Talk:Mayerling incident

message: Ah, I leave this article feeling that I know less about Mayerling than I did when I started.  Why is it that topics like this always attract the nuts?  What is needed is a good narrative of what historians generally believe happened.  There have surely been numerous accounts of what happened that could be used. john k 00:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree, John. All these stupid theories need binning. No encyclopaedia would carry them. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess 

message: Is the television movie by Anatole Litvak with Audrey Hepburn and Mel Ferrer from 1954 as stated in a now deleted section from Baroness Mary Vetsera or 1957 as stated here? Could the discrepancy be due to the theatrical release in Europe vs. TV broadcast in the US? Likewise Kronpriz Rudolf with Max von Thun, Vittoria Puccini and Omar Sharif; is it 2006 as in this article or 2007 per the deleted Mary Vetsera section? Robert Greer (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dates 

message: The Rudolf article says:
:In December 1992 the remains of Baroness Vetsera were stolen from the cemetery at Heiligenkreuz. When the missing remains were tracked down, the police, to ensure they were the correct remains, asked the Viennese Medical Institute to examine them. While they did confirm that they were the correct remains, the institution noted how the skull contained no evidence whatsoever of a bullet hole, the supposed means by which Vetsera had been killed by the crown prince. The evidence instead suggested she may have been killed by a series of violent blows to the head. 
The Baroness article says:
:Gerd Holler, in his (1980) book Mayerling: Die Lösung des Rätsels, tells that in the late spring of 1945, the Soviet artillery began shelling the Cistercian monastery in Heiligenkreuz where Mary Vetsera had been buried. A projectile of the Soviet long-range gun dislodged the granite plate covering the grave of Mary Vetsera. As a young physician stationed in Heiligenkreuz, Holler was called to examine Mary Vetsera's remains and to witness the reinterment. Dr. Holler carefully scrutinized Mary Vetsera's skull and other bones for traces of a penetration hole or other marks that could have been caused by a projectile, but there was no apparent damage to the skeleton.
The Mayerling article says:
:In December 1992, the cemetery at Heiligenkreuz was vandalized and Mary Vetsera's remains were stolen. Upon recovery they were examined to ensure that they were the correct remains. The findings again contradicted the official reports that she had been shot; her skull showed no evidence of bullet wounds or shrapnel. Instead, the evidence indicated that she had been beaten to death. However, given the circumstances of the examination, there is room for doubt whether it really was Mary Vetsera's body which had been recovered. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Easily solved. Someone's inserted an unattributed editorial comment into "Mayerling" (given the circumstances of the examination, there is room for doubt whether it really was Mary Vetsera's body which had been recovered), so out it goes.  All agree there was no bullet hole, so we change the Baroness article from "no damage" to "no evidence of a bullet hole" (which is what was meant if you read the sentence.) -Nunh-huh 06:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: I'm going to delete this from the article.
If any parts of this are restored, be sure to add Reliable Sources from reputable scholars at the same time to support it:
:Alternative theories[edit]
:Mainstream historians generally dismissed the idea that there was more to the Mayerling Incident than a simple murder-suicide. However some[who?] have argued that the official story may be incorrect.
:Empress Zita[edit]
This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (June 2013)
:Notably, it has been rumoured[by whom?] that Empress Zita, (1892–1989), widow of the last emperor, Karl (r: 1916-1918) and last surviving crowned head[citation needed] from the First World War, claimed that the crown prince had been murdered, and the crime disguised as a double suicide.[citation needed] In A Heart for Europe (Gracewing, 1990; reprinted 2004), authors James and Joanna Bogle mention that in a rare public interview with Empress Zita in 1988, she said that the Mayerling deaths were not suicides, but part of a political plot. It is thought the crime was the work of foreign agents, who may have been Austrian security officials, in response to the Prince's suspected pro-Hungarian sympathies. Or it may have been that French agents were responsible because Rudolf refused to participate in the deposition of his pro-German father: It was known Rudolf opposed his father on certain issues, including liberalising voting and allowing more scope for the activities of national groups within the empire. This was seen in some quarters in France and elsewhere as an opportunity to weaken the empire by playing son against father. Since Rudolf refused to agree to any suggestion that he depose and replace his father, the theory has it that he had to be killed to maintain the secrecy of the plot (Bogle & Bogle, p 3, citing Erich Feigl's biography of the Emperor Charles, Vienna, 1988).
:Although it has been stated that no evidence has been discovered to support either of these theories, differing accounts of the physical evidence (see below) leaves room for conjecture. It has been suggested that, although Empress Zita was not yet born at the time of the Mayerling Incident, her strong Catholic faith and loyalty to her family would most likely preclude her acceptance of the suicide theory, particularly in the absence of incontestable evidence. As those knowing her testified,[citation needed] she sincerely believed that the crown prince had been murdered.
That agents of foreign powers were constantly seeking to bring down the Habsburgs cannot be doubted, and the later murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his morganatic wife Duchess Sophie of Hohenberg is the clearest evidence thereof. Further, Emperor Charles and Empress Zita had both had an audience, before their accession to the imperial throne, with Pope Pius X when the Pontiff, clearly acting on premonition,[citation needed] told them both that Charles would become emperor which, of course, astonished them since Franz Ferdinand was the heir apparent after the Mayerling Incident. (It is difficult if not impossible to give credence to this story. When Charles and Zita married in 1911, Franz Ferdinand had been wed to his morganatic wife for more than a decade---since 1900---and at the time of his marriage he was compelled to renounce the throne for their offspring. Therefore Charles' eventual accession to the throne was inevitable even before he married Zita, and if Pius X really did say anything of the kind to them, it could hardly have come as a great surprise.)
Political conspiracy[edit]
:The idea that the Prince was killed for political reasons, with Vetsera's death used to cover up the crime, is one of the more popular theories surrounding Mayerling.[citation needed]
This theory rests in part on the idea that the affair between Vetsera and Prince Rudolf was an open secret in the Imperial family. Indeed, Rudolf's wife, Princess Stéphanie, was carrying on her own affair.[citation needed] Thus the Emperor's demand that the couple separate was not a serious concern for the two, making a lover's pact unnecessary.
