# I am intrigued about the relationship between Richard Wagner and Louis II of Bavaria



## myaskovsky2002

The latter died tragically...I think he was gay, was R. Wagner gay also? He was married with the ugliest woman, Cosima Liszt. There is a mistery I would like to know.

Information (not theories) will be more than welcome.

Martin Pitchon


----------



## Aramis

Wagner wasn't gay.

Ludwig II was fascinating person on his own account. His relationship with Wagner was result of his whole personality and way he lived - he loved art and beauty and supported it from his important position. 

He also loved Wagner and his music - I think it was Lohengrin that he heard first and fell in love. He offered Wagner his patronage and because of his noble deeds we can listen to Wagner's later works - some say, not without point, that he could write less music if not his friendship with Ludwig.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Danke Schön*

I like your version of facts...Nevertheless Louis commit suicide...

Martin, Curious.


----------



## scytheavatar

Aramis said:


> Wagner wasn't gay.
> 
> Ludwig II was fascinating person on his own account. His relationship with Wagner was result of his whole personality and way he lived - he loved art and beauty and supported it from his important position.
> 
> He also loved Wagner and his music - I think it was Lohengrin that he heard first and fell in love. He offered Wagner his patronage and because of his noble deeds we can listen to Wagner's later works - some say, not without point, that he could write less music if not his friendship with Ludwig.


More accurately, Wagner almost certainly would not have completed Der Ring des Nibelungen without Ludwig's support, since there would have been no way for it to be played the way he wanted. We also need to thank Ludwig for giving us the Bayreuth Festival (without that there would have been no Wieland/Chereau to ruin opera staging for us).



myaskovsky2002 said:


> I like your version of facts...Nevertheless Louis commit suicide...
> 
> Martin, Curious.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_II#Mysterious_death

"Ludwig's death was officially ruled a suicide by drowning, but this has been questioned.[31][32] Ludwig was known to be a strong swimmer in his youth, the water was less than waist-deep where his body was found, and the official autopsy report indicated that no water was found in his lungs.[31][33] Ludwig had expressed suicidal feelings during the crisis, but the suicide theory does not fully explain Gudden's death.

Many hold that Ludwig was murdered by his enemies while attempting to escape from Berg. One account suggests that the king was shot.[31] The King's personal fisherman, Jakob Lidl (1864-1933), stated, "Three years after the king's death I was made to swear an oath that I would never say certain things - not to my wife, not on my deathbed, and not to any priest ... The state has undertaken to look after my family if anything should happen to me in either peace time or war." Lidl kept his oath, at least orally, but left behind notes which were found after his death. According to Lidl, he had hidden behind bushes with his boat, waiting to meet the king, in order to row him out into the lake, where loyalists were waiting to help him escape. "As the king stepped up to his boat and put one foot in it, a shot rang out from the bank, apparently killing him on the spot, for the king fell across the bow of the boat."[31][34] However, there was no evidence of scars or wounds found on the body of the dead king. Another theory suggests that Ludwig died of natural causes (such as a heart attack or stroke) brought on by the extreme cold (12°C) of the lake during an escape attempt.[31]"


----------



## Almaviva

myaskovsky2002 said:


> The latter died tragically...I think he was gay, was R. Wagner gay also? He was married with the ugliest woman, Cosima Liszt. There is a mistery I would like to know.
> 
> Information (not theories) will be more than welcome.
> 
> Martin Pitchon


Wagner gay? How would you explain his affair with Mathilde Wesendonck? Then later he stole the wife of conductor Hans von Büllow, Cosima, 24 years younger than Wagner, who fathered a child with her while she was still married to von Büllow. This doesn't seem to me to be the behavior of a gay man. If anything, he was more of a womanizer.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Wow!*

Wow! Guys the stories you are telling me are very appealing! Thank you so much...I learned a lot because of you! Many suicides were discussed...Cleopatra was one of them. Ludwig from Baviera was a weird man...It is normal that many people had made some ideas about him...But it was not difficult to adore Wagner's music, myself I do! I love Wagner's music with two exceptions.

Thanks again!

Martin PItchon


----------



## charismajc

Wagner definitely wasn't gay. But apparently he did just enough to keep Ludwig interested and the $ flowing. His patronage enabled Wagner to be the artist we know today. He also built some pretty amazing castles.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*The "Waltz Disney castle"*

_Wagner definitely wasn't gay. But apparently he did just enough to keep Ludwig interested and the $ flowing. His patronage enabled Wagner to be the artist we know today. He also built some pretty amazing castles_. 
==================================

Everybody knows that...(about the castles, I mean). Ludwig was a Wagner fan...well, so I am, but just in terms of music...Sometimes he becomes, TOO Christian, Tanhäuser is a horrible story. I saw the DVD two weeks ago and I could understand every line...The poor guy was so hardly punished...I understand why Hitler liked so much Wagner...

I don't like Parsifal nor the Master singers...

