At the risk of offending sensibilities, this is what history is, and what history involves. There is a vast difference between prurient interest in someone’s personal life and in examining and analyzing that life for the purposes of research and evaluation. The Grand Duke is a historical figure; by virtue of this-and to claims made concerning his sexuality-it is a legitimate subject for historical debate and discussion. On this board posters have speculated liaisons or illegitimate children-certainly personal topics, raised by someone who could not possibly have known them-and I have not seen anything other than reasoned discourse. Why, then, the reaction over the Grand Duke’s personal life? Having worked with Penny for the past year on our new biography of the Grand Duke, this subject has demanded research and analysis, and I may add here that there is much more at play than a simple accusation by his former wife as filtered through her niece. What bothers me most about this is not only that legitimate historical interest and investigation is being slighted, but also the tone, often observed, that somehow Ernst Ludwig is “maligned” as one author put it, by raising the question, or by assuming that perhaps Victoria Melita spoke the truth. And while I recognize that some hold beliefs different than myself, the implication that if the Grand Duke was gay he is somehow diminished is personally untenable to me. Let’s suppose, for a moment, that the Grand Duke was homosexual. Does this detract from his life or work? Does it undo his establishment of the Kuntslerkolonie in Darmstadt, and his important patronage? Does it lessen the impact he had on his subjects? Does it mark him out as undeserving of respect for his achievements? The answer is, No. The Grand Duke’s sexuality alters nothing of his accomplishments, nor lessens his unique position in Hessian history, nor does it cast his life as anything less than extraordinary by any circumstance. In fact, given his times, his position, and the demands incumbent upon him, the Grand Duke’s life and accomplishments would be all the more remarkable and admirable had he been forced to live a charade for public consumption. This is not a question of insinuation and whispering, but a legitimate item of historical interest. More to the point, supposing the Grand Duke was homosexual, does history not owe him the recognition of that part of himself that convention dictated remain hidden? Does it not owe to him acknowledgment of a remarkable life lived under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, a grant of understanding in death that not only underscores his achievements but portrays a historical background against which he would not only have struggled but risen triumphantly? The catastrophes of his life assume a new, more poignant resonance if he indeed was forced to conceal that most intrinsic and important part of his identity, not as a Grand Duke, but as a human being. If the Grand Duke was not homosexual, he remains a remarkably accomplished man; if he was, then his struggle was all the greater, his life that much richer, his courage that much more exemplary.
Greg King