Talk:Robert Walpole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Robert Walpole is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 27, 2005.
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]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

Contents

[edit] cabinets

It might actually be better to have a cabinet page on George II of Great Britain; for example, Walpole would never have purposefully chosen Lord Carteret as a cabinet member - he was already there, because George had appointed him. Similarly, it's a bit confusing to consider the Earl of Wilmington as "Prime Minister", as the real power was enjoyed by Lord Carteret... so soon (I have all of these obligations that I will get to "soon", such as Battle of Liege...) I shall attempt a long, verbose table of cabinet members at George II, and we'll see how it turns out. ugen64 03:29, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the 18th century is difficult that way. Perhaps we should have cabinet tables with the monarch up to say, 1783? By the way, George II did not ever appoint Walpole and Carteret to serve at the same time, so far as I remember. Walpole served with Carteret under George I from 1721 to 1724, and then Carteret was out of government until after Walpole's fall...In 1721, so far as I am aware, Carteret was not noted as an opponent of Walpole. john k 21:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tory objections

Atterbury a Jacobite in 1721? Huh? Walpole, in 1714, led the Commission of the White Staff, which smeared Oxford and Bolingbroke (the latter in particular). Oxford went to the Tower and then paid some money and got free. Bolingbroke fled to France for a bit and then eventually came back (1724, I think). The Atterbury treason trial and exile (the only figure in the 18th c. to be exiled) was due to 1714, not 1721. Basically, all of these are related: When Anne grew ill, Oxford and Bolingbroke both wrote letters to the Old Pretender, trying to set conditions upon which he might be allowed to return. What was not stated at the time is that Robert Walpole wrote to the Pretender, too. At any rate, the "White Staff" had entirely forged documents showing this. (I.e. they really did it, but the White Staff, with Walpole's direction, forged others.) On the other hand, Atterbury actually went much farther: he invited the Pretender, as a Bishop, back. So, the trials of Harley and St. John were behind the scenes and resulted in relatively light punishments. However, the Atterbury trial was more rigorous. However, though the trial took part later, it was all about the 1714 crisis, and not about the South Sea crisis.

If Jacobites wanted to exploit the Bubble, that's news to me, but it wouldn't have involved Atterbury.

What's missing from this article is the degree to which Walpole was a polarizing influence on the nation. He wasn't disliked: he was hated. He was a Margaret Thatcher of the 18th century, and his career parallels in its end, too. His power was broken by making him a peer and bumping him up to Lords, where he couldn't be controlling Commons (although he still did, of course).

One last thing: every account I've read has suggested that it was Walpole's idea to trade national debt for S. Sea stocks, that Walpole really did mismanage Navy pay, and that Walpole did act as "a Screen" for the S. Sea directors. (There is a whole iconographic language of 1721-3 showing Walpole as a screen. I think even Hogarth depicted him that way.)

In light of the FAC nomination, I thought I'd lodge these complaints here. The Whig history patina that makes Walpole a forward-thinking free trade proponent lingers over history texts up to the 1970's, and a grumpy Tory-satirist view is an antidote. (Walpole is responsible for the best satire in English, I think.) Geogre 01:47, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you try to change the article in this direction? john k 02:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would really need to research Walpole a great deal more. The new biography of Walpole (well, new to me, but I'm middle aged, so it was really an early 90's) is supposed to be flawed, but at least not Macaulay. I'd need to read that and compare it to what I know from Craftsman, Guardian (the old one), and some of the broadsheets. Walpole was targeted by Whig (before Tory) satirists as early as 1711. The "Great Man" satires are rich beyond all reckoning in the 20's. Anyway, it's too big a subject for me to want to tinker with it until I have more and more careful notes and exact references. He's as important a subject as Ronald Reagan and as divisive as Richard Nixon. One treads carefully there. The present article has a bit of a Whig view, but that's ok. Geogre 14:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From what I have read, Walpole preferred that the Bank of England—not the South Sea Company—take over the national debt. His polarising influence, I think, is covered by the sections on his premiership. As for the information on Bishop Atterbury, see [1], which states mentions the "hopes of the Jacobites ... which the South Sea Bubble had fanned." I did not intend to imply that the Jacobites were opponents of the South Sea Company; only that they were encouraged by the crisis (which they surely would have been). [Incidentally—not that it matters—I believe Atterbury was not tried, but was rather punished by a bill of pains and penalties.] -- Emsworth 02:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right about the bill of pains and penalties, of course. I think the bit about the Bubble and Jacobites is really a conclusion and not a fact. The risings of '15 and '45 are big, as we know, but the '15 is the Anne crisis. If I could recall the exact source, I'd provide it, but the account I recall is that Anne's death threw everyone into crisis. Anne was the last Stuart, and there was no other candidate that wasn't already entangled with a foreign prince. Going off to Hanover was an extreme jump, and everyone thought of the Pretender first. For his part, the Pretender was in correspondence with all sorts of folks. He was a changed man, he said. He would be a good guy, a constitutional monarch, would swear not to meddle with the religion, etc. As the next guy in line to the throne (actually ahead of Anne, as we know), he wrote to "the government." Well, the government was Harley/St John. He also wrote to "the opposition," which meant Walpole and Sunderland (I think it was Sunderland). Very rational stuff. Well, the Whigs specifically invited "German George" over, got the ministry, and immediately indicted the previous government for doing what every sane high level politician was doing. Oxford and Bolingbroke were no more Jacobite than Walpole. On the other hand, Atterbury probably was Jacobite. ...Anyway, the Bubble occurred after the official powers had long settled on the Hanoverians, so the Jacobites of rank like Atterbury weren't looking to exploit anything. If the Jacobites on the low level, the people who fumed about "the king over the water," and the Scots wanted to exploit the Bubble, that's really, seems to me, to be like "the Communists" wanting to exploit the Civil Rights struggle in the US: may be, but they weren't anything like the Atterbury/Bolingbroke/Oxford crowd. There aren't very many high ranking Jacobites after '15, seems to me, though there were a lot of low level and distant ones. That was why I got outraged enough to object, anyway. Geogre 14:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Houghton Hall

