The Fake History of King Ludwig’s Castles

Table of Contents

1. Palace Herrenchiemsee

2. Neuschwanstein Castle

3. Linderhof Palace

Tourists visiting Germany are taught about “Madman King Ludwig” and all the money he wasted on pointless castles that he used as nothing other than toys. Books, Brochures, TV Documentaries on infinite rerun and bored tour guides repeat the narrative unthinkingly, endlessly, maddeningly. None of it is true. Grab a cup of coffee or tea, sit back and enjoy being a witness to History in the Faking.

 

1
Palace Herrenchiemsee

 

Chiemsee (Chiem Lake) is a water near the Bavarian Alps.

I learned Windsurfing here in the 90s. I visited the Castle Herrenchiemsee three times as a fully dressed tourist. But once, I reached the island by surfboard and sail, instead of going through the proper channels of ticket office and ferry. It was one of those days I felt adventurous.

I’ve seen a lot of places on Earth, but southern Bavaria remains among the most beautiful.

The Island is called Herrenchiemsee (Gentlemen’s Chiemsee). The Palace is called Schloss Herrenchiemsee (Castle Herrenchiemsee).

Here it is on Google Earth, at the center of a line that cuts through the island:

The official narrative:

Construction began 1878 by Ludwig II, King of Bavaria. He was “the crazy King” because he spent a lot of money that he didn’t have, building castles across southern Germany. As any tour guide will assure you, Ludwig commit suicide by drowning himself in a lake.

Nevermind that these ideas were debunked by other authors a long time ago, the tourist guides keep telling the stories because they’re more entertaining. In reality, Ludwig had plenty of money. At one point he was considered the richest King of Europe. He died through gunshots, according to the sworn testimony of several persons. But this article is not the place to reiterate things which have already been written by others.

The castle was incomplete in 1885 and its construction discontinued due to the King’s death in 1886. Shortly after, it was opened to the public.

I guess it won’t come as a surprise to you that…

I don’t believe it was built by Ludwig.

I don’t believe it was built in the late 1800s.

This is a photo by Georg Dollman, who also designed the castle, had it constructed and even furnished the castles interior. A real one-man-show! The photo is dated “1878 to 1885” (can’t they get an exact date?). History teaches that George Dollman fell out of favor with the King and was fired in 1884. Imagine that. You design, construct and furnish several sensationally beautiful castles, and then you’re fired. Anyway, since he was fired in 1884, the photo would have been taken before then.

Problems with this photo:

Firstly, the photo couldn’t have been taken in 1878 if construction began in 1878. Secondly, if it was taken between 1878 and 1885 the building would have been brand sparkling new. The building photographed here isn’t new by any stretch. It’s worn and weathered:

This building wasn’t new in the late 1800s, it had already been standing for hundreds of years. I’m sure of it, just from looking at one photo. Need I go on?

The photo below was published 1880, just two years after construction began. The whole structure is complete, the pavement is finished, the fountains are done. And there’s even a mystery-building to the left of the castle, which we’ll get to later.

A lot of photos from 1880 show people lounging around, even though it was “only opened to the public in 1886”. They’re not dressed like construction workers, so who are they?

It’s not impossible to complete this whole thing in 2 years. But modern projects of similar size and less style, often take longer. I’d be curious to know what building techniques accomplished this. Tour guides don’t go into that.

Georg von Dollman, born in 1830, is a superstar architect. His German Wikipedia page lists him as responsible for these buildings, among many others:

One of the structures, “Befreitungshalle” is from 1842, when Dollman must have been 12 years old. What an early starter!

(Yes, I realize Wikipedia is riddled with errors and that this does not necessarily prove or disprove anything).

I only found one construction photo of the castle, using several search engines in English and German. If you find only one, chances are high it’s a fabrication.

But even if the photo were real, we see a building already complete, surrounded by dirt. They might as well have dug it up out of the ground and then washed or refurbished it.

The caption below the image says it’s from 1880.

