Talk:Edward Heath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents 1 Chatham House 2 succession box 3 Squirearchical? 4 I don't like the introduction 5 Reserve powers 6 Sexual orientation 7 Nicknames 8 Firing Squad

[edit] Chatham House

I added the name of Edward Heath's school as Chatham House (I happen to have gone there as well) & then someone else linked it to Chatham House, also known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs - although they share a name they are different institutions -I've removed the link but can anyone advise the best way to avoid this happening? Rodw

[edit] succession box

I may have misunderstood how this is supposed to work, but the box states Heath was preceded and succeeded by himself as Prime Minister. ?? AndrewMcQ 21:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As I look at it now it says he was preceded and succeeded by Harold Wilson, which is correct. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:24, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Have deleted mildly bizarre list of former titles, but inserted mention that rose to rank of Lt Colonel in main text. I think it would also be good to have a mention of his sailing in here somewhere. --Iceaxejuggler 22:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see, it's contextual. Just seen that other PMs with a more dazzling diversity of titles have such a list, and I can see that in such instances it would make more sense. Someone can re-insert in then, if they wish. I'm off to bed. --Iceaxejuggler 22:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Squirearchical?

Is that really a word?--Eloquence* 05:45, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

(At a native speaker) I very much doubt it is. →Raul654 05:50, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

It is, but a portmanteau, congealing together "rule by" and the "traditional" English country-squire, whose authority was inherited (or purchased) but was tolerated by the peasants who lived on his land and were to a great extent dependent on his benificence. See "To The Manor Born"--Simon Cursitor 07:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

squirearchy is certainly a word. 6000+ results on Google, and a linguistics mailing list dates it to 1796! (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/popcult/handouts/blends78.html) It is still used, and generally in contexts such as that in the article. Squirearchy (with or without the e) and squirearch are in my Concise Oxford (ninth ed), although squirearchical isn't. --Telsa 13:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I don't like the introduction

His role in the history of his party is significant, but it surely shouldn't take precedence over his Prime Ministership and his policy positions in the introduction.

[edit] Reserve powers

Should it be mentioned that he was appointed Prime Minister by the Queen, as a rare use of such powers, as the parliament was hung?

Huh? She appointed him PM in 1970 when he had a majority of 31 - nothing unusual about that, and that was the only time he was appointed PM. After the February 1974 election he tried to negotiate a coalition with the Liberals but he resigned after some days when it became clear that no such coalition would be forthcoming. While it is usual for PMs to resign immediately, when the opposition achieve a majority on election night, in cases when no party achieves a majority there is no obligation for the outgoing PM to resign until the new Parliament assembles and demonstrates that he is unable to command a majority. The Queen only appoints PMs at the start of their continuous period of office - Tony Blair has won three successive General Elections but only been appointed PM once. -- Arwel 13:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual orientation

face it...TED Heath was a raging homosexual (just like me...so don't go accusing me of homophobia)...atleast one commentator (Andrew Sullivan) has said as much...if you dont want to cast aspersions on his character how about mentioning that 'it was an open secret amongst british political circles that heath was gay.' or that 'there has been some speculation, though not entirely unfounded....' v

There was some speculation about this at times, but not much. One biography by John Campbell concludes that he was probably a repressed heterosexual (sic). PatGallacher 19:16, 2005 July 23 (UTC)

Ted probably was a repressed homosexual but frankly who cares? He seems to have one 'sort-of' relationship with one woman in his youth: most gay men have had that sort of relationship in their youth. While he was exceptionally alkward with both sexes, most even repressed heterosexuals show some affection to women and are mildly flirtatous with the opposite sex, completely subconsciously. Ted was utterly unaware of women, according to those who knew him. He was however, more aware of men and became particularly uptight in their presence. I know politicans who knew him and were sure that he was a repressed homosexual, struggling to keep his sexual feelings in check, and that his disappointment over his relationship with Kay Raven was the classic experience (as we gay men know only too well) of trying to prove you're not gay by having a relationship with a woman, only for the woman you hope will confirm you in your heterosexuality to do the exact opposite by dumping you. It is an experience known by millions of gay people the world over. Many get over it. Others torture themselves over it, and see the failed relationship as the one escape they had had to avoid a sexual orientation they may not want. I know some politicans in Ireland who knew Ted reasonably well, and all are unanimous in believing that he was gay. Some joked about it in his lifetime, though nowhere as bitchily as world leaders used to joke about Harold Macmillan's bisexuality: JFK once drunkily asked the British Ambassador in Washington whether the Queen and her then PM, Macmillan, used the same dress designer. (Macmillan's liking for wearing women's clothing was also no secret!)

