Talk:Edward Heath

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[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!)

Macmillan was not gay you liar. You can make rumours up about anyone. There is no evidence for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.152.15 (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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


I find it diffcult to talk to people that it not being gay, that is being shy. People make claims about all politicians. Euroskeptics want to claim he was gay to put down the EU. Not everyone has hundereds of sexual partners some people are shy. Some people have morals, and do not sleep around. Some people are workaholics and are too busy to settle down. Some people are broken, due to some heart breaking event in their life. Just because you are not Bill Clinton it does not mean you are gay. Ooops you will tell me he weas gay too won't you. There is no prooth he was gay. Where is his boyfriend? Where is his list of male admirers. Not every bachelor is gay. Maybe if you go to gay clubs and sleep around you think everyone has sex with tonnes of people. Not everyone is banging everyone. Most people have fewer than 10 sexual partners in a lifetime. Some have none. Just as not every married man is not gay. It is not a different age there will allways be men with strategic brains. It is a biological fact that men are less social then women. Have you ever considered the fact he just lacked social skills, was more of male strategic brain. Rather than if he was single he must have been gay. And had a strategic brain. Stop claming everyone has to be social. Some men are not social. And that is sign of highly male testosterone brain. As shown by the digity ratio theory.


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.

Brian Coleman says it was 'common knowledge' among Conservatives that Sir Edward had been given a stern warning by police when he underwent background checks for the for the post of Privy Councillor. SellisJ 21:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to write a fair and reasonable piece, using referenced material, in light of todays various newspaper articles which reference the debate on outing in the Newstatesman, and must thank KittyBrewster for helping do so and put a good neutral view on it. However, categorising Heath as LGBT after his death, and with no direct evidence either way, seems presently POV. If we had a category of "Sexually neutral" or 'Unambiguous" I could probably agree, but on current evidence I don't think we can categorise him as LGBT. On current evidence and referenced comment, I would categorise him as celibate more than anything else. Rgds, - Trident13 13:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
A little more work required to get the sexuality section in order
1] Brian Coleman is notable as Chairman of the Greater London Authority and not as a gay rights campaigner. Coleman's Statesman article was pointing out that Heath was allowed privacy in his private life, and so should other politicians
2] Peter Tapsell believes allegations of homosexuality are an attack on a person's reputation. His particular views are therefore tainted by POV SellisJ 09:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree re Tapsell - whom I wholly discount. It can be argued that Coleman could have his own agenda because he is homosexual. And it was not common knowledge amongst all conservative MPs, most of whom thought Heath was sexually neutral or nothing. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
SellisJ - All the journalistic sources/references I inserted (except the New Statesman) said on Coleman "noted gay rights campaigner", hence why I included the comment in the article. Your comments could therefore be construed as POV against the references, not that I am in any way an expert in this area. Tapsell I have no point of view on, other than his comments in the two references where he is quoted - however, if he is such an open homophobic, why is such a referenced comment not in his bio article? A quick Google didn't find anything, do you have a WP:RS? Rgds, - Trident13 14:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed Ted Heath was gay as well, but if he was he was probably repressed. (92.11.156.27 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

Well, if he was a practising one (that's assuming that he actually was and he admitted it to himself - no evidence of either) then his partners must have been extremely discreet - to be openly gay was illegal for much of his career and unthinkable in a major politician until the 1990s. It is perfectly possible that he was what is nowadays known as as "40-year old virgin", or else simply not interested. Nowadays celibacy is regarded as odd whereas in late Victorian/Edwardian times it was not uncommon. During the 1960s, as Opposition Leader, he made some not very convincing attempts to portray himself as a swinging bachelor, taking women with him to events. It's an interesting topic, but to be honest I don't think there is anything else to be said on the matter unless new evidence emerges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[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)


he did head a firing squad and they did shoot a polish soldier, but the charge was rape, it was mentioned in a tv documentary i saw on him the other day, (heath said it in an interview) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.151.113 (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main picture

I recently uploaded a free use picture of Heath, and I have been trying to use it on the article but people keep replacing it with the old, unsourced fair use government one. It is the rules of this site that where there is a free image, fair use ones should not be used. I can't be bothered keep changing the fair use photo, so if anyone has any reasons for continuing to use it please comment otherwise I may list it for deletion--Ruddyell 19:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'll leave it as it is a miles better image. I wish the people who put it back up found a source and gave us a fair use rational though, it should be reuploaded with better details given --Ruddyell 22:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insider Trading

Were there not reports after his death that he made his fortune through insider trading? stg£5 million was a large fortune for a man who didn't really work outside politics during his adult life.

Anyone who owned a house or shares between 1981 and 2005 would probably have done very well, for reasons which have a lot to do with long-term trends in interest rates. And Heath wasn't married and had no children. Still, I'm sure his frequent and embarrassing-to-watch defences of the Chinese government's repression of democracy in the 1990s were wholly unrelated to the increase in his wealth.