There are plenty of photos from 1880 showing palace and grounds already complete. But here, the ground is undeveloped. How quickly did they make those stairs, fountains and walkways? This whole is already teetering at the edge of credibility.

An interior view, 1880:

And that’s just one room.

Contrast this with a drawing said to have been made in 1880 of the castle’s construction:

It’s the only construction drawing I found.

We have one construction photo and one construction drawing, both supposedly from 1880. The photo shows train tracks leading up to the construction site, presumably to transport the building materials. The drawing shows a train transporting building materials.

The drawing seems to be imaginary. The castle was built mid-island, not right next to the waters. It doesn’t look like the artist was personally present.

Wikipedia (bolding mine):

“The is­land, for­merly the site of an Augustinian monastery, was pur­chased by King Lud­wig II of Bavaria in 1873. The king had the premises con­verted into a res­i­dence, known as the Old Palace (Altes Schloss). From 1878 on­wards, he had the New Her­renchiem­see Palace (Neues Schloss) erected, based on the model of Versailles. It was the largest, but also the last of his build­ing pro­jects, and re­mained in­com­plete. Today main­tained by the Bavar­ian Ad­min­is­tra­tion of State-Owned Palaces, Gar­dens and Lakes, Her­renchiem­see is ac­ces­si­ble to the pub­lic and a major tourist at­trac­tion”.

The “old palace” is claimed to be the nearby abbey:

“According to tra­di­tion, the Bene­dic­tine abbey of Her­renchiem­see was es­tab­lished about 765 AD by the Ag­ilolf­ing duke Tas­silo III of Bavaria at the north­ern tip of the Her­renin­sel. New find­ings how­ever in­di­cate an even ear­lier foun­da­tion be­tween 620 and 629 by the Bur­gun­dian mis­sion­ary Saint Eu­stace of Luxeuil…”

The present-day Baroque monastery com­plex was erected be­tween 1642 and 1731. In the course of the Ger­man Me­di­ati­sa­tion, Her­renchiem­see Abbey was sec­u­larised in 1803, the cathe­dral des­e­crated in 1807, and the Chiem­see dio­cese fi­nally dis­solved in 1808. The is­land was then sold; var­i­ous own­ers de­mol­ished the cathe­dral, sold the in­te­rior, and even turned the abbey into a brew­ery. King Lud­wig II of Bavaria warded off plans for the com­plete de­for­esta­tion of the is­land by a Würt­tem­berg tim­ber trade com­pany by ac­quir­ing it in 1873. He had the left­over build­ings con­verted for his pri­vate use, the com­plex that later be­came known as the »Old Palace«, where he stayed sur­vey­ing the con­struc­tion of the New Her­renchiem­see Palace.

Let’s have a look at this monastery that supposedly served as the “old Palace”. A painting from 1770:

As it looks today on Google Earth.

 

Here’s the part of the old painting that interests me:

This gardened and gated area of fountains is missing in today’s version of the abbey.

My point? The 1700s style and design of these gardens is similar to those supposedly made by Ludwig and Dollman for Ludwig’s palace much later.

The castle depicted in the 1721 drawing below, is a mere 10 minute drive from the shore of Chiemsee, in a village called Frasdorf. Again, notice the garden design.

A one hour drive from Chiemsee we find the city of Munich and this castle, built in 1664:

I could point out hundreds of structures that have a strong similarity to “Ludwig’s Castle” of Herrenchiemsee that were built much earlier.

These structures go way, way back. This is a 1563 map of Chiemsee:

Close-up:

We see the abbey in the North and a town called Holzkirchen in the south, which is no longer there today. No sign of the palace at the center of the island though. Does this debunk my theory? Read the article to the end, then decide.

The abbey seems much larger. A wild idea: Was the “new palace” relocated from the north to the center of the island?

This 1648 map refers to the Island as “Herenwert”, the older name for the castle:

Here’s proof that the castle used to be referred to by that name (here it’s Herrenworth), a postcard from 1886:

This 1802 map also shows nothing.

