux, "La
faveur du roi. Mignons et courtisans au temps des derniers Valois", Paris
2001. Basically, he says that what was scandalous in the relation between
Henri and his mignons was not its sexual nature, but the fact that they were
not born from the high aristocracy, whose members had had until his reign
the monopole of the physical proximity with the King. They were perceived as
intruders into a web of socially codified personal relations, at a time when
the king tried to control and to restrict the access to his own person
(Henri III was the first king to introduce a strict etiquette at court), the
choice of his entourage and the effects of his magnificence (pensions and
positions traditionally reserved to the high aristocracy were rerouted to
the favourites).
Indeed, what I've read said something relatively similar. Again, the
perils of applying contemporary (or, probably, nineteenth century)
standards to the sixteenth century is demonstrated.
jlk7e
2003-07-03 23:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Supposedly, the idea that the mignons were
particularly effeminate is, in fact, a myth - they duelled all the
time, and such.
The two are not incompatible, you know. :-)
Hmm... certainly being gay and duelling are not particularly
incompatible. On the other hand, being outwardly effeminate does not
comply very well with the kind of machismo associated with a duelling
ethic. And the argument made for the mignons being homosexual is
usually based on them being supposedly effeminate, which seems to be
largely based on their being called "mignons".
Leslie F. Valen
2003-07-06 11:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by jlk7e
Supposedly, the idea that the mignons were
particularly effeminate is, in fact, a myth - they duelled all the
time, and such.
The two are not incompatible, you know. :-)
Hmm... certainly being gay and duelling are not particularly
incompatible. On the other hand, being outwardly effeminate does not
comply very well with the kind of machismo associated with a duelling
ethic. And the argument made for the mignons being homosexual is
usually based on them being supposedly effeminate, which seems to be
largely based on their being called "mignons".
Turning slightly to the topic of royal gays in the military, weren't
Frederick the Great and Prince Eugene of Savoy homosexual?
A Tsar Is Born
2003-07-02 23:24:59 UTC
Permalink
An almost great-grandson-in-law of Queen Victoria's: Count Alexander
"Lexel" von Hochberg (1905-84), younger son of Princess Daisy of
Pless. He was formally engaged to wed Princess Ileana of Romania in
April 1930 when his secret became known in Bucharest and Queen Marie
broke it off to the bewildered fiancée's dismay. He never married and
the Pless princedom eventually passed through him to his
nephew/step-brother, Bolko. Ileana bounced back to make a better match
with a Tuscan archduke one year later.
I assume you mean "better" from the view of genealogical snobs like thou and
I, Charles.

But Anton was broke and hardly in Ileana's intellectual league.

From a financial standpoint, and perhaps future happiness (her marriage to
Anton ended in divorice, and she ultimately took holy orders), it might have
been better if Ileana had married Lexel. (We make the best husbands, you
know.)

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Charles Stewart
2003-07-03 17:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Tsar Is Born
April 1930 when his secret became known in Bucharest and Queen Marie
broke it off to the bewildered fiancée's dismay. He never married and
the Pless princedom eventually passed through him to his
nephew/step-brother, Bolko. Ileana bounced back to make a better match
with a Tuscan archduke one year later.
I assume you mean "better" from the view of genealogical snobs like thou and
I, Charles.
Of course.
Post by A Tsar Is Born
But Anton was broke and hardly in Ileana's intellectual league.
Still, he was Ileana's own choice, whereas Lexel had been parentally
promoted. So the break-up can't be attributed to enforced
Ebenburtigkeit.
Post by A Tsar Is Born
From a financial standpoint, and perhaps future happiness (her marriage to
Anton ended in divorice, and she ultimately took holy orders), it might have
been better if Ileana had married Lexel. (We make the best husbands, you
know.)
Well, perhaps for women...

And let those who doubt it ask Gloria T&T!

Charles Stewart
Reinhard Nigl
2003-07-03 20:11:22 UTC
Permalink
I am many miles from my records so cannnot check but I believe the
last Prince of Schwarzburg was gay. He married a princess in the
1930's (from one of the Sachsen families) but the marriage was anulled
a few months later on the grounds that it was never consumated. With
his death the house of Schwarzburg became extinct.

He adopted a Peter Furman but as Mr. Furman had no connection with the
family and was about 30 at the time I am told this was not for
dynastic reasons!

Reinhard
A grandson-in-law of Queen Victoria - Prince Aribert Joseph Alexander
of Anhalt (1864-1933) ? He married at St George's Chapel, 6 July,
1891, Princess Marie Louise, daughter of Princess Helena and Prince
Christian of Schleswig-Holstein.
An almost great-grandson-in-law of Queen Victoria's: Count Alexander
"Lexel" von Hochberg (1905-84), younger son of Princess Daisy of
Pless. He was formally engaged to wed Princess Ileana of Romania in
April 1930 when his secret became known in Bucharest and Queen Marie
broke it off to the bewildered fiancée's dismay. He never married and
the Pless princedom eventually passed through him to his
nephew/step-brother, Bolko. Ileana bounced back to make a better match
with a Tuscan archduke one year later.
Charles Stewart
Colin
2003-07-05 15:19:55 UTC
Permalink
A grandson-in-law of Queen Victoria - Prince Aribert Joseph Alexander
of Anhalt (1864-1933) ? He married at St George's Chapel, 6 July,
1891, Princess Marie Louise, daughter of Princess Helena and Prince
Christian of Schleswig-Holstein.
They divorced in 1900.
According to an article by Charlotte Zeepvat in this month's "Royalty
Digest" (about the Anhalt family) there is no evidence that Aribert
had been discovered in compromising circumstances with another man
which led to the divorce. However he never married again and he seems
to have moved in artistic circles which might be a bit of a giveaway
Pablo
2003-07-02 22:25:21 UTC
Permalink
I meant to ask about current royalty or their relatives -so far Prince
Dimitri of Yugoslavia & Lord Nicholas Windsor have been cited.Any more
takers? Thanks for all the interest- seems a popular subject...
David Eades
2003-07-03 08:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pablo
I meant to ask about current royalty or their relatives -so far Prince
Dimitri of Yugoslavia & Lord Nicholas Windsor have been cited.Any more
takers? Thanks for all the interest- seems a popular subject...
Prince Franz Wilhelm of Prussia, the ex-husband of Maria Vladimirovna
of Russia has been mentioned, whether justly or not I cannot say.