Martin Pitchon


----------



## Aramis

> Tanhäuser is a horrible story


Very good one if you approach it less literally.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Tanhäuser is a horrible story 

Very good one if you approach it less literally. 
==========================================
Well....I followed what the singers were saying (I don't speak German)...just in English...and I noticed clearly that the guy came from the Venusberg and was severely punished because of that...Nowadays we would say how cool! Was Wagner old fashion? Are you old fashion? Well...it is a matter of opinion..I learned to juge less and to try to respect people more...I wasn't educated in a religious environment...My parents told me something as...live and let others live too...That is my philosophy and my children were educated in the same philosophy...Anyhow, I didn't like my version (it's supposed to be good). Peter Seiffert perspires all along...I don't lik ethat...Ugh! too dramatic...


----------



## scytheavatar

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Tanhäuser is a horrible story
> 
> Very good one if you approach it less literally.
> ==========================================
> Well....I followed what the singers were saying (I don't speak German)...just in English...and I noticed clearly that the guy came from the Venusberg and was severely punished because of that...Nowadays we would say how cool! Was Wagner old fashion? Are you old fashion? Well...it is a matter of opinion..I learned to juge less and to try to respect people more...I wasn't educated in a religious environment...My parents told me something as...live and let others live too...That is my philosophy and my children were educated in the same philosophy...Anyhow, I didn't like my version (it's supposed to be good). Peter Seiffert perspires all along...I don't lik ethat...Ugh! too dramatic...


http://www.amazon.com/Tannhauser-He...B2/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1291522059&sr=8-15

Get this instead, much better DVD. In any case I can understand you not liking Tannhauser cause it's 'too religious' but something is very wrong if you didn't like the story of Die Meistersinger. And you must be out of your mind if you think the plot of Mozart's and even most of Verdi's operas are less "horrible" than Wagner's.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

Like in _Parsifal_, the symbolism in _Tannhäuser_ is Christian because of the medieval sources Wagner used, but it isn't any kind of religious work. In fact, Wagner dismissed 'those critics who would read into my _Tannhäuser_ a specifically Christian meaning, and a weak, pietistic one at that.'

In the scene when the Thuringian knights condemn Tannhäuser for visiting Venus, it's pretty obvious Wagner's sympathies are definitely not with the knights.


----------



## Aramis

But neither with Tannhauser - he sees him as a enslaved, I think - I remember that Wagner wrote in the blocking that he acts "like under a spell" just before he gets to praise Venus at the contest and to reveal that he was in Venusberg.

It's overstatement to claim that Tannhauser is, according to author's intentions, positive character and victim of "old-fashioned" views and that ending of the operas suggests that he didn't have anything to languish.



> it's pretty obvious Wagner's sympathies are definitely not with the knights.


Because they want to kill him, not because they codemn him. Elisabeth is also greatly disappointed when she learns the truth. Wagner's "sympathy" is probably with her because she codemns the deed but not the man.

I see Tannhauser's symbolism as founded on two female characters - Venus and Elisabeth which both represent diffrent kinds of love.

By praising Venus and staying with her as her lover he gave himself into profane love which is sin against it's value and sanctity. Elisabeth represents sacred and true love.

I'm not sure why Tannhauser is saved in the end. Because Elisabeth dies 'for him'? Or because he, realising her love, renounces Venus and dies for himself and by himself? I'm more towards second option - suggesting that only someone's else love can redeem us, well, that's ****, not massage, it would mean that only, say, 1% of population could be redeemed because for others there would be no Elisabeth-like, faithul women left.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Well...*

Guys...I like that, you two trying to explain...why/where/who...LOL

I am not smart enough but I know what I like and what I don't.

I don't like Parsifal nor the Master...singers..whatever. I consider both _ boring _( I've just said I'm not smart. I like every other opera by Wagner. Tristan is sublime, the Nibelungen is great, the earlier operas are cute...Lohengrin is Ah!!!!!!!! Tannhauser's music is excellent, the story sucks (I am very simplistic)...I would have said to Wagner : drinken! Drink a beer! relax! Anyhow I'm more a Russian opera lover, I believe.

Anyhow, the purpose of this thread is quite reached...the relationship between this two guys...I like Wagner...not all..but many of his operas...and very much indeed.

Danke schön again

Martin


----------



## Xaltotun

Anyone interested in Ludwig II and Wagner should see the film "Ludwig" (or "Ludwig II" as it's titled in some countries) by Luchino Visconti. Visconti is of course one of the best directors ever and this film is one of his best.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I don't think I can rent that movie...

Martin


----------



## PetrB

Wagner was perhaps the most unequivocally opportunist composers on historic record. All his infamous megalomania aside, I think Wagner had such real conviction about the quality of his work that he would stop at nothing, including maneuvers outside usually acceptable ethics, to ensure his work could be performed and mounted in a theater where it would be best seen and heard.

He manipulated the hell out of Ludwig to achieve his ends, in the cliche phrase, "He played Ludwig like a violin."