Well, not nothing. It shows four smaller houses where we today find the castle. I’m guessing they’re coal mining huts because the place is called coal town (Kohlstadt). For comparison:

Is it possible that the castle was buried below Earth, that Ludwig knew where it was and bought the place before anyone else discovered it?

I ask because this tourist map refers to an ancient, buried “celtic ring wall” (item 23). There are hidden, yet undiscovered structures to be found on the island.

The “celtic wall” is mostly below earth or overgrown by trees. Ground-penetrating radar has discovered several large artificial structures below the ground, beside the castle.

I see ab0ve-ground and below-ground walkways leading from the castle to the “Celtic structure”:

Some of the lines you see on the radar image are above earth, but most aren’t. For comparison:

Maybe those coal miners were mining for something other than coal.

I spent half an hour looking for the radar-images that include the wider island, but found only this cut-out.

The palace is on a line that cuts through the entire island. Is there a purpose to this?

There are people who say it’s a ley line that forms a straight path touching other ancient Celtic centers called Roseninsel (rose island), Schatzberg (treasure mountain) and Ottobeuren. It is said that these Celts built their sacred sites atop these lines for “energy” reasons.

This for instance, is rose-island. I’m told a ley line connects Herrenchiemsee and the circles you see here:

I have no way of verifying. And honestly, the four ancient Celtic sites don’t look like a perfectly straight line to me. Almost straight, but not perfectly so. Maybe due to geological changes?

A few samples of the interior.

 

 

I did not learn who the incredibly ambitious people were who made the statues, etchings, paintings, chandeliers, gold, etc. Nor where the marble, stone, glass and gold was shipped from or how they were transported to the small island.

The German Wikipedia tells me this:

They say the interior was “eqipped” by Georg Dollman, the same man who designed, constructed and photographed the castle. Julius Hoffmann and Franz Paul Stulberger also contributed to the interior. And then there were a couple of people who did the paintings. I looked up the source book on which this info is based and found the exactly same info “These people created the interior” but not much more. Such a lack of detail for such a unique and ambitious project! The text also says that some of the art is dedicated to the “french sun-king” as well as themes from Roman and Greek mythology. In other words, nothing to do with Bavarian History.

If you were Ludwig, the King of Bavaria, wouldn’t you build something dedicated to your own country?

Is it a coincidence that the palace and area resemble a human being from the air? The waterways are the eyes, mouth and breasts, the building itself the legs.

Construction is said to have started on May 21 of 1878. I decided to have a look at the local newspaper archives of the time. Surely they’d report on such a fantastic undertaking.

An archive of old German newspapers can be found at this link.

I read the newspaper Wendelstein from May 21st of 1878. It was one of the top local newspapers distributed in southern Bavaria. The newspaper lists a number of local events in the area, including the very nearby town of Rosenheim, but absolutely no mention is made of Chiemsee.

I read the newspaper Rosenheimer Anzeiger from the same day. I learn that the Fire Department conducted exercises on that day but not that the biggest construction project the region has ever seen just began. Why am I not surprised?

This is so strange. Imagine the stir and commotion such a project must have caused. The people living in the area were and still are humble and simple. They are mostly farmers. They follow the catholic faith. And in comes the King himself, erecting a castle dedicated to “the sun king”, digging a straight line through an entire island, interrupted only by the “Apollo Basin”, erecting a gigantic structure.

Wouldn’t locals have noticed?

Where are the records of that?

Where are reports of locals?

Where are the news reports?

How many were employed?

Where are your grandmothers and grandfathers who talked about how their parents were involved in the project?

Frustrated at finding no reports, I did a keyword search on “Herrenchiemsee”. I found it only started appearing on a regular basis from 1886 forward, once Ludwig was dead and the place open to the public.

This can only mean one of two things: Construction was kept secret until then. Or it wasn’t built when they said it was. I rule out the first explanation: Such a massive undertaking can’t be kept secret. I support the second explanation. The local newspapers that I viewed, make no mention of a large construction between 1878 and 1885. They should have retroactively forged newspapers to support their narrative.