Regards,
David Eades
marlenekoenig
2003-07-03 18:48:13 UTC
Permalink
What is his exact title now? Did he revert back to HRH Prince Franz Wilhelm of Prussia after his divorce or
does he still go by HIH Grand Duke...
Gioff
He reverted to his birth title, but remained Orthodox.
jlk7e
2003-07-02 23:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
Among the many others cited, Prince Charles, Count of Flanders, Regent
of Belgium [1944-50] comes to mind
What about his secret pseudo-marriage?
Hans Jacobs
2003-07-03 00:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
Among the many others cited, Prince Charles, Count of Flanders, Regent
of Belgium [1944-50] comes to mind
What about his secret pseudo-marriage?
And his alleged child?
Robert Hall
2003-07-03 10:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Jacobs
Post by jlk7e
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
Among the many others cited, Prince Charles, Count of Flanders, Regent
of Belgium [1944-50] comes to mind
What about his secret pseudo-marriage?
And his alleged child?
What does that have to do with his being gay?
jlk7e
2003-07-03 20:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Hall
Post by Hans Jacobs
Post by jlk7e
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
Among the many others cited, Prince Charles, Count of Flanders, Regent
of Belgium [1944-50] comes to mind
What about his secret pseudo-marriage?
And his alleged child?
What does that have to do with his being gay?
Why would a closeted gay man make a secret inappropriate
quasi-marriage?

I think I will now add all of George III's sons to the list of gay
royalty - after all, George IV seemingly only slept with his wife
once, the Duke of York never had any children by his, and the other
five didn't marry until they were well into middle age. You may then
point out "but wait, they all had dozens of mistresses, and were
notorious for their dissolute heterosexual affairs". To which I would
respond "What does that have to do with their being gay?"
Matt Atkinson
2003-07-03 00:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
...gosh, I'm GAY ... does that count?

-Matt
Kevin
2003-07-03 07:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Atkinson
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
...gosh, I'm GAY ... does that count?
-Matt
Only if you count yourself a queen, Matt. I suspect more of us gays are
queens than queens are gay.

Reminds me of that old chestnut about HM the Queen rolling her eyes when HM
the Queen Mother would call down to the kitchen or wherever and say to her
butlers, "I don't know what you old queens down there are doing but this old
Queen up here would like a gin and tonic."
Matt Atkinson
2003-07-03 19:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin
Post by Matt Atkinson
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
...gosh, I'm GAY ... does that count?
-Matt
Only if you count yourself a queen, Matt. I suspect more of us gays are
queens than queens are gay.
Reminds me of that old chestnut about HM the Queen rolling her eyes when HM
the Queen Mother would call down to the kitchen or wherever and say to her
butlers, "I don't know what you old queens down there are doing but this old
Queen up here would like a gin and tonic."
... yes, I have heard that one too ... no, not a queen here nor am I a
descendant of Victoria & Albert ...

Most of Victoria & Albert's descendants live private lives so it would
be difficult to determine who is gay and who is not ... especially
since most (if not all) are not Americans !

-Matt
MarleneKoenig
2003-07-03 21:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Igor Sklar
especially
since most (if not all) are not Americans !
Yes, there are American descendants of Victoria.,

No website. But soon-to-be published: The Descendants of Grand Duke Michael
of Russia and Countess Sophie von Merenberg.
Stan Brown
2003-07-06 16:17:06 UTC
Permalink
I remember reading that HM Queen Victoria could understand two men but
not two women. She just didn't understand how it worked with women??
This story is often repeated, but I have never seen any primary-
source documentation. I think it is an urban legend.

From http://www.swade.net/lesbian/tribal_chant/les_hist.html :

"The Labouchere Amendment, criminalising all same-sex activity, was
introduced in 1885. Althought widely believed, Queen Victoria's
refusal to believe lesbianism existed resulting in lesbianism's
omission from the Act is probably false. It is believed those
presenting the amendment removed it (as the House of Lords did
nearly 40 years later) fearing criminalizing lesbianism would alert
women to its possibility. The story was useful, however, when her
statue was made the focus of a demonstration in 1977 promoting
lesbian visibility on International Women's Day. thanks to
Lesbian/Gay Historical Walk of Wellington."
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
A Tsar Is Born
2003-07-04 06:06:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin
Reminds me of that old chestnut about HM the Queen rolling her eyes when HM
the Queen Mother would call down to the kitchen or wherever and say to her
butlers, "I don't know what you old queens down there are doing but this old
Queen up here would like a gin and tonic."
The story refutes itself. It cannot possibly be true.

The Queen Mother NEVER added tonic to her gin.

