In the US at the moment it's the cyclist Lance Armstrong. In the UK it's the late DJ and TV presenter Jimmy Saville. But how many others have fallen so spectacularly - and maybe even more suddenly - in terms of public opinion over the years?



Public disgrace is, within any community, a particularly cruel stigma to be attached to any individual. The vehemence of its attribution varies but without a doubt is greatly increased the higher in people's estimation the attributee had once previously risen. Recent examples in the world of sport related to performance enhancing drugs, or in the world of entertainment relating to sexual abuse are simply modern manifestations of a very ancient symptom of the re-application or readjustment of social values as society develops. A similar review of values has caused many leading church leaders of various Christian hues to have come a cropper of late too.

However to think of this process as a purely recent phenomenon would of course be very misleading. One could argue that Julius Caesar was a victim of something similar, or at least that his assassins did everything in their power to ensure it (with one of their number, the once "noble" Brutus, being a good example of how this is something very hard to manipulate or control in any case). The French king Louis XVI was another high flier brought low rather spectacularly and who paid the ultimate price for his loss of prestige, as indeed did his nemesis, Robespierre. Those who the public once praised can very quickly become the ones most despised, whether within their lifetimes or subsequently.

Who else can be tagged onto this list of sudden infamy?

Oscar Wilde? He was feted - both here and in America - for his wit and general brilliance until his conviction, in 1895, for "gross indecency".

When he was transferred to H.M. Prison, Reading (from Wandsworth), Wilde was mocked and spat upon by a jeering crowd waiting at Reading Station.

But his rehabilitation is now complete, so he is probably not a very good example.

The leading American fighter ace of the Vietnam War, Randall H Cunningham Went into politics. Now currently in the Federal Penitentiary in Tucson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham


OJ Simpson?

Dare I mention Jesus of Nazareth? I know he is not accepted by all as a historical figure, but *if* the descriptions of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem are to be believed (all the Gospels give an account of what is now celebrated as "Palm" Sunday, although only St. John, I think, actually mentions palm fronds), Christ's subsequent fall from grace, so to speak, was spectacular.

From joyful public acclamation ("Hosanna in the highest") to vicious public rejection ("Crucify him!"), followed by brutal torture and execution, and all in the space of a few days - doesn't get much worse - or more dramatic - than that.

Even taking Jesus's story to be an historical account the allegedly spectacular fall in his popularity is never properly addressed in the version we learn. While public opinion can indeed be fickle, it is still rather a stretch to infer that it could be swayed so completely overnight merely by some accusations from a priestly elite and a Roman governor. I would imagine the novelty value alone of the tricks he was performing publicly might have ensured at least a sizeable minority would have stuck with him (enough at least to boo the Governor's speech). Of course the "twist" in the narrative has other reasons for its inclusion which we don't need to go into on this thread, so on face value I'll simply agree that the story does certainly suggest a rapid decline in popularity to beat the best of them!

I know I shouldn't ask here - wrong thread and all - but I will, then I promise I'll shut up. Why concoct such an (apparently) stupid narrative if you were trying to "sell" a religion?

Answers on a postcard, please.

Edit: Just realised I haven't read/understood your post properly. Oh shit. I really am going to shut up.

Charlie Chaplin.
His high-profile public and private life encompassed both adulation and controversy. Chaplin was identified with left-wing politics during the McCarthy era and he was ultimately forced to resettle in Europe from 1952.

Although Alan Turing didn’t fall from grace in the same way as Saville, sadly all too late he got an apology and recognition for his work.
Turing's homosexuality resulted in a criminal prosecution in 1952, when homosexual acts were still illegal in the United Kingdom.
On 10 September 2009, following an Internet campaign, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made an official public apology on behalf of the British government for "the appalling way he was treated".

Michael Kieron Parker, aka Michael Barrymore
He headlined the 1993 Royal Variety Performance and was voted the UK's favourite TV star several times, becoming one of the highest-paid stars on TV. until Stuart Lubbock body was found motionless in Barrymore's swimming pool.


Paul Gadd aka Garry Glitter…


Jonathon King…

And a lot more besides, but there’ll be tears before bedtime after all is revealed at the BBC.
I see a can of worms about to be opened.

Richard Nixon, thumped his opponents by 500,000 votes in the presedential election of 1968 and was then re-elected in 1972 by over 60% of the popular vote, one of the largest margins in US history.

In August 1974 Nixon resigned from office in disgrace.