As elsewhere, the usurpers dug out and repurposed whatever was left after the great upheaval and reset of 1776-1840.

I found no photos of the Herreninsel (the island on which the palace rests) pre-dating the 1880s. I found a couple of photos of the Fraueninsel (the adjacent Ladies Island), such as this one from 1860:

Riddle me this, dear “fact checkers”:

With such a breathtaking scenery, Chiemsee should be one of the most photographed places in the world. And there are photographs – hundreds! – but not of its main island. Instead I found drawings. This one is hard to explain. They must have been deliberately removed.

But wait…things get even weirder!

Another “problem” if you will, is the existence of a second structure to the left side of the main building. A structure just as big, that has vanished today. Here, for instance:

And here:

And here, on this 1880 photo, far-left:

On my guided tour of the castle, a second building was never mentioned, to my recollection.

Where did it disappear to?

Why was it torn down?

A 1900 postcard:

A photo from 1900:

I don’t know where that second building disappeared to! I didn’t know it was built in the first place until I began this article.

Even weirder: There are photos from the late 1800s with this building absent. How? Why?

To put this into context: I visited the place four times, probably more than most other tourists. I should have known that a second building, almost as big as the main building, existed. But I didn’t. Now I do. Why would tour guides omit such a fact? Why did I not see the second building on any of the photos and brochures at the souvenir shops and museum? Maybe there’s a “rational explanation” for this, but if so, I haven’t found it.

 

 

2

Neuschwanstein Castle

 

Wikipedia:

“Despite the main residence of the Bavarian monarchs at the time—the Munich Residenz—being one of the most extensive palace complexes in the world, King Ludwig II of Bavaria felt the need to escape from the constraints he saw himself exposed to in Munich, and commissioned Neuschwanstein Palace on the remote northern edges of the Alps as a retreat but also in honour of composer Richard Wagner, whom he greatly admired”.

Among many other properties, Ludwig’s family owned these in nearby Munich:

Residenz:

Nymphenburger Castle:

But hey, he got bored in these, so he built several other “private residences” for himself.

Wikipedia continues:

“Ludwig chose to pay for the palace out of his personal fortune and by means of extensive borrowing rather than Bavarian public funds. Construction began in 1869 but was never completed. The castle was intended to serve as a private residence for the king but he died in 1886, and it was opened to the public shortly after his death”.

This castle too, was said to be incomplete and intended as private residence, as if he didn’t already have enough. At least that’s what they tell the 65 Million tourists who have visited Neuschwanstein.

Just like Ludwig’s other castles, Neuschwanstein was opened to the public in 1886.

I cut this part out of a 1619 map of southern Germany. It is the basis for my claim that Neuschwanstein was already there a long, long time ago. We see a castle called Alt Hohen Schwangau, which is still standing. In the late 1800s it was renamed to Hohenschwangau, a name it still carries today.

Right across from it we see a castle called Neu Hohen Schwangau. I believe it was renamed to Neuschwanstein and falsely attributed to Ludwig II.

Let’s clarify the wording.

Neuschwanstein = New Swan Stone.

Alt Hohen Schwangau = Old High Swan Area

Neu Hohen Schwangau = New High Swan Area

The general town and area are called Schwangau, Swan Area. Here’s an 1865 postcard showing royalty riding on a swan-like device like  jestki, meeting the composer Richard Wagner and King Ludwig on the Alp Lake, Hohenschwangau in the background.

They are meeting Prinz Paul Taxis. No, it’s not about water-taxis, it’s the royal family member Prinz Paul of Thurn and Taxis. The three men were friends and admirers of ancient mythologies around the Holy Grail. The swan-boat and castle Neuschwanstein are both based around these ancient stories that Wagner turned into Operas.

