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

I am torn about this. As a long standing NT member I think this is exactly the sort of research the Trust should be doing - not to the exclusion of everything else of course, but after decades of emphasis on architecture and decorative arts I don't think a project like this is going to destroy its art historical scholarship in one fell swoop.
Let's also be honest here, the NT has plenty of volunteers who have issues with modern inclusive values - the previous poster describing a racist encounter doesn't surprise me at all. And we don't know, of that ten who wouldn't play ball, how many were genuinely protesting because of concern for the subject's privacy and how many are actually feeling phobic about wearing a gay symbol.
That said, the Trust's attitude here (along with the posters above saying it can't be anything but bigotry) is leaving a very bad taste. A few people not wearing the badge wouldn't detract from the event. I am going to be in Norfolk with my family soon and this makes me want to cross it off my list - partly because it suggests the pride angle will be a bit full on when right now I just want to visit a nice 17th century house with lovely gardens with my kids (other people will be interested in the sex life of the former owner and that's fine), and partly because I think the ethics of treating your volunteers this way are questionable, giving that they might have been objecting for a good reason.
As someone said above, it's illiberal liberalism. Research what you want, wear your own badges, but don't make other people wear them too if they feel it's wrong.

Brasty

Exactly. Those volunteers need to do a bit of honest self-evaluation IMO.

Grannytomine. I would lean more to it being a 'black thing'. For a short while I dated a girl from Barbados and I would have never have believed the way people behaved towards us up until then, and that was by both black and whites.

Sounds like the volunteers either know little about the man they say they are trying to protect or are in denial about who he really was. Some of the things the man wrote about suggest if the times were different when he was alive he would have been able to be his true self outwardly.

Is used to volunteer at the NT in one of our local houses. The dedicated volunteers were absolutely passionate about the house and the owner (who was quite the eccentric) and many spent their own time researching objects and the history of the place.
So I can kind of see why the volunteers are annoyed about this. If the owner went to such lengths to conceal their sexuality while alive and still has living family then it really isn't for the NT to out them and then use their story for marketing purposes.
The volunteers would also be in the position of sharing the story many times a day in response to visitor questions and might not be happy sharing private details constantly.

Each house has it's own story and most owners are pretty careful when they sign over their properties about how they want the house and particular details shared and treated. I'm also not sure that this man is such a great icon for gay rights, considering how private he was about his relationships, that he needs to be promoted in this way. There are certainly plenty of other historical figures who offer a much more passionate or positive message on gay rights.

YellowPrimula

The fact that such a respectable, talented, decent man could only have that aspect of his personality revealed after his death is hugely historically important. The Wolfenden Report and decriminalisation meant that it became incidental whilst prior to that, being exposed (like Alan Turing or Oscar Wilde) it could mean ruin and all other aspects of one life ignored.

From the film it is very unclear that the NT are saying fH is now a "gay hall", but actually it is good that their example of someone who is gay is a man who is very much multidimensional/very respectable because it shows that being gay is not just about sex - it can also be about decisions about legacy, social circle, etc. The fact that he was a magistrate and possibly trying people for gay sex (and the internal conflict that might arise) may be quite an interesting line of study

It is a marketing tool. Would volunteers refuse to wear other marketing tools they disagreed with?
So much homophobia still.

Maybe if their actions were appropriate then no one would need to enforce anything?

Simon50, I agree about disabled access, my husband is also disabled so it is possible that the attitude we experienced was due to that or a combination of the two.

The vast majority of gay people in the past kept their sexuality hidden. They were not private,just trying not to get sent to prison or persecuted.

The volunteers are in the wrong here. Bigotry is never okay.

Forcing someone to wear a Pride symbol completely negates the point. It isn't showing support unless it is voluntary. Not wearing a Pride symbol isn't necessarily homophobic or bigoted. As long as the NT volunteer treats me appropriately I don't care. Actions count not enforced symbols.

*There is a difference between a man leaving his diaries , which would have revealed his sexual orientation albeit an open secret within his close circle , and the recipient of those diaries using them as a tool to market his home to visitors.

