Talk:Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and Cleveland Street scandal: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''Cleveland Street scandal''' occurred in 1889, when a [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] male brothel in Cleveland Street, [[Fitzrovia]], [[London]], was uncovered by police. At the time, sexual acts between men were illegal in Britain, and the brothel's clients faced possible prosecution and certain social ostracism if discovered. It was rumoured that one of the brothel's clients was [[Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale|Prince Albert Victor]], who was the eldest son of [[Edward VII of the United Kingdom|the Prince of Wales]] and [[Line of succession to the British throne|second-in-line to the British throne]]. Officials were involved in a cover-up to keep the names of the prince and others out of the scandal.
{{talkheader}}
{{Wikiproject Shakespeare|class=b|importance=mid}}
{{WPCD}}
{{archivebox |
* [[/Archive 1|2003 – ]]
}}


One of the clients, [[Lord Arthur Somerset]], was an [[equerry]] to the Prince of Wales. He and the brothel keeper, Charles Hammond, managed to flee abroad before a prosecution could be brought. The [[rent boy]]s, who also worked as messenger boys for the [[Post Office (United Kingdom)|Post Office]], were given light sentences and none of the clients was prosecuted. After [[Henry FitzRoy, Earl of Euston]], was named in the press as a client, he successfully sued for [[libel]]. The British press never named Prince Albert Victor, and there is no evidence he ever visited the brothel, but his inclusion in the rumours has coloured biographers' perceptions of him since.
==Oxfords Men==
LIVE LAUGH LOVE. (: MY MOMMY LOVES ME. DOES YOUR MOMMY LOVE YOU?


The scandal fueled the attitude that male homosexuality was an aristocratic vice that corrupted lower-class youths. A few years later, such perceptions were still prevalent when [[John Douglas, 9th Marquess of Queensberry|the Marquess of Queensberry]] accused [[Oscar Wilde]] of being an active homosexual.
My only question is why was Oxford, being the Earl of the Oxfords men, writing plays for a competeing theartre company, Lord Chamberlain's Men. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/121.216.35.159|121.216.35.159]] ([[User talk:121.216.35.159|talk]]) 07:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Male brothel ==
[[Image:F.G.Abberline.jpg|left|thumb|Illustration of Inspector [[Frederick Abberline]] from a contemporary newspaper]]


In July 1889, Police Constable Luke Hanks was investigating a theft from the London Central [[Telegraphy|Telegraph]] Office. During the investigation, a fifteen-year-old telegraph boy named Charles Thomas Swinscow was discovered to be in possession of fourteen [[shilling]]s, equivalent to several weeks of his wages. At the time, messenger boys were not permitted to carry any personal cash in the course of their duties, to prevent their own money being mixed with that of the customers. Suspecting the boy’s involvement in the theft, Constable Hanks brought him in for questioning. After hesitating, Swinscow admitted that he earned the money working as a [[rent boy]] for a man named Charles Hammond, who operated a male brothel at 19 Cleveland Street. According to Swinscow, he was introduced to Hammond by a [[Post Office (United Kingdom)|General Post Office]] clerk, eighteen-year-old Henry Newlove. In addition, he named two seventeen-year-old telegraph boys who also worked for Hammond: George Alma Wright and Charles Ernest Thickbroom. Constable Hanks obtained corroborating statements from Wright and Thickbroom and, armed with these, a confession from Newlove.<ref>Aronson, pp.8–10 and Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.20–23</ref><!--References for the entire paragraph-->
:Good question. The evidence strongly points to Oxford's involvement with another company during the 1580's -- the Queen's Men -- whom his sometime Secretary John Lyly was at least on certain ocassions the paymaster. The time frame for Oxford's Men and the Queen's Men is more or less the same, so either Oxford was involved during the 1580s with two adult troops (in addition to at least one troop of boys), or Oxford's Men and the Queen's Men were really more or less the same group operating under two different names (for details see Ward's biography of Oxford, who handled this topic better than anyone else before or after him). In any case, the Queen's Men was dissolved (for all practical purposes -- ie they did not continue playing at court and their best men went elsewhere) shortly before the Lord Chamberlain's Men was reconstituted circa 1593 (I'm always a little vague on exactly when they got started).


Constable Hanks reported the matter to his superiors and the case was given to Detective Inspector [[Frederick Abberline]]. Inspector Abberline went to the brothel on 6 July with a warrant to arrest Hammond and Newlove for violation of Section 11 of the [[Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885]]. The Act made all homosexual acts between men, as well as procurement or attempted procurement of such acts, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment with or without hard labour. He found the house locked and Hammond gone, but Abberline was able to apprehend Newlove at his mother's house in [[Camden Town]].<ref>Aronson, pp.11, 16–17 and Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.23–24</ref> In the time between his statement to Hanks and his arrest, Newlove had gone to Cleveland Street and warned Hammond, who had consequently escaped to his brother’s house in [[Gravesend, Kent|Gravesend]].<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.23</ref>
:The critical point is that the royal company was called the Lord Chamberlain's men until 1583; for the next decade, during which we have clear evidence for Oxford's involvement with it via Lyly, it was called the Queen's Men, after having been reconstituted under the supervision of Sir Francis Walsingham after Lord Chamberlain Sussex (a close elder friend of De Vere's) died. Then it was reconstituted, after the scandal of the Queen's Men's involvement in the Marprelate controversy, as the Lord Chamberlain's Men.


== Notable clients ==
:Given that we can see Oxford more clearly in the picture of court entertainment during the 1580s than during the 90s this seems to admit of two possible explanations. One is that the orthodox view of authorship and theatre history is correct; for some reason Oxford lost interest in the theatre (previously a consuming ambition in his life), and other people assumed his role patronizing and providing entertainments. The other is that he remained involved in the Lord Chamberlains Men (there is only one record of his men performaing anywhere after 1590, so it would appear that a troop under his name was for all practical purposes defunct by about the same time that the Queen's Men folded) but from behind the scenes,his involvement being purposefully obscured. That would not make him Shakespeare, but it would remove the objection to which you allude.
[[Image:Major Lord Henry Arthur George Somerset (1851-1926), - Vanity fair nov 19 1887.jpg|thumb|right|Caricature of [[Lord Arthur Somerset]] from 1887]]


On the way to the police station, Newlove named [[Lord Arthur Somerset]], [[Henry FitzRoy, Earl of Euston]] (both of whom were dukes' sons) and an Army Colonel by the name of Jervois as visitors to Cleveland Street.<ref>Aronson, p.11 and Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.25</ref> Somerset was the head of the [[Edward VII of the United Kingdom|Prince of Wales's]] stables. Although Somerset was interviewed by police, no immediate action was taken against him and the authorities were slow to act on the allegations of Somerset's involvement.<ref>Aronson, p.135</ref> A watch was placed on the now-empty house and details of the case shuffled between government departments.<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.26–33</ref>
:--[[User:BenJonson|BenJonson]] ([[User talk:BenJonson|talk]]) 19:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


On 19 August, an arrest warrant was issued in the name of George Veck, an acquaintance of Hammond's who pretended to be a clergyman. Veck had actually worked at the Telegraph Office but had been sacked for "improper conduct" with the messenger boys.<ref>Aronson, pp.11, 133 and Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.25</ref> A seventeen-year-old youth found in Veck's London lodgings revealed to the police that Veck had gone to [[Portsmouth]] and was returning shortly by train. The police met and arrested Veck at [[London Waterloo station|London Waterloo railway station]]. In his pockets they discovered letters from Algernon Allies. Abberline sent Constable Hanks to interview Allies at his parents' home in [[Sudbury, Suffolk]]. Allies admitted to receiving money from Somerset, having a sexual relationship with him, and working at Cleveland Street for Hammond.<ref>Aronson, pp.134–135 and Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.34–35</ref> On 22 August, police interviewed Somerset for a second time, after which Somerset left for [[Bad Homburg]],<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.35</ref> where the Prince of Wales was taking his summer holiday.<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.38</ref>
== Friederich Nietzsche ==
I think we need a reference for Friederich Nietzsche. I'm not saying it's wrong, but he's not on the Shakespeare-Oxford Society Honor Roll of Skeptics page, nor is there any reference to Shakespeare on the Friederich Nietzsche page on Wiki. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rick 2.0|Rick 2.0]] ([[User talk:Rick 2.0|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rick 2.0|contribs]]) 17:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


