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 might seem fairly equal in some lights until we note that it appears that the Queen believed it about her first cousin. 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 making the world and history conformity to our ideals by stripping the facts of all context except our personal cultural blinders :) 72.182.3.3 (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that the whole turn over of Cornbury history is much like that against the painting. The mere noting that the paintings providence is not the strongest. However the current telling point is that the identification is STILL the best put forward. No better documented alternative identification has been put forth. And the account comes from England quite distant from mere colonial American political opponents. Seventy five years later is often considered the upper limit for still semi-reliable historical accounts and identifications (potentially written by those who heard accounts from actual witnesses - e.g. writing down what grandfather told when I was a boy that Lord X had this painting made when grandfather was a boy in Lord X kitchens.) Yes direct personal accounts by someone witness to the painting process would be better, or best Lord Cornbury himself - but its not unusual for those accounts to be unavailable especially in more distant history.

In fact in the case of the painting NO alternative identification has been put forth. Which is sort of strange except if this is in fact a Lord Cornbury descendant paying scholars to clean up the family reputation rather than someone else trying to claim the portrait as belonging to their ancestor. Scholars being paid to clean up the reputation of the rich and famous has a LONG history (those working for dictators are merely the ones whose efforts get called out as fake most often). It maybe more modern for so many to go into the field intending to make money by revealing glamourous family histories of mostly acceptable behaviors for the rich and powerful. Its a service and one that no in power or academia wants too closely investigated. 72.182.3.3 (talk) 16:26, 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)

Yup I think the whole valid conclusion is that the evidence is from limited sources either way -- though the context as a whole tends to support the traditional conclusion. There is room for some speculation on the alternative of highly successful character assassination. Though the latter is very lacking in explaining why the Queen went along with actually prosecuting such an outcome. A third more likely explanation would be that the traditional story is most true in the broad outlines of questionable finances (the man fled England to escape huge debts and did die in debtors prison after being relieved of office) but that motives and bizarre behaviors in office were embellished to some degree by political opponents and creditors (possibly including the crown). The stories published in the colonial papers and touted by revisionist historians about his being a source of generous supplementary funding for colonial military efforts seem an unsupportable piece of political motivated publishing when taken in the larger context of Lord Cornbury's prior and subsequent finances in England. 72.182.3.3 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting
The text of the article reads in places like it was cribbed from very old sources with archaic language. I have some other online sources about the article subject open as I type this, and I think I will give the article a quick once-over for copy-editing. I'm concerned that some of the article text may be plagiarism or a copyright violation, but I'm not sure how to check that. If another editor reading this knows the best way to flag that kind of issue, I would greatly appreciate the help. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wrote most of the material regarding the Earl's "reputation." Certainly interested in your contributions. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Creating a Neutral Article
Re: Transphobia I completely agree that the current article is deeply offensive for the stated reasons. It's also true that virtually all existing biographic accounts contain the same transphobic innuendos. However, those accounts contain objective data which can be used to write a neutral biography -- by ignoring the original author's statements of opinion. Fortunately, Patricia Bonomi has written a book that presents Cornbury in a positive light. Her account isn't really a biography. She focuses on and corrects the Cornbury folklore. Unfortunately, her positive opinion of Cornbury depends on her questionable medical assessment that Cornbury wasn't transgender.

Please see my draft article on Cornbury in User:Csandi/sandbox, a work in progress. I would appreciate any input or suggestions regarding the article.

Re: Article Title I recommend adding "Royal Governor of New York & New Jersey" or similar to the title. It's likely that most readers are interested in his term as governor rather than his position in the Peerage of England.

Csandi (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Outrageous claim of transgenderism
This article is an absolute disaster, particularly the section on Clarendon's personal life. To claim that Clarendon was transgender is beyond ludicrous: there are reports of his being a cross-dresser, period. There is absolutely no shred of evidence to suggest that he was in any way transgender, to say nothing of the obvious fact that transgenderism itself was not even conceived of at the time.

The section titles in the article are far too numerous and hilariously unencyclopedic. This whole page, which appears from the editing history to have been taken over entirely by a single editor since July 2017, needs some major work by someone who knows what they're doing. 204.195.137.156 (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Clarification
The "Transgender" Wiki article describes it as: "Transgender people are people who have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from their assigned sex."  If Cornbury did indeed wear women's clothing, then he would fit into that category. "Transgender" is a modern term that refers to a phenomenon that has existed throughout the human experience. "Transgender" is also an umbrella term that includes a number of sub-categories, such as "transsexuals", "androgynous people", "cross-dressers", etc. There's insufficient information to determine which sub-category might have accurately described Cornbury. (For example, How often did he wear women's clothes? What goals did he wish to achieve?  Did he wish for medical intervention? etc.)

Over 300 years later, it's impossible to know whether or not Cornbury did actually wear women's clothes -- thus the body of the article has been edited not to include such assertions. However, modern assessments of Cornbury's life & achievements have universally been negative because of the assertion. Thus a section on Cornbury's alleged cross-dressing is essential -- it has come to be what sets him apart from his contemporaries. Csandi (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The "Cross-dressing" Wiki article describes it as: "It is often assumed that the connotation is directly correlated with behaviors of transgender identity or sexual, fetishist, and homosexual behavior, but the term itself does not imply any motives and is not synonymous to one's gender identity". Whether or not Lord Cornbury dressed in women's clothes, cross-dressing AKA transvestism does not necessarily mean he was transgender. I removed the links to lists of Trans people and history of transgender people in the US. Theorizing is one thing, but I don't think we can definitively say that Lord Cornbury was transgender. Paris1127 (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward Hyde, 3rd Earl of Clarendon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170408050008/http://peculiarworks.org/androboros.html to http://peculiarworks.org/androboros.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead
User:217.155.193.205 I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here, could you explain what your issue is? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)