Ludwig, "King of Bavaria, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria, Franconia and in Swabia," if not 'mad' was excessively neurotic, conflicted, and wholly homosexual: he was very conscious of it, but it is not 'documented' whether he ever actually acted on it.

He nearly bankrupted Bavaria, siphoning off private and public treasury funds to build a series of fairy-tale castles and 'cottage' retreats. Too, he gave Wagner a stipend, housed, clothed and fed him, and Ludwig came up with the money to build the Bayreuth Festspielhaus.

Ludwig also had a near obsessive series of passionate friendships (most likely 'one-way') for handsome young men: his chief equerry and Master of the Horse, Richard Hornig; the fine (and handsome) young actor Josef Kainz, a Hungarian, and courtier Alfons Weber. His brief 'friendship' with Kainz had Ludwig treating Kainz as more an accessory for the kings own mental conceits, and as a servant - nothing resembling 'friendship.'

Ludwig kept diaries, all originals destroyed or lost in WWII, but extant copies show the man's horrible conflict with his sexuality and his rigid old-world royal upbringing (trained to serve, putting all personal cares aside) and an equally rigid old-era Catholicism, which was the religion of the royal family.

The Visconti film a bit 'dated' - long, but still excellent, fascinating and compelling. It is beautifully shot, with fantastic locations, wonderful costuming and production values, as one might usually expect from Visconti.

Helmet Berger, young, handsome (Visconti's companion form Berger's early adulthood until Visconti's death) delivers a brilliant performance. Romy Schneider, also young and luscious, plays his cousin, the equally eccentric Empress Elisabeth of Austria. Trevor Howard is a more than believable Richard Wagner....

Since it is long, I suggest you rent it for a week, but, if you like, it is up on youtube (in 31 segments, lol) which can be all saved to a playlist. It is literally fantastic, grim, pathetic, and one helluva 'watch.'


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Thank yo so much. A pity, the movie is not available any more. The explanation is very clear.

Martin


----------



## Lunasong

Xaltotun said:


> Anyone interested in Ludwig II and Wagner should see the film "Ludwig" (or "Ludwig II" as it's titled in some countries) by Luchino Visconti. Visconti is of course one of the best directors ever and this film is one of his best.


Thank you and to PetrB for the recommendation. This movie is available from Netflix and I have added to my queue. Martin, it is also available for purchase @ approx $22 CDN or as low as $5 USD if you have VHS capability. PM me for direct links if you are interested.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Lunasong said:


> Thank you and to PetrB for the recommendation. This movie is available from Netflix and I have added to my queue. Martin, it is also available for purchase @ approx $22 CDN or as low as $5 USD if you have VHS capability. PM me for direct links if you are interested.


Thanks a lot. I do have Nexflix and I'm not interested on VHS any more. Even if I have an old one. What is exactly the name of the movie? Well, I could googlize it...

Sincerely,

Martin


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I don't know where you live, Lunasong, but here in Canada, this movie is not on Netflix, it exists on DVD, but it is costly and there is a 2 DVDs version without subtitles! About 30 bucks + shipping.

Martin, actually poor


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Knowing about the homosexuality of Ludwig... And the favours Wagner received from him, is it illogical to think about "something between them"? I thing Wagner principles were kind of flexible. His wife, Cosima, Liszt's daughter was a model of uglyness... Of course it would be impossible to prove anything... Dead people don't speak and wouldn't be willing to speak either. This will remain a secret forever. Wagner probably was not gay, but "sold" his body ( or a part f it) for some favours. If he liked it or not is another story! Who knows!

Martin, curious


----------



## Couchie

PetrB said:


> Wagner was perhaps the most unequivocally opportunist composers on historic record. All his infamous megalomania aside, I think Wagner had such real conviction about the quality of his work that he would stop at nothing, including maneuvers outside usually acceptable ethics, to ensure his work could be performed and mounted in a theater where it would be best seen and heard.
> 
> He manipulated the hell out of Ludwig to achieve his ends, in the cliche phrase, "He played Ludwig like a violin."
> 
> Ludwig, "King of Bavaria, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria, Franconia and in Swabia," if not 'mad' was excessively neurotic, conflicted, and wholly homosexual: he was very conscious of it, but it is not 'documented' whether he ever actually acted on it.
> 
> He nearly bankrupted Bavaria, siphoning off private and public treasury funds to build a series of fairy-tale castles and 'cottage' retreats. Too, he gave Wagner a stipend, housed, clothed and fed him, and Ludwig came up with the money to build the Bayreuth Festspielhaus.


But aren't we glad _he did? _Without Ludwig we almost certainly would have had half a ring cycle, and no Tristan, Meistersinger, or Parsifal. End justifies the means, I say. Also Ludwig may have "almost bankrupted" Bavaria at the time but has more than paid back those funds in subsequent tourist revenue.