So far Walpole's house, built by Campbell, Gibb and Kent remains unmentioned, though it is one of the great power houses of the 18th century. --Wetman 19:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It has been mentioned, but in the wrong place. Its mentioned as his birth place, but it wasn't even built when he was born, it was constructed after he became Prime Minister.

[edit] Horace Walpole

Though not a politician, Horace Walpole desrves to be mentioned. --Wetman 19:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe he is, in the section "Later years." I have added a mention of his literary career. -- Emsworth 20:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Robert Walpole....always there...by antonio linares

He was generally regarded as a good citizen, never thought of stealing money from the parliament, as most of the people of the time would have done. Of course they would steal for after their leadership, when they would almost surely be left in misery.

Some people mostly refer to him as a very pleasant and funny character. None of the other MP’s could do anything out of the ordinary, as he was always there, were ever mischief was about to be committed.


[edit] Error propagates to the main page

I'm disturbed that a gross error on this page has managed to propagate to the main page. Walpole was not a member of the Whig Party. There was no organization called the Whig Party. Walpole was a Whig, but that reflects that he shared views with fellow Whigs. There was no party whip, there was no party leader, there was no party. Jooler 12:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It comes down to what you define by party. Certainly there's a clear Whig-Tory rivalry in the era of Queen Anne which is considered by many to be a party system conflict and it carries over into the reigns of the first two Georges, albeit with the Whigs very clearly on top. The terms "Whig Party" and "Tory Party" are often used for the era. Timrollpickering 15:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Definitely. There was a deep resistence at the time to the notion of factions in government. Few would openly admit they were a participant in that kind of split--it's rather more fun to blame the other side for divisiveness. Walpole was in every way a Whig, and as such he was called a member of the "Whig party," "Whig faction," what have you (not to be confused with the "Whig Party"). Fearwig 09:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Longest term as Prime Minister

Using which set of dates? The article says some people date the start of his administration 9 years earlier than others. Is it still the longest with the shorter set of dates?

No. The 12 odd years would be beaten by definitely Pitt the Younger (1783-1801) and Liverpool (1812-1827). Depending on exactly when in the year each was appointed and fell/died, Pelham (1743-1754), North (1770-1782 and Thatcher (1979-1990) might also beat him.
But from what I've seen 1721 is almost always considered the start of his term. He was certainly considered the single dominant minister in the 1720s - for instance in Gulliver's Travels where he's satirised as Flimnap. Timrollpickering 22:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bolded text

Should the bolded subject at the beginning read "Sir Robert Walpole, 1st Earl of Orford" or even "The Rt Hon. Sir Robert Walpole, 1st Earl of Orford"? It just seems odd that his titles aren't included. The only example I can think of is "Sir James Paul McCartney, MBE, on which his titles are included. But anyway. - Vague | Rant 23:46, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Paul MacCartney is, as far as I know, still alive. User:Lord Emsworth informs me that post-nominals on dead people are not cool (although they're present on, say, Horatio Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener). In any case, it would be "Robert Walpole, 1st Earl of Orford, KG, KB, KBE, PC," I think. "The Right Honourable" is implied by the earldom, and we don't need to use "sir" for peers. ugen64 02:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I quite agree, but a peer, if he is also a baronet or a knight, sounds more distinguished with the title of "Sir."

[edit] Knight of the Bath

Why would he be made a Knight of the Bath if membership in that order was reserved at that time for distinguished army and naval officers?

[edit] Fruitcake

Is the fruitcake line in the first paragraph legit?

[edit] Vandalism

I am quite sure that the statement 'The 69 position had no official recognition in law' in the first paragraph is down to vandalism. Please can it be corrected.

I have altered it.

[edit] Corruption charges

Is the author who wrote so unconvincingly of Walpole's innocence in the corruption scandal going to support that with some kind of reference, or are we supposed to take it as a given? This is a horribly biased article, in tone. I can scarcely believe it's "featured" with unprofessional language like that. It comes off as hero worship, not history. It would be wise to cite some secondary sources with that information and to flesh it out with a balancing opinion, especially as Tory-Whig factional tensions are as tight among modern historians as they were among 18th-Century politicians. Fearwig 04:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waldpole was not Prime Minister

In the info box it states Waldpole was Prime Minster. This is not true as he never held this title. So, by extention, he can never be viewed as such. This notion is based on public misconception and by proclaiming he held this post is infactual and goes against the Wikipedia rules on what is posted as fact and personal view.

First, sign and date your comments.
Second, you are wrong. Although he never used the title "prime minister," he is regarded as such by all historians, as for historical convenience the title is applied retrosectively to the head of the government.Richard75 18:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession of George II

According to this article, when George II succeeded he was persuaded by Queen Caroline to keep Walpole in power. The article on the Earl of Wilmington says that he refused power because he thought that he was not up to it. Which version is right? Dudleymiles 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)