Talk:Philip Wharton, 1st Duke of Wharton

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Inuse and revision[edit]

Performing a major rewrite now. I hope not to have the inuse tag go stale, but the edit will take the better part of a day. For the changes already made, all are derived from the 2004 Dictionary of National Biography. It turns out that "Honest Tom" needs even more of a rewrite than "Philip James" (you'll see why he gets that middle name in a bit). Geogre 15:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite is now done, and the article doesn't look very much like it did. There were no substantial errors in the prior version, and I mean no criticism, but the political career of this guy is sort of important for understanding the anti-Walpolean movements of the 1720's. Geogre 22:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gormogons[edit]

What about his connections with this secret society? He was one of its most ardent supporters.--Alexvonf (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation that shows how he supported them? Secret societies are secret. When we have documentary evidence, we can talk about it. As for Wharton, he supported all sorts of satirical societies, and that's what the first Hell-fire clubs were. <shrug> We'd need serious evidence that these amounted to much beyond the many parties he attended. Geogre (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was invented to ridicule Wharton's resistance to modernisation of Freemasonry, which makes him a target of its mockery rather than an ardent supporter. Hogarth (who else?) has a rather nice early print on the subject: The Mystery of Masonry brought to Light by ye Gormogons (1724). Our article on them appears to claim it really existed and has a Grandmaster named. I'd be interested to see the paper cited, but I am one of the few denied JSTOR. Yomangani ^talk 16:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip James Wharton? Odd. I can easily imagine his father being a mason and wanting the good old form, but Jr.? He went reactionary Tory, but, if he did hold onto some antique Masonic stuff, it would have been part of his "Scottish" allegiance, I would suppose. You know, I have Uglow. I really should read it. Geogre (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have ample sources in a German publication from 1900: Allgemeines Handbuch der Freimaurerei, herausgegeben vom Verein deutscher Freimaurer, Band 1-2, Leipzig 1900, where they expressly state that Duke Wharton was one of the pillars of Gormogon society. The Germans are known to be thorough, and the book (very carefully edited) was probably a half-secret publication, distributed only to Freemasons.--Alexvonf (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions[edit]

My problem with the recent additions is that they're anecdotal and yet do not offer a source. nDNB mentions the rapidity of Wharton's courtship of his second wife, his impulsiveness, etc., but it avoids the gossip of the original sources (letters and scandalous accounts). I think we should do the same. Additionally, I would argue that Wharton's historical importance is not his licentiousness or rakishness, but his political activities, and therefore I think it's very important to focus on those matters and avoid the catalog of dissipation.

So, if we can't source the "What he said when he saw her" sorts of material, we shouldn't put it in. If we can source it, we might still avoid it, as it's really more color than essence, more aspect than attribute. If we can get a neutrally flavored account, then what's probably significant is the sign of Wharton's mental decline rather than the horror of his imposing his nastiness on the poor, innocent, nunnish girl. Most of all, though, I think it would be a terrific mistake to move, downplay, or lose any of the political history. Geogre (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry[edit]

In freemasonry the Antient Grand Lodge of England (antients) were supposedly associated with Jacobitism, while the Premier Grand Lodge of England (moderns) were associated with Hanovarians. Yet Wharton was the Grand Master of the latter in 1723. Since he was a Jacobite this doesn't seem to make sense? - 90.215.164.30 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Duke?[edit]

The article (text and title) refers to him as the 1st Duke of Wharton, but the text also notes that his titles became extinct upon his death. Doesn't that make him the only Duke of Wharton, instead of the first (which implies there was at least a second)? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede picture[edit]

Who's the lady in the picture?--211.120.232.228 (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]