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Kelly
2003-07-07 04:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Post by Kevin
Reminds me of that old chestnut about HM the Queen rolling her eyes when
HM
Post by Kevin
the Queen Mother would call down to the kitchen or wherever and say to her
butlers, "I don't know what you old queens down there are doing but this
old
Post by Kevin
Queen up here would like a gin and tonic."
The story refutes itself. It cannot possibly be true.
The Queen Mother NEVER added tonic to her gin.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Well the story the way I heard says simply "this old Queen would like her
drink" with no mention of what the drink was, or where she was in relation
to the arguing staff.

Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
Kevin
2003-07-03 07:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Just the British ?
A very few of them are openly heterosexual.
Uwe Schollmeyer
2003-07-04 15:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin
Just the British ?
A very few of them are openly heterosexual.
Those rumors about Charles and Camilla are true, then?
They had a daughter recently, and BTW: they are not British,
they are Italian. :-)
David / Amicus
2003-07-03 17:38:32 UTC
Permalink
<<What is his exact title now? Did he revert back to HRH Prince Franz
Wilhelm of Prussia after his divorce or does he still go by HIH Grand
Duke...>>

When he married did he convert to Orthodoxy? If so did he remain
Orthodox after the divorce?

Did the marriage also get a religious annulment? Or since the Orthodox
allow three remarriages that's not important?
MarleneKoenig
2003-07-03 21:57:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by David / Amicus
When he married did he convert to Orthodoxy? If so did he remain
Orthodox after the divorce?
Yes, Franz converted, and remained Orthodox

No website. But soon-to-be published: The Descendants of Grand Duke Michael
of Russia and Countess Sophie von Merenberg.
Whatever
2003-07-04 15:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
Wasn't there a gay member of the spanish royal house?
Luis Alfonso (1906-83) infante of spain (since 1914). I think I've
seen it somewhere.
He was son of Ferdinand of Bayern-Spain and Maria de la Paz of Spain.
Luis Alfonso's ancestors where: (an interesting line, plenty of
spanish infantes)

1. Luis Alfonso (1906-83)

2. Ferdinand of Bayern 1884-1958 (infante of Spain since 1914)
3. Maria Teresa of Spain 1882-1912

4. Ludvig Ferdinand of Bayern 1859-1949
5. Maria de la Paz of Spain 1862-1946
6. King Alfonso XII of Spain 1857-85
7. Maria Christina of Österreich

8. Adalbert of Bayern 1828-75
9. Amalia of Spain
10.Fransisco de Asis of Spain
11.Queen Isabel II of Spain
12. = 10.
13. = 11.
14.
15.

18.Fransisco de Paula of Spain
19.Luisa-Carlota of Two-Sicilies
20. = 18.
21. = 19.
22. King Fernando VII of Spain
23. Maria Luisa di Parma
Colin
2003-07-05 15:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
There was Prince Eitel Friedrich, the second son of Kaiser Wilhelm II
although he was married - he and his wife were childless. According
to Marlene Eilers' book "he chased after young men with all the
enthusiasm his elder brother, the Crown Prince, devoted to women"
SSKENDER
2003-07-05 18:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin
There was Prince Eitel Friedrich, the second son of Kaiser Wilhelm II
although he was married - he and his wife were childless. According
to Marlene Eilers' book "he chased after young men with all the
enthusiasm his elder brother, the Crown Prince, devoted to women"
I remember reading somewhere that the Kaiser himself may have been a homosexual
or possibly bisexual.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
***@aol.com
--Skender= Alexander the Great
--of Prince Skenderbeg who married into the Imperial Paleologos
--and of Kilimitzoglou of the Phanariots
Stan Brown
2003-07-05 19:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by SSKENDER
I remember reading somewhere that the Kaiser himself may have been a homosexual
or possibly bisexual.
I've never heard that, but one of his close associates probably was.

And of course you're going to ask "who". :-)

After scanning "Germany: History" in my 1967 Britannica I found the
answer: Philipp Eulenburg. It was a big scandal in 1907, and
actually may have weakened the monarchy. At least criticism of the
Kaiser himself increased after that.

Rather to my surprise, the 1911 Britannica on the Web has no entry
for Eulenburg. But at "Eulenburg, Philipp, Furst von", my 1999
Britannica has, in part:

"A close friend of William II since 1886, he became the Emperor's
most influential adviser after Bismarck's fall (1890). In 1894 he
refused the chancellorship but went as ambassador to Vienna (1894-
1902). In 1901 he was created Graf von Sandels. Eulenburg's career
ended tragically when the publicist Maximilian Harden printed (1906)
in his paper Die Zukunft a series of attacks on Eulenburg's private
life. He was accused of homosexuality and, although the charges were
never proved, the ensuing scandal seriously damaged the monarchy's
prestige."
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
p***@hotmail.com
2003-07-06 20:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
Since this discussion has ranged through medieval Britain and
Renaissance France and many other royal figures and not just
descendants of Queen Victoria, I do find it astonishing that no one
has mentioned the most famous "openly gay" monarch of all, Ludwig II
of Bavaria who proclaimed openly to all and sundry his passionate
devotion to the composer Wagner. After he and Wagner had become
slightly estranged, largely due to the fact that the King could not
stomach Wagner's hideous anti-semitism, Ludwig had a Jewish actor as
his partner and made no effort to keep that secret.His open
homosexuality and perceived extravagance in supporting Wagner's works
and building fairy-tale castles all over Bavaria gave him the
reputation of being a madman and he was eventually deposed and
subsequently drowned in circumstances that are still unclear today
-was it an accident, suicide or murder? His country should have been
grateful to him as the castles he built and the Wagner Festival at
Bayreuth that he funded still bring millions of visitors to Bavaria
from all over the world and have paid back their initial costs many
times over. Without Ludwig's support Wagner would probably not have
finished his Ring cycle of operas or ever seen them performed.
Other homosexual rulers include Frederick the Great of Prussia and his
nephew Gustave III of Sweden, who was assassinated at a masked ball in
the opera house he had himself had built. The murder of Gustav is the
subject of Verdi's opera Un Ballo in Maschera.
Grant Menzies
2003-07-07 04:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
Since this discussion has ranged through medieval Britain and
Renaissance France and many other royal figures and not just
descendants of Queen Victoria, I do find it astonishing that no one
has mentioned the most famous "openly gay" monarch of all, Ludwig II
of Bavaria who proclaimed openly to all and sundry his passionate
devotion to the composer Wagner.
He was not devoted to Wagner in a way connected to his sexuality.
Nobody but the blind or desperate would be able to find Richard Wagner
the man anything but a toad. It was Richard Wagner the masterful
composer and arranger of myth that Ludwig was most attracted to.
Wagner himself, while not what would now be called a "homophobe" (he
was too sophisticated to fall into that louche school of thought),
stated in letters on several occasions that he really did not
understand the "Greek passions" of one man for another; and as we
know, from Wagner's career with women--lots of women--he far preferred
the female sex to the male.

