Happy Pride Month! I’m still in Bavaria, having just visited Neuschwanstein Castle, the fanciful fairy-tale castle built by the visionary ruler of Bavaria, “Mad” King Ludwig II. The castle is widely considered to be the inspiration for Disney in creating Cinderella’s Castle, and there are similarities. One thing the tour did not emphasize, although I can’t imagine why, is that Ludwig II, who was a committed Catholic monarch (and therefore had conflicting feelings about it) was for sure gay. He was briefly engaged to marry the younger sister of his friend Empress Sisi, but after 8 months broke it off. He had no known mistresses, and never married, but he did have a string of male lovers. When he ascended the throne, homosexuality was not illegal in Bavaria, but during his reign, Prussia gained more control (reducing his power even further), and homosexuality was illegal in Prussia (lesbians don’t count; just male homosexuality was outlawed). Regardless, while attitudes about his sexuality were not exactly progressive, nobody wanted to “out” him either, and this information was downplayed in the psychiatric diagnosis that provided the pretext for his removal from office.

After 22 years in charge, King Ludwig II, who had taken over the job at age 18 (and was by all accounts ill-prepared to rule at this young age when his father died), was deemed insane by a Dr. Bernhard von Gudden, a well-regarded psychiatrist whose methods were unorthodox. Unlike his contemporaries, Dr. von Gudden did not believe in constraining psychiatric patients, and he believed in talk therapy as an important part of treatment. He had been treating Ludwig’s younger brother Otto for years, although prior to this diagnosis, he had not evaluated Ludwig’s mental state. Otto was diagnosed with schizophrenia at the age of 24, or possibly suffered side effects of syphilis including hallucinations. On June 10, 1886, perhaps under orders from the government, Dr. Gudden declared King Ludwig II unfit to rule. Otto, who had received a schizophrenia diagnosis in 1872 and had been confined to home for treatment since 1880 was declared the new king, but their uncle, Luitpold became Regent, ruling in his name until his death in 1912 when his son took over. Otto died in 1916.

If you think there’s something fishy about all that, well this story gets weirder. Read on! (And here’s a link if you want to know much more than I can share in this post).

On June 13th, at around 6PM, Gudden and Ludwig II went for a walk together to do “talk therapy.” Ludwig II had expressed suicidal thoughts initially (I mean, he was being deposed, even though it was just a constitutional monarchy, so his role was mostly a figurehead). Ludwig declared Gudden ill-qualified to judge his sanity when he had never met with him. Gudden explained that he had taken statements from servants to corroborate the diagnosis, and the record also shows that Gudden had spent 4 hours speaking with Ludwig the night he was deposed, perhaps enough to confirm the diagnosis. What was the diagnosis? Paranoia. Now, we don’t necessarily throw that one around today as a reason to dethrone (or impeach) someone, but back then, it was kind of a catch-all diagnosis, hard to pin down. And the other thing we all know about paranoia is that sometimes they really are out to get you.

So, these two are having a little chit-chat by the lake, having told the servants they didn’t need to follow. They were last seen at 6:20 PM, and when they didn’t return by 8 PM, a search party was commenced. Both Gudden and Ludwig were found in waist-deep water near the edge of the lake, dead. Gudden showed signs of beating around his head and neck and strangulation marks, but no cause of death was declared. Ludwig, an excellent swimmer, was declared to have probably committed suicide by drowning although no water was found in his lungs in the autopsy. Some theorized that he (at age 40) died of a heart attack because the water was only 12 celsius (56 fahrenheit). Sounds cold, but the water the Titanic sank in was 32 degrees fahrenheit (0 celsius), and obviously Jack (who could have fit on that door, but I think it would have tipped over) had a full on conversation with Rose. There was also no wound found on Ludwig’s body (this autopsy is not sounding up to Law & Order standards), but a loyal servant of his later claimed that he had arranged to help Ludwig escape by boat, but that Ludwig was shot from behind by an unseen assailant lurking in the woods surrounding the lake. Another family friend (a Baroness) had a cloak with two bullet holes in it that she swore had been worn by Ludwig at the time of his death.

So, was he insane or was the diagnosis fake news? Or was his homosexuality seen as a shameful sign of mental illness that barred him from ruling? Like another ruler he greatly admired, King Louis XIV (who turned Versailles into the opulent tourist attraction it is today), Ludwig II was an artistic visionary with idealistic ambitions for his own importance and for the role of Germany on the world stage. The difference was that Louis XIV had the power and influence to make his dreams reality; Ludwig did not. Ludwig was already in a constitutional monarchy, and he was too busy building beautiful castles in the mountains to meet with the government. He did, however, handle affairs of state from a distance. He often avoided contact with others. He sometimes ate dinner with imaginary guests, regaling them with tales as if he were not alone in the room. In general, people did not understand his artistic temperament. He was very wrapped up in Wagner’s operas, especially the Romantic German myths, and the decor in his castles reflected these idealized themes. Wagner was a frequent guest, artistic mentor, and possible crush, despite their 30 year age difference. Additionally, Bavaria’s power was waning due to increasing Austrian and Prussian influence. Some feel his diagnosis was either mistaken or deliberately fabricated. Others feel that there is sufficient evidence and family history to support the idea that he was unfit to rule. And of course, there’s little doubt that his homosexuality was a factor in considering him unfit to rule, even if it was something people weren’t willing to talk about openly.