 

These are the two castles side by side just like on the ancient maps:

Of course, the official narrative is differs. From the same Wikipedia page:

In 1868, the ruins of the medieval twin castles were completely demolished; the remains of the old keep were blown up.The foundation stone for the palace was laid on 5 September 1869; in 1872, its cellar was completed, and in 1876, everything up to the first floor, the gatehouse being finished first. At the end of 1882, it was completed and fully furnished, allowing Ludwig to take provisional lodgings there and observe the ongoing construction work. In 1874, management of the civil works passed from Eduard Riedel to Georg von Dollmann. The topping out ceremony for the Palas was in 1880, and in 1884 the King moved in to the new building. In the same year, the direction of the project passed to Julius Hofmann [de], after Dollmann had fallen from the King’s favour. The palace was erected as a conventional brick construction and later encased in various types of rock. The white limestone used for the fronts came from a nearby quarry.

As so often with these “new builds” at the end of the 1800s they were erected at the site of

*older similar buildings – of which photographs are mysteriously missing.*

After I posted a summary of this on my social media account, a reader pointed out that “there are pictures of the old castle that stood there previously”.

I asked him to provide old photos.

He came up with this:

That is indeed a picture, but it’s not a photo. It’s the only drawing I found, despite searching the Internet for hours.

It seems there is no photo of the previous castle or ruin, even though photography existed in Germany from 1820 onwards. And even though the area has been a tourist hotspot long before Neuschwanstein.

There are no drawings of the previous castle because there was no previous castle, in my view.

The current castle IS the previous castle.

The caption on the drawing says that this is what the ruins are supposed to have looked like in 1832, but the picture itself was published in 1894, years after Neuschwanstein was standing. As if someone said “Hey, people are starting to ask questions, we need to draw up pictures of the ruin we claim stood there before”.

But are there construction photos? Yes there are. The same reader sent me the following picture. Again: Doesn’t this debunk everything I’m saying here? Once again: Decide after you read the whole article.

Obviously there is no castle here, only scaffolding. Imagine having to construct on a steep mountain like that! Impressive.

The caption says that this picture is from 1870 and that it was published in 1936.

And this is the final product from the same angle, image taken in 1886:

I’m curious to discover how men with chisel and hammer got all these materials up the narrow mountain road and built this thing.

Upon closer examination of the “construction photo”, I couldn’t help but wonder if it’s a pre-excavation photo.

Compare the two photos above. The mountain looks higher before “construction” than after, also in comparison to the lakes in the background.

It wouldn’t be the first time a building dug up out of the mud is presented as “newly built” by late-1800s hustlers.

Unfortunately I didn’t find any other photo from that angle of “before construction”, so it’s hard to say.

But here’s a photo from midway construction that potentially proves my point. Look very closely and compare to the photos above.

Just one example (of several):

The piece I have circled in red is still covered in dirt on the midway photo:

It’s protruding from under the earth because it’s buried there.

I’m not presenting this as proof, just as something to consider.

We find out more about Neuschwanstein by looking at the castle across from it, Hohenschwangau:

 

Wikipedia:

“Hohenschwangau Castle is a 19th-century palace in southern Germany. It was built by King Maximilian II of Bavaria, and was the childhood residence of his son, King Ludwig II of Bavaria”

Imagine that! Yet another “residence” for Ludwig. Because the purpose of these castles strewn all over southern Germany is merely to please the whims of the young King, they say.

“The fortress Schwangau (literally translated the Swan District), which was first mentioned in historical records dating from the 12th century, stood high up on a rock on the site of the present 19th-century Neuschwanstein castle”.

Interesting. Where are photos, paintings or drawings of it? If there are none (and there seem to be none), then Neuschwanstein was already there in the 1100s.

“The present day Hohenschwangau (“Upper Schwangau”) castle was first mentioned in 1397, though under the name of Schwanstein. Only in the 19th century the names of the two castles have switched. It was built on a hill above lake Alpsee, below the older fortress”.

The castle was called Schwanstein in 1397? Hmmm…

The names of the two castles were switched? That certainly smells of history-faking.