On 11 September, Newlove and Veck were committed for trial. Their defence was handled by Somerset's [[solicitor]], Arthur Newton, with [[Sir Charles Willie Mathews, 1st Baronet|Willie Mathews]] appearing for Newlove, and Charles Gill for Veck. Somerset paid the legal fees.<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.35, 45, 47</ref> By this time, Somerset had moved on to [[Hanover]], to inspect some horses for the Prince of Wales, and the press was referring to "noble lords" implicated in the trial.<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.42, 46</ref> Newlove and Veck pleaded guilty to indecency on 18 September and the judge, Sir Thomas Chambers, a former [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal]] [[Member of Parliament]] who had a reputation for leniency, sentenced them to four and nine months' hard labour respectively.<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.47–53</ref> The boys were also given sentences that were considered at the time to be very lenient.<ref>Aronson, p.137</ref> Hammond escaped to France, but the French authorities expelled him after pressure from the British. Hammond moved on to Belgium from where he emigrated to the United States. Newton, acting for Somerset, paid for Hammond's passage.<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.74–77</ref> On the advice of the Prime Minister, [[Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury|Lord Salisbury]], no extradition proceedings were attempted, and the case against Hammond was quietly dropped.<ref>Aronson, p.136 and Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.27, 34</ref>
:According to his sister - who is very unreliable - he was possibly a Baconian. A Baconian website attempts to read Baconism into N's own published statements, but can't find anything definitive. [http://www.sirbacon.org/nietzsche.htm]. Nevertheless, it wouldn't be surprising given N's belief in the ideal of the philosopher-poet (i.e. himself) and his penchant for making provocative iconoclastic claims. Oxfordian theory didn't exist in N's lifetime, so if he is to be mentioned it should be on the general authorship page, not here. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 06:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Somerset returned to Britain in late September to attend horse sales at [[Newmarket, Suffolk|Newmarket]] but suddenly left for [[Dieppe, Seine-Maritime|Dieppe]] on 26 September, probably after being told by Newton that he was in danger of arrest.<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.61</ref> He returned again on 30 September. A few days later, his grandmother, Emily Somerset, Duchess of Beaufort, died and he attended her funeral.<ref>Aronson, p.140 and Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.80–81</ref> [[Hamilton Cuffe, 5th Earl of Desart|The Hon. Hamilton Cuffe]], [[Treasury Solicitor's Department|Assistant Treasury Solicitor]], and [[James Monro]], [[Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis|Commissioner of Police]], pressed for action to be taken against Somerset, but the [[Lord Chancellor]], [[Hardinge Giffard, 1st Earl of Halsbury|Lord Halsbury]], blocked any prosecution.<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.82–86</ref> Rumours of Somerset's involvement were circulating and on 19 October Somerset fled back to France. Lord Salisbury was later accused of warning Somerset through Sir [[Dighton Probyn]], who had met Lord Salisbury the evening before, that a warrant for his arrest was imminent.<ref>Aronson, p.142</ref> This was denied by Lord Salisbury<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.93</ref> and the [[Attorney General]], Sir [[Richard Webster, 1st Viscount Alverstone|Richard Webster]].<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.94</ref> The Prince of Wales wrote to Lord Salisbury expressing satisfaction that Somerset had been allowed to leave the country and asked that if Somerset should "ever dare to show his face in England again" he would remain unmolested by the authorities,<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.97</ref> but Lord Salisbury was also being pressured by the police to prosecute Somerset. On 12 November, a warrant for Somerset's arrest was finally issued.<ref>Aronson, p.144 and Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.98–99</ref> By this time, Somerset was already safely abroad and the warrant caught little public attention.<ref>Aronson, p.150</ref> After an unsuccessful search for employment in [[Turkey]] and [[Austria-Hungary]], Somerset lived the rest of his life in self-imposed and comfortable exile in the south of France.<ref>Aronson, p.175</ref>
::Actually - in two of his books he mentons the authorship problem and in both cases suggested Bacon as the author. The mentions can be found in ''Will to Power'' and ''Ecce Homo''. Here, he is being listed as an "anti-stratfordian" - as long as he is labled as such, I see no problem with him being listed as an official doubter.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


== Public revelations ==
:::Perhaps you don't understand the word "definitive". Perhaps also you are unaware that ''The Will to Power'' is a conflation edited by his sister. I read ''Ecce Homo'' years ago and am perfectly well aware of its contents, which are consistent with what I said. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 00:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[[Image:AlVicarticle.jpg|frame|left|American newspapers claimed that Prince Albert Victor was "mixed up" in the scandal.]]


Because the press barely covered the story, the affair would have faded quickly from public memory if not for journalist Ernest Parke. The editor of the obscure [[Political radicalism|politically radical]] weekly ''The North London Press'', Parke got wind of the affair when one of his reporters brought him the story of Newlove's conviction. Parke began to question why the rent boys had been given such light sentences relative to their offence (the usual penalty for "gross indecency" was two years) and how Hammond had been able to evade arrest. His curiosity aroused, Parke found out that the boys had named prominent aristocrats. He subsequently ran a story on 28 September hinting at their involvement but without detailing specific names.<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.106–107</ref> It was only on 16 November that he published a follow up story specifically naming Henry Fitzroy, Earl of Euston in "an indescribably loathsome scandal in Cleveland Street".<ref>''North London Press'', 16 November 1889, quoted in Hyde, ''The Other Love'', p.125</ref> He further alleged that Euston may have gone to Peru and that he had been allowed to escape to cover up the involvement of a more highly placed person,<ref name=hyde125>Hyde, ''The Other Love'', p.125 and Aronson, p.150</ref> who was not named but was believed by some to be Prince Albert Victor, the son of the Prince of Wales.<ref>Hyde, ''The Other Love'', p.123</ref>
::::I did not say "definitive", I said "mentions" and "suggested". And you obviously have not even read the article and don't even know the context in which this reference is being used. But just keep picking at sores, Paul. Like a pimply teenager, it just makes you look uglier. But I suppose that just goes with your constant nastiness.[[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] 05:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Euston was in fact still in England and immediately filed a case against Parke for libel. At the trial, Euston admitted that when walking along [[Piccadilly]] a [[tout]] had given him a card which read "''Poses plastiques''. C. Hammond, 19 Cleveland Street". Euston testified that he went to the house believing ''Poses plastiques'' meant a display of female nudes. He paid a [[Sovereign (British coin)|sovereign]] to get in but upon entering Euston said he was appalled to discover the "improper" nature of the place and immediately left. The defence witnesses contradicted each other, and could not describe Euston accurately.<ref>Aronson, pp.151–159 and ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.113–116, 139–143</ref> The final defence witness, John Saul, was a male prostitute who admitted to earning his living by leading an "immoral life" and "practising criminality".<ref>Saul quoted in Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.146–147</ref> The defence did not call either Newlove or Veck as witnesses, and could not produce any evidence that Euston had left the country. On 16 January 1890, the jury found Parke guilty and the judge sentenced him to twelve months in prison.<ref>Aronson, pp.151–159 and Hyde, ''The Other Love'', p.125–127</ref> [[H. Montgomery Hyde]], an eminent historian of homosexuality, later wrote that there was little doubt that Euston was telling the truth and only visited Cleveland Street once because he was misled by the card.<ref>Hyde, ''The Other Love'', p.127</ref>
:::::It's sometimes difficult to believe these levels of obtuseness. '''I''' said definitive in the comment to which you replied. Do ''try'' to understand what you are reading before you reply. Picking at sores is what you do, since there was simply no point to your reply, which contained information I had ''already'' linked to. But you hadn't bothered to read it or to understand what was being said had you? I understand perfectly well the context. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 11:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