After he and Wagner had become
Post by p***@hotmail.com
slightly estranged, largely due to the fact that the King could not
stomach Wagner's hideous anti-semitism
By the time Wagner was kicked out of Munich in the late 1860's, he had
made himself nasty to Ludwig as a grasping manipulator, who aside from
his pecuniary difficulties had just been accused (truthfully) of
having begun an affair with Cosima von Bulow, wife of the conductor
and pianist Hans v. B. Ludwig had access to the police reports and
knew all the details, which knowledge he tactfully concealed from
Wagner. But he never felt the same about him after that, though he
did go visit him in his home of exile, Triebschen, much against the
advice of his ministers.

, Ludwig had a Jewish actor as
Post by p***@hotmail.com
his partner and made no effort to keep that secret.
Who was that? If you're referring to Josef Kainz, he was not Jewish,
and Ludwig didn't know him at the time he knew Wagner. And he was not
a "partner" - what the middle-aged Ludwig mostly used Kainz for was as
a portable declaimer of famed soliloquies from Schiller et al.,
usually on snowy mountain peaks at dead of midnight.

His open
Post by p***@hotmail.com
homosexuality and perceived extravagance in supporting Wagner's works
and building fairy-tale castles all over Bavaria gave him the
reputation of being a madman and he was eventually deposed and
subsequently drowned in circumstances that are still unclear today
-was it an accident, suicide or murder?
It wasn't so much his homosexuality - which was not as open as you
describe it: Ludwig himself was riddled with internalized homophobia -
that got him deposed, nor were the castles he built considered prime
evidence of his "madness." It was his very real financial troubles
and the unsavory ways he tried to get more money - offering Bavaria
for sale to the Rothschilds, for example - and his maltreatment of his
servants, actually beating one of them so severely the man died; and
his unwillingness to carry out the barest functions of his job as
king, that gave the cabal that deposed him all the ammunition they
needed.

As for whether Ludwig's death was suicide or murder or a bungled
escape attempt, the jury is still pretty much out.

His country should have been
Post by p***@hotmail.com
grateful to him as the castles he built and the Wagner Festival at
Bayreuth that he funded still bring millions of visitors to Bavaria
from all over the world and have paid back their initial costs many
times over.
His country didn't start making money off the castles-as-tourist
attractions till years after Ludwig's death. Furthermore, you won't
find too many people, if any, in Bavaria these days who doesn't adore
Ludwig. Even when Ludwig died, it was the simple people, as opposed
to the minority court clique - who mourned his death and venerated his
memory.

Without Ludwig's support Wagner would probably not have
Post by p***@hotmail.com
finished his Ring cycle of operas or ever seen them performed.
One of the few true statements you've made in your post.

Grant
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://www.authorsden.com/grantmmenzies
Pierre Aronax
2003-07-07 08:56:18 UTC
Permalink
<...>
Post by Grant Menzies
It was his very real financial troubles
and the unsavory ways he tried to get more money - offering Bavaria
for sale to the Rothschilds, for example - and his maltreatment of his
servants, actually beating one of them so severely the man died; and
his unwillingness to carry out the barest functions of his job as
king, that gave the cabal that deposed him all the ammunition they
needed.
<...>

Louis II was never deposed. His brother was, but many years later.

Pierre
Grant Menzies
2003-07-07 15:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
<...>
Post by Grant Menzies
It was his very real financial troubles
and the unsavory ways he tried to get more money - offering Bavaria
for sale to the Rothschilds, for example - and his maltreatment of his
servants, actually beating one of them so severely the man died; and
his unwillingness to carry out the barest functions of his job as
king, that gave the cabal that deposed him all the ammunition they
needed.
<...>
Louis II was never deposed. His brother was, but many years later.
Ludwig's uncle, Prince Luitpold, moved to establish a regency in his
own name, with the assent of the Bavarian cabinet, on June 7, 1886.
Since Ludwig's brother Otto was by that time hopelessly out of his
mind, Luitpold would rule for him. The regency's official starting
date was June 10, and shortly after this Ludwig was taken into custody
at Neuschwanstein, then taken to Schloss Berg, where shortly after
that he and Dr. v. Gudden were found dead in the Starnbergersee.