[edit] Loneliness in Old Age

If somebody can find a citation it's perhaps worth including at least something about how lonely he was in old age (in fairness to the man, when many of his friends would have been dead and he couldn't get out and enjoy his hobbies any more). It's really amazing how much anecdotal stuff there is about him eating and drinking with only his police bodyguards for company - just in the last week it was mentioned in a documentary about (of all things) the sci-fi series "Blake's Seven" and the Cockerell documentary "How to be an ex-Prime Minister".

[edit] Food

Some of us perhaps aren't aware that "eating dinners" (a certain number of them) is something that one has to do in order to become a member of an Inn of Court before becoming a barrister, and that Heath did so just before WW2, although I don't think he ever qualified as a barrister. Incredulously removing it is one of the most hilarious pieces of over-zealous editing I've seen in a while.

  • Really? Then perhaps you should get out more often! As to the 'eating dinners' bit, for your information this ceased to be the way one qualified for the bar in the 1700's. It is just nonsense to suggest that Heath (in the 20th C) "ate dinners for the bar". Perhaps you should look into it a little more before trying to deride other editors? regards Marcus22 17:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Marcus, "eating dinners" is still a condition of becoming a member of an Inn of Court before being called to the Bar. It hasn't been the only condition since 1872 when passing a bar exam was made compulsory, and of course one also has to have a law degree (or equivalent exemption) and do pupillage. This was true when friends of mine became barristers in the early 1990s, and to judge from a quick search of the Inns of Court websites it's still true now - the usual number of dinners seems to be twelve.

I leave it to others to judge who needs to check his facts before "deriding" others.

As for it being "nonsense to suggest" that the young Teddy Heath "ate dinners in the twentieth century", it's mentioned in at least one biography, and in his own memoirs (p. 67). In his final year at Oxford, having been promised pupillage by Trevor Watson QC (whose house his father looked after):

"I began to make regular journeys from Oxford to London to attend the required number of dinners there with barristers, other scholars and students. These were all very pleasant occasions, with everyone sitting at long tables and eating in messes of four each, with a four-course dinner and two bottles of wine between us, all for the sum of three shillings and sixpence each. After dinner I would go down to the House of Commons to listen to whatever debate was going on, leaving to catch the midnight train back to Oxford."

In 1946 (p109) he resumed study for his Bar exams "for several months" before jacking it in on the grounds that Trevor Watson QC was now dead and, as a 30-year old, it was not practical to scrape a living for six years.

Notwithstanding the obvious relish with which he recalls these feasts at a distance of almost sixty years, it is entirely distinct from his gluttony in old age, widely remarked on, eg. in numerous newspaper profiles, usually with the inference that overeating was a substitute for certain other activities. "He ate like a horse, it's a miracle he lived as long as he did," I was told by someone who knew him a few months ago.

  • "Friends of mine who became barristers" AND "told by someone who knew his a few months ago". My my I am impressed. BTW please have the common courtesy to sign your comments. The above and those below. Thankyou. Marcus22 19:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Go and have a lie down, Marcus. Come back when you are feeling better.

i spoke to a barrister who said that you do still have to eat dinners whilst training for your bar exam, its a bit like a black tie ball, but without the dancing and stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.77.44 (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ink?

There is a Monty Python clip which shows Heath having ink thrown on him by a woman...what was that all about?

This incident occurred at about the time that Britain joined the EEC. However, the woman who threw the ink was not, as some people supposed, motivated by Europhobia, but protesting about the redevelopment of Covent Garden. (See "Whatever happened to the Tories" by Sir Ian Gilmour.) Jon Rob 12:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


there was another incident you might have been thinking of which involved a woman who was a eurosceptic. she threw mud at him and had a badge on with some anti eec message on it. saw that on a bbc documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.151.113 (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Student Politics

"To understand a man, you have to know what was going on in the world when he was twenty" - attributed to Napoleon, but doubtless apocryphal.

The coming of the Second World War was obviously a life-changing experience for those who lived through it. Heath always made much of his emergence as a politician at the Oxford Union. It is hard not to believe that his career as a student politician, in which his attacks on the government (much of them doubtless posturing of a kind familiar among student politicians), which turned out to be spectacularly justified by events, didn't somehow get hardwired into his political DNA as a belief that the correct thing to do on foreign policy was to side with liberal opinion against the instincts of the Conservative Party.

[edit] Disputed

This:

The contrast with the 1980s Thatcher government resulted in Heath acquiring a strongly humanitarian image. [citation needed]

Needs a source before being moved back to the article. Dan100 (Talk) 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Elgar Heath.jpg

Image:Elgar Heath.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)