So what on earth does this have to do with us today? There were a few things that got my spidey senses tingling. First of all, it is interesting that the views on homosexuality have been in tension with public perception for so long. There have been several monarchs who were homosexual, and it has not always (or even usually) resulted in them being dethroned. King James (of the KJV) had a wife but the evidence is pretty clear that he also had at least 3 male lovers. Additionally, sexuality in general has often been viewed as a “moral” question, but leaders have not consistently been considered unfit for engaging in sexual assault, extramarital affairs, hanky-panky in the Oval, or paying hush money to porn stars. And I’ve also previously mentioned in another post about the “worst President ever” (due to losing states during his tenure) that James Buchanan was likely a homosexual; he was a bachelor and was even teased about his close relationship with an Alabama Senator that fellow politicians referred to as “Mrs. Buchanan.” We’ve also discussed that the Church’s own political neutrality statements have changed since Trump entered the conversation, so that members are no longer admonished to vote for candidates who uphold moral values. That certainly wasn’t coincidental timing.

The other thing that is interesting to me is the idea of psychiatric diagnoses. The topic of psychiatry and psychology has only grown since the late 1800s when these events occurred. Dr. Gudden was considered an expert for his day, but many of the diagnoses that people are talking about now, colloquially, are as vague and easily misunderstood as the term “paranoia” he applied to Ludwig. How many people feel totally confident diagnosing their partners or others as “narcissists”? How many people diagnose others as “on the spectrum”? (I mean, you can’t really be wrong since it’s a spectrum I guess). How common is it to say someone has “dementia” when they exhibit signs of aging? Some of these diagnoses are probably correct, but some are probably like saying you have pneumonia when you have a cold. And then there are other terms people throw around pretty freely like Trump Derangement Syndrome, brainwashed, cult, toxicity, triggered, and woke mind virus. Since the rise of TikTok especially, there are a lot of people who feel qualified to diagnose things without really having any special training. On the other hand, I’ve gone into doctor’s offices many times, armed with a self-diagnosis from WebMD and been 100% spot on. But doctors complain that this trend usually results in hypochondria and wasted time; either those are real risks or doctors just hate being rendered redundant. Who knows?

I found this article about Trump’s presidency comparing him to the “mad” monarchs of Europe (doubtless Ludwig II is one of them, but there have been many others–inbreeding and all). If you want to read more, here’s a link.

In a situation where a head of state is incapable of carrying out his duties properly, what guidance can history offer us? The relevant history isn’t so much the history of the presidency of the United States, where no incumbent has ever been successfully removed from office by Congress, but rather the history of incompetent — or allegedly incompetent — rulers at other times and in other parts of the world.

What happens when a political elite concludes that the real or titular head of state has to be deposed in the interests of the country as a whole? Of course, given Trump’s leadership style, the pertinent question might be narrowed down further: What happens when a monarch is judged as mentally unfit to rule?

But there are plenty of voters who disagree that Trump is unfit, who believe that Biden is unfit or suffering from dementia. Both have shown signs of cognitive decline, IMO, but Trump’s style has always been more bombastic so his decline doesn’t look as obvious as Biden’s. And Biden has had moments where he seems totally on his game. Pres. Wilson was literally in a coma with his wife Edith running things on his behalf. Besides, if a President is declared unfit, there’s a Vice President there to step in. In theory, this reduces the risk (unlike in a monarchy where it’s got to stay in the family, perhaps many individuals with mental illness).

Another “monarchy” we could talk about is the office of President of the Church. It’s pretty well known that both Benson and Monson suffered from significant mental decline that made them essentially non-functional during the last years of their tenure, and yet, nobody sees this as a problem or something that can be discussed. The Catholic Church has declared that Cardinals must retire at age 80 to deal with this serious problem. We apparently have no such qualms, despite a checkered past. Nobody’s reporting on the potential mental decline of aging leaders, any more than they are revealing things some suspect (Are Oaks & Bednar on the spectrum? Is Nelson a narcissist?)

OK, enough rambling on about history. Here are some questions for you to ramble on about:

  • When is a leader unfit to rule? How can a fair determination be made when power is at stake and interested parties disagree on the desired outcomes? Do we just have to leave it up to a vote (or using the 25th amendment)?
  • Do you think these “armchair” psychological diagnoses are helpful or out of control? Provide examples to defend your answer. Do you think they are helping people become more educated or making them over-confident in their ability to read others?
  • If you’ve read up at all on it (or I guess just from my slapdash summary), do you think Ludwig was unfit to rule or was it a misdiagnosis? Was it homophobia or was he actually delusional? Why do some leaders get away with being grandiose idealogues, and others get removed from office?
  • Do you think sexual ethics and morality should be considered when voting for someone or do you agree with those who think the ends justify the means or that party loyalty is more important than moral character? Or do you think all politicians are equally immoral because power corrupts?
  • Do you think Ludwig’s death was a murder or a suicide? Do you think he killed Gudden or that they were both killed by others, possibly to ensure his uncle’s regency?
  • How does our current acceptance of homosexuality as a normal behavior change how people like Ludwig and other leaders would have lived their lives? Did the homophobia of their religious beliefs and social unacceptability create pathos and make them unfit to rule? Has this significantly changed today? How do we know?

Discuss.