Call it a coup, call it a deposition - it was both and either.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://www.authorsden.com/grantmmenzies
Pierre Aronax
2003-07-07 15:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grant Menzies
Post by Pierre Aronax
<...>
Post by Grant Menzies
It was his very real financial troubles
and the unsavory ways he tried to get more money - offering Bavaria
for sale to the Rothschilds, for example - and his maltreatment of his
servants, actually beating one of them so severely the man died; and
his unwillingness to carry out the barest functions of his job as
king, that gave the cabal that deposed him all the ammunition they
needed.
<...>
Louis II was never deposed. His brother was, but many years later.
Ludwig's uncle, Prince Luitpold, moved to establish a regency in his
own name, with the assent of the Bavarian cabinet, on June 7, 1886.
Since Ludwig's brother Otto was by that time hopelessly out of his
mind, Luitpold would rule for him. The regency's official starting
date was June 10, and shortly after this Ludwig was taken into custody
at Neuschwanstein, then taken to Schloss Berg, where shortly after
that he and Dr. v. Gudden were found dead in the Starnbergersee.
Call it a coup, call it a deposition - it was both and either.
If you call that a deposition, how do you call a deposition?

Pierre
Grant Menzies
2003-07-07 15:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
If you call that a deposition, how do you call a deposition?
To depose from office is to remove from office. Ludwig II occupied
the office of king. He was officially removed from not just the
office of kingship, his powers replaced by those of his uncle Luitpold
as regent, but he was put into state custody at a place of the
government's choosing - Schloss Berg - which prior to the king's
arrival was fitted up as a jail, albeit with potted palms and fringed
draperies. He effectively no longer ruled Bavaria. That pretty much
satisfies the terms of deposition.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://www.authorsden.com/grantmmenzies
Pierre Aronax
2003-07-07 16:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grant Menzies
Post by Pierre Aronax
If you call that a deposition, how do you call a deposition?
To depose from office is to remove from office.
Good point.
Post by Grant Menzies
Ludwig II occupied
the office of king.
Good point.
Post by Grant Menzies
He was officially removed from not just the
office of kingship,
Bad point: he was not removed from the office of kingship.
Post by Grant Menzies
his powers replaced by those of his uncle Luitpold
as regent, but he was put into state custody at a place of the
government's choosing - Schloss Berg - which prior to the king's
arrival was fitted up as a jail, albeit with potted palms and fringed
draperies. He effectively no longer ruled Bavaria. That pretty much
satisfies the terms of deposition.
I supposed a king which is deposed is no more king, right? And what happened
to Louis happened also to Otto, right? So, according to you, who was king of
Bavaria from the alleged deposition of Louis II until the proclamation of
Louis III?

Louis II was NOT removed from the office of kingship, he was only deprived
of the capacities belonging to that office: that is the difference between
being deposed and being put under regency. As I already said, Louis II was
not deposed: put in jail, murdered, as you want, but not deposed.

Pierre
Grant Menzies
2003-07-07 16:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Grant Menzies
He was officially removed from not just the
office of kingship,
Bad point: he was not removed from the office of kingship.
Post by Grant Menzies
his powers replaced by those of his uncle Luitpold
as regent
See the above sentence.

Since you are so enamoured of "points," may I ask what your point in
this discussion is? The divine right of kings? What prevents you
from seeing that Ludwig II (by which name he is generally known, by
the way - Louis II was another king entirely) was effectively removed
from power in June 1886, and his mandate handed over to his uncle
Luitpold? The documentation exists for this. I myself have always
believed that the way in which the king was set aside for the regency
was poorly handled, but that doesn't mean Ludwig retained any of the
powers of kingship after being declared insane and taken into police
custody. And no, his brother was not deposed. His brother was insane
and unable to rule. In fact, there were to be really two kings of
Bavaria: King Otto and King Ludwig III.
Post by Pierre Aronax
I supposed a king which is deposed is no more king, right? And what happened
to Louis happened also to Otto, right? So, according to you, who was king of
Bavaria from the alleged deposition of Louis II until the proclamation of
Louis III?
According to history, the powers divested from Ludwig II were retained
by his uncle Luitpold; Ludwig died, and his brother Otto became king
in a technical sense of the term, but never reigned. See my comments
above re: Ludwig III.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://www.authorsden.com/grantmmenzies
Grant Menzies
2003-07-07 17:18:47 UTC
Permalink
I would just add that by virtue of a clause in the Bavarian
constitution, deposition of the reigning monarch was fully authorized
if said monarch was unable to govern the kingdom, "for any reason,"*
for more than a year's time.

*Unfortunately, the Lutz government chose to broaden the scope of this
sentence to include an insanity charge, solid evidence for which was
lacking even during Ludwig's lifetime. Unlike his brother, Otto, who
was clinically insane by the most rigorous modern standards, Ludwig's
case was more one of the family desiring to get rid of a troublesome,
impecunious ruler. Bismarck himself considered the case against
Ludwig based on nothing but "rakings from the King's wastepaper
baskets." However, Bismarck was also in on the funding scheme used to
keep Ludwig in cash and Bavaria in a politically supine position (see
Greg King's biography of Ludwig II for a discussion of the
Welffenfonds account), and while it is plausible to think Bismarck
preferred to keep Ludwig in power as long as possible, I can also
imagine he was not too unhappy that Ludwig was put out of the driver's
seat.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://www.authorsden.com/grantmmenzies
Pierre Aronax
2003-07-07 18:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grant Menzies
I would just add that by virtue of a clause in the Bavarian
constitution, deposition of the reigning monarch was fully authorized
if said monarch was unable to govern the kingdom, "for any reason,"*
for more than a year's time.
Could you be more precise? Where did the 1818 Bavarian constitution say
that? I failed to find anything of that kind in it, but my German is poor.
The full constitution is readable here:

http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/rechtsphilosophie/hdoc/bayern1818.html