----------



## superhorn

In the late 1980s , the Chicago Lyric opera did a truly bizarre production of Tannhauser which
transferred the action to present day Las Vegas ! Tannhauser was a singing televangelist and the 
Venusberg was a Vegas brothel ! Venus was a prostitute . He gets in trouble with the other singing televangelists for this,
and then flies off to Rome to see the Pope ! about this indiscretion . The third act was set in
the Vegas airport ! Sheesh almighty !
King Ludwig was not only gay but positively loony . H e nearly bankrupted the kingdom of Bavaria with his lavish support of his idol tricky Dick .


----------



## myaskovsky2002

superhorn said:


> In the late 1980s , the Chicago Lyric opera did a truly bizarre production of Tannhauser which
> transferred the action to present day Las Vegas ! Tannhauser was a singing televangelist and the
> Venusberg was a Vegas brothel ! Venus was a prostitute . He gets in trouble with the other singing televangelists for this,
> and then flies off to Rome to see the Pope ! about this indiscretion . The third act was set in
> the Vegas airport ! Sheesh almighty !
> King Ludwig was not only gay but positively loony . H e nearly bankrupted the kingdom of Bavaria with his lavish support of his idol tricky Dick .


Interesting, but I was wondering if all this was relevant regarding the relationship between Ludwig II and RIchard Wagner? (just look at the title of this thread). Does this help in some way? I do not understand.

Martin

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy - Hamlet


----------



## myaskovsky2002

PetrB said:


> Wagner was perhaps the most unequivocally opportunist composers on historic record. All his infamous megalomania aside, I think Wagner had such real conviction about the quality of his work that he would stop at nothing, including maneuvers outside usually acceptable ethics, to ensure his work could be performed and mounted in a theater where it would be best seen and heard.
> 
> He manipulated the hell out of Ludwig to achieve his ends, in the cliche phrase, "He played Ludwig like a violin."
> 
> Ludwig, "King of Bavaria, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria, Franconia and in Swabia," if not 'mad' was excessively neurotic, conflicted, and wholly homosexual: he was very conscious of it, but it is not 'documented' whether he ever actually acted on it.
> 
> He nearly bankrupted Bavaria, siphoning off private and public treasury funds to build a series of fairy-tale castles and 'cottage' retreats. Too, he gave Wagner a stipend, housed, clothed and fed him, and Ludwig came up with the money to build the Bayreuth Festspielhaus.
> 
> Ludwig also had a near obsessive series of passionate friendships (most likely 'one-way') for handsome young men: his chief equerry and Master of the Horse, Richard Hornig; the fine (and handsome) young actor Josef Kainz, a Hungarian, and courtier Alfons Weber. His brief 'friendship' with Kainz had Ludwig treating Kainz as more an accessory for the kings own mental conceits, and as a servant - nothing resembling 'friendship.'
> 
> Ludwig kept diaries, all originals destroyed or lost in WWII, but extant copies show the man's horrible conflict with his sexuality and his rigid old-world royal upbringing (trained to serve, putting all personal cares aside) and an equally rigid old-era Catholicism, which was the religion of the royal family.
> 
> The Visconti film a bit 'dated' - long, but still excellent, fascinating and compelling. It is beautifully shot, with fantastic locations, wonderful costuming and production values, as one might usually expect from Visconti.
> 
> Helmet Berger, young, handsome (Visconti's companion form Berger's early adulthood until Visconti's death) delivers a brilliant performance. Romy Schneider, also young and luscious, plays his cousin, the equally eccentric Empress Elisabeth of Austria. Trevor Howard is a more than believable Richard Wagner....
> 
> Since it is long, I suggest you rent it for a week, but, if you like, it is up on youtube (in 31 segments, lol) which can be all saved to a playlist. It is literally fantastic, grim, pathetic, and one helluva 'watch.'


I bought the movie! And I am watching it! It is quite long (2 DVDs), the main actor, Helmut Berger was gay and the lover of Visconti... He was depressed when he died... After this movie his career started do decline. I thing I have seen him in a French movie called _Le beau monstre._.

http://gayfortoday.blogspot.ca/2007/05/helmut-berger.html

I thought he was...his aspect is so evident. He's good for the role.

Yes, I found the movie...

http://www.cinetrafic.fr/film/6660/un-beau-monstre

Martin


----------



## Ebab

Currently reading old threads ... very interesting, but I can't let this one uncommented.



PetrB said:


> [Ludwig II] nearly bankrupted Bavaria, siphoning off private and public treasury funds to build a series of fairy-tale castles and 'cottage' retreats.


That is a myth that apparently still cannot be controlled. Bavaria was a constitutional monarchy; Ludwig II was _not_ in a position to access public funds at his will. There was no possible way for him to "nearly bankrupt Bavaria".

What he (like his predecessors) got from the state was an ample but fixed sum (the so-called "Civil List") at his free disposal, and that was that.

When he died, Ludwig was in personal debt for between 1 to 4 times his yearly income (sources vary). This is a substantial amount but nothing that could have rocked the House of Wittelsbach, let alone the State of Bavaria. What is true though is that his financial situation ultimately got out of control; some bills were not paid and creditors eventually threatened to have royal properties pawned, which of course was a scandal. Also, Ludwig's attempts to get credit were becoming more and more erratic and obscure, and again, threatened to become publicly scandalous. It's this compromised situation that mainly made the Bavarian cabinet panic, not any actual access to state funds.