The judge, Sir [[Henry Hawkins, 1st Baron Brampton|Henry Hawkins]], had a distinguished career, as did the other lawyers employed in the case. The prosecuting counsels, [[Charles Russell, Baron Russell of Killowen|Charles Russell]] and [[Sir Charles Willie Mathews, 1st Baronet|Willie Mathews]], went on to become [[Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales|Lord Chief Justice]] and [[Director of Public Prosecutions]], respectively. The defence counsel, [[Frank Lockwood]], later became [[Solicitor General for England and Wales]], and he was assisted by [[H. H. Asquith]], who became [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom]] twenty years later.<ref>Aronson, p.153 and Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.135</ref>
So perhaps he should be removed from the last paragraph of the "Further Criticism" section. I don't know who put him there, but I'd vote for him to be removed, unless there is more information. [[User:Rick 2.0|Rick 2.0]] 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


While Parke's conviction cleared Euston, another trial began on 16 December 1889 when Newlove's and Somerset's solicitor, Arthur Newton, was charged with [[obstruction of justice]]. It was alleged that he conspired to prevent Hammond and the boys from testifying, by offering or giving them passage and money to go abroad. Newton was defended by Charles Russell, who had prosecuted Ernest Parke, and the prosecutor was Sir Richard Webster, the Attorney General. Newton pleaded guilty to one of the six charges against him, claiming that he had assisted Hammond to flee merely to protect his clients, who were not at that time charged with any offence or under arrest, from potential blackmail. The Attorney General accepted Newton's pleas and did not present any evidence on the other five charges.<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.162–207</ref> On 20 May, the judge, Sir [[Lewis Cave]], sentenced Newton to six weeks in prison,<ref>Aronson, p.173</ref> which was widely considered by members of the legal profession to be harsh. A petition signed by 250 London law firms was sent to the [[Home Secretary]], [[Henry Matthews, 1st Viscount Llandaff|Henry Matthews]], protesting at Newton's treatment.<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.208–212</ref>
I've located a web site that quotes Nietzsche. Apparently, he was a Baconian, but this was prior to the publication of "Shakespeare Identified." I've linked to it directly. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rick 2.0|Rick 2.0]] ([[User talk:Rick 2.0|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rick 2.0|contribs]]) 17:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


[[Image:Henry Labouchère.jpg|thumb|right|[[Henry Labouchère]] accused the government of conspiring to hush up the scandal.]]
:: Good work, Rick 2.0. There is no question that he was an anti-Stratfordian and, perhaps, by default, a Baconian. Like Whitman, who incidentally refused to endorse Bacon, he lived before the Oxfordian theory had any public profile and hence did not have the chance to weigh it in relation to the claims of the Baconians.--[[User:BenJonson|BenJonson]] ([[User talk:BenJonson|talk]]) 19:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


During Newton's trial, a motion was brought forth in [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]] to further investigate Parke's allegations of a cover-up. [[Henry Labouchère]], a [[Member of Parliament]] from the Radical wing of the [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal Party]], was staunchly against homosexuality and had campaigned successfully to add the "gross indecency" amendment (known as the "[[Labouchere Amendment|Labouchère Amendment]]") to the [[Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885]]. He was convinced that the conspiracy to cover up the scandal went further up the government than assumed. Labouchère made his suspicions known in Parliament on 28 February 1890. He denied that "a gentleman of very high position"—presumably Prince Albert Victor—was in any way involved with the scandal, but accused the government of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by hampering the investigation, allowing Somerset and Hammond to escape, delaying the trials and failing to prosecute the case with vigour. Labouchère's accusations were rebutted by the Attorney General, Sir Richard Webster, who was also the prosecutor in the Newton case. Charles Russell, who had prosecuted Parke and was defending Newton, sat on the Liberal benches with Labouchère but refused to be drawn into the debate. After an often passionate debate over seven hours, during which Labouchère was expelled from Parliament after saying "I do not believe Lord Salisbury" and refusing to withdraw his remark, the motion was defeated by a wide margin, 206–66.<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', pp.215–231</ref><!--Reference for the entire paragraph-->
== English way of discussing the oxfordian view ==


== Aftermath ==
In England the oxfordian view is very controversial. When discussed, it does not lead to a discussion on content, but to a discussion as being 'ridiculous'. Even in universities a scientific approach is hardly possible. Identity and Shakespeare are so connected in England that oxfordians are mainly found outside of England. On the other hand the Oxfordians are not willing to talk to Stattfordians either. This means that there are two schools opposite each other. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/195.18.109.60|195.18.109.60]] ([[User talk:195.18.109.60|talk]]) 17:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Public interest in the scandal eventually faded. Nevertheless, newspaper coverage reinforced negative attitudes about male homosexuality as an aristocratic vice, presenting the telegraph boys as corrupted and exploited by members of the upper class. This attitude reached its climax a few years later when [[Oscar Wilde]] was tried for gross indecency as the result of his affair with [[Lord Alfred Douglas]].