The only thing I find in the Constitution which can have inspired what you
say is in Titel II, § 11, which says:

"Sollte der Monarch durch irgend eine Ursache, die in ihrer Wirkung länger
als ein Jahr dauert, an der Ausübung der Regierung gehindert werden, und für
diesen Fall nicht selbst Vorsehung getroffen haben, oder treffen können, so
findet mit Zustimmung der Stände, welchen die Verhinderungs-Ursachen
anzuzeigen sind, gleichfalls die für den Fall der Minderjährigkeit bestimmte
gesetzliche Regentschaft statt."

which means roughly (I appologize both for my English and for my German):

"If the Sovereign should be prevented by any cause, which lasts longer than
one year in its effect, to exerce the government, and has not planned, or
can not plan, anything himself for this case, then the legal regency
intended for the case of minority occurs, with the agreement of the States,
to which the causes of incapacity must be indicated."

On the regency, § 9 says:

"Die Reichs-Verwesung tritt ein: a) während der Minderjährigkeit des
Monarchen; b) wenn derselbe an der Ausübung der Regierung auf längere Zeit
verhindert ist, und für die Verwaltung des Reichs nicht selbst Vorsorge
getroffen hat, oder treffen kann."

apologies again for the rough translation:

"The Regency occurs: a) during the minority of the Sovereign; b) if the said
Sovereign is prevented to exerce the government for a long time, and has not
himself provided to the administration of the State, or can not do so."


So, all this speaks only of regency, not at all of deposition. It seems you
are again confusing the two. For what I know, the deposition of Otto in 1913
needed precisely that the Constitution must be amended, since it was
possible to put the King under regency, but not to depose him.

Pierre

PS: I didn't know the word "Reichs-Verwesung" for "Regentschaft": it find it
rather ugly.
Pierre Aronax
2003-07-07 17:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grant Menzies
Since you are so enamoured of "points," may I ask what your point in
this discussion is?
My point is simply that Louis II (I translate sovereigns' name) was not
deposed: he could have been, but he was not. Insteed, he was deprived of any
power, jailed, but not deposed. That is a fact. Otto was deposed... but in
1913.
Post by Grant Menzies
The divine right of kings? What prevents you
from seeing that Ludwig II (by which name he is generally known, by
the way - Louis II was another king entirely) was effectively removed
from power in June 1886, and his mandate handed over to his uncle
Luitpold? The documentation exists for this. I myself have always
believed that the way in which the king was set aside for the regency
was poorly handled, but that doesn't mean Ludwig retained any of the
powers of kingship after being declared insane and taken into police
custody. And no, his brother was not deposed. His brother was insane
and unable to rule. In fact, there were to be really two kings of
Bavaria: King Otto and King Ludwig III.
That was precisely the problem: there could be only one king. That is why
Otto as to be deposed in 1913 so tha Louis III can become king. I supposed
that according to your definition of "deposed", Otto was deposed two times:
a first time when he succeeded, and a second time of 1913 (but deposed of
what I wonder if he was already deposed).
Post by Grant Menzies
Post by Pierre Aronax
I supposed a king which is deposed is no more king, right? And what happened
to Louis happened also to Otto, right? So, according to you, who was king of
Bavaria from the alleged deposition of Louis II until the proclamation of
Louis III?
According to history, the powers divested from Ludwig II were retained
by his uncle Luitpold; Ludwig died, and his brother Otto became king
in a technical sense of the term, but never reigned. See my comments
above re: Ludwig III.
Indeed, that is what happened. Otto became king "in a technical sense of the
term". And he was deposed "in a technical sense of the term" only in 1913.
But Louis II was NOT deposed "in a technical sense of the term", agreed? Let
be technical.

Pierre
A Tsar Is Born
2003-07-15 04:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Indeed, that is what happened. Otto became king "in a technical sense of the
term". And he was deposed "in a technical sense of the term" only in 1913.
But Louis II was NOT deposed "in a technical sense of the term", agreed? Let
be technical.
I believe this is incorrect. While Ludwig III was crowned in 1913, Otto did
not cease to be King, nor did he cease to be referred to as King as long as
he lived. He was not deposed; another King was crowned in addition. It's
only confusing till you realize Otto didn't know what was going on, before
or after.

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Pierre Aronax
2003-07-15 10:50:43 UTC
Permalink
"A Tsar Is Born" <***@hotmail.com> a �crit dans le message de news: IpLQa.1029$***@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...

<...>
Post by A Tsar Is Born
I believe this is incorrect. While Ludwig III was crowned in 1913,
Ludwig was not crowned.
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Otto did
not cease to be King, nor did he cease to be referred to as King as long as
he lived. He was not deposed; another King was crowned in addition.
I don't read it like that: Otto kept the title of King, the honours to which
he had right as such (for what he can enjoy them), but he was no more King:
he was something like a Spanish "King father": all the honours, nothing of
the function. He kept nothing of the constitutional role of a King:
otherwise, they would still have needed a regent for this King near the
second king.
Post by A Tsar Is Born
It's
only confusing till you realize Otto didn't know what was going on, before
or after.
I don't think that it is an excuse to have deposed somebody who was hill of
what was his apanage. Fortunately, the usurper Louis III was deposed some
years later: poetic justice you call that I think.