Remembrance Day Parade reveals ‘fraudster’ Roger Day.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233634/Fake-war-veteran-Roger-Day-Medals-pukka--Im-sworn-silence-I-won-them.html

Contemptible… but not an ‘Old Contemptible’.

J Bruce Ismay, chairman of the White Star Line and a respected member of society, right up until he stepped off the Titanic and on to a lifeboat, after which he was socially ostracized.

Not so much a fall from grace (in the strict sense) but a tragic end to a high flying political career was that of Lord Castlereagh.

Robert Stewart, Marquess of Londonderry and Viscount Castlereagh had been Foreign Secretary for 10 years before he suffered a sudden mental breakdown followed by his suicide in 1822. Reviled by many during his lifetime (and afterwards) he is nonetheless seen as one of the greatest Prime Ministers which Great Britain & Ireland never had.

Corpses can also fall from grace.

Oliver Cromwell died on September 3rd, 1658. He lay (or rather an effigy of him did - the actual body was already in Westminster Abbey, buried hastily for hygiene reasons) in state at Somerset House and, on November 23rd, a great funeral procession wound its way - it took seven hours - from there to the Abbey. The effigy was decorated with many royal symbols, including:

"a rich Suit of uncut Velvet...laced with a rich gold lace, and furr'd with [sic] Ermins; upon the Kirtle is the Royal large Robe of the like Purple Velvet laced, and fur'd with Ermins, with rich strings, and tassels of gold...upon his head, the Cap of Regality of Purple Velvet, furr'd with Ermins...upon the Cushion of the Chair stands the Imperial Crown set with stones."

In Westminster Abbey an impressive catafalque - "similar to the one constructed for James I, only more stately and expensive" - waited to receive the effigy. The funeral is estimated to have cost around £60,000.

Just over two years later, in 1661, the remains of "His Highness, the most Serene and most illustrious Oliver Cromwell" were dug up and removed from their resting place among the kings and queens of England. On the anniversary of the death of Charles I, 3oth January, what was left of the former Protector - which, thanks to skilful embalming seems to have been quite a bit - was dragged to Tyburn and there strung up on a gallows where it/he remained for a whole day before the head was severed from the body, then spiked and stuck on a pole. The grisly relic was then displayed for at least *twenty* years in Westminster Hall. It was last mentioned as being there - still on its pole - in 1684.

The corpses of Ireton and Judge Bradshaw were subjected to similar indignities: one eye-witness noted that Ireton hung on the gallows "like a dried rat".

I have quoted elsewhere Aunt Entity's words on the dramatic theme of sudden reversal of fortune - but perhaps they are appropriate here too:

"But how the world turns. One day cock of the walk. Next a feather duster."

The most Serene and most illustrious Oliver Cromwell lies in state, 1658.





The grisly relic, 1661.

There are many who fell from grace in the court of the fickle Henry VIII but Thomas Wolsey was one who fell the furtherest.

For 20 years Cardinal Thomas Wolsey served Henry VIII, beginning as Almoner in 1509 he prospered and rose through the ranks. By 1514 he controlled virtually all matters of state as well as being extremely powerful within the church. He attained the position of Lord Chancellor, the king's chief advisor and by 1515 was made Cardinal giving him precedence over the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Wolsey continued to retain Henry's trust until he failed to gain an annulment of the King's marriage to Katherine of Aragon, whereby the Boleyn faction at court convinced Henry that Wolsey had deliberately delayed proceedings. In 1529 Cardinal Wolsey was stripped of his government office and property and was eventually accused of treason and ordered to London, but Wolsey fell ill and died on the way in 1530. Wolsey is quoted as saying, 'If I had served God as diligently as I did my King, He would not have given me over in my grey hairs'.

All in all a timely demise considering those creatures who were baying for his blood, and I'd suggest that by taking Wolsey before he reached London that his God, indeed, did not give him over. It was certainly a kinder way to go than what would have been devised by his enemies.



Cardinal Wolsey, during more prosperous days.

During and after World War I, the royal houses of Hohenzollern, Habsburg and Romanoff.

During the Reformation many statues of saints - images that had been for centuries revered, even *worshipped* - were torn down, broken and mocked.

Some were burnt - along with any denied the Royal Supremacy.

On May 22nd, 1538, a "cradle of chains" was placed above a pile of wood in the burning fields at Smithfield. Upon the pyre would soon be placed the desecrated image of a saint, he who was known as Darvel Gadarn, a holy man who had been greatly esteemed by the pious folk of Wales. The image was - strangely - of a *military* figure, always shown with a sword and a spear. It was said that those who venerated Darvel Gadarn would be snatched from the jaws of hell itself. It was also said that one day this saint would "set alight a forest".