Why would you switch around the names of buildings?

Imagine people switching the name of One World Trade Center and the Empire State Building. Why would anyone do that?

“In April 1829, he had discovered the historic site during a walking tour and reacted enthusiastically to the beauty of the surrounding area. He acquired the dilapidated building – then still known as Schwanstein – in 1832, abandoning his father’s wish that he should move into the old castle (Hohes Schloss) in the nearby town of Füssen. In February 1833, the reconstruction of the castle began, continuing until 1837, with additions up to 1855”.

Hmmm. If only pictures of the area existed from before the late 1800s.

I searched the word “Hohenschwangau”, “Schwanstein”, “Schwangau” and many other variations for 1830, 1840, 1850, 1860.

The only returns I got where for “Hohenschwangau 1855”:

And 1854:

Wanna bet this photographer took a couple of wide shots? Distance shots? Shots of the area? I’m sure he did. Photography in 1854 was a difficult undertaking and such an opportunity surely wouldn’t have gone to waste. And do you know that if he had included wide shots and distance shots, we could all see the previous version of Neuschwanstein?

I spent an hour going through ALL the works of the photographer of the two photos above, Georg Friedrich Ziebland and found none of the wider area. Ziebland was born in 1800 and passed away in 1873. He lived in the area of the castles. In all that time he never got the chance to photograph the castle from a wider angle or it’s surroundings, apparently. Imagine photographing Hohenschwangau castle but never including the surrounding mountains in your shot. He went to photograph Hohenschwangau in 1854 and again in 1855, both times taking in only the castle itself, but nothing else.

A view of Hohenschwangau from Neuschwanstein. All the old photos show this angle, not the angle from the other side. “Why would you want to photograph from the other side if there’s nothing there?” OK, fair point. But there are tens of thousands of photos, from those days, of random mountains and lakes in the area.

Adding to the confusion are old postcards, from the late 1800s calling Hohenschwangau “Neuschwanstein”:

And calling Neuschwanstein “Hohenschwangau”:

OK, to be fair, “Hohenschwangau” is also  a name for the village adjacent to these castles. But  I don’t see a village here, only the castle.

Here’s 1700s Hohenschwangau:

Because I’m paying attention to detail, I can’t help but notice that Hohen Schwangau is called exactly that on this 1700s etching. That contradicts the previous claim on Wikipedia that Hohen Schwangau used to be called Schwanstein.

It’s so strange to me that there are plenty of etchings, drawings and paintings of this castle but not the other, even though public records assure us there was another where Neuschwanstein today stands.

This, to me, is solid proof of someone not wanting you to see what was there. But why? Well, this is the usual operating modus of the History fakers:

1. Excavate an ancient site

2. Claim it as something you’ve built

3. Remove evidence of previous existence.

I’m starting to believe it’s because deception is like a discipline or art to these people. They enjoy deceiving for the sake of deceiving.

This is a 1825 watercolor painting by Johann Baptist Bührlen showing the Lech river with the town of Füssen. Füssen is at the foot of Neuschwanstein, it’s the town below and adjacent. Perhaps the name Füssen is no coincidence as the word Füsse means “feet” in German.

There’s a castle atop a hill. It’s less impressive than Neuschwanstein, but it’s in the same category of style and design. It still stands today.

As a visitor I always got the sense that all the castles in the region belonged together, were built by the same people. Even so, tour guides insist that Neuschwanstein was built much more recently than the others.

Here’s the nearby Monastery Ettal:

Should all these buildings be seen separately or were the all part of the same ancient and lost Kingdom?

They’ve been taken over and repurposed by ursurpurs. This “christian” monastery, by the way, has been embroiled in several child sex abuse scandals in recent History. One example:

I don’t know about you, but why do we let child abusers and a Government who has tolerated them for decades, tell us about the alleged “History” of such a place?