----------



## violadude

I don't think Cosima was ugly :/


----------



## JCarmel

She just didn't take a good photo....


----------



## sharik

myaskovsky2002 said:


> The latter died tragically...I think he was gay, was R. Wagner gay also?


come on...


----------



## sharik

PetrB said:


> He nearly bankrupted Bavaria


but it was worth that because this did not kill Bavaria, rather glorified her.


----------



## PetrB

sharik said:


> but it was worth that because this did not kill Bavaria, rather glorified her.


Glorify or other, at the time it nearly broke the economic back of the principality, and its people. Later generations, however, are more than grateful; the eccentric retro-romantic / gothic fairy tale castles, the weird 'glamor' and eccentricity of it all have become a major tourist attraction which generates a handsome and steady source of income from the tourism they stimulate


----------



## sharik

PetrB said:


> at the time it nearly broke the economic back of the principality, and its people


certainly not to the point of starvation.
never heard of famine in Bavaria, whereas the Irish Famine is well known though it left no heritage.


----------



## Ebab

PetrB said:


> Glorify or other, at the time it nearly broke the economic back of the principality, and its people.




Like I had been trying to explain, this is _not_ what happened.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

That is a fascinating topic. Wagner has a reputation of quite a womanizer, plus he brought three children into the world, so he was definitely not gay. As for relationship between him and Ludwig... well, just imagine an 18-year old teenage king who has just lost his father and is burdened by the full weight of his royal duties which he probably hates, but he loves music, in particular Wagner's operas, and idolizes the Master in the way so many modern teens idolize pop music stars (sorry for such a comparison, _Meister_!) And then he invites Wagner to live by his side, and this not only incredibly talented, but also much older and wiser man becomes his friend and his adviser and probably replaces his father to the young king. And Ludwig knows that he has the power to save his friend from debts and help him realize his dreams and take part with him in the creation of new and glorious music. So, I don't think Wagner had to "use" the king in any way, the king was only too happy to provide Wagner with financial assistance.


----------



## DavidA

I would say that given Wagner's reputation as a womaniser he was definitely not gay. He probably married Cosima because he saw in her an echo of his own endless self-admiration. Beside composing music, Wagner appeared to have a genius of manipulating people into doing exactly what he wanted despite his often abominable behaviour towards them. Von Bulow is a case in point. It is not very difficult then to see how the benignly disarranged Ludvig would completely be overwhelmed by Wagner's personality and genius. Wagner encouraged the Kings infatuation with him and in return Ludvig threw large sums of money at the composer, which, Given Wagner's own profligacy was the composer's salvation


----------



## Logos

Speculation that Wagner was a homosexual is without any grounds, and is only engaged in since it is academically fashionable to identify any historical figure as having lascivious secrets, no matter how paltry the evidence. 

As for the King, he was about to be deposed as the result of plots hatched within his government. False testimonies and evidences were brought forth "proving" him to be insane, and the King was understandably devastated. Disregarding the nebulous and ever-changing definition of "insanity", "paranoia", or as it was called in those days "alienation", there is no good reason to suppose that Ludwig was anything other than a highly intelligent young monarch living in circumstances he disliked intensely, causing him to withdraw from his duties. The highly subjective notion of insanity is unhelpful and unnecessary to understanding him, and he was done a great injustice.


----------



## superhorn

The story of the Venusberg, where the ancient Roman goddess Venus supposedly set up an erotic paradise and enticed so many men ,is an ancient medieval myth . In the medieval age, there was the ideaized image of chaste love from afar, which the knights of the Wartburg castle, which still exists today in Thuringia near where Bach was boirn, were members of a cult of aristcratic Minnesanger, or the German equivalent of the medieval Troubadors . Minne ( the e is not silent ) is an archaic German word for love . The standard word is "liebe".
Tannhauser has a chaste love for  the saintly, virginal young Elisabeth, niece of the landgraf Hermann of Thuringia , but he is torn between his carnal desires and the idelal of chaste love.
The minsterl knights are absolutley horrified and outraged when they hear his confession of having been in the Venusberg. This was the equivalent of a Catholic priest regularly attending brothels and admitting it .


----------



## superhorn

Ludiwg's advisers and many Bavarian politicians were outraged by the fact that he spent so much money on supporting Wagner that he nearly bankruped the kingdom of Bavaria !
You can see this story on the series about the life of Wagner which was shown on PBS 30 years ago with Richard Burton as Wagner(he did bear a definite resemblance) to celebrate the centennial of Wagner's death .
I believe it's available on DVD now .


----------



## JCarmel

"He was married with the ugliest woman, Cosima Liszt."
She doesn't look _that_ bad to me?!









I don't think Dicky was that much of a 'Looker,' either?!!









But it seems quite typical that it is the female's appearance that gets adversely commented-upon!!