Pierre

jlk7e
2003-07-07 19:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
<...>
Post by Grant Menzies
It was his very real financial troubles
and the unsavory ways he tried to get more money - offering Bavaria
for sale to the Rothschilds, for example - and his maltreatment of his
servants, actually beating one of them so severely the man died; and
his unwillingness to carry out the barest functions of his job as
king, that gave the cabal that deposed him all the ammunition they
needed.
<...>
Louis II was never deposed. His brother was, but many years later.
He was, however, put under the regency of his uncle Luitpold a few
days before his death.
Pierre Aronax
2003-07-07 20:29:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by Pierre Aronax
<...>
Post by Grant Menzies
It was his very real financial troubles
and the unsavory ways he tried to get more money - offering Bavaria
for sale to the Rothschilds, for example - and his maltreatment of his
servants, actually beating one of them so severely the man died; and
his unwillingness to carry out the barest functions of his job as
king, that gave the cabal that deposed him all the ammunition they
needed.
<...>
Louis II was never deposed. His brother was, but many years later.
He was, however, put under the regency of his uncle Luitpold a few
days before his death.
I did not say the contrary.

Pierre
jlk7e
2003-07-08 01:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by jlk7e
Post by Pierre Aronax
<...>
Post by Grant Menzies
It was his very real financial troubles
and the unsavory ways he tried to get more money - offering Bavaria
for sale to the Rothschilds, for example - and his maltreatment of his
servants, actually beating one of them so severely the man died; and
his unwillingness to carry out the barest functions of his job as
king, that gave the cabal that deposed him all the ammunition they
needed.
<...>
Louis II was never deposed. His brother was, but many years later.
He was, however, put under the regency of his uncle Luitpold a few
days before his death.
I did not say the contrary.
Indeed, I was just clarifying why the original poster may have said that.
p***@hotmail.com
2003-07-07 13:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grant Menzies
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Pablo
There are always rumours but does anyone know of any openly gay
descendants of Queen Victoria or relatives of royal families?
Thanks in advance
Since this discussion has ranged through medieval Britain and
Renaissance France and many other royal figures and not just
descendants of Queen Victoria, I do find it astonishing that no one
has mentioned the most famous "openly gay" monarch of all, Ludwig II
of Bavaria who proclaimed openly to all and sundry his passionate
devotion to the composer Wagner.
He was not devoted to Wagner in a way connected to his sexuality.
Nobody but the blind or desperate would be able to find Richard Wagner
the man anything but a toad.
You or I may well feel that way but the fact is Wagner had many
lovers, all female as far as we know, but including many beautiful and
often married women who were happy to have a physical relationship
with him.


It was Richard Wagner the masterful
Post by Grant Menzies
composer and arranger of myth that Ludwig was most attracted to.
Wagner himself, while not what would now be called a "homophobe" (he
was too sophisticated to fall into that louche school of thought),
stated in letters on several occasions that he really did not
understand the "Greek passions" of one man for another; and as we
know, from Wagner's career with women--lots of women--he far preferred
the female sex to the male.
I am not asserting that Wagner and Ludwig had a sexual relationship
but they certainly did exchange love letters as anybody can see by
reading their correspondence. It is beyond question that Ludwig was in
love with Wagner and if you are a man in love with another man that
makes you homosexual whether you have sex with him or not. Of course
Wagner would state in letters that he had never had sex with another
man but I would not put anything past him in his desire to get as much
money out of Ludwig as possible.
Post by Grant Menzies
After he and Wagner had become
Post by p***@hotmail.com
slightly estranged, largely due to the fact that the King could not
stomach Wagner's hideous anti-semitism
By the time Wagner was kicked out of Munich in the late 1860's, he had
made himself nasty to Ludwig as a grasping manipulator, who aside from
his pecuniary difficulties had just been accused (truthfully) of
having begun an affair with Cosima von Bulow, wife of the conductor
and pianist Hans v. B. Ludwig had access to the police reports and
knew all the details, which knowledge he tactfully concealed from
Wagner. But he never felt the same about him after that, though he
did go visit him in his home of exile, Triebschen, much against the
advice of his ministers.
, Ludwig had a Jewish actor as
Post by p***@hotmail.com
his partner and made no effort to keep that secret.
Who was that? If you're referring to Josef Kainz, he was not Jewish,
and Ludwig didn't know him at the time he knew Wagner. And he was not
a "partner" - what the middle-aged Ludwig mostly used Kainz for was as
a portable declaimer of famed soliloquies from Schiller et al.,
usually on snowy mountain peaks at dead of midnight.
From "Wagner and His World" by Charles Osborn, Thames and Hudson,
p.112:
"(Ludwig's) new soulmate was twenty-four-year old Austrian Jewish
actor,Josef Kainz."
This was at the time of Wagner's composition of "Parsifal" and Ludwig
and Wagner were certainly still in contact. Osborn, an authority on
opera, says Kainz was Jewish and his "soulmate" which again does not
necessarily include sex but doesn't exclude it either.
Post by Grant Menzies
His open
Post by p***@hotmail.com
homosexuality and perceived extravagance in supporting Wagner's works
and building fairy-tale castles all over Bavaria gave him the
reputation of being a madman and he was eventually deposed and
subsequently drowned in circumstances that are still unclear today
-was it an accident, suicide or murder?
It wasn't so much his homosexuality - which was not as open as you
describe it: Ludwig himself was riddled with internalized homophobia -
that got him deposed, nor were the castles he built considered prime
evidence of his "madness." It was his very real financial troubles
and the unsavory ways he tried to get more money - offering Bavaria
for sale to the Rothschilds, for example - and his maltreatment of his
servants, actually beating one of them so severely the man died; and
his unwillingness to carry out the barest functions of his job as
king, that gave the cabal that deposed him all the ammunition they
needed.
As for whether Ludwig's death was suicide or murder or a bungled
escape attempt, the jury is still pretty much out.
His country should have been
Post by p***@hotmail.com
grateful to him as the castles he built and the Wagner Festival at
Bayreuth that he funded still bring millions of visitors to Bavaria
from all over the world and have paid back their initial costs many
times over.
His country didn't start making money off the castles-as-tourist
attractions till years after Ludwig's death. Furthermore, you won't
find too many people, if any, in Bavaria these days who doesn't adore
Ludwig. Even when Ludwig died, it was the simple people, as opposed
to the minority court clique - who mourned his death and venerated his
memory.
Without Ludwig's support Wagner would probably not have
Post by p***@hotmail.com
finished his Ring cycle of operas or ever seen them performed.
One of the few true statements you've made in your post.
Grant
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
http://www.authorsden.com/grantmmenzies
Grant Menzies
2003-07-07 15:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I am not asserting that Wagner and Ludwig had a sexual relationship
but they certainly did exchange love letters as anybody can see by
reading their correspondence.
Anyone can certainly see that by reading their correspondence,
provided the reader has never before laid eyes on the florid style of
expression then common to most educated correspondence, not to mention
the complexities of the German language.