And so he did.

On that terrible day in 1538, Londoners watched as a Catholic friar, John Forrest, died a dreadful, protracted death. The image of the once venerated Darvel Gadarn was used as fuel with which to burn a political dissident. Thomas Cromwell, the "hero" of Hilary Mantel's utterly *brilliant*, but perhaps lapsed-Catholic-biased-get-the bastards-before-they-get-you, books, made the Londoners laugh: "My lord Bishop," Cromwell is reported as shouting across to Latimer (who would himself one day burn), "I think you strive in vain with this stubborn one. It would be better to burn him. Take him off at once!"

The image of the saint and John Forest took two hours to burn. The dying man is reported as repeating in desperation over and over again: "Domine miserere me" - "Lord have mercy on me."

Sir Walter Raleigh a favourite of Elizabeth 1 fell out of favour and was imprisoned in the tower for a time to be later restored and sent off in search of ‘el dorado’ returning to fall from grace with the monarchy again and lost his head as a result, but I assumed Nordmanns OP was ‘those’ that fell out of favour not only with the monarch, heavens above there were plenty enough of those, but with the rank and file of the public and it's opinion.

I would think a lot of the common/peasant stock had enough to contend with working themselves into an early grave just to earn a crust of bread without knowing who was who in the upper echelons of the society that relied upon them to laden their banqueting tables with foods beyond the commoners wildest imaginations. We’re the common people baying for Raleigh’s head at the time.

Charles 1st fell out of favour big-time, not only with the ‘toffs’, but with the common people resulting in a ‘bloody’ civil war, and as we all know lost his head in the process.

Interesting to note that eventually the majority of these despots seem to get their comeuppance, we’ve had quite a few just lately from Mussolini and Hitler to Sadam Hussain, Gaddafi, Bin Laden and Nicolae Ceaușescu. Idi Amin had to flee his country and was one of the few to die of natural causes… I’m surprised Mugabe hasn’t met with an assassin yet but there’s still time. Who will be next… Bashar al-Assad looks a likely candidate. All have caused countless deaths of their own countrymen and left the country in ruins.

But on the other hand, back in the 60s after taking America by storm ‘The Beatles’ fell from public grace there after a flippant religious comment resulting with mass public hate campaigns, burnings of their records, and a ban on them returning.

Humpty dumpty had a great fall too, and despite everything, they couldn’t put him together again. Dunno what he did wrong, did he represent anyone from history as in ‘Little Jack Horner’… or ‘Ring o Ring o Roses’ etc.

Humpty Dumpty is anyone's guess - the term was used as far back as the 15th century for stout men. Two theories link the rhyme to the Civil War (Lewis Carroll, the first to set it into print, admitted that it was a rhyme he had learnt as a child so it is possible that it has that long a pedigree). In one theory it's Charles I himself who was HD. A nicer theory is that it relates to a cannon placed on the roof of St Mary's By The Wall church in Colchester. Here's a transcript of the incident:

Quote :

At the time of the civil war in 1648, Colchester was a town with a castle and several churches and was protected by the city wall.

During the siege of Colchester, the 15th century tower of the church known as 'St Mary's by the Wall' was indeed much damaged. This happened because, on June 15th 1648, the church was strengthened against attack, by putting a cannon on the roof. As in the story, a gunner known as 'One-Eyed Jack Thompson' fired the cannon. He caused a lot of damage to Lord Fairfax's attacking troops.

Thompson's success made many of the Roundheads fire onto the church roof and, sometime during the 14th or 15th of July, Thompson and his gun came tumbling down. The damaged cannon could not be raised again.

This was one of a number of setbacks and, on August 28th 1648, the Royalists lay down their weapons, opened the gates of Colchester and surrendered to the Parliamentarians.

Well that’s one I’d never heard of… how fascinating. Thank you.

Well, it seems to me that the modern British press spend a few months, even a few years, raising, and praising, each new "hero", then, once he or she is sufficiently elevated, they spend at least as much time and effort in dragging them down into the mire, when neither the elevation, nor the subsequent degradation, is really justified.

I quite agree Gil… the list of those poor souls is almost endless…


Althea Turner, the onetime wonder girl at the BBC springs to mind. There was hardly a time when she wasn’t on the box, but suddenly… she was gone.


