Ludwig II - His Death is Unsolved Since 1886

The mysterious and unexplained death of King Ludwig II still occupies minds throughout the world. The relieved sighs of the responsible parties at the beginning of the 20th century, believing this subject had finally come to rest, was apparently premature. No government declaration, no written defense documentation - no matter how extensive - of the official version of 1886 (murder of Professor Dr. Gudden and suicide) possessed the persuasive powers to silence the many unanswered questions over the past 115 years. Many of the king's admirers would rather keep the mystery surrounding his death unsolved. Even today postcards from the time of Ludwig II can be found representing the prevailing attitude of the time by showing an angel soaring above the waves with one finger pressed to his lips. Be silent, it warns the viewer! But then, is not the legend much more romantic than the truth?

One could probably leave it at that had King Ludwig's death not been used as proof of his feeble-mindedness and malicious nature and had served to convince the Provincial Diet of the necessity of his removal and internment, to enable it to go down in history from there.

Gudden's son-in-law Dr. Grashey, defended his father-in-law's diagnosis and terminal prognosis before the Chamber, as well as his own methodical thoughtlessness with the contention that the observance of King Ludwig II during his internment at Castle Berg on June 13 1886 (only one day!) confirmed their medical opinion. Crowning points of the unconvincing evidence are the allegations of the presumed murder of Gudden and the king's subsequent suicide.

Since we are not dealing with undeniable historical facts but only with bare assumptions of one-sided defaming intentions that had been forced on the population by censorship and under threat of legal action, a qualified historian of today can not justify closing the file on Ludwig II.

What basically has to be determined is if Ludwig II, while trying to escape or while trying to commit suicide while in the process of defending himself, killed Dr. Gudden and then sought his own death in the water. Even if that had been the case, his actions would be fully understandable, given his situation and not a symptom of mental instability.

However, we have already known for years that this death version as such is doubtful, in view of the many contradictions in eyewitness testimonies and descriptions of the location where the catastrophe took place.

The same goes for the theory of coincidental death of both men, assuming the king as well as the doctor - or at least one of them - could have fallen victim to heart failure or that the doctor could have caused the king's death with an overdose of chloroform. This version as well has been up for debate for many years. According to all findings of the Ludwig II research - 15 years old now and still officially valid! - this official versions belong on the historic trash pile.

The actual unequivelant research of today shows that a catastrophe through outside influences can not be discounted any longer. Although only an exhumation of the body can give us a definite answer, the amount of evidence has increased sharply in the last years. I have reported about this in detail in my published books and commentaries.

Should a legal examination one day indicate bullet hole injuries on the skeleton of the king, that should not mean that a finger can be pointed at specific individuals through investigative methods. That would create too much of a risk to damage the innocent.

It is the goal of this endeavor to finally solve the death of King Ludwig II and does not present a sensational interest in the hunt for the king's murder. It should instead lay to rest the unrealistic judgement of Ludwig II, like those of Dr. Johann von Faeustle, Bavarian State Minister, who, after listening to horror stories from psychiatrists and the king's enemies, wrote to his mother:

"He lived like a monster and he dies like a monster."

The victim was the subject of a session of the Provincial Diet in June 1886. Of course everyone was innocent of the tragedy at Castle Berg and the preceding events! The burden was put on the "monster" Ludwig II. Even the most loyal members of parliament and journalists had to recognize this!

In zealous efforts of self-defense one or the other individuals revealed more than intended. The likelihood of a possible political assassination was clearly present.

Accordingly, the Bavarian Ambassador Hugo Baron von und zu Lerchenfeld-Koefering, writes in his memoirs:

"Ludwig's death was the best solution for himself and others."

He writes verbatim:

"His survival would have caused even greater problems for the administration
and the government because, in spite of everything, the king was a popular ruler. It took a long time before existing images of wrong doings disappeared from the minds of the people. It would have taken longer to ease the people's minds if they thought that their king was languishing in prison. As long as Ludwig was alive it could be counted on that efforts would be made by scheming and idealistic individuals, to free the king and return him to the throne."

In other words, danger of administrative politics, danger of Bavaria's peace being threatened, danger of a new government being declared and danger for for all people responsible for his interdiction. Wit all of that the fear of escape or freeing Ludwig II is enough to serve as a motive for murder.

This fear might have been so widespread that a search for the perpetrators would have seemed absurd. So now they stand before a higher court than that of state and history.

However, it is clearly recognized that Ludwig was still feared, even in captivity. The memoirs of Eulenburg, Dr. Franz Mueller, Washington and the statements of doctors Grashey, Hagen and Hubrich are filled with the unspoken principals of the High Priest Kaiphas:

"It is better that only one man perishes instead of a whole nation."

Philipp Baron von Eulenburg-Hertefeld, Prussina Ambassy Secretary, writes the following about Empress Elisabeth of Austria in his description of the king's tragedy:

"She belonged to a group of people that regarded the king's interdiction as an act of power by Prince Luitpold and the government and therefore seriously considered assisting with the king's escape. Since women can just rarely form a logically thought out plan, the empress' intentions already failed on the first day through her carelessness and imaginations. She secretly had letters delivered to the king with the inscriptions: 'The seagull to the sea eagle.' People in the king's surroundings most likely opened the letters and learned of the empress' intentions."

In any case, one was aware of the escape plans and the escape collaborators! Then why was not immediate military help ordered or police power to re-enforce the park or internal re-enforcement called for?

Everyone may draw their own conclusions from the facts that at least two absolutely hostile individuals were responsible for the king's downfall:

Hugo, Baron von und zu Lerchenfeld-Koefering, Ambassador and Karl Theodor Baron von Washington, Chief Lieutenant

And both of them feared the escape plans and rescue efforts.

From the latest discoveries in Ludwig research we know that Ludwig definitely had intended to escape and was shot in the back during the process.

But also, in view of the untrue version of his death, it should be pointed out here that if Ludwig had intended to seek his death in the lake by committing suicide, it would have meant that he was driven to do so because an incurable diagnosis had to serve as a political weapon to remove the risk factor Ludwig II from Bavarian politics forever.

And in most errors of justice the annihilation of a person was regarded as the closest and most comfortable solution without the people involved developing any feelings of justice. Only after the tragedy by the lake did one or the other realize what they had involved themselves in, but remorse was a private affair. In public the participants stubbornly defended themselves and heaped all responsibility on the dead king who could not defend himself any longer against the defamation of his image in history, which was to serve as justification to his opponents.

This travesty of justice in the form of the most evil defamation in 115 years can only be amended by the disclosure of the cause of death. The public owes it to the King of Bavaria who had brought prosperity and well-being to the whole of Bavaria

and free him of the odium of being regarded as a mentally incompetent and mad murderer and one who committed suicide.

Since the correct diagnosis of the king's cause of death is a public concern, the Royal House of Wittelsbach should give their consent for the exhumation of the body of King Ludwig II.

Translation Ingrid Kane