Oscar Wilde alluded to the scandal in ''[[The Picture of Dorian Gray]]'', first published in 1890.<ref>In chapter 12 of the original 1890 version, one of the characters, Basil Hallward, refers to "Sir Henry Ashton, who had to leave England, with a tarnished name".</ref> Reviews of the novel were hostile; in a clear reference to the Cleveland Street scandal, one reviewer called it suitable for "none but outlawed noblemen and perverted telegraph boys".<ref>"Reviews and Magazines". ''Scots Observer'' 5 July 1890, p.181</ref><ref>Bristow, Joseph (2006). "Introduction" In: Wilde, Oscar. ''The Picture of Dorian Gray''. Oxford World's Classic, Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280729-8. p.xxi</ref><ref name=ackroyd>[[Peter Ackroyd|Ackroyd, Peter]] (1985) "Appendix 2: Introduction to the First Penguin Classics Edition" In: Wilde, Oscar. ''The Picture of Dorian Gray''. Penguin Classics, Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-043784-3. pp.224–225</ref> Wilde's 1891 revision of the novel omitted certain key passages, which were considered too homoerotic.<ref name=ackroyd/><ref>Mighall, Robert (2000). "Introduction" In: Wilde, Oscar. ''The Picture of Dorian Gray''. Penguin Classics, Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-043784-3. p.xvi</ref> In 1895, Wilde unsuccessfully sued Lord Alfred's father, [[John Douglas, 9th Marquess of Queensberry|the Marquess of Queensberry]], for libel. [[Edward Carson, Baron Carson|Sir Edward Carson]], Lord Queensberry's counsel, used quotes from the novel against Wilde and questioned him about his associations with young working men.<ref>Kaplan, Morris B. (2004). "Literature in the Dock: The Trials of Oscar Wilde". ''Journal of Law and Society'' '''31:''' (No. 1) 113–130</ref> After the failure of his suit, Wilde was charged with gross indecency, found guilty and subsequently sentenced to two years' hard labour. He was prosecuted by Charles Gill, who had defended Veck in the Cleveland Street case.<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.45</ref>
::I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that "Oxfordians are not willing to talk to Stratfordians." I have walked in both worlds for fifteen years. It may be true that some Oxfordians and other anti-Stratfordians are content to think of themselves as superior to orthodox academicians and will have nothing to do with Stratfordians. But I can assure you that these are as small a minority among the Oxfordians as are those in the orthodox camp who are willing to engage in rational and civil discussion on the issue. Most Oxfordians welcome discussion and debate. They understand that they have much to learn from those who have devoted their lives to studying Shakespeare and the Renaissance, even if they may be carrying assumptions that some of us regard as doubtful. The attitude of orthodox academicians, by contrast, not only in England but around the world, usuallyconstitutes a shameful example of a narrow minded majority enforcing its will on the minority by what amounts to little more than a form of intellectual apartheid. I have been continually shocked and dismayed to see how little that has changed in the past twenty years.--[[User:BenJonson|BenJonson]] ([[User talk:BenJonson|talk]]) 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence (1864-1892) by William (1829-18 ) and Daniel Downey (18 -1881.jpg|thumb|left|[[Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale|Prince Albert Victor of Wales]] was created Duke of Clarence and Avondale the year after the scandal.]]
:And the point of this section is... what? (Interesting that the first accredited Authorship/Oxfordian degree program is in an English University!) Not to mention that Mark Rylance (Globe Theatre), Derek Jacobi, etc., are from that side of the pond. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 18:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Prince Albert Victor died in 1892, but society gossip about his sex life continued. Sixty years after the scandal the official biographer of [[George V of the United Kingdom|King George V]], [[Harold Nicolson]], was told by [[Rayner Goddard, Baron Goddard|Lord Goddard]], who was a twelve-year-old schoolboy at the time of the scandal, that Prince Albert Victor "had been involved in a male brothel scene, and that a solicitor had to commit perjury to clear him. The solicitor was [[struck off]] the rolls for his offence, but was thereafter reinstated."<ref>Lees-Milne, p.231</ref> In fact, none of the lawyers involved in the case were convicted of perjury or struck off at the time, indeed most had very distinguished careers. However, Arthur Newton was struck off for 12 months for professional misconduct in 1910 after falsifying letters from another of his clients—the notorious murderer [[Harvey Crippen]].<ref>Cook, pp.284–285</ref> In 1913, he was struck off indefinitely and sentenced to three years' imprisonment for obtaining money by false pretences.<ref>Cook, pp.285–286 and Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.253</ref> Newton may have invented and spread the rumours about Prince Albert Victor in an attempt to protect his clients from prosecution by forcing a cover-up.<ref>[http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/e-h/eddy6.html ''Prince Eddy: The King We Never Had''.] [[Channel 4]]. Accessed 28 March 2008.</ref> [[State paper]]s on the case in the [[Public Records Office]], released to the public in the 1970s, provide no information on the prince's involvement other than Newton's threat to implicate him.<ref>Cook, pp.172–173</ref> Hamilton Cuffe wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions, [[Augustus Stephenson|Sir Augustus Stephenson]], "I am told that Newton has boasted that if we go on a very distinguished person will be involved (PAV). I don't mean to say that I for one instant credit it—but in such circumstances as this one never knows what may be said, be concocted or be true."<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.55</ref> Surviving private letters from Somerset to his friend [[Reginald Brett, 2nd Viscount Esher|Lord Esher]], confirm that Somerset knew of the rumours but did not know if they were true. He writes, "I can quite understand the Prince of Wales being much annoyed at his son's name being coupled with the thing&nbsp;... we were both accused of going to this place but not together&nbsp;... I wonder if it is really a fact or only an invention."<ref>Lord Arthur Somerset to Reginald Brett, 2nd Viscount Esher, 10 December 1889, quoted in Cook, p.197</ref> In his correspondence, Sir [[Dighton Probyn]] refers to "cruel and unjust rumours with regard to PAV" and "false reports dragging PAV's name into the sad story".<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.127</ref> When Prince Albert Victor's name appeared in the American press, the ''[[New York Herald]]'' published an anonymous letter, almost certainly written by [[Charles Hall (1843–1900)|Charles Hall]], saying "there is not, and never was, the slightest excuse for mentioning the name of Prince Albert Victor."<ref>Hyde, ''The Cleveland Street Scandal'', p.129</ref> Biographers who believe the rumours suppose that Prince Albert Victor was bisexual,<ref>Aronson, pp.116–120, 170, 217</ref> but this is strongly contested by others who refer to him as "ardently heterosexual" and his involvement in the rumours as "somewhat unfair".<ref>Bradford, p.10</ref>
==Attribution==
http://www.authorshipstudies.org/articles/oxford_shakespeare.cfm
look at section on taming of shrew, its amost a word for word copy w/o attribution. whats that all about? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.240.215.167|68.240.215.167]] ([[User talk:68.240.215.167|talk]]) 04:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:it's "almost" word for word because this is a well known parallel in oxfordian studies. I've seen it (or almost the same wording) in numerous books and websites. Since it bothers anon above that it's not referenced to this one cite, I've gone ahead and added it. There can never be too many references! [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 17:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


== GA nomination ==
== Notes and sources ==
{{reflist|2}}
Congratulations! Your article has now been nominated for GA status. [[User:Felsommerfeld|Felsommerfeld]] ([[User talk:Felsommerfeld|talk]]) 14:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:I'll be happy to review this when time permits. My first impression is that it's very long and maybe a bit POV but it should be possible to make some positive changes that will help it to GA. Otherwise, I'll have to read it through before further comment. [[User:Bodleyman|Bodleyman]] ([[User talk:Bodleyman|talk]]) 16:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
::I've removed the nomination per [[WP:POINT]]. [[User:AndyJones|AndyJones]] ([[User talk:AndyJones|talk]]) 17:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:::And I've removed the second nomination due to disruptive sockpuppetry. See [[User talk:Barryispuzzled]] for the details. <span style="font-family:verdana">[[User:Yllosubmarine|María]] </span><small>([[User talk:Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:green">habla</span>]] con[[Special:Contributions/Yllosubmarine|<span style="color:green">migo</span>]])</small> 12:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


== References ==
== Can we post a list of suggested reading? ==
* [[Theo Aronson|Aronson, Theo]] (1994). ''Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld''. London: John Murray. ISBN 0-7195-5278-8
* Bradford, Sarah (1989). ''King George VI''. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-79667-4
* Cook, Andrew (2006). ''Prince Eddy: The King Britain Never Had''. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Tempus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 0-7524-3410-1
* [[H. Montgomery Hyde|Hyde, H. Montgomery]] (1970). ''The Other Love: An Historical and Contemporary Survey of Homosexuality in Britain''. London: Heinemann. ISBN 0-434-35902-5
* Hyde, H. Montgomery (1976). ''The Cleveland Street Scandal''. London: W. H. Allen. ISBN 0-491-01995-5
* [[James Lees-Milne|Lees-Milne, James]] (1981). ''Harold Nicolson: A Biography. Volume 2: 1930–1968'' London: Chatto & Windus. ISBN 0-7011-2602-7


== Further reading ==
Hey there, great article, quite detailed and thorough. My wish would be that there be a list of suggested reading for the newly (and not-so-newly) interested. There seem to be quite a few books on the Oxfordian authorship, both recent and less recent. I think it would be great to list them, as it's nice, and often more pleasant, to read a thorough biographical book written in comfortable casual prose, than it is to study facts online. I suggest the books be listed in a new section, titled one of the following for example: References (changing the current "references" title to "Footnotes" -- I've done this on almost every article I get involved with); Reading List; Further Reading; Suggested Reading; Recommended Reading; Books; Bibliography; Sample Reading [List]; Selected Reading List; or whatever you want to call it. Thanks in advance; and thanks in advance for bringing to popular light this important man's work. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 03:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
* Simpson, Colin; Chester, Lewis and Leitch, David (1976). ''The Cleveland Street Affair''. Boston: Little, Brown.


== External links ==
*done. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 06:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
* [http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/e-h/eddy6.html ''Prince Eddy: The King We Never Had''.] [[Channel 4]]. Accessed 28 March 2008.
* Wikholm, Andrew (1999). [http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/events/1889.htm Scandal on Cleveland Street]. Accessed 28 March 2008.


