Talk:Lady Susan Hussey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Insensitive"[edit]

The article currently describes Hussey's questions as "insensitive". Whilst that is true, the more precise thing to say is that they were racist. Someone with edit access should add that in. 2A00:23C4:6B13:D801:1891:A8CF:CD1:2A5B (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Locking the article to protect a racist from being called racist is, in itself, a racist act. 88.98.86.179 (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how you contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. --Killuminator (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Of course, this section of the article has been amended a number of times to fit various perspectives. The most important thing is that it should be neutral. TrottieTrue (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Racism has been alleged, not proven. HguIEff (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see Wikipedia once again showing its leftwing bias by its persistent use of the term racist. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense isn't it and not in line with how wiki should work. Asking where someone is from is not racist in itself. There are plenty of black voices who disagree with the narrative that it is. Clear left wing neo- marxist identity obsessive bias here. We are to remain impartial and objective. Sadly, wiki is now a battlefield for the culture wars.Glaaaastonbury88 (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

advised Diana + Meghan[edit]

Lady Susan was asked to help both Princess Diana and Meghan Markle adjust to royal life when they married into royal life. (source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63812608) 87.170.193.114 (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that in now. TrottieTrue (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Hussey rather than Baroness?[edit]

Should Hussey not be referred to as Lady Hussey of North Bradley. She was married to a life peer (Baron) so doesn’t that make her a Lady rather than a Baroness as she wasn’t a Baroness in her own right? Happy to be told that I am incorrect on this. JLo-Watson (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The practice is to refer to life peeresses as Baroness vs Lady, whereas the wife of a life peer would be referred to as Lady while being a Baroness, same as the wives of hereditary Barons. However, there seems to be a precedent of referring to daughters of peers married to life peers by Lady FIRST NAME MARRIED NAME, the 16 December 2022 statement from the palace refers to her as "Lady Susan Hussey", and if I recall correctly, the palace refers to Lady Jane Fellowes as such, rather than Lady Fellowes. So, I think we should title the article "Lady Susan Hussey" with "Susan Katharine Hussey, Baroness Hussey of North Bradley" as the first line and "The Lady Hussey of North Bradley" in the infobox. Richiepip (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farage's counter claim[edit]

I've added reference Nigel Farage's counter-claim that Fulani was 'looking for trouble' using direct quotes from Sky News. Was asked to bring this to the talk page, so here it is. Feel it's accurate and relevant. HguIEff (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just thought that "part of a premeditated attack on the royal family" was WP:SYNTH. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The parts about a premeditated attack were, in fact, said, but I take your point and have kept to the reported facts 51.9.28.200 (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not that accurate if the second part of your quote (starting with 'While it’s terrible') didn't actually come from Farage, but Wootton according to the given Yahoo citation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point but why, then remove the entire section rather than just correcting it? HguIEff (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. This person did.[1] The question has to be asked why these two commentators' opinions about Fulani are important enough to include in an article about Hussey. The other quotes directly discuss Hussey. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why Wootton and Farage are noteworthy, and the quotes here are about Fulani not about Hussey. Don't belong in this biography. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions[edit]

Can I just ask why we're including the reactions of various unconnected people (like Farage/Wooton) who have no relationship with either Hussey (the actual subject of this article, lest we forget), Fulani or Buckingham Palace generally. Can understand including the views of a close friend like Wyatt or the Prime Minister, but I propose we leave it there and remove any others.

This is particularly true when they're comments more about Fulani, not Hussey. If we include these two, where does one draw the line? Should we have a citation for every reaction to Hussey's resignation? That way madness lies... OGBC1992 (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. I see now that only one editor (an SPA who seems determined to include as much negative content about Fulani as possible) has argued for inclusion and not given any justification, while three plus some IPS have expressed opposition, so will remove. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 January 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Hussey, Lady Hussey → Lady Susan Hussey – WP:COMMONNAME; there seems to be a practice of referring to daughters of dukes/marquesses/earls married to life peers as Lady FIRSTNAME SURNAME, the statement from the palace on Hussey's meeting with Ngozi Fulani[2] refers to her as Lady Susan Hussey, as does the The Telegraph and the BBC in their coverage of her. Richiepip (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support That appears to be both the common and official form of her name per the Palace statement and news coverage. Keivan.fTalk 21:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very clear common name. She was only known as Lady Susan Hussey until her husband was ennobled in 1996. She is now formally Baroness Hussey of North Bradley, but is still commonly known by her previous style. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed changes[edit]

Hi 13tez, Keivan.f, Pol098, RichiePip and TrottieTrue, I have a conflict of interest and have some suggestions for corrections and clarifications on the article. I have a personal connection to the article subject, and I noticed that you all had recent/extensive contributions to this article and a solid wider body of edits, so I would appreciate it if I could get consensus from previous actors on the page rather than adding these myself.

The first point is that the article currently reports that Hussey "resigned", when the official Buckingham Palace statement used the wording "stepped aside". There are also reliable sources which note that using the term resignation is not necessarily synonymous and makes assumptions. Following her return to duties, coverage in the Times noted that "Although most media outlets said when the row erupted at the end of November that Hussey had resigned, the palace statement merely said that she had "stepped aside". It is understood that Hussey did not consider that she had permanently resigned her position in the household." https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lady-susan-hussey-returns-to-royal-duties-after-race-row-7wx2fmtql

To address this, I suggest editing the sentence to include the statement wording and avoid original research/conclusions, from "Once the conversation became public, Lady Hussey resigned from the royal household and apologised via the Buckingham Palace press office."

to

"Once Fulani’s account of the conversation became public, Lady Hussey stepped aside from her honorary role and apologised via the Buckingham Palace press office."

The second point is that the paragraph on the meeting which took place on December 16 has been edited down to avoid direct quotes and now doesn’t fully reflect the statement it is summarising. I would propose that this paragraph be restored as follows:

"On 16 December, Hussey and Fulani met at Buckingham Palace to address the incident, with Hussey offering her apologies in person which Fulani accepted. A joint statement was released afterwards, reporting that the meeting was "filled with warmth and understanding" and that Fulani accepted the apology and "appreciates that no malice was intended"."

Thank you for your help and I appreciate any advice. Heratula (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I did edit this article a fair bit after the incident so that it read in a more balanced way. Having looked at your suggestions, they seemed reasonable enough, so I added them. One thing, in future it might be helpful to state exactly which citations can be used as sources for the suggested changes. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've been notified, I'll respond; I don't have any strong feelings, and I don't think I changed the meaning much beyond using wording closer to sources (plus several improvement to references). Regarding "stepped aside": by all means stay closer to sources. Regarding "filled with warmth and understanding" and that Fulani accepted the apology and "appreciates that no malice was intended": that strikes me as usual platitudes and I would tend to drop it. However, I repeat that I merely respond because I was notified, and have no strong opinion and probably won't intervene whatever happens. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both for your help and explanations! Heratula (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm a little bit late and I see the necessary changes have been made. In short, I also agree with the suggestions and did not find them controversial. While it is encouraged to avoid lengthy quotes, in this case it'd be better to keep them because the subject is a sensitive one and clarification is necessary. Cheers. Keivan.fTalk 22:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daughter[edit]

If Katharine Brooke (Susan Hussey's daughter) is an official companion of Queen Camilla, why isn't she listed on the page where the hyperlink for "companions" in Susan Hussey's page directs to?

For reference, it's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady-in-waiting#United_Kingdom Jellinator (talk) Jellinator (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lady_Susan_Hussey&oldid=1207676247"