The donor could have reasonably expected the first but not the second.The fact Is that he was a very interesting and accomplished man who happened to be gay , not that he was a gay person full stop*

Well said, Yellow Primula!

I am still waiting for the NT to have a disabled day. We were regular visitors until my DP became disabled.
We had not realised how little disabled access these places had until then.
So I would hardly consider the NT to be inclusive, providing your not a disabled LGBT you still get better access to places of interest than the disabled !

The thing is though, wearing a rainbow badge and lanyard indicates your support of LGBTQI rights if people are being forced to wear it then it's false isn't it? They don't support LGBTQI rights so I wouldn't be comfortable with them pretending that they did to avoid trouble.

This, a million times.

Who needs grudging support from reluctant volunteers under a 3 line whip?

Always makes me smile, this one.

This is the theoretical objection in a nutshell. But I agree with Henrietta on the practical implications; this kind of thing just divides rather than unites, so is ultimately counterproductive. If the dividing means that bigots can't be volunteers any more then I think it is a good thing. Being discriminated against divides as well, I am excluded from NT properties because of the attitude of their volunteers so why should their rights be more important than mine?

There is a difference between a man leaving his diaries , which would have revealed his sexual orientation albeit an open secret within his close circle , and the recipient of those diaries using them as a tool to market his home to visitors.

The donor could have reasonably expected the first but not the second.The fact Is that he was a very interesting and accomplished man who happened to be gay , not that he was a gay person full stop.

The film may show that he was an interesting man but the NT would not have made the film were it not for the fact that they wished to run a marketing and publicity campaign piggy backing on the anniversary of homosexuality ceasing to be a criminal offence .I think this is rather offensive actually , they are using this aspect of his life to make money, and I would hazard a guess that the donor would have been pretty surprised to find that his sexuality was being used by the trust in this way albeit he probably knew that leaving his diaries to the Trust would have revealed his sexual orientaton..

HorridHenrietta

I think you are right and its a clumsy marketing/education campaign without getting more buy in from those given the lanyards. But I understand the complainers are not representative of the volunteer body at FH

If we have no choice but to support a particular cause, are we not living under fascism?

This is the theoretical objection in a nutshell. But I agree with Henrietta on the practical implications; this kind of thing just divides rather than unites, so is ultimately counterproductive.

They're not being forced to wear them either.

Chips4tea

This is totally not about free speech or whatever

As a volunteer you are willingly signing up to the policies of the charity and being a representative of the charity to the outside world. If you don't like them, then campaign to change them (or do backroom duties or leave) but that is not about free speech.

The thing is though, wearing a rainbow badge and lanyard indicates your support of LGBTQI rights if people are being forced to wear it then it's false isn't it? They don't support LGBTQI rights so I wouldn't be comfortable with them pretending that they did to avoid trouble.
Educating people and working with them brings about change. Scenarios like this one just drive the wedge in.

I assume the fact he bequeathed his property to the NT indicated that he was comfortable with the idea that posthumously his sexual orientation wouldn't need to be hidden. That's all. It doesn't indicate that he'd want this kind of media circus around people being ordered to wear a rainbow lanyard (or moved to non-public facing roles)

It all smacks to me of naivety.... it's rather like people jumping on the FB ice bucket challenge without having a clue about ALS. There are so many inclusive, informative and authentic angles which the NT could have taken (and are indeed taking in other properties and more widely in places of historical interest) There are loads of ways they could inform and educate about the history of LGBT people, decriminalisation etc. Ordering the volunteers to wear rainbow lanyards isn't one of them imo and while it's given great publicity to felbrigg hall I don't think it's furthered the cause they intended

Londonista

Gosh thank you

The film is here if anyone wants to watch it.

www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/stephen-fry-narrates-university-leicester-226768

I have less of a problem with people refusing to wear the rainbow stuff if they could articulate better why they feel like this and how their stance fits in with the NT Equality and diversity policies (which by being a volunteer they sign up to) - just to apparently claim that the dead owner was shy and the film (unwatched) is "distasteful" feels disingenuous.