{{featured article}}
[[Category:1889 in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Sex scandals]]
[[Category:LGBT history of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Victorian pederasty]]
[[Category:History of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Sexual orientation and history]]


[[de:Cleveland-Street-Skandal]]
::Thanks muchly. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 00:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[[es:Escándalo de la calle Cleveland]]

[[it:Cleveland street scandal]]
== Prose removed from captions ==
[[ka:ქლივლენდის ქუჩის სკანდალი]]

[[th:สถานค้ากามชายแห่งถนนเคลฟแลนด์]]
A caption should describe the image, and draw attention to what makes it relevant. Don't put exposition and argumentation there. These should be valuable in the prose:
* The hyphenated name appears on ''The Sonnets'', ''A Lover's Complaint'' and on 15 plays published prior to the First Folio, where it was hyphenated on 2 of the 4 dedicatory poems.<ref> For a detailed account of the anti-Stratfordian debate and the Oxford candidacy, see Charlton Ogburn's, "The Mystery of William Shakespeare", 1984, pgs86–88</ref> (From Sonnets-title-pg pic in [[ Oxfordian theory#The 1604 Problem]].)
* Both the hyphenated name and the Sonnet's dedication, specifically the words "ever-living poet", have fueled controversy within the authorship debate. (From Sonnets-ded'n-pg pic in [[ Oxfordian theory#The 1604 Problem]].)
There may be others, but not in the sub-sections of my edit.<br>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 03:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)<br>

:Respectfully disagree. I know of know rule that prevents detailed explanations in captions, especially when they are entirely relevant to the debate outlined by the article itself. Also, the above referenced edit simply deletes information from the article and failed to incorporate the deleted sentences into the article itself. If you want to change this, please discuss here first and build a consensus for the change. Thanks. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 03:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:* I presume then you've never thought about how many additional words it takes to gild a lily that is worth a thousand words, nor looked at [[Wikipedia:Captions#Succinctness]] nor [[Wikipedia:Captions#Wording]]. And perhaps you'll set to work explaining why
::# the 4-line caption in the lead secn (a good caption, ruined by following it with a sentence,
::# the 15-line one in [[Oxfordian theory#Was Oxford a concealed writer?]] (4 full sentences)
::# the 7-line and 6-line ones i found and fixed in [[Oxfordian theory#The 1604 Problem]]
:: should ''all'' be considered such exceptional cases, outside the applicability of well-consensused guidelines. <!--
--> <br> No consensus local to a topic's talk page is needed before conforming it to guidelines; rather, you should be prepared, before reverting such a change, to present a case locally that won't be laughed at if copied to, in this case, [[Wikipedia talk:Captions]]. <!--
--> <br> As to damaging the article:
::# It's a very rare article that ''requires'' images to convey its information (think the color drawing in [[Diode_bridge#Basic_operation]]). My guess was that the captions duplicated running prose, but if the accompanying article's information content was reduced by my edit, the problem is that information that belongs as part of the prose appeared ''only'' in captions (that inevitably obscure its relationship to the non-caption text, and invite the reader to guess about when it's a good time to interrupt their train of thot & the flow of the article to wade thru a caption and then try pick up where they left off).
::# Collaborative editing is not so much about satisfying those who happen to have previously worked on a given article, as about editors doing as much to advance an article as is in their judgment suitable for them, and counting on others to do more in ''their'' own good time; if no one has the time and interest for an hour, a week, or a year, then (to varying degrees), it's just a topic WP can't perfectly cover. At the risk of encouraging the impression that where i choose to leave off my work on this page is any of your business, i'll mention, to provide an example, that i came here somehow that had to do with my attention this evening to the garbled versions of "small Latine and lesse Greeke" -- almost certainly a hit on both "lesse" and some other word -- and after improving the aspects that quickly caught my eye, it was time to get on with finishing the task that i had let myself be distracted from. Even if i were wrong about the captions needing to be moved, it would still defy [[Linus's Law]] for me to have satisfied you: you seem to think i should not have improved the article, given my sense that someone else would do a more careful and perhaps even better informed job of ''reintegrating'' the prose where it belonged. I sure looks like i was right, but my point is that you should have limited your comments to whether i was right or wrong about the captions needing attention, and not implied that my good-faith (and effective) efforts to make sure the material didn't get lost were "damage" even if i was right.<br>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 07:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)<br>
:::Greetings. I have taken your advice and, when restoring content on this controversial edit, left intact the non-controversial good edits. (Not to say that all your edits are not necessarily good, and certainly good-faith!). I was familiar with the caption recommendations and on reviewing them, I find that they are certainly not hard and fast rules and include such qualifiers as "may" do this and "may" do that. More to the point, I still believe that what you did was simply remove properly sourced material from the article and that, for me, is the supreme no-no. Also, you deleted the context as to WHY the image was being used. Instead why not do a bit of trimming? I did restore the material a moment ago, and then I trimmed both captions a bit. More trimming might be workable, but I believe that providing proper context certainly outweighs the more flexible guideline on length. After all - to maintain the 3 line recommendation, all one needs do is make the picture bigger!?! A silly solution to be sure, but a viable one none the less. I think it better to keep the pictures the size they are and provide a caption that provides the necessary context. the alternative would be to attach more prose to a new section that sums up the 2 captions in question. In that case, however, previous editors have reached a consensus that a separate section on the hyphen alone is probable overkill - thus the detailed caption. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 15:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Also - you must admit, in spite of your own stated POV against the topic in general, that this is a pretty complicated topic that requires a greater level of detail than most! Cheers![[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 15:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:::* I know what you are referring to, but if you are going to infer my PoV in that fashion, it is grossly irresponsible to do so without either quoting or linking to the supposed basis. You have only an unfounded fantasy about what my PoV on the topic is, and i'm inclined to think you have made a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] in claiming to have read my mind.<br>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 18:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)<br>
::::Oh come on - now you are just being silly. Oh - wait - are you saying you are an anti-Stratfordian then? Why then, welcome to the cause! :) [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 21:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:::* I think the material is notable (and free of notable PoV problems), and the level of detail appears to me to be appropriate, indeed probably necessary. The issues i have raised about detail have to do with how to ''structure'' the info. <br>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 18:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)<br>

== Splitting of article ==

Splitting an article that has grown too big is a tough task, but it is one that should start being discussed in this case. There are something like 40 sections, yielding a ToC that for me fills almost two screen-heights. The marked-up text is something like 80 kb, which is at least a two-fold problem:
# It violates (by a factor of nearly 3) the utterly inflexible 32kB limit for articles that are guaranteed to be editable by all users.
# The size range generally regarded as a limit of readability as an encyclopedia article are several times smaller than 32 kB; keeping the ToC to a size where it can be used almost at a glanced, rather than requiring study to reach a suitable section is closely related to this.
There can be two basic approaches to oversize articles: reaching consensus among frequent editors as to how the article can be "cut as its joints", producing smaller articles that respect the subtopics natural boundaries, or if that shows no reasonable prospect of resolution, making a reasonable common sense division, and optimizing boundaries after the fact. <!--
--> <br> It seems the article is overdue to get the discussion underway.<br>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 08:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)<br>

Greetings. While I agree we should start this discussion, I would ask that you be more careful in quoting rules that are "utterly inflexible". Please note at [[WP:LENGTH]] the following:

A rule of thumb
Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:
Readable prose size What to do
> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided

> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

> 30 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)

< 30 KB Length alone does not justify division

Also note that this does not include graphics, references, redirects, etc, but is limited to the "Readable prose" only. On this, does anyone know a simple way of measuring ONLY the readable prose? [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 21:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

