Talk:Edward Hyde, 3rd Earl of Clarendon

Cissexism & Transphobia

This article is deeply offensive and cissexist! It portrays a person's cross-gendered presentation as ipso facto evidence of being immoral and corrupt. This portion of the article needs to be clarified and removed. Evidence such as sited examples of bribery, extortion, theft, or misappropriation can stand on their own without resorting to discussing a person's gender non-conformity as "further evidence". It is offensive to think that transgender people's gender expression somehow points to 'more validity' for being corrupt. Straight, cisgendered people are equally if not more corrupt; and people don't use their gender to further this as 'evidence'. i.e. "As a woman, she was known to be of lower moral quality." --people would clearly see this as sexist. Will edit article at later date to revise these offensive and bigoted statements from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.112.121 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes the next more modern British Monarch will probably secretly flout news of any cross dressing relatives to gain political support from the gay/libertine side of society. But during the actual time of the account of this incident, cross dressing was not a respected past time for the pillars of national society and royalty. It should be unnecessary to adjust portrayals of historical events because they are not direct influences on today's social thinking. Doing so robs minorities of the pride of winning advancements in social thinking.

This is a case of opinions by HISTORICAL persons, not one of current politics. But be assured that even modern historians often forget this context when judging the quality of evidence. While the evidence is certainly not entirely solid, the counter case is much less so once you take into account that the alleged incidents did not take place under modern circumstances.

The counter argument historians fail to adjust for the fact that it would have been dangerous for anyone but the most powerful to attack the reputation of someone close to the Queen. While slander as political tool may have been common but people of the time would have been careful not to reach too far above their heads. So denouncements and accounts of real misdeeds would be unlikely to be put into print by the common people as modern historians suggest. As a yardstick, keep in mind that calling the Queen herself a whore would still likely result in a beheading if it came to her attention (as treason even under the Magna Carta). Defaming a cousin could likely lead to imprisonment, loss of licenses, severe financial repercussions, and deportation.

Also historians FAIL to give equal downward weight to the press when misusing the press to tout sterling reputations not actually possessed was even MORE common than wide circulated written slander. Instead revisionist scholars CHOOSE to treat such press as unbiased and totally trustworthy. Just remember that the press of the early 1700s was still government owned (often directly controlled by the appointed governor) as a carefully managed tool of governance (of course gossip about unimportant citizens or political enemies was fair game). As the 1700s advanced papers slowly moved into less directly controlled hands but independence of press was only completed as the American Revolution approached and often only as a result of competing papers in the larger metropolis (that is an official government paper still existed). Even today friendly papers may run campaigns supporting a favored candidate that directly flies in the face of observable facts.

So the printed evidence from the colonies is fairly equal until we note that it appears that the Queen believed it. However when we look to prior documentation in England we quickly understand why a close cousin of the Queen was posted to a remote colonial instead of something more prestigious. And most telling is that the governor was arrested upon dismissal and imprisoned for debt until his death. Thus the scholars citation of official newspaper accounts of personal generosity to colonial military efforts rather than embezzlement seems highly suspicious -- except in the mode that the governor may have considered all entrusted government funds essentially his own and that he was generous in spending any funds as originally "suggested". It would be interesting to have someone check if the scholar Patricia U. Bonomi had an agenda rather than having doubtful academic skills -- possibilities include a misguided form of gay rights activism or financial gain such as fishing for movies rights or outright sale of scholarship for or improving someone's ancestral reputation (or possibly for personal connections or those of friends). Unfortunately sale of scholarship in the social sciences while never unknown is becoming increasingly common and its hardly ever investigated unless blatant forgery is uncovered (who would dare cut off sources of academic funds today?). In fact forgery is not required to make a fallacious argument and fallacious argument is seldom grounds for outright academic indictment. In today funds pressured world I suspect that giving a pass to new and intriguing if questionable logic theories is pretty common -- ESPECIALLY if that new social argument and conclusion can be aligned with PC liberal activism (where liberal and politically correct should be taken as an oxymoron but are instead dogma). Liberal arts conformity :) 72.182.3.3 (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

I did some revisioning/redacting on this page, but I suspect it needs more: it was written from what seemed like an entirely biased view and came across as not trying to inform neutrally, but solely argue one side. Thanx 68.39.174.230 03:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)