----------



## Novelette

Bavaria was forced to transfer much of the treasury to Berlin during and after the Imperialization that followed the Franco-Prussian War. Given that Ludwig had taken out loans over the years that accumulated to several times more than his annual appropriation, the creditors had a direct claim upon future allocations of that appropriation, ie, upon the treasury itself.

When Bavaria was made to empty a substantial portion of that treasury to the Imperium, there was a very real threat of major financial strain as Bavaria's cabinet would have been forced to use a large fraction of what was left to pay off that accumulating debt. In this way, Ludwig can't be said to have bankrupted Bavaria, for without the centralization, the treasury would surely have been able to pay this debt indirectly by making pro rata reductions to Ludwig's civil list.

The Imperium undoubtedly seized more of the Bavarian treasury than a spendthrift king. As I recall, there was no eventual bankruptcy; the settlements by the state treasury were ultimately made, and Ludwig's successors were put on a more restricted allowance.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

I have another idea as to why King Ludwig's ministers hated Wagner and eventually got him to leave the king's court (for now this is just speculation, let someone who is more knowledgeable on Bavarian history prove or disprove it). You see, Wagner was a nationalist who dreamed of the creation of a single and powerful German state instead of the 30-something little states that existed during most of his life, before the German unification in 1871. It was exactly that political ideal that led the rebels of the failed German revolution of 1848 that Wagner also took part in and had to flee the country at the threat of imprisonment (his _Lohengrin_, that opera which first charmed young King Ludwig, first saw the stage in 1850, but Wagner was not there to see it). There was no place either for Bavarian or any other monarchy in that ideal, or for the royal cabinet and ministers of Bavaria. Now, considering the huge influence Wagner had on the young king, it could very well have happened that those ministers saw in Wagner and his political ideal a threat to their own future and consequently did all they could to get rid of him, including spreading the myth of Wagner using public funds to sponsor his theatrical projects.

Like I said, this is just speculation for now, but it seems plausible to me.


----------



## Novelette

SiegendesLicht said:


> I have another idea as to why King Ludwig's ministers hated Wagner and eventually got him to leave the king's court (for now this is just speculation, let someone who is more knowledgeable on Bavarian history prove or disprove it). You see, Wagner was a nationalist who dreamed of the creation of a single and powerful German state instead of the 30-something little states that existed during most of his life, before the German unification in 1871. It was exactly that political ideal that led the rebels of the failed German revolution of 1848 that Wagner also took part in and had to flee the country at the threat of imprisonment (his _Lohengrin_, that opera which first charmed young King Ludwig, first saw the stage in 1850, but Wagner was not there to see it). There was no place either for Bavarian or any other monarchy in that ideal, or for the royal cabinet and ministers of Bavaria. Now, considering the huge influence Wagner had on the young king, it could very well have happened that those ministers saw in Wagner and his political ideal a threat to their own future and consequently did all they could to get rid of him, including spreading the myth of Wagner using public funds to sponsor his theatrical projects.
> 
> Like I said, this is just speculation for now, but it seems plausible to me.


That's an interesting theory! Especially since Ludwig was becoming so weary of the publicity necessitated by his role, he was already urging the Prussian king to establish a full empire, that it might lessen his own responsibilities.

That much, I know; how much Wagner had to do with that attitude is a very intriguing question.


----------



## Logos

Ludwig seldom heeded Wagner except in the case of things concerning art and idealism. He clearly saw that most of Wagner's political notions weren't possible given the circumstances of German politics as a whole, and he was able to separate Wagner the man, Wagner's political beliefs, and Wagner's art. It was only the latter which affected him very deeply and consistently--so deeply that he was able to put aside Wagner's manipulative concealment of his adulterous relations with Cosima, which he found morally reprehensible as a devout Catholic.


----------



## Ebab

Novelette said:


> Bavaria was forced to transfer much of the treasury to Berlin during and after the Imperialization that followed the Franco-Prussian War.


I'm not at all an expert on these matters, but let's be absolutely clear about two different wars and some of their consequences:


*Austro-Prussian War* of *1866 * where Bavaria and Prussia fought on _different_ sides: Austria and her allies (which included Bavaria) lost, and the peace treaty forced Bavaria to pay Prussia 30 million guilder as reparations.
*Franco-Prussian War* of *1870/71* where Bavaria and Prussia fought on the _same_ side: Prussia and her allies won; the German Empire was founded, and Wilhelm I of Prussia was proclaimed German Emperor in Versailles while the siege of Paris was still going on.

I'm not aware of major funds going to Berlin as a consequence of that second war, or as a consequence of the foundation of the Empire (if there had been, that would have been a _constant_ point in the debates). The Empire received a certain share of direct taxes, which seems only fair regarding its responsibilities (actually, historians have called the German Empire "underfinanced").

Bavaria joined the Empire, not without hesitation and major debate, but ultimately out of free will. There was no necessity to accept bad conditions; in fact, as the second-largest party, they negotiated better terms than the rest. (And Ludwig II got major secret payments going directly into his personal pocket in return for signing the _Kaiserbrief_ that formally initiated the process of Wilhelm becoming emperor -- a transaction that we would consider as bribe today, but apparently was not uncommon in such circumstances.)



