Talk:Robert Hugh Benson

Austin Osman Spare
Surprisingly, Robert Hugh Benson was close enough to occultist Austin Osman Spare as to letting (or inviting him) stay where he lived for a while, when Spare was seventeen years old. I think there should be a mention of this. Here's the link: http://www.luckymojo.com/austinosmanspare.html. I know, I know, the website could use a nicer name, or a more respectable one at best, but it's a serious essay.

Life in the World Unseen
Deserves a mention, doesn't it? More Light, Here and Hereafter, More About Life in the World Unseen, and Facts all deserves mention too.--DnivyØ (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support that. As the supposed source of a series of some of the very best books on life after death, it seems closed minded to totally ignore this aspect. There is a further book, Heaven and Earth that I am also aware of. 6th Sept 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.26.30 (talk) 06:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Reason for early death?
He died at a pretty early age. The cause/occasion of death should be given note, I believe. KBurchfiel (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

His brother, AC Benson, was present at his death and wrote a memoir shortly thereafter. In it, he talks about pneumonia as the final cause. However, he talks about him having breathlessness accompanied by pain for a significant time prior. RH Benson was a heavy smoker and it is likely that he had some type of lung disease and died of pneumonia as a secondary infection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.170.130.76 (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sodomite Calumny
The footnote 3 insinuation that Fr. Benson was a sodomite is nauseating. This "evidence" is flimsy at best and should thus be removed. It's the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia its bad reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.247.102 (talk) 07:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's right, he was not a sodomite but a homosexual as well as his brothers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.153.110.6 (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The evidence given for Benson's homosexuality is very weak if not imaginary. The reference, Hilliard, David. "UnEnglish and UnManly: Anglo-Catholicism and Homosexuality" in Victorian Studies, Winter 1982., David Hilliard cites page 96 of C. C. Martindale's "The life of Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson" Volume 2 and reading the original, it is very clear that the correspondence with Rolfe was about his admiration for "Hadrian VII" to get a new Rolfe manuscript published and not some torrid series of love letters. See pages 94 and thereafter. http://archive.org/stream/lifeofmonsignorr02martuoft#page/94/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.77.224 (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There isn’t clearly nothing "documented" (and how do you "document" an idea like "homosexuality" to begin with, as it requires precise assumptions anyway). All these annotations should be removed and replaced by actual data about his relationship with Frederick Rolfe, especially as related to the literary work and "The Lord of the World" based on factual documentation. I am going to edit the page and I will add information as I find it. (Etpicci (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC))

User Drmies wrote that I "removed reliable sources and offered editorial commentary in an apparent effort to "clean up" someone's reputation. that's not how wikipedia works". These "reliable sources" amount to a modern (2007) internet article which merely fantasizes and quotes unrelated passages from Reginald Watt’s biography of Benson and an arbitrary phrase from a modern author (Brian Masters), without even giving the source for the latter. I am thus removing once again these arbitrary assumptions, which have nothing of factual. That’s not how Wikipedia works. I own most of Benson's material in first edition (including all period biographies) and can check and quote whatever needed, if so. Etpicci (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Gallery doubles
Is there a good reason to have doubles of so many gallery images? Understand they are from the same photograph & studio, & then as line reproductions in a relevant book, but is it worth just keeping singles with note that they also appear as line illustrations in a publication? I'd like to do it with a box for WP Commons for the surplus. Can someone give me the go-ahead? Thanks. Manytexts (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)