The public seem so fickle to be manipulated by these media moguls giving rise to a host of hopelessly false celebrities placing them on such high pinnacles… I’m sure the only reason for this is hoping to cash in when the bubble bursts and they come crashing back to earth, and end up in ‘special’ hospitals surrounded by expensive therapists.

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (106-48BC), through a succession of well placed marriages and successful military campaigns, rose to prominence on the Roman political scene from a humble (if wealthy) provincial background. By 70BC he had attained his first consulship and was to go on to Consul a further two times, he was also awarded three truimphs during his military career.

In a power struggle between the conserative faction of the senate and Julius Caesar which lead to civil war, Pompey sided with the conservatives. Culminating in Pompeius's ignomious defeat by Caesar at the Battle of Pharsalus in 48BC. According to Seutonius, Caesar is to have said 'that man (Pompey) does not know how to win a war'.

Pompey gathered wife and children, hopped on a ship and fled south to Egypt, where he was unceremoniously assassinated and de-capitated on a beach by those wishing to curry favour with Caesar. A once great man, who achieved the extraordinary through his own efforts, bought so low by treachery and his own poor judgement.

This is quite a complex topic and I've refrained from contributing because many of the examples I can think of don't seem to conform to the terms of reference of the original question. It asks for people who have been laid low by " the re-application or readjustment of social values as society develops".

I read that as suggesting a person whose behaviour and values have been known, accepted and indeed lionised by the populace but, after some widespread re evaluation of what is acceptable and commendable, have then been vilified.
That seems to me to rule out those of whom some dark secret or indeed crime has been revealed.

When it comes to those who have been condemned after religious or regime change the list is endless but somehow those are less interesting than those where there has been a groundswell of public disapproval independent of the view from the top and it's those I'm struggling to find.

Saville could be seen as being both fitting and not fitting with that initial question in that his overt, widely observed behaviour was not discerned as being significantly out of step with current mores but the revalation of his 'dark secrets' although rumoured in some circles, were the catalyst for his public abasement. I doubt that child rape would have been anything but criminal and despicable even back then when the understanding of what constitutes a child, how much their account should be trusted and what was their responsibility in an abusive relationship was somewhat different from today. That's the re evaluation that has really done for him.

According to the media the Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has fallen

from grace. Many of his actions when he was president have been cancelled by Putin.

ferval wrote:

This is quite a complex topic and I've refrained from contributing because many of the examples I can think of don't seem to conform to the terms of reference of the original question. It asks for people who have been laid low by " the re-application or readjustment of social values as society develops".

I read that as suggesting a person whose behaviour and values have been known, accepted and indeed lionised by the populace but, after some widespread re evaluation of what is acceptable and commendable, have then been vilified.

The likes of Charles Dickens, Enid Blyton and Joan Crawford etc might qualify in this. In the case of Charles Dickens, however, any 21st century attitudes frowning on his family life don't seem to have affected public appreciation of his literary works. It seems that people are generally able to separate the art from the artist as it were.

I'm reading Dombey and Son at the moment (slowly, very slowly, a chapter a night basically) and was thinking last night that Dickens seems to have plenty of sympathy for people who he portrays as loving and caring, and yet his own behaviour sometimes seemed to lack a little of those qualities. However, I don't bother to read about his life much, so don't quite know the details.

Along similar lines to Lord Castlereagh, in NZ we had William Larnach, who built a castle (the only one in NZ), was high up in politics, then had money troubles and odd marital/children difficulties and committed suicide in the Houses of Parliament, so far the only person here to do so.

My first thought on seeing this question was Richard Nixon. Politicians of course often appeal to one section of society more than others, so NZ's Robert Muldoon is a little tricky too. He was PM, popular with some, hated by others, and ended in some disgrace calling a snap election while a little the worse for wear.

Some child film stars (not Shirley Temple) seemed to go from adulation to nothing quickly, usually because of drinking problems. And while Lance Armstrong was a very spectacular example (though not really sudden - how many people didn't have their suspicions about him?), there have been plenty of sports stars who have gone from public popularity to persona non grata very quickly, with some allegation of drinking assaults or womanizing. As Gil says, the media bear some responsibility for many of these. And the men (usually) often redeem themselves simply by their abilities. Politicians don't really have that luxury.

I was thinking of teachers, and I wonder if Peter Abelard fitted the criteria, though I think he still retained popularity as a preacher/teacher.

