Talk:Conrad Russell (letter writer)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Correspondence with Lady Diana Cooper

The relationship between Russell and Lady Diana has long been the subject of gossip in society circles (I wonder what John Julius Norwich makes of it all), but I have removed the reference to two selected items of correspondence with Lady Diana Cooper because (1) an observation that readers of the two letters may question the chasteness of the relationship between Russell and Lady Diana is not convincingly encyclopedic in either tone or content, (2) Lady Diana is unlikely to have printed serious evidence of her marital infidelity in her own autobiography, and (3) the quoted extracts from the letters, although mildly salacious, prove nothing (compare, for example, the racy terms of the correspondence which Evelyn Waugh carried on with his female friends). 45ossington (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duff's behaviour was well known. Why does Diana mention that Duff gave her permission to stray? There it is on the page. I have no idea why you think Diana Cooper would not have printed serious evidence of any affair. She was very proud of her life and her faux pas. So: pride. This was a pretty subtle reference which is easily overlooked. Reading all her diaries you see extensive quotes from Conrad and then occasionally she lets things slip. She effectively edited his letters. To restore good faith??? It's your page I suppose and so maybe your truth. There always was a time when historians showed excessive respect to their topic. Give me the facts - so much more "encyclopedic". Marital infidelity is no longer considered so sacred - and my, neither was it then. P.S. I would agree to "possibly chaste"!Gpbeck (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply. I claim no rights of ownership in the article, and I have replaced "apparently" with "purportedly" as a word calculated to inject more of a note of doubt. Hope that's OK? 45ossington (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]