> Given that Ludwig had taken out loans over the years that accumulated to several times more than his annual appropriation, the creditors had a direct claim upon future allocations of that appropriation, ie, upon the treasury itself.
> 
> When Bavaria was made to empty a substantial portion of that treasury to the Imperium, there was a very real threat of major financial strain as Bavaria's cabinet would have been forced to use a large fraction of what was left to pay off that accumulating debt. In this way, Ludwig can't be said to have bankrupted Bavaria, for without the centralization, the treasury would surely have been able to pay this debt indirectly by making pro rata reductions to Ludwig's civil list.
> 
> The Imperium undoubtedly seized more of the Bavarian treasury than a spendthrift king. As I recall, there was no eventual bankruptcy; the settlements by the state treasury were ultimately made, and Ludwig's successors were put on a more restricted allowance.


Again, I'm not an expert, but here's my take on the situation: There were no payments going to the Empire that were out of proportion. Bavaria's finances were not rosy, but essentially sound. And the Bavarian cabinet was neither obliged nor in the position (without parliament approval which was more than unlikely) to pay for Ludwig's debts out of state funds. That was Ludwig's responsibility alone, and, had he died, that of his heirs. But of course, a nearly bankrupt king, and his reactions to the situation being entirely irresponsible, childish and irrational, him not willing to make any adjustments regarding his spending, and instead compromising the monarchy with absurd actions that defy reality, _is_ a vital problem to the state as well.



SiegendesLicht said:


> I have another idea as to why King Ludwig's ministers hated Wagner and eventually got him to leave the king's court (for now this is just speculation, let someone who is more knowledgeable on Bavarian history prove or disprove it). You see, Wagner was a nationalist who dreamed of the creation of a single and powerful German state instead of the 30-something little states that existed during most of his life, before the German unification in 1871. It was exactly that political ideal that led the rebels of the failed German revolution of 1848 that Wagner also took part in and had to flee the country at the threat of imprisonment (his _Lohengrin_, that opera which first charmed young King Ludwig, first saw the stage in 1850, but Wagner was not there to see it). There was no place either for Bavarian or any other monarchy in that ideal, or for the royal cabinet and ministers of Bavaria. Now, considering the huge influence Wagner had on the young king, it could very well have happened that those ministers saw in Wagner and his political ideal a threat to their own future and consequently did all they could to get rid of him, including spreading the myth of Wagner using public funds to sponsor his theatrical projects.


Wagner certainly had a reputation as the political rebel and troublemaker. Wagner and Bavarian Prime Minister van der Pfordten had a history together that went beyond the Dresden uprising of 1848, and it's quite safe to assume that they hated each others' guts.

We also do know that Wagner tried to influence Ludwig into removing two of what he perceived as his major opponents in Munich, Secretary Pfistermeister and mentioned Prime Minister van der Pfordten ("Pfi and Pfo") -- but it backfired: The Bavarian cabinet reacted with extreme sensitivity against the apparent influence from the "outside" individual. (It hadn't even been 20 years since the the fatal Lola Montez affair that ultimately made Ludwig II's grandfather, Ludwig I, abdicate; and the present monarch's almost permanent absence from Munich didn't exactly help establishing trust.) They threatened to resign _en bloc_, which ultimately made Ludwig agree to removing Wagner from Munich.

Ludwig subsequently often stressed how much he regretted that step. There might have been a side in his though (and that's strictly speculation from my own part) which might have been relieved over the distance from Wagner. Wagner was his idol, and to some degree, they successfully cooperated together, but Wagner was quite ready to take everything he could get, an extremely successful human manipulator, and he wouldn't stop at getting some money for his operas. I don't think that Ludwig would have wanted to argue with his "god", but he had a sensitivity for being manipulated, and didn't like it at all, so separation might have been a solution.

As to what the two talked together, I would assume it was mostly Ludwig rhapsodizing about Wagner's work, and Wagner trying to respond appropriately (we have no indications whatsoever for erotic interests or favors from either side, Ludwig being gay or not). As indicated, we do know that Wagner plainly requested money and suggested the removal of (what he perceived as) his immediate adversaries. Political agendas and plans beyond that? I'm not so sure.


