Gay Pride ad a new 'equality gap'?

Apparently he left his house to the NT after the death of his brother Richard in the battle of Crete in 1941 the assumption being that he did so because he would not produce a successor.

This man left his house to the NT for the enrichment of all who wished to visit it. He did not leave the NT the right to reveal intimate details of his personal life.

As you've said Chewbacca his family and friends have respected his right to privacy, but the NT who've benefited from his generosity hasn't.

The hall where I volunteer is displaying it's connection with Indian independence 70 years ago. I haven't been made to wear a yellow, white and green lanyard. Should I sulk?

How do you know, Smileless?
Have you seen his will?
Have you seen the deeds to the house?

You are exactly right Jalima1108. Both Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson have chosen to keep their private lives private. Remember all the rumours of homosexuality that swept round Gordon Brown before his marriage? Afterwards the names of a number of his girlfriends became known and it became clear he was and always had been heterosexual. Peter Mandelson has neither come out of the closet nor hidden himself in it. He has had a number of male partners but he has never said anything.

In Ketton-Cremers day, and he did not die until 1969 at the young age of 63, there were plenty of people in the public eye who, while they never said they were homosexual, it was generally known that they were. Names that come to mind, without even thinking are Noel Coward and Stephen Tennant. Lord Behrens, the great aesthete, lived at Faringdon House near me with his boyfriend for many years, he died in 1960. There are very many more whose names could easily be found.

From everything I have heard and read. Mr Ketton-Cremer was one of life's naturally quiet and reticent people in every way. I see no reason why his sexuality should be hidden: a few casual references to it in the guide book and in the house, where relevant would seem more in keeping with his character than this flaunting of it in a way that I feel is out of keeping at this particular house.

I have complained before about the way in a number of their houses the NT decide what the story of the house is and then force feed you at every stage with that story, regardless of what story about the house interests you. I think this is part and parcel of the whole current NT belief that we, the broader British public, are too stupid and ill-educated to be able to appreciate their properties on our own terms. Challenge them and they will accuse you of being arrogant and intellectual (since when has that been an insult?). I know, because I did and was so described.

Helen Ghosh, their director is, thank god, leaving to be Master of Balliol College. They are welcome to her.

Equality gap, eh?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/homosexuality-decriminalisation-50-gay-sex-unnatural-rights-british-people-believe-same-sex-a7862191.html

This is why the story of Felbrigg should be told in full.

Such a fuss, as well, considering it was only ten volunteers who refused to wear the badges. Obviously the ones with the loudest voices.

dj, there were only six Tolpuddle martyrs.

'Annabel Smith, head of volunteering and participation development at the Trust, said volunteers sign up to the organisation's "founding principles" of promoting equality of opportunity and inclusion. '

Those who volunteer do realise what you sign up to, don't you?

Thank goodness the NT are a more enlightened bunch than you lot.
I don't think that is a fair comment. No-one on here seems 'unenlightened'.

Telling the story without mentioning his sexuality is one thing but for the NT to use his sexuality to promote their current agenda is wrong because it is not their memory to use.
Even if homosexuality was legal when he was alive then he may have preferred to keep his private life private as do many other people.
His sexuality has been made by the NT to be the major aspect of his life and there was far more to his life than that.

Yes, the NT seem to be choosing a certain period of history or one particular owner relating to their properties, regardless of how old they are and concentrating on the 'interesting story' of that period in time. Ask a question other than that relating to that narrow period and it is difficult to find the answer.

promoting equality of opportunity and inclusion.
Not a lot of opportunity or inclusion for the owner who donated the property because he is dead and can't speak for himself.

How do I know what dj? No, I haven't seen his will and I haven't seen the deeds to his house, have you?

I think it's more than reasonable to assume that neither his will or the deeds to his house explicitly mention his sexual preference or whether or not he wished his very private life to be made public. If either had I'm pretty sure the NT would have made that public along with everything else.

Since when was insisting NT volunteers wear badges in support of anything other than the NT or they'll be out of the public gaze promoting equality of opportunity and inclusion? They were not given the opportunity to decline and carry on as normal, they were to be hidden away. Those not wishing to wear the badges were to be excluded from their normal role if that bought them in direct contact with members of the public.

I'm sure those who sign up as volunteers do know what they're signing up too which is why they were expecting to be able to make their own decision and not have the NT's forced upon them.

Check the earlier link it's been LGBTQ year at the NT since January, if they were so upset about it they've had plenty of time to say so. And sorry if you don't understand how important it is to gay people that their stories are heard then you are "Unenlightened" And if one child is taken around an NT property and hears a story that makes them realise it is OK to be gay then I really don't think all this anguishing about a dead man's wishes means a thing and he would probably be pleased to think his story had helped.

In which case, Smileless you do not know that

'This man left his house to the NT for the enrichment of all who wished to visit it. He did not leave the NT the right to reveal intimate details of his personal life.'

Any more than I do. You are just making assumptions. His family were not that close, as he didn't leave it to any of them.

We are all making assumptions dj you've just made another "His family were not that close, as he didn't leave it to any of them".

Perhaps his family couldn't afford to live in such a large property.

My brother is gay, so are our neighbours. It's important to them that their stories are heard and what's more important is that they choose whether or not their stories are told.

I wonder if Anne Boleyn or Elizabeth 1 would like all the stories and conjecture there has been about their sex lives? Or doesn't that matter, because it was long ago, because they were women or for some other obscure reason. They are dead, he is dead. No one knows what they might have thought and stories will be told about them. That's the nature of the thing it's called HISTORY. It's what the NT does.

So what exactly is your argument trisher? This is the first time you've supported the publicity of this man's sexual preferences because it could be regarded as being of historical importance, as with the intimate details of the lives of Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth the 1st.

Your argument has up till now been based on the importance of all, regardless of their sexual preferences to be accepted, which of course they should be.

trisher you are missing the point in every post. Nobody should have to support anything by wearing an overt symbol of anything full stop.

I expect that you and durhamjen don't wear red poppies ( I may be wrong on that, but seem to remember it from when we had a poppy thread.)

If you worked for the NT and they tried to make you wear red poppies ( rather than white) then all on here would be on your side about it.

Some posters feel that they are so young, or 'young at heart' that they feel they can label anybody else 'an old fart'.... It makes me laugh.

I would say I don't support red poppies because of the links between the British Legion and arms dealing and withdraw myself from any activity that required me to wear one. I would do it quietly without making a huge issue of it.

It's a dual argument Smileless2012 firstly that the story should be told because the stories of gay people need to be told. And to counter the argument that he wouldn't have wanted it, stories about people in history are just that and no-one can exercise control over them when you are dead.

The survey to which you provided a link at 1514, durhamjen, makes depressing if not surprising reading. But I cannot see why it demonstrates that the "story of Felbrigg should be told in full".

If K-C had taken some kind of public stand for gay rights, or had provided a haven for gays at Felbrigg Hall, that would be relevant and interesting, but he didn't.