A re-examination of files about the death of the crown prince revealed major discrepancies between the claimed manner of the deaths and the factual evidence.[citation needed] At one point, it was claimed that six shots were fired from the weapon, which did not belong to Rudolf. The initial report stated that only one shot was fired, instantly killing the crown prince, which raises the question of how the remaining five bullets were fired. This information suggests that Rudolf had engaged in a violent struggle before his death. However, an examination of the Papal dispensation issued to allow Rudolf's Christian burial asserts that only one shot was fired.[citation needed]
However, this theory[citation needed] has one major problem. By ruling Rudolf's death a suicide, the Imperial family was required to petition the Pope for permission to bury Rudolf in the family crypt. Critics of the conspiracy theory claim that the Imperial family would have seized on any shred of evidence that might have indicated Rudolf did not kill himself in order to avoid the scandal of petitioning the Pope.[citation needed]
The following is from The Secrets of the Hohenzollerns by Dr. Armgaard Karl Graves, published in 1915 (Graves claims to have been a German spy, who reported directly to Kaiser Wilhelm II):
"...Prussian diplomacy had gained such an ascendancy over the House of Habsburg and the affairs of Austria, that Austria has been and is a staunch ally and supported by Germany in all its aims and ambitions. This alliance is developed to such an extent that even an heir apparent to the Austrian empire unless acceptable to and identified with Prusso-Germanic interests finds it impossible to ascend the throne.
"Erherzog Rudolf, the archduke, next in succession, was mysteriously killed at Mayerling, an obscure little hunting lodge in upper Austria. Much has been written and many conjectures made about the cirumstance of this lamentable tragedy. The real reason, so vast in its importance, has of necessity never been divulged.
"On a blustery and cold January night in 1889 His Royal Highness and the Baroness Marie Vetzera (Vetchera) were familiarly seated around a plain but daintily spread supper table in the hunting lodge of Mayerling. They were attended by Max and Otto K----, two brothers much trusted in the archducal household. Supper was nearly finished and the Prince, who was very fond of a certain brand of champagne, had just given the order to Otto for another couple of bottles, when the deep baying of the Prince's favorite deerhound gave notice of the approach of strangers. A dull thud and agonized yelp of the dog made the Prince jump up and stride toward the door, which was guarded by Max. Pushing the servant aside, His Royal Highness pulled the door open. Three men muffled up to their eyes in great coats forced their way into the room. In a trice the leader of the trio pinioned Max to the wall. The Archduke, who had jumped back startled and was reseating himself behind the supper table, demanded the reason for this intrusion, when the smallest of the three, supposedly the brother of the Baroness Vetzer, laid hold of a bottle of champagne and brought the weapon down with terrific force on his unprotected head, completely crushing the skull. The Baroness, who apparently had recognized one of the three intruders, was hysterically screaming and uttering dire threats and vengeance against the perpetrators of this foul deed. As she stood there, gripping the edges of the table, the third, standing at the door, raised his Stutzen (a short hunting gun in great favor in the Austrian Alps), and fired point blank at the unfortunate woman, almost blowing her head to pieces.
"The commotion brought Otto from the wine cellar, and, taking in the situation at a glance, he threw himself fiercely upon the intruders, ably assisted by his brother Max, who also began attacking his captor. They managed to dispose of one of the assailants when again the gun rang out, sending Max to the floor with his chest almost torn to ribbons. The next moment Otto received a Hirsch-fanger (a hunting dagger) between his shoulders. Dragging their wounded conspirator with them, the two assassins disappeared into the night. From that day to this there have never been any arrests made or any one held to account for this dastardly deed.
"Otto, who was left for dead, on regaining sufficient strength decently covered the bodies with table cloths and napkins, and left a short pencil written account of the occurrences pinned on to his brother's clothes. He also disappeared in the night; for he well knew the consequences attached to an even entirely innocent witnessing of such a royal family tragedy. Old, gray and bent, Otto is living to this day the quiet life of a hermit and exile not five hundred miles from New York City. Money would never make Otto talk, but some day the upheaval in Europe may provide an occasion when this old retainer of the House of Habsburg may unseal his lips; and then woe to the guilty.
"Rudolph of Habsburg had to the full the proud instinctive dislike to, and rooted disinclination against, the ever increasing Germanic influence in and over his country. He died.[note 1]
Suicide[edit]''
:Final letter of the Crown Prince to Princess Stephanie, on display at the Mayerling museum. The letter is undated. Click for the German text and translation.
:Apart from the straightforward lover's pact cited in the official report, a lover's quarrel has also been postulated.[citation needed] It has been said,[who?] that Vetsera was murdered by Crown Prince Rudolf, who then killed himself; that they both committed suicide; that they killed or murdered one another, and that she may have been pregnant at the time of her death. One variant[which?] states, that Mary died during a botched abortion and the grief-stricken Rudolf killed himself.[citation needed]
:Examination of the bodies[citation needed] indicated that Mary had likely died several hours before Rudolf, implying that he had killed her (or she had killed herself) and sat next to the body until he finally shot himself.[citation needed]
Rudolf's final letter to Princess Stephanie also supports the suicide hypothesis. In it, Rudolf bids farewell to her and his friends, saying that only death can save his good name. This letter raises at least as many questions as answers, since Rudolf does not give a reason why he must kill himself, nor is there any mention of Mary Vetsera.
During the funeral, the corpse of the crown prince wore gloves and his mother was not allowed to see his hands, since it was said they presented defensive wounds.[citation needed]
;Aftermath[edit]
Given the age of the case, the delicate nature of the Rudolf and Mary's deaths (both politically and personally), conflicting initial reports[citation needed] and conflicting official versions, the mystery of the Mayerling Incident will likely never be solved. Much of the evidence was destroyed or concealed at the time for fear of scandal, hampering later inquiries. All the people central to the incident have died, most without publicly commenting on the tragedy.
A major obstacle to all of these theories, alternative and official, is the question of why any of these stories would be suppressed. The apparent suicide of the heir to the throne was at least as damaging as any other story, thus it would be illogical to conceal one painful or damaging truth with another.''''''''''
If the above removed unsupported section from the article can be "hatted" here, please do so for convenience.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely unreferenced, cited at least a year ago, possibly Original Research 