Wagner was fervent in 1848 in Dresden in favor of a republic; he subsequently tried to downplay that position. I'm not sure about his political positions while in Munich, or how important they might have been to him at that time -- maybe some other members can contribute here.
There had been moments where Ludwig had been weary of being king, and where he (mostly in impulsive reactions) threatened to abdicate. But mostly, Ludwig regarded himself as the king, and frankly, I don't think he really would have been ready to give up status and privileges. And it was certainly not in Wagner's interest.
In some regards, Ludwig had progressive and liberal opinions, as the members of his cabinet showed, in contrast to the conservative-Catholic parliament. Ludwig's ideas of king-ness were quite out-of-date, though. His _Herrenchiemsee_ castle being a copy/reinvention of Versailles, an homage to Louis XIV of France, didn't come by accident. Ludwig imagined himself as an absolute monarch -- in mid-to-late 19th century maybe a humanly endearing, but politically pathetic anachronism.
_"no place either for Bavarian or any other monarchy in that ideal, or for the royal cabinet and ministers of Bavaria"_ -- just to demonstrate the enormousness of that idea: as of today, in Bavaria, we no longer have a monarch, but we do have a Bavarian state, a Bavarian government, a Bavarian parliament, with considerable responsibility. Strong federalism is one of the constituents of Germany to this day. I'm quite sure Ludwig didn't dream of dissolving the Kingdom of Bavaria in favor of a strictly centralized German state, and I also think Wagner wouldn't have talked with Ludwig about that possibility, whatever his own opinions or priorities were at that point.

But again, whatever they really talked about -- the Munich cabinet and the public were extremely sensitive towards what they perceived as dubious personal influences on the absent king. It wasn't the money alone; Wagner's removal from Munich did have largely political reasons.


----------



## Ebab

Ebab said:


> I'm not aware of major funds going to Berlin as a consequence of that second war, [...]


... going _from Munich_ to Berlin, that is ...

And I might finally shut up now.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Wow, that is quite a lecture you have typed up there! Thank you, I, for one, really appreciate you taking the time to share your historical knowledge. And yes, I know Germany has a strong tradition of federalism to this day, however I was wondering if there had not been a popular sentiment to the contrary sometime in the 1800s.


----------



## Ebab

SiegendesLicht said:


> And yes, I know Germany has a strong tradition of federalism to this day, however I was wondering if there had not been a popular sentiment to the contrary sometime in the 1800s.


That's a very good question; I guess I was seeing that too much from today's perspective. The (failed) national "Frankfurt Constitution" of 1849 for instance did have a strong federal element, but I'm not sure if federalism was actually regarded as an ideal at the time, or was rather pragmatism. My guess is that federalism has had its place in most of the German national and democratic movements of the 19th century, simply because the regions are so important in how Germans seem to identify themselves. The idea of a strictly centralized nation state wasn't very appealing to us, I'd guess.

But I need to look that up.


----------



## Novelette

Ebab said:


> ... going _from Munich_ to Berlin, that is ...
> 
> And I might finally shut up now.


Not at all, please continue!

I have been intrigued by this topic since your posts. I have investigated the fiscal policy of the centralization of 1871, and realized exactly how wrong I was [not an uncommon happenstance, I admit].

The apropos information, confirming what you wrote:

"The German Empire was eventually constituted in 1871. While its 22 member states and three city-republics were free to choose their own form of government; a restructuring was only possible with the consent of the affected member state. For the first time there was also a list of responsibilities which, similar to today's Basic Law, described the scope of legislative powers. As the supreme governing body of the Empire, the Bundesrat (Federal Council) had a central steering function and played a dominant role vis-à-vis the Reichstag (Imperial Diet). The empire was presided over by the King of Prussia, who simultaneously held the title of German Emperor. The emperor had the right to appoint and dismiss the chancellor of the empire. The federal level had to fund only few expenditures (mainly for the military) and had virtually no means of raising revenue. Otherwise, the states enjoyed legislative and above all administrative sovereignty. Direct taxes, generating large volumes of revenue, were at the disposal of the member states; these paid in contributions to fund communal expenditures on the basis of their population size.

It was not until the time of the Weimar Republic, from 1919, that the Länder (designated thus only since then) were made subordinate to the central government. The Bundesrat was replaced by the Imperial Council, which was allotted fewer powers. The empire now obtained extensive fiscal powers and built up its own system of direct taxation. The Länder received grants from the imperial financial administration and shares of the taxes. There was still no constitutionally regulated financial equalisation system."

Source: http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000273969.pdf

Happy to learn new things.


----------



## Granate

This thread turned from stupid to cultivated in a flash. 
Nice to learn these things and leave apart the myths. Any thoughts, 2017 members?


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Granate said:


> Any thoughts, 2017 members?


Thanks for the nostalgia and for the memories of a very old friend I had on this website. It has been four years, but I still think about him sometimes.

Ebab, if you ever reappear here on TC, just know that I am living the life I used to dream about and share my dreams with you. This is the best homeland of all, and I am proud to call it my own. And I have visited your native Bavaria a few times more as well.


----------



## Guest

SiegendesLicht said:


> Thanks for the nostalgia and for the memories of a very old friend I had on this website. It has been four years, but I still think about him sometimes.
> 
> Ebab, if you ever reappear here on TC, just know that I am living the life I used to dream about and share my dreams with you. This is the best homeland of all, and I am proud to call it my own. And I have visited your native Bavaria a few times more as well.


It is good to see that you feel so at home in Germany ,abundantly I might say,you must be a real romantic :tiphat:,all the best from the Netherlands.









click to enlarge


----------

