Talk:Henry Channon

Untitled

Anyone in London would be kind to tell us what the present state and use of Number 5 Belgrave Square is. Thank you very much. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your question is pretty fully answered, at least as at 2002, in this article about the house Chelseaboy (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Channon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827183119/http://footprints.org/9-000004.htm to http://footprints.org/9-000004.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Chips Channon.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Publication of full diaries

At Amazon.co.uk it is stated (as at 13.09.20) that Volume 1 will now be published on 11 February 2021, although I have not changed the date, as I cannot find a proper reference for this amendment.Sbishop (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Sbishop

The final, third, volume of the diaries was published in September 2022: [1]. They are a fascinating record of Channon's life and times, and contain some material not found elsewhere that would usefully add to various Wikipedia articles.

There is some new material of a political/historical nature (the Abdication crisis, Yugoslavia, the Norway Debate), and much that casts light on the social/historical environment of wealthy gay men, from 1918 to Channon's death: when an indiscretion could, and often did, lead to a jail sentence.

The theee volumes were reviewed extensively: there was a weighty review in the LRB issue of 19 January 2023 [2]. The review, by Geoffrey Wheatcroft, compares Channon's diaries with those of Harold Nicolson, Channon's contemporary, occasional friend, and fellow MP:

The reception of these three volumes has been a striking contrast to the earlier edition. Nicolson today seems conventional, self-satisfied and smug, while Channon, for all his misjudgments, ingratiating behaviour and bigotry, is revealing about public and private life, society and sexuality, and honest about himself to a degree that makes these Diaries a weird kind of masterpiece. He also writes well, and the flashes of self-knowledge are of a kind never found in Nicolson:

Sometimes I think I have the character of a very clever woman – able, but trivial with flair, intuition, great good taste and second-rate ambition. I am susceptible to flattery, and male good looks; I hate and am uninterested in all the things men like, such as sport, business, statistics, debates, speeches, war and the weather; but I am riveted by lust, bibelots, furniture and glamour, society and jewels.

In November 1947, Channon dined with Somerset Maugham. ‘We discussed diaries and Willie Maugham volunteered that mine, if I presented them, would be the most illuminating. Others who keep them are too cautious, i.e. Harold Nicolson.’

I am trying to educate myself on the Wikipedia policies for quoting these Diaries as a source, after an unpleasant experience of having an (admittedly rather poor-taste) edit reverted for a number of different reasons. The issue of course comes down to reliability: WP:RS. Thomas Peardew (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean actually taking quotes from the diaries, or citing them as a source for statements about Channon? If the former, articles should not become compendiia for significant extracts from the original source (bearing in mind also that the diaries are still in copyright). If the latter