Ted, however seems to have been a psychological mess: indifferent to women, tense and uptight with men, incapable of even the smallest of smalltalk, and totally lacking in close friends. On a human level it was a tragedy. No human being should have to live like that. In a different age his tortured terror about his sexuality could have been worked through and he might well have been able to develop human relationships (sexual or otherwise). But he grew up in a society where people fitted neatly into boxes (heterosexual men with heterosexual women, gay people as 'queers' and 'freaks'). He tried to be nothing, and ultimately ended up with nothing. (Shakespeare would have been able to write a great play about him.) FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 22:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}

ahan...considering that you admit that he might have been homosexual, or atleast 'uptight' with men, and a psychological mess as a result of his repressed orientation, why dont you think that is an important enough facet of his life to be mentioned in the article? there's neverending claptrap about his coat of arms and how he got a nifty looking order of the garter blah blah...let me ask you your own question...'frankly who cares?'...how is his orientation is less important than some two-bit bauble john major threw at him...the article about gladstone for instance contains speculative material like 'There is no evidence he ever actually used their services, although shortly afterwards his diary would sometimes be marked with the small drawing of a whip. It is believed this means he felt tempted, and he is known to have actually whipped himself as a means of repentance.' the article on thatcher contains statements like 'every prime minister needs her willie'...why can't we discuss heath's orientation...even if it has to be couched in phrases like 'there has been speculation...' User:notquiteauden

Because Thatcher said that, Gladstone associated with "fallen women" (his phrase) etc. Ted as far as we know did nothing to justify the inclusion of the topic. The article is about him, not other people's perspectives on him. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(caint) 23:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)}

"Some commentators believe that after losing the leadership Heath's aim was to await a major crisis in British politics and be available as a potential "elder statesman" who could head such a government." There is place for other people's perspectives of him. Either way, I think anyone who clicks on discussion will read that he was probably gay. how about saying that he was assexual atleast then, since he clearly didnt fit either box

Is there really any evidence either way? If not, isn't it better just to let the poor old thing rest in peace? My impression of him always was that he was sexless. That might be because he was a closet gay, but it might equally well be because he just had difficulty forming relationships. Not every single man in the world is gay. Deb 16:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Oops, that came out badly. I meant, "Not every unmarried man in the world is gay." Deb 16:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I just came to this talk page to note that I did read this discussion before I removed the current "because he was a closet homosexual" comment from the article. (From 85.167.215.202 on 2005-02-13.) And then I removed it anyway: no references. --Telsa (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He may just have been one of those rare individuals not ruled by what is between their legs.

Exile 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Palin in 'Monty Python's Personal Best - Graham Chapman', remembers about Graham that he had said "to some people in a pub in Oben that really didn't want to know, that their then prime-minister Edward Heath was gay. He stood up in a Scottish pub where noone really knew the word gay and said that that he knew that he (Edward Heath) was gay because he'd slept with him".

So yeah, I think it's quite likely he was gay. Stubbornly saying that he wasn't is, I feel a bit deragotory to gay people.

Berry2K 2:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion needs to be evidence-based. - AG,Stockport, UK.

[edit] Nicknames

The inclusion of "traitor" as nickname of Edward Heath completely undermines the reliability of the article. No doubt a small minority of rapid anti-Europeans may see him as such and a larger group may well disagree with his pro-European policies, however, the recording of purely personal abuse does not add to article. Otherwise perhaps we should add, for example, "bitch" the the Margaret Thatcher article or "warmonger" to the Blair article.

Well the nickname "milk snatcher" is added to the Thatcher article and that is a term of abuse. Both "milk snatcher" and "traitor heath" are not just personal abuse but connected to their policies. Articles on wikipedia are not meant to be hagiographies.--Johnbull 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles should not be hagiographies but they should not contain personal abuse on the subject. Many people may well disagree with Edward Heath's pro-European policies but only a small minority would consider him a traitor.

The fact is that he is known as "traitor Heath" by some of those against his EEC policy. Whether you agree with the nickname or not, it has been used and warrants inclusion. There is a precedent on wikipedia for critical personal nicknames, such as the Thatcher example.--Johnbull 00:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

All politicans suffer personal abuse, but it would be inappropriate to include all such abuse. A quick google will reveal that the term "traitor heath" has been used on the websites of his political opponents, Veritas and UKIP, and extreme right wing sites such as Stormfront White Nationalist Community and Aryan Unity but not in a wider context. The term is confined to an extreme anti-European minority and should not be included.

To exclude the nickname because of the political opinions of those who use it is not NPOV.--Johnbull 00:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be excluded because it is not in widespread use. Otherwise any item of personal abuse about any politican should be added to the respective article!

You're being inconsistent. First you claim no critical personal nicknames should be allowed at all (totally ignoring the fact they are used elsewhere on wikipedia) but now you say they can be used, but only if they're in widespread use. The nickname is staying.--Johnbull 19:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The inclusion of every personal attack made against any politican would clearly be pointless. I am not arguing that Heath's European policies remain controversial only that it is not true that most of those who disagree with the UK's entry into the EEC believe him to be a traitor. The combined total of hits "edward heath" and "ted heath" on google is 518,000. The number of hits for "traitor heath" is 232 giving a percentage of 0.044%, clearly a minority view. I remain of the opinion that the "traitor heath" comment should not be included, however, as you clearly have strong views the other way I would be prepared to compromise provided that a reference is made to it being a tiny minority opinion.

"Grocer heath" gets 326, which is also tiny compared to "edward heath" yet you do not propose removing that? I am more than happy to have it stated in the article that it is a minority opinion and not held by all his critics of his EEC policy. I am happy to compromise in this respect.--Johnbull 18:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope the modified sentence is now acceptable. It makes clear that it is a minority nickname even among Eurosceptics.--Johnbull 18:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that.

OK with me -- Nigel ^(Talk) 18:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firing Squad

I have read somewhere that the most difficult moment of Heath's life occured during the War when he had to head a firing squad in order to execute a traitorous Polish soldier. Can anyone shed any light on this??--Edchilvers 14:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)