:Yes. Select the body text in the web browser window and copy and paste it into a text editor. My text editor happens to give me some document statistics directly, but you could also just save the text to a temporary file and then look at the file size (make sure you look at actual size and not size rounded to multiples of the filesystem block size). The current article is 61.384 characters (including punctuation and citation markers etc.), which, at one byte per character, means the article is just about at the 60KB mark.
:The size suggests it's a good idea to look at whether it should be split, or possibly just trimmed a bit, but I certainly wouldn't consider this alone a throbbing red sign screaming that the article ''must'' be split. I'd recommend starting with looking for stuff to trim first (remember, it's an encyclopedia; the amount of detail ''should'' be limited!) and then asess whether splitting is still necessary and possible afterwards. --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 15:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:* Sorry i confused you re "limit" (my word) vs. "rule" (which is inapplicable); perhaps i should have said "something like "exceed" rather than "violate". This is an absolutely inflexible ''technical limitation''; the effect of exceeding 32K is, as i implied, that some editors cannot perform some appropriate edits on the article.<br>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 18:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)<br>

:::I think perhaps the current updated version of [[WP:LENGTH#Technical_issues]] would be pertinent here. --[[User:Xover|Xover]] ([[User talk:Xover|talk]]) 19:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Thanks for that. Cheers. [[User:Smatprt|Smatprt]] ([[User talk:Smatprt|talk]]) 21:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

== Lead section ==

I edited again bcz of the sore-thumb [[WP:IntDabLk|intentional Dab lk]] in the HatNote, and found some other hopefully small issues:
# The final dependent clause of the lead sent includes
#:: ... attributed to ...
#: while that of the last sent of the lead 'graph has
#:: ... to whom authorship is ''generally'' credited ...
#: but i think NPoV calls for "generally" in ''both'' places. I'd have done the edit but for the fear that the missing word was ''not'' just an oversight.
# "While mainstream scholars reject ..." has to be way too strong:
## We don't throw in tautologies, so that's not a restatement of "the mainstream of Shakespeare scholarship is distinguished by the exclusion of those who don't reject ..."
## While it's reasonable to expect "mainstream scholars" to mean "mainstream ''English literature'' scholars" or words to that effect, i don't find it reasonable to mean "academic Shakespeare specialists".
## Unless that kind of restriction is explicit, i just don't find such a blanket rejection conceivably verifiable, or remotely plausible: perhaps no one can take the [[cognitive dissonance]] of hiding anti-Stratfordian views while seeking tenure as a Shakespearist, but surely there are closet anti-Stratfordians in ''other'' literary specialties.
#: While i don't want to try to word it, isn't there somewhere a reliable source that says (without weasel words) something more plausible, along the lines of "mainstream literary scholars never publicly admit to doubting that ..."?
# Following the EB ref got me to (in relevant part)
#:: The debate, however, remained lively in the late 20th century.
#: which is neutral or contrary to
#:: ... popular interest in the debate continues to grow ...
#: so i've added a fact tag just for the one clause. I didn't pay for EB, but it appears they now only make it frustrating not to pay, rather than actually limiting you to a teaser. Even if i'm mistaken in thinking the 4 'graphs & other readings i saw are all of it, IMO another source -- a non-confusing one -- should be a high priority.
--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 22:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)<br>

== Lead section ==

I edited again bcz of the sore-thumb [[WP:IntDabLk|intentional Dab lk]] in the HatNote, and found some other hopefully small issues:
# The final dependent clause of the lead sent includes
#:: ... attributed to ...
#: while that of the last sent of the lead 'graph has
#:: ... to whom authorship is ''generally'' credited ...
#: but i think NPoV calls for "generally" in ''both'' places. I'd have done the edit but for the fear that the missing word was ''not'' just an oversight.
# "While mainstream scholars reject ..." has to be way too strong:
## We don't throw in tautologies, so that's not a restatement of "the mainstream of Shakespeare scholarship is distinguished by the exclusion of those who don't reject ..."
## While it's reasonable to expect "mainstream scholars" to mean "mainstream ''English literature'' scholars" or words to that effect, i don't find it reasonable to mean "academic Shakespeare specialists".
## Unless that kind of restriction is explicit, i just don't find such a blanket rejection conceivably verifiable, or remotely plausible: perhaps no one can take the [[cognitive dissonance]] of hiding anti-Stratfordian views while seeking tenure as a Shakespearist, but surely there are closet anti-Stratfordians in ''other'' literary specialties.
#: While i don't want to try to word it, isn't there somewhere a reliable source that says (without weasel words) something more plausible, along the lines of "mainstream literary scholars never publicly admit to doubting that ..."?
# Following the EB ref got me to (in relevant part)
#:: The debate, however, remained lively in the late 20th century.
#: which is neutral or contrary to
#:: ... popular interest in the debate continues to grow ...
#: so i've added a fact tag just for the one clause. I didn't pay for EB, but it appears they now only make it frustrating not to pay, rather than actually limiting you to a teaser. Even if i'm mistaken in thinking the 4 'graphs & other readings i saw are all of it, IMO another source -- a non-confusing one -- should be a high priority.
--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)<br>

Revision as of 21:14, 10 October 2008

The Cleveland Street scandal occurred in 1889, when a homosexual male brothel in Cleveland Street, Fitzrovia, London, was uncovered by police. At the time, sexual acts between men were illegal in Britain, and the brothel's clients faced possible prosecution and certain social ostracism if discovered. It was rumoured that one of the brothel's clients was Prince Albert Victor, who was the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and second-in-line to the British throne. Officials were involved in a cover-up to keep the names of the prince and others out of the scandal.

One of the clients, Lord Arthur Somerset, was an equerry to the Prince of Wales. He and the brothel keeper, Charles Hammond, managed to flee abroad before a prosecution could be brought. The rent boys, who also worked as messenger boys for the Post Office, were given light sentences and none of the clients was prosecuted. After Henry FitzRoy, Earl of Euston, was named in the press as a client, he successfully sued for libel. The British press never named Prince Albert Victor, and there is no evidence he ever visited the brothel, but his inclusion in the rumours has coloured biographers' perceptions of him since. LIVE LAUGH LOVE. (: MY MOMMY LOVES ME. DOES YOUR MOMMY LOVE YOU?

The scandal fueled the attitude that male homosexuality was an aristocratic vice that corrupted lower-class youths. A few years later, such perceptions were still prevalent when the Marquess of Queensberry accused Oscar Wilde of being an active homosexual.

Male brothel

Illustration of Inspector Frederick Abberline from a contemporary newspaper

In July 1889, Police Constable Luke Hanks was investigating a theft from the London Central Telegraph Office. During the investigation, a fifteen-year-old telegraph boy named Charles Thomas Swinscow was discovered to be in possession of fourteen shillings, equivalent to several weeks of his wages. At the time, messenger boys were not permitted to carry any personal cash in the course of their duties, to prevent their own money being mixed with that of the customers. Suspecting the boy’s involvement in the theft, Constable Hanks brought him in for questioning. After hesitating, Swinscow admitted that he earned the money working as a rent boy for a man named Charles Hammond, who operated a male brothel at 19 Cleveland Street. According to Swinscow, he was introduced to Hammond by a General Post Office clerk, eighteen-year-old Henry Newlove. In addition, he named two seventeen-year-old telegraph boys who also worked for Hammond: George Alma Wright and Charles Ernest Thickbroom. Constable Hanks obtained corroborating statements from Wright and Thickbroom and, armed with these, a confession from Newlove.[1]

Constable Hanks reported the matter to his superiors and the case was given to Detective Inspector Frederick Abberline. Inspector Abberline went to the brothel on 6 July with a warrant to arrest Hammond and Newlove for violation of Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. The Act made all homosexual acts between men, as well as procurement or attempted procurement of such acts, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment with or without hard labour. He found the house locked and Hammond gone, but Abberline was able to apprehend Newlove at his mother's house in Camden Town.[2] In the time between his statement to Hanks and his arrest, Newlove had gone to Cleveland Street and warned Hammond, who had consequently escaped to his brother’s house in Gravesend.[3]

