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

[lucydogz]

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-norfolk-40825660&ved=0ahUKEwjXzYeYwb_VAhUDB8AKHfOABAsQiJQBCJcCMCU&usg=AFQjCNESdvsFPzoWQVu_7i8WHq_3mutfKA&ampcf=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">link
I'm pro-inclusion of minority groups, but think the NT should stick to doing it's job - looking after old houses. As most of its volunteers are retired, who might not want to be representatives of whatever right-on case the Trust decide to espouse,it's also short sighted of them to treat volunteers this way.

How is showing support being disrespectful?

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.

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 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!)

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

Sounds reasonable to me.

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

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!

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.

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.

“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.”

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.

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

*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".*

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.

I think the driving concern behind this has been finding enough "hidden histories" for each area.

@Nikephorus, you have been clearly discriminated against and could raise that as an issue with HR if it was a works event.

My works events were almost entirely male and tended to be just colleagues, engineering environment, kissing wouldn't have been appropriate regardless of who it was.

So who do we believe, people that actually knew him and said he was already out, or some bigoted volunteer who didn't even watch the film but says he was "a private person" when what she meant was "Eww gay we should sweep that under the carpet".

340 of the volunteers were fine to wear the lanyards and badges, only 10 bigots out of 350, could be worse.

"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."

• agree with this stance in general terms but not when it's relating to an individual person, whose thoughts and wishes none of us are privy to. Felbrigg Hall has been chosen because of the fact that after his death, the NT discovered evidence that the previous owner was gay.

I also think in this particular case the stance taken by the NT is counter productive. People are going to feel less sympathetic to what they are trying to achieve because frankly I think they're barking up the wrong tree- focusing on one individual and publicising one aspect of his life which is disproportionate and smacks of jumping on the 50th Anniversary bandwagon in a rather naive way. They could have tapped into the current celebrations of the 50th anniversary in a far more informative and authentic way than getting their volunteers to wear rainbow lanyards

Yes it's ridiculous. Where's my 'I'm straight and proud' badge?

You don't know that they ARE bigoted @notevilstepmother.

That's such an easy extrapolation to leap to but it might not be true.

I agree. It is unnecessary to turn a visit to a NT house into something like this.

So who do we believe, people that actually knew him and said he was already out, or some bigoted volunteer who didn't even watch the film but says he was "a private person" when what she meant was "Eww gay we should sweep that under the carpet

Eh? Many who knew him said he was an intensely private person and would likely have not wanted what the NT have done.

I think the badge should be optional

The bottom line for me is that I don't agree with outing people who didn't or wouldn't have wanted to be outed.

I'm very pro gay rights but I would have been arguing for them not to out him if I'd been a volunteer.

I thought the days of public outings were firmly behind us. Really poor show from NT, to go against his family's wishes. I cancelled my membership last month and I'm glad I did.