message: The fact that Rudolph was married is not important enough to mention in the lead?  Considering that this incident involves (apparent) suicide-murder of Rudolf and his mistress, one would think this deserves at least a mention. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please explain why we should define Rudolf as the husband of Stephanie? --Surtsicna (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: How about: this is an encyclopedia, that basic fact is relevant to the topic. We don't define facts, ... facts are facts.  And a "love triangle" could certainly be relevant to a murder-suicide involving two legs of the triangle -- especially since the circumstances surrounding the events are still considered somewhat "mysterious". Although the 'Latest evidence' section suggests that she did indeed commit suicide, her motives are unclear. Certainly the fact that she was having an affair with a married man might have been contributory. At any rate, what is the rationale for not mentioning this? —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any discussion on "importance" (not vs. definitely important) has some missionary background about possibly diverging valuations of social interaction patterns (marriage, monogamy, polyandry, homosexuality, ...). I think, in the then relevant cultural settings of aristrocratic countessies (Komtesserln and Ballett-Ratten), bourgeois double standards and catholic prudery,  Rudolph being married or not was "of importance". Purgy (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

text:  It is also a basic fact that Rudolf was born in Vienna. That fact is also a fact. The question would be whether it is necessary or useful to define Rudolf as a Wiener in this article. I disagree with defining Rudolf as the husband of Stéphanie. I oppose cumbersome sentences such as this one. If Stéphanie is to be mentioned in the lead, it should be within a meaningful context. Surtsicna (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not important"? 

message: The evidence is clear that Mary intended to commit suicide; so, shouldn't this be classified as a double-suicide (cf. suicide pact)? 107.15.157.44 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it should.  Done.---- Work permit (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Or perhaps not.  Rudolph had apparently shot Maria Vetsera and then turned the revolver on himself.  They had made a suicide pact, but Rudolf killed Vetsera.---- Work permit (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Murder–suicide" or double–suicide 

message: Since this article is about a historical event and not an exploration of 19th century German-Austrian protocole, could we dispense with the untranslated, italicized, wikilinked aristocratic titles in contradiction with article titles as well as with common English-language usage? “Otto, Fürst von Bismarck” rather than Otto von Bismarck is particularly ridiculous. 89.159.110.175 (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The use of honorifics and uberlinking is horrendous. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  German titles