Notable clients

Caricature of Lord Arthur Somerset from 1887

On the way to the police station, Newlove named Lord Arthur Somerset, Henry FitzRoy, Earl of Euston (both of whom were dukes' sons) and an Army Colonel by the name of Jervois as visitors to Cleveland Street.[4] Somerset was the head of the Prince of Wales's stables. Although Somerset was interviewed by police, no immediate action was taken against him and the authorities were slow to act on the allegations of Somerset's involvement.[5] A watch was placed on the now-empty house and details of the case shuffled between government departments.[6]

On 19 August, an arrest warrant was issued in the name of George Veck, an acquaintance of Hammond's who pretended to be a clergyman. Veck had actually worked at the Telegraph Office but had been sacked for "improper conduct" with the messenger boys.[7] A seventeen-year-old youth found in Veck's London lodgings revealed to the police that Veck had gone to Portsmouth and was returning shortly by train. The police met and arrested Veck at London Waterloo railway station. In his pockets they discovered letters from Algernon Allies. Abberline sent Constable Hanks to interview Allies at his parents' home in Sudbury, Suffolk. Allies admitted to receiving money from Somerset, having a sexual relationship with him, and working at Cleveland Street for Hammond.[8] On 22 August, police interviewed Somerset for a second time, after which Somerset left for Bad Homburg,[9] where the Prince of Wales was taking his summer holiday.[10]

On 11 September, Newlove and Veck were committed for trial. Their defence was handled by Somerset's solicitor, Arthur Newton, with Willie Mathews appearing for Newlove, and Charles Gill for Veck. Somerset paid the legal fees.[11] By this time, Somerset had moved on to Hanover, to inspect some horses for the Prince of Wales, and the press was referring to "noble lords" implicated in the trial.[12] Newlove and Veck pleaded guilty to indecency on 18 September and the judge, Sir Thomas Chambers, a former Liberal Member of Parliament who had a reputation for leniency, sentenced them to four and nine months' hard labour respectively.[13] The boys were also given sentences that were considered at the time to be very lenient.[14] Hammond escaped to France, but the French authorities expelled him after pressure from the British. Hammond moved on to Belgium from where he emigrated to the United States. Newton, acting for Somerset, paid for Hammond's passage.[15] On the advice of the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, no extradition proceedings were attempted, and the case against Hammond was quietly dropped.[16]

Somerset returned to Britain in late September to attend horse sales at Newmarket but suddenly left for Dieppe on 26 September, probably after being told by Newton that he was in danger of arrest.[17] He returned again on 30 September. A few days later, his grandmother, Emily Somerset, Duchess of Beaufort, died and he attended her funeral.[18] The Hon. Hamilton Cuffe, Assistant Treasury Solicitor, and James Monro, Commissioner of Police, pressed for action to be taken against Somerset, but the Lord Chancellor, Lord Halsbury, blocked any prosecution.[19] Rumours of Somerset's involvement were circulating and on 19 October Somerset fled back to France. Lord Salisbury was later accused of warning Somerset through Sir Dighton Probyn, who had met Lord Salisbury the evening before, that a warrant for his arrest was imminent.[20] This was denied by Lord Salisbury[21] and the Attorney General, Sir Richard Webster.[22] The Prince of Wales wrote to Lord Salisbury expressing satisfaction that Somerset had been allowed to leave the country and asked that if Somerset should "ever dare to show his face in England again" he would remain unmolested by the authorities,[23] but Lord Salisbury was also being pressured by the police to prosecute Somerset. On 12 November, a warrant for Somerset's arrest was finally issued.[24] By this time, Somerset was already safely abroad and the warrant caught little public attention.[25] After an unsuccessful search for employment in Turkey and Austria-Hungary, Somerset lived the rest of his life in self-imposed and comfortable exile in the south of France.[26]

Public revelations

American newspapers claimed that Prince Albert Victor was "mixed up" in the scandal.

Because the press barely covered the story, the affair would have faded quickly from public memory if not for journalist Ernest Parke. The editor of the obscure politically radical weekly The North London Press, Parke got wind of the affair when one of his reporters brought him the story of Newlove's conviction. Parke began to question why the rent boys had been given such light sentences relative to their offence (the usual penalty for "gross indecency" was two years) and how Hammond had been able to evade arrest. His curiosity aroused, Parke found out that the boys had named prominent aristocrats. He subsequently ran a story on 28 September hinting at their involvement but without detailing specific names.[27] It was only on 16 November that he published a follow up story specifically naming Henry Fitzroy, Earl of Euston in "an indescribably loathsome scandal in Cleveland Street".[28] He further alleged that Euston may have gone to Peru and that he had been allowed to escape to cover up the involvement of a more highly placed person,[29] who was not named but was believed by some to be Prince Albert Victor, the son of the Prince of Wales.[30]

Euston was in fact still in England and immediately filed a case against Parke for libel. At the trial, Euston admitted that when walking along Piccadilly a tout had given him a card which read "Poses plastiques. C. Hammond, 19 Cleveland Street". Euston testified that he went to the house believing Poses plastiques meant a display of female nudes. He paid a sovereign to get in but upon entering Euston said he was appalled to discover the "improper" nature of the place and immediately left. The defence witnesses contradicted each other, and could not describe Euston accurately.[31] The final defence witness, John Saul, was a male prostitute who admitted to earning his living by leading an "immoral life" and "practising criminality".[32] The defence did not call either Newlove or Veck as witnesses, and could not produce any evidence that Euston had left the country. On 16 January 1890, the jury found Parke guilty and the judge sentenced him to twelve months in prison.[33] H. Montgomery Hyde, an eminent historian of homosexuality, later wrote that there was little doubt that Euston was telling the truth and only visited Cleveland Street once because he was misled by the card.[34]

The judge, Sir Henry Hawkins, had a distinguished career, as did the other lawyers employed in the case. The prosecuting counsels, Charles Russell and Willie Mathews, went on to become Lord Chief Justice and Director of Public Prosecutions, respectively. The defence counsel, Frank Lockwood, later became Solicitor General for England and Wales, and he was assisted by H. H. Asquith, who became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom twenty years later.[35]

While Parke's conviction cleared Euston, another trial began on 16 December 1889 when Newlove's and Somerset's solicitor, Arthur Newton, was charged with obstruction of justice. It was alleged that he conspired to prevent Hammond and the boys from testifying, by offering or giving them passage and money to go abroad. Newton was defended by Charles Russell, who had prosecuted Ernest Parke, and the prosecutor was Sir Richard Webster, the Attorney General. Newton pleaded guilty to one of the six charges against him, claiming that he had assisted Hammond to flee merely to protect his clients, who were not at that time charged with any offence or under arrest, from potential blackmail. The Attorney General accepted Newton's pleas and did not present any evidence on the other five charges.[36] On 20 May, the judge, Sir Lewis Cave, sentenced Newton to six weeks in prison,[37] which was widely considered by members of the legal profession to be harsh. A petition signed by 250 London law firms was sent to the Home Secretary, Henry Matthews, protesting at Newton's treatment.[38]

Henry Labouchère accused the government of conspiring to hush up the scandal.

During Newton's trial, a motion was brought forth in Parliament to further investigate Parke's allegations of a cover-up. Henry Labouchère, a Member of Parliament from the Radical wing of the Liberal Party, was staunchly against homosexuality and had campaigned successfully to add the "gross indecency" amendment (known as the "Labouchère Amendment") to the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. He was convinced that the conspiracy to cover up the scandal went further up the government than assumed. Labouchère made his suspicions known in Parliament on 28 February 1890. He denied that "a gentleman of very high position"—presumably Prince Albert Victor—was in any way involved with the scandal, but accused the government of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by hampering the investigation, allowing Somerset and Hammond to escape, delaying the trials and failing to prosecute the case with vigour. Labouchère's accusations were rebutted by the Attorney General, Sir Richard Webster, who was also the prosecutor in the Newton case. Charles Russell, who had prosecuted Parke and was defending Newton, sat on the Liberal benches with Labouchère but refused to be drawn into the debate. After an often passionate debate over seven hours, during which Labouchère was expelled from Parliament after saying "I do not believe Lord Salisbury" and refusing to withdraw his remark, the motion was defeated by a wide margin, 206–66.[39]

Aftermath

Public interest in the scandal eventually faded. Nevertheless, newspaper coverage reinforced negative attitudes about male homosexuality as an aristocratic vice, presenting the telegraph boys as corrupted and exploited by members of the upper class. This attitude reached its climax a few years later when Oscar Wilde was tried for gross indecency as the result of his affair with Lord Alfred Douglas.

