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

They have been doing a lot of work on the LGBTQI+ history of the houses and supporting Pride this year. At my local Pride they were giving away vouchers for free entry to their nearby properties. And I think that overall, that's a good thing. But making a big deal of outing someone who was very much closeted and who has living relatives who are upset on his behalf makes me quite uncomfortable.

So I'm torn, really. On the one hand, I do think that it's important to tell the stories of LGBTQI+ people in the past. But telling stories of the recent past, especially when they are the stories of private lives, needs to be done sensitively, and I suspect the NT hasn't got this quite right in this case.

*She said she did not think the film should have been made because Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer was "a private man".

The volunteer said she had not seen the film but had heard "it was distasteful".*

Is it acceptable to out someone who did not out themselves? I don't think it is.

It's as though guerilla gay-lib has reached the shires isn't? Remember The Face? It's as though they've moved into the Stately home sector

Didn't he leave everything to the NT?If he wanted to keep his sexuality secret forever he would have surely destroyed his diaries. Ignoring his sexuality simply sends out a message to younger gay customers that it is an area to keep hidden.

“With the case of Robert, the people we interviewed were clear that we weren’t outing him because amongst those who knew him, this was widely accepted.”

IroningMountain. Maybe I was wrong and things have not moved on as far as I thought ? I based my statement on the fact that I work with an openly gay woman who always refers to her partner as "the wife" and no one bats an eye lid.

I'm not anti gay but I would object to my work (voluntary or paid) making me wear a badge to support a cause they had chosen.

So his feelings, his family's feelings don't matter? When you're dead people should have the right to publish your personal diaries and exploit something you guarded closely in life - to make money

exactly!

Is it acceptable to out someone who did not out themselves? I don't think it is.

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

Sounds reasonable to me.

I don't think I'm a particular prude but don't really feel its necessary to broadcast sexuality either.
But then I'm guessing you're straight and therefore haven't had to face discrimination because you happen to be attracted to your own sex? It's not broadcasting it per se, it's acknowledging it. I got accused of "flaunting my sexuality" once - I was just kissing my girlfriend in a work social event, exactly the same as a male colleague had done to his GF. Strangely enough the only comments he got were along the lines of "isn't that nice" (from the middle-aged women hoping for wedding bells!)

Is this a question of trying to turn a national trust property into "the one with the gay owner" and the volunteers feeling this is a limited focus? Sorry it seems that there is more to the story and I am struggling to read between the lines.

They've been doing a lot of work "uncovering the LGBT histories" of various of their properties and are running a "gay season" this year, essentially.

So far, so good.

Arm twisting (predominantly older) volunteers into wearing the LGBT branding on their persons was unnecessary, though, I think. They've created a petty battleground where there was no need for one.

I don't give a stuff if the gentleman in question was shy about it

So his feelings, his family's feelings don't matter? When you're dead people should have the right to publish your personal diaries and exploit something you guarded closely in life - to make money?

Nobody should feel ashamed of being gay or feel the need to hide it.

Well no, they shouldn't. But you have no idea why this man chose to keep his private life, private. You shouldn't project your own views onto his life, that he lived.

How is showing support being disrespectful?

If I was visiting a house I wouldn't really feel the need to know if the owner was hetero, gay or liked to sleep with pet donkeys. I dont think its right to blow this up if the owner had been quiet about being gay. Maybe different if the house belonged to someone like Quentin Crisp. Also the LGBT thing has spread its net far wider than gay rights now and many are not supportive of all of those strands.

It's not an objection to wearing rainbow badges that is the issue for the volunteers though - they are made to wear the badges at this particular property to tie in with the film, 'The Unfinished Portrait', that the NT has just made about the owner, which is intrusive his private life.

www.nationaltrust.org.uk/felbrigg-hall-gardens-and-estate/features/stephen-fry-reveals-previously-untold-lgbtq-history

Dressed do they no longer own the house? If so not really in a place to complain. It is a badge not an intrusive study. A badge! The fact wearing a simple badge to show support is deemed so distasteful speaks volumes and says a lot re the type volunteering at said property.

The reports I've read have all focused on the volunteers' being deeply uncomfortable with the outing of the previous owner. I can see that if they have lived in the area for a long time and known the family and possibly even the man himself, and spent a long time volunteering in the house and developing an affection for the former residents, that they might well feel very strongly that the NT are being disrespectful towards the heritage of the house itself.

I do get the feeling that the NT want their very own version of Shibden Hall.

If it is about homophobia, then that's not on. But I don't think it is, necessarily.

Has anyone considered that the previous owner was a 'very private man' because had he not been he would have ended up in jail.
Exactly! He couldn't dance around wearing a lanyard could he!! For all his family know he might have loved the fact that his sexuality is no longer a secret.
I can't see the point of those lanyards to be honest (and it winds me up that the message is upside down when they're round your neck) but if you're employed by the NT then if they ask you to wear something as part of your uniform you have two choices - wear it or quit your job. Just the same as if you didn't think you looked good in whatever colour the top they give you.

YANBU.

Forcing people into things backfires. You most especially can't force liberal social attitudes into someone.

I'd rather they were doing such amazing narrative interpretation work at the property that hearts were being touched.

Coercing people into rainbow badge wearing is just petty, silly and closes minds against something they perceive as bullying.

I do feel things have moved on quite a bit, the gay NDNs that we had, one of them worked for a big oil firm and felt that he had to take a female to work do's with him, rather than him partner.

This seems to boil down to "are you anti gay" or "are you against outing a private man"

I visited Felbrigg in May and the volunteers clearly adore the house and its last owner. They didn't seem bigots to me, just very protective.

I think the NT has good intentions, but probably chose the wrong house as a flagship.

Agree with Toysaurus that NH management imho can be very high handed.

I can't help thinking that we will know that we have achieved true equality for the LGBT community when the sexuality of a home's former owner is not an issue (or is simply one factor among many) but I could be wrong.

I don't give a stuff if the gentleman in question was shy about it or if his family are against this( do we know this as fact).

Yes, we do know it as a fact, they have been widely quoted in the press.

I feel historically sexuality and sexual relations went on behind closed doors. I don't think I'm a particular prude but don't really feel its necessary to broadcast sexuality either. Its sort of exhibitionist. Sex is a fantastic thing but not a public one. I wonder if some of the volunteers are more uncomfortable with the discussion of sex being an open and public issue more than the sexuality issues?

I would stand up for rights of any minority and defend against discrimination but don't really understand the need for such public displays/ declarations of sexuality.

Pride is great for extroverts, anyone who wants to say look this is me and I'm proud, its fab and that enthusiasm and happiness in what ever leads to the declaration is great and brings a smile to many, including myself - enthusiasm for almost any cause is infectious. But society is a whole mix of people as well as sexualities.

Why can't we all just enjoy living alongside each other with as much tolerance of differances as possible without having to constantly declare I support this group or that group or I acknowledge this groups existance or that groups existance?