It is beyond question that Ludwig was in
Post by p***@hotmail.com
love with Wagner and if you are a man in love with another man that
makes you homosexual whether you have sex with him or not.
Not to get into psychology here, but had you considered the many
different kinds of love possible between one man and another? Son of
a father who did not understand him, Ludwig found an older man of
great artistic brilliance and charisma who created stage works which
transported the young king from the reality he so detested into the
world of myth and legend where he would always be more at home - to
his detriment later on, one might add. If Ludwig loved Wagner, it was
for those reasons, and the love he felt for him could hardly be
construed, except by the most egregious tautology, as being the same
as homosexual love. (I should know, I'm homosexual myself.)

Of course
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Wagner would state in letters that he had never had sex with another
man but I would not put anything past him in his desire to get as much
money out of Ludwig as possible.
Using his sexy body and beautiful face as leverage? Give me a break.
Wagner used his own operas and writings, so loved by Ludwig (except,
perhaps, for _Judaism in Music_, which no one could love), as the only
leverage. That and threatening numerous times to leave Munich. But
for Wagner to use the king's unlikely homoerotic attachment to him to
get more money out of him, when he had proven himself a master at
squeezing money by a vaster and far more effective means of method,
strikes me as both risible and implausible in the extreme.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
From "Wagner and His World" by Charles Osborn, Thames and Hudson,
"(Ludwig's) new soulmate was twenty-four-year old Austrian Jewish
actor,Josef Kainz."
"Soul mate" and "partner" are two different things. And Kainz was
Hungarian. I've found no other source mentioning that Kainz was
Jewish, in my rather large library of books about Ludwig and Wagner.
Maybe you can find another source to back up Mr Osborn's assertion. He
may be an authority on opera, but that certainly doesn't support his
authority on the life of the king.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://www.authorsden.com/grantmmenzies
Grant Menzies
2003-07-08 00:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grant Menzies
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I am not asserting that Wagner and Ludwig had a sexual relationship
but they certainly did exchange love letters as anybody can see by
reading their correspondence.
Anyone can certainly see that by reading their correspondence,
provided the reader has never before laid eyes on the florid style of
expression then common to most educated correspondence, not to mention
the complexities of the German language.
<snip>
Of course
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Wagner would state in letters that he had never had sex with another
man but I would not put anything past him in his desire to get as much
money out of Ludwig as possible.
Using his sexy body and beautiful face as leverage? Give me a break.
Wagner used his own operas and writings, so loved by Ludwig (except,
perhaps, for _Judaism in Music_, which no one could love), as the only
leverage. That and threatening numerous times to leave Munich. But
for Wagner to use the king's unlikely homoerotic attachment to him to
get more money out of him, when he had proven himself a master at
squeezing money by a vaster and far more effective means of method,
strikes me as both risible and implausible in the extreme.
Yes as I said before we may think Wagner looked like a toad but his
first wife Minna, Mathilde von Wesendonck, Judith Gautier, Cosima
Liszt von Bulow and numerous other ladies found something about him
sufficiently unrepulsive to have a physical relationship with him.
Post by Grant Menzies
Post by p***@hotmail.com
From "Wagner and His World" by Charles Osborn, Thames and Hudson,
"(Ludwig's) new soulmate was twenty-four-year old Austrian Jewish
actor,Josef Kainz."
"Soul mate" and "partner" are two different things. And Kainz was
Hungarian. I've found no other source mentioning that Kainz was
Jewish, in my rather large library of books about Ludwig and Wagner.
Maybe you can find another source to back up Mr Osborn's assertion. He
may be an authority on opera, but that certainly doesn't support his
authority on the life of the king.
Well, you say Kainz was Hungarian, gentile, and didn't know Ludwig
when Wagner did but Osborn says he was Austrian,Jewish and knew Ludwig
while Wagner was composing Parsifal. I have never seen any reason to
doubt Mr. Osborn's statement before today and if you are right and he
is wrong it certainly does seem like a major error on his part which I
find hard to believe.
And since you've shown that your curiosity is easily satisfied with a
single book (by an "opera expert"), I have no difficulty believing
that you'll stop right there.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Grant Menzies
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

http://www.authorsden.com/grantmmenzies
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...