Oscar Wilde alluded to the scandal in The Picture of Dorian Gray, first published in 1890.[40] Reviews of the novel were hostile; in a clear reference to the Cleveland Street scandal, one reviewer called it suitable for "none but outlawed noblemen and perverted telegraph boys".[41][42][43] Wilde's 1891 revision of the novel omitted certain key passages, which were considered too homoerotic.[43][44] In 1895, Wilde unsuccessfully sued Lord Alfred's father, the Marquess of Queensberry, for libel. Sir Edward Carson, Lord Queensberry's counsel, used quotes from the novel against Wilde and questioned him about his associations with young working men.[45] After the failure of his suit, Wilde was charged with gross indecency, found guilty and subsequently sentenced to two years' hard labour. He was prosecuted by Charles Gill, who had defended Veck in the Cleveland Street case.[46]

Prince Albert Victor of Wales was created Duke of Clarence and Avondale the year after the scandal.

Prince Albert Victor died in 1892, but society gossip about his sex life continued. Sixty years after the scandal the official biographer of King George V, Harold Nicolson, was told by Lord Goddard, who was a twelve-year-old schoolboy at the time of the scandal, that Prince Albert Victor "had been involved in a male brothel scene, and that a solicitor had to commit perjury to clear him. The solicitor was struck off the rolls for his offence, but was thereafter reinstated."[47] In fact, none of the lawyers involved in the case were convicted of perjury or struck off at the time, indeed most had very distinguished careers. However, Arthur Newton was struck off for 12 months for professional misconduct in 1910 after falsifying letters from another of his clients—the notorious murderer Harvey Crippen.[48] In 1913, he was struck off indefinitely and sentenced to three years' imprisonment for obtaining money by false pretences.[49] Newton may have invented and spread the rumours about Prince Albert Victor in an attempt to protect his clients from prosecution by forcing a cover-up.[50] State papers on the case in the Public Records Office, released to the public in the 1970s, provide no information on the prince's involvement other than Newton's threat to implicate him.[51] Hamilton Cuffe wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Augustus Stephenson, "I am told that Newton has boasted that if we go on a very distinguished person will be involved (PAV). I don't mean to say that I for one instant credit it—but in such circumstances as this one never knows what may be said, be concocted or be true."[52] Surviving private letters from Somerset to his friend Lord Esher, confirm that Somerset knew of the rumours but did not know if they were true. He writes, "I can quite understand the Prince of Wales being much annoyed at his son's name being coupled with the thing ... we were both accused of going to this place but not together ... I wonder if it is really a fact or only an invention."[53] In his correspondence, Sir Dighton Probyn refers to "cruel and unjust rumours with regard to PAV" and "false reports dragging PAV's name into the sad story".[54] When Prince Albert Victor's name appeared in the American press, the New York Herald published an anonymous letter, almost certainly written by Charles Hall, saying "there is not, and never was, the slightest excuse for mentioning the name of Prince Albert Victor."[55] Biographers who believe the rumours suppose that Prince Albert Victor was bisexual,[56] but this is strongly contested by others who refer to him as "ardently heterosexual" and his involvement in the rumours as "somewhat unfair".[57]

Notes and sources

  1. ^ Aronson, pp.8–10 and Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.20–23
  2. ^ Aronson, pp.11, 16–17 and Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.23–24
  3. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.23
  4. ^ Aronson, p.11 and Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.25
  5. ^ Aronson, p.135
  6. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.26–33
  7. ^ Aronson, pp.11, 133 and Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.25
  8. ^ Aronson, pp.134–135 and Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.34–35
  9. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.35
  10. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.38
  11. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.35, 45, 47
  12. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.42, 46
  13. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.47–53
  14. ^ Aronson, p.137
  15. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.74–77
  16. ^ Aronson, p.136 and Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.27, 34
  17. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.61
  18. ^ Aronson, p.140 and Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.80–81
  19. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.82–86
  20. ^ Aronson, p.142
  21. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.93
  22. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.94
  23. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.97
  24. ^ Aronson, p.144 and Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.98–99
  25. ^ Aronson, p.150
  26. ^ Aronson, p.175
  27. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.106–107
  28. ^ North London Press, 16 November 1889, quoted in Hyde, The Other Love, p.125
  29. ^ Hyde, The Other Love, p.125 and Aronson, p.150
  30. ^ Hyde, The Other Love, p.123
  31. ^ Aronson, pp.151–159 and The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.113–116, 139–143
  32. ^ Saul quoted in Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.146–147
  33. ^ Aronson, pp.151–159 and Hyde, The Other Love, p.125–127
  34. ^ Hyde, The Other Love, p.127
  35. ^ Aronson, p.153 and Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.135
  36. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.162–207
  37. ^ Aronson, p.173
  38. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.208–212
  39. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, pp.215–231
  40. ^ In chapter 12 of the original 1890 version, one of the characters, Basil Hallward, refers to "Sir Henry Ashton, who had to leave England, with a tarnished name".
  41. ^ "Reviews and Magazines". Scots Observer 5 July 1890, p.181
  42. ^ Bristow, Joseph (2006). "Introduction" In: Wilde, Oscar. The Picture of Dorian Gray. Oxford World's Classic, Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280729-8. p.xxi
  43. ^ a b Ackroyd, Peter (1985) "Appendix 2: Introduction to the First Penguin Classics Edition" In: Wilde, Oscar. The Picture of Dorian Gray. Penguin Classics, Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-043784-3. pp.224–225
  44. ^ Mighall, Robert (2000). "Introduction" In: Wilde, Oscar. The Picture of Dorian Gray. Penguin Classics, Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-043784-3. p.xvi
  45. ^ Kaplan, Morris B. (2004). "Literature in the Dock: The Trials of Oscar Wilde". Journal of Law and Society 31: (No. 1) 113–130
  46. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.45
  47. ^ Lees-Milne, p.231
  48. ^ Cook, pp.284–285
  49. ^ Cook, pp.285–286 and Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.253
  50. ^ Prince Eddy: The King We Never Had. Channel 4. Accessed 28 March 2008.
  51. ^ Cook, pp.172–173
  52. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.55
  53. ^ Lord Arthur Somerset to Reginald Brett, 2nd Viscount Esher, 10 December 1889, quoted in Cook, p.197
  54. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.127
  55. ^ Hyde, The Cleveland Street Scandal, p.129
  56. ^ Aronson, pp.116–120, 170, 217
  57. ^ Bradford, p.10

References

  • Aronson, Theo (1994). Prince Eddy and the Homosexual Underworld. London: John Murray. ISBN 0-7195-5278-8
  • Bradford, Sarah (1989). King George VI. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-79667-4
  • Cook, Andrew (2006). Prince Eddy: The King Britain Never Had. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Tempus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 0-7524-3410-1
  • Hyde, H. Montgomery (1970). The Other Love: An Historical and Contemporary Survey of Homosexuality in Britain. London: Heinemann. ISBN 0-434-35902-5
  • Hyde, H. Montgomery (1976). The Cleveland Street Scandal. London: W. H. Allen. ISBN 0-491-01995-5
  • Lees-Milne, James (1981). Harold Nicolson: A Biography. Volume 2: 1930–1968 London: Chatto & Windus. ISBN 0-7011-2602-7

Further reading

  • Simpson, Colin; Chester, Lewis and Leitch, David (1976). The Cleveland Street Affair. Boston: Little, Brown.

External links