Hohenschwangau in 1850:

 

Again, for comparison, the 1621 map:

How could this part of History have been covered up? Quite easily in fact. According to Wikipedia, the “French Revolutionary Army” entered the area in 1796. Between then and 1810, they “secularized”,redistricted and renamed the entire region.

Obviously the French Revolution wasn’t limited to France. It was the overthrow of the Kingdom worldwide.

I used 3D images on Google Earth for my own little tour around Neuschwanstein. My hunch was that Neuschwanstein was not constructed, but excavated and I suspect that a small or large part of the structure is still buried underground. Screenshots that prove my “mudflood” & excavation theory:

To the right of the pillar, a part is still under solid mountain rock. Above and below the rock, thre castle continues.

Uneven and Unleveled. The windows center-right are more buried than those center-left.

There is no level foundation the castle is built on. Some places are excavated more than others.

The center is buried, the right side isn’t, the left side is less buried. Who builts this way? Nobody. This castle has seen mudslides.

Here’s what the German Wikipedia says about the adjacent town of Schwangau:

The first recorded mention of “Schwangau” was in the year 1090 and it referenced a front castle and a back castle where we today find Neuschwanstein. The castle belonged to the Royal Welf family.

Honestly? It’s not that hard to see. It really is made up of a front and back castle, just like in the ancient year of 1090:

The foundation stone for Neuschwanstein was laid on the 5th of September 1868.

No doubt, we’ll find evidence of that in the local newspaper, which, at the time was the Allgäuer Zeitung published from 1852 to 1927. 

* But I found no mention of the castle in that newspaper – not in 1868 or at any time before 1886*

The very first mention of Neuschwanstein appears in 1886 -the same year Ludwig was killed and the castle opened to the public. We find the exactly same pattern with the previous castle, Herrenchiemsee.

I use a website called digiPress. It’s the largest archive of German newspapers from the 1800s. My search term is “Neuschwanstein”. The very first mention is in the year 1886, after Ludwig had been shot. Before that, nobody even knew of its existence.

 

This explains why postcards of the time were confused about what the castles were called.

Some interior photos.

A tunnel below the castle.

 

If you believe that this thing served merely as a play-toy residence of Ludwig because he had an argument with his mother, then you’ve bought into the tourguide narrative. It doesn’t take much to realize this structure served a greater purpose.

So who built this and all else? The horse-and-carriage guys of the late 1800s? How are you going to transport all that stuff up a narrow path on a mountain and not once find mention in the local newspapers?

If we go by the past-Millenium theory I wrote on previously, then this is just part of the 1000-year Kingdom of Jesus that ended in the late 1700s, at the “French Revolution”.

Or it was Tartaria, which might be the exactly same thing.

Or it was the Celts, which archaeologists say lived in a city called Kandobounon (today’s Kempten), also called Kambodounon and Cambodunum.

 

 

 

3

Linderhof Palace

 

Wikipedia opines:

“Linderhof Palace (German: Schloss Linderhof) is a schloss in Germany, in southwest Bavaria near the village of Ettal. It is the smallest of the three palaces built by King Ludwig II of Bavaria and the only one which was actually completed and that he lived in most of the time from 1876”.

Wow – yet another “residence” this kid Ludwig II built and owned. Man of miracles!

“Ludwig already knew the area around Linderhof from his youth when he had accompanied his father King Maximilian II of Bavaria on his hunting trips in the Bavarian Alps. When Ludwig II became King in 1864, he inherited a hunting lodge, the so-called Königshäuschen (“King’s little house”) from his father, and in 1869 began enlarging the building. In 1874, he decided to tear down the Königshäuschen and rebuild it in its present-day location in the park. At the same time three new rooms and the staircase were added to the remaining U-shaped complex, and the previous wooden exterior was clad with stone façades. The building was designed in the style of the second rococo-period”.

And again, there was already “something” there before Ludwig “tore it down” and built the Palace. “First he enlarged the building and then he tore it down but three new rooms and a staircase were added to the remaining complex”.