Temperance wrote

‘Dare I mention Jesus of Nazareth? I know he is not accepted by all as a historical figure’

The question as to whether or not Jesus existed it quite different from other popular website debates: for example those concerning the location of the battle of Brunanburh, the exact nature of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England, why Harold II fought at Senlac (or Cadbec) hill, who killed the Princes in the Tower etc? Those other debates exist at both a website level and at academic level. That is not the case with the question as to whether or not Jesus exists, which occurs very strongly at a website level but not at an academic level. Recent books I have read on the life of Jesus and the history of the church have devoted precisely as much space to the question of whether or not Jesus existed as would a history of Carthage or a life of Hannibal Barca devote to whether or not Hannibal Barca existed.

An Open University secular course on the early Roman and the rise of Christianity states that “In point of fact, no scholar who has seriously studied the period doubts that Jesus Christ was a historical person’. Similarly Goodman in ‘Rome and Jerusalem’ a secular history published in 2007 states ‘The modern notion that the whole biography of Jesus to be found in the various gospels was pure invention is deeply implausible – not least because a story of this type about the career of a Galilean peasant was neither characteristic of religious literature at the time nor obviously helpful in spreading the central Christian message that Jesus was also Christian and Lord.’.

There is of course the odd ‘von Daniken's rubbish’ [Nordmann’s words and for once we are in agreement] book such as that by Freke and Gandi, but possibly the only writer at a more serious level was G.A.Wells. He was a professor of German, not a historian, and he has now changed his mind because of ‘Q’ [the academically accepted source for the common material in Matthew and Luke, not the StarTrek character] and decided that Jesus did exist.

Temperance also wrote

‘but *if* the descriptions of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem are to be believed (all the Gospels give an account of what is now celebrated as "Palm" Sunday, although only St. John, I think, actually mentions palm fronds), Christ's subsequent fall from grace, so to speak, was spectacular.

From joyful public acclamation ("Hosanna in the highest") to vicious public rejection ("Crucify him!"), followed by brutal torture and execution, and all in the space of a few days - doesn't get much worse - or more dramatic - than that.’

There is quite a simple explanation for the change and that is different crowds. The numbers involved in both cases could have been not that great in a city that would have been packed with pilgrims for the Passover. To say that you could not have one crowd cheering Jesus and then another calling for his death is a bit like saying you could not have George Osbourn booed at the Olympics and then applauded at the Tory party conference.

That Nordmann doubts the evidence is hardly surprising – ‘well he would wouldn’t he’, but it is not doubted at an academic level. One scholar E.P.Saunders gave a list of events of Jesus’ life that were accepted by ‘nearly every scholar’ and that included his crucifixion.

On the Sunday Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey in a deliberate prophetic act with his followers cheering. At around the same time as Jesus entered Jerusalem Pilate would also have been entering Jerusalem. ‘What Christians have often spoken of as Jesus’ triumphal entry was really an anti-imperial entry. What we call Palm Sunday featured a choice of two kingdoms, two visions of life on earth’ Prof M.Borg – Jesus.

‘The death of Jesus is the consequence of tensions between a charismatic coming from the country and an urban elite, between a Jewish renewal movement and alien Roman rule, between someone who proclaimed cosmic change which was also to transform the temple and the representatives of the status quo.’ Theissen and Merz – The Historical Jesus.

One crowd were Jesus’ followers and the other representatives of the status quo. Their differing attitudes are hardly surprising and entirely historically believable, though not to Nordmann!

That said, it is clear that the gospels were trying to shift the blame for Jesus’ crucifixion from the Romans to the Jews. This is hardly surprising as the gospel writers were trying to convince people who lived in the Roman Empire that Jesus was the saviour of the world. That Jesus had been crucified by the Romans was not entirely helpful to aim. The accounts of the last week of Jesus’ life have to be read in that context.

I am away for a month and so I am afraid that I will not be able to respond to any replies.

Arguable Henry VIII fits into the category. Of course, how popular he was at the time of his death is debateable, and he was hardly in his prime, but he remained one of the most powerful and prominant monarchs around. Then he falls off his perch, and the next thing you know he's been bunged in a vault in St George's, Windsor, presumably unmarked (or the mark was removed) because within a century no-one could remember where he was. When it was decided to deposite Charles I in the same vault men had to go around tapping the floor with poles until they found a hollow spot. The so-called 'Wolsey's Tomb House' (converted from St Edward's Chapel at one end of St George's), originally created for the Cardinal but on his disgrace earmarked for Bluff King Hal, went unoccupied. The elaborate monument he'd had built for himself was unused and ultimately was recycled for Nelson's tomb. A strange and slightly bizarre fate for the corpse of perhaps England's most famous King.