To feel sympathy to the National Trust volunteers at Felbrigg Hall?

Toddler tease

Only focusing on the architecture and social history of straight owners (and an airbrushed version for the last owner) was the NT default until recently. Why is adding a six minute film, a badge and lanyard without removing all the existing bits so terrible?

I think the fact that there are people around who knew him (including his godson) saying 'he would have hated this' makes it understandable that some people think it is wrong.

But what exactly would he have hated? People finding out he was gay or this ridiculous hoo haa from the volunteers about stripy badges? He died 50 years ago it is impossible to know what he would have made of the world in 2017.

This is quite a balanced article, and suggests that his being gay was well known amongst those who knew it. Unless they think being gay is somehow bad, why would more people knowing he was gay bother them? Again, as he died just after legalisation, it is likely that discretion was forced not chosen.

www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/07/21/national-trust-outs-norfolk-squire-gay-48-years-death/

The campaign at this house seems to be the film, a badge and a lanyard. Shock horror!

I think the fact that he was a biographer and left his private papers to the NT was significant in that he would have understood this aspect could be studied and publicisedI would reiterate it is only mentioned as one aspect in the film and they spend as much time reciting one of his sonnets.

It is also noted that he is only one of a number of people around all the NT properties being researched as part of a project uncovering otherwise hidden LBGTQ history. So he is not being singled out.

Regardless of the cause being espoused, this is yet another example of the NT treating its (mostly elderly volunteers) like shit. Refusing to wear a badge does not = bigot. You can be very happy to welcome all kinds of people without emblazoning it on your chest. Insisting that if you don't wear one you are not fit to be in contact with the public is treating volunteers like naughty kids being kept in detention. This is a failure of NT management.
My MiL used to be a room steward and gave up largely because of the attitude of the management. Their lack of consideration that their staff were volunteers, even little things like saying they couldn't have cake with their tea break. It might seem petty, but many volunteers do so not just because they love the NT property but for the interaction with other volunteers and visitors.

Completely agree about concentrating on one theme. Feels like you miss so much out of the property.

I think the fact that there are people around who knew him (including his godson) saying 'he would have hated this' makes it understandable that some people think it is wrong. Exactly. He seemed like an unshowy academic who wouldn't have liked a fuss.

I think the NT have behaved fantastically over this and have taken into account all of their workforce.

They are doing an event which supports pride and gives an insight into the history of LGB rights. At the same time they have considered that some of their workforce perhaps for religious reasons may not feel entirely comfortable with this so they have decided to effectively give them an opt out from this event.

Brilliantly stuff which has considered the needs of all staff whilst still showing support for LGBT causes.

Old houses are full of stuff announcing heterosexuality- old family portraits, wedding dresses, engagement and wedding rings, old documents regarding paternity etc. Marriage/having children was hugely significant in the issue of managing large country houses.

I am straight and before equal marriage was implicitly announcing my heterosexuality to loads of people I met , without ever discussing my sex life. The changes in legislation in the last 50 years is massive social history.

The focus on this man is very much because at an early age, when his younger brother died in the war, realised, as he was gay, he was never going to have children so made plans to bequeath the house and contents to the NT. It is great that people are made to understand that gay people are and were everywhere, not just in the arts or London.

Does the absence of a badge or symbol indicate that you are against whatever cause it represents? If I don't wear a cross does it mean I am anti Christian? I don't wear a green ribbon so does this mean I don't support mental health awareness?

I think the fact that there are people around who knew him (including his godson) saying 'he would have hated this' makes it understandable that some people think it is wrong.

brasty
It is a stripy laynard and badge. What other real reason could a volunteer have for not wearing it other than bigotry?

Would yo say the same for the white/red poppy?
The CND badge?
Cancer awareness ribbons?

I don't see a problem with the badges and if anybody refuses to wear them based purely on them being LGBT supportive they can move to a background role, but I do think it's weird that they're apparently only focusing on one man ratehr than the property and the history.

However, the up in arms about the film thing is a bit weird. He's long gone and somebody obviously chose to use the journals. We don't moan about butting into anybody else's private lives or reading journals from say, people in the trenches of WWI or Anne Frank's diary which had some very personal information about a young girl discovering her body on top of all of the awful things she endured.

simon50, yes I think it was more likely the "black thing" which is still much more of a thing than alot of people realise and I assume homophobia probably is as well. When I moved from a big multi cultural city I was really shocked at the attitudes in more rural areas.

It is a stripy laynard and badge. What other real reason could a volunteer have for not wearing it other than bigotry?
I don't believe for a minute that it is about respecting privacy.

Those that think the story of a gay man having to hide his sexuality because of society, is just about his sex life, are way off the mark.

NT tours always talk about partners, spouses of the owner of the house, including known affairs. Should they stop doing this because it is about their "sex life". Or just maybe relationships are about more than sex?

Countess
Yes agree with that... I think the marketing department should have checked out how the items would be received and made it voluntary. I suspect that ensuring the volunteers stick to an agreed script about why the others are wearing it might have been more problematic.

Londonista.

Countess no you didn't but you did say you didn't think they should be forced to wear the badge. They weren't. Just a small clarification.

Carry on - I'm agreeing with you!

Justicewoman - I agree re the lanyards being a nice gesture. But do you think 100% of front of house staff have to wear them to have that effect? I don't see that a few people wearing normal ones would matter as long as everyone is behaving professionally.

I think yabu, it is an excuse for bigotry and quite telling how upset the volunteers are by a stripy badge.

The man concerned died in 1967 which meant that for his whole life homosexuality was illegal, this probably lead to both shame and fear of being prosecuted. If he had been alive today it is highly likely that he would have just lived his life happily, rather than having to hide who he was. There is an important historical lesson here - how recently what is now accepted as in the range of normal was in relatively recent history something that could land you in jail.

Thankfully this has changed, but this case is also evidence that it hasn't gone far enough I think.

I don't think I said they were fired, did I?
Saying they have to be redeployed to backroom jobs so they won't come into contact with the public is punishing them. If I was a volunteer who loved, and was good at, engaging with visitors, I am not sure I would be happy about that. (And if the problem is that the volunteers are likely to spout homophobia to visitors then that would be a problem at all times, not just for the duration of the event.)

Countess
I have plenty of gay friends who like a nice old house and tea shop.. but are understandably wary of the reaction of some of the volunteers - so having rainbow lanyards is a welcoming gesture.

Also one of my oldest friends (bit of a cliche) is an NT Australia volunteer tour guide in an old house. He is gay and volunteered because the charity made an effect to live their equality policy and overtly welcome gay visitors.

Countess

Agree with most of that esp about their motives, but just a small point of clarification; the dissenters were not fired they were temporarily redeployed, so the NT did technically allow them to choose not wear the badge.

Jersticewoman, I completely get that and in fact I have some professional interest in the historical research, howeverI think you are naive to think that the NT have done this for historical or even educational reasons. They have seen it purely as a campaign that they can use to boost visitor numbers. They are cynically using this man's, and several others, sexuality to boost their coffers and I admit that I feel uncomfortable with that.

How do you know that apparent attempts at concealment were freely chosen and not learned self preservation (given he lived primarily at a time when being openly gay was so dangerous and there is social ostracism still in parts of East Anglia)?