This is a drawing, again by Georg Dollman from 1867, of what it was supposed to have looked like:

Which is odd because some of the buildings at Linderhof do actually have a “Moorish/Islamic” / Tartarian look:

I’m not making this up, I borrowed these images directly from the Linderhof Palace Wikipedia page.

“The Morrocan House” (image one) was supposedly taken from the “International Exhibition in Vienna in 1873”. The “Moorish House” (image 2) was supposedly taken from the “International Exhibition in Paris in 1867”.

That’s right kids, Ludwig II transported entire buildings from the World Fair in another country to his place in Linderhof. Real buildings, not the supposed “replicas” they claim populated the world fairs.

Unfortunately the Bavarian Government doesn’t provide a single photo of this previous building, the “hunting lodge” on their website. They provide a drawing instead:

German Wikipedia calls this hunting lodge “the small castle” that stood there prior to the big castle. But I don’t see any castle on this drawing, only houses and a chapel.

A Googling of “construction photos Linderhof” yielded no results. By now, is anyone surprised?

When typing the same phrase in German, I got one, single photograph:

Again, single-photos are meaningless. The one you see here, taken from “Wikimedia Commons”, is especially meaningless because it could have been taken anywhere. There are no identifiable landmarks that connect it to Linderhof. The mountain range in the background doesn’t look like the one I remember. I’ve been to the palace in person twice.

Where’s the proof of construction, folks?

Construction supposedly occurred between 1870 and 1886. That’s 16 years of no-photographic proof!

Checking the newspaper archives for the search term “Linderhof” I was surprised to find it mentioned as far back as 1937, but not as a palace, rather as a hotel on a hunting ground.

Wow…are the tour guides finally getting something right, for once?

Of course this doesn’t preclude my theory that the palace was excavated from under the mud, just like the other castles. This newspaper article from the area, dated 5. November 1856 was interesting:

This, written in old German letters, says that his majesty the King will visit Linderhof and right after that, go hunting in the area Hohenschwangau.

Another newspaper entry 12 years earlier says that the King and his people will go hunting at Linderhof.

In fact, all the old newspaper entries mark Linderhof only in the context of royalty visiting.

Does this prove anything? No. But it certainly raises eyebrows.

For the entire year 1870 I found more than a dozen articles about Linderhof but none of them mentioned that construction had commenced.

In 1871 I found a curious classified ad from the newspaper “Neueste Nachrichten” (Latest News, published in Munich), May 20:

 

The German text says “Tüchtige Erdarbeiter finden sogleich Beschaeftigung am Linderhof bei Ettal“.

Wait til we translate what it means. It’s my best piece of evidence for what I’ve been saying in this article.

Here’s the dictionary translation for the German word “Erdarbeiter”:

The text reads:

“Competent Excavators can get immediate employment at Linderhof near Ettal”.

I combed through 1870 and 1871 newspapers and found zero ads looking for construction workers, architects or decorators but found one ad looking for diggers!

I’m always excited to find something that I intuitively felt was there but hadn’t found.

“Linderhof near Ettal”. Ettal is the ancient monastery we looked at previously. It’s only a short drive from the palace.

Linderhof from above:

This is Ettal Abbey:

If you draw a straight line from the center pathway of the abbey across the map, you reach both Linderhof and Neuschwanstein. At least that’s what I thought while tinkering on Google Earth.

I could go on researching for a while and I’d no doubt dig up more. But I’ve already spent five full working days on this article, so I’ll give it a rest now. Now let me ask you again:

How credible is the official narrative? How likely is it that these castles were there much longer?

________________________

Dear Alt-History Researchers:

Instead of tearing snippets from this article and presenting them as your own on your TikTok and X accounts (I see you), why not just share this article? Are you motivated by your love for truth or do you just want to take credit for stuff? Information that is presented in crumbs can be debunked. But in the context of an entire article showing a consistent pattern, it’s impossible to debunk. Something to consider. Thank you.

 

Knowledge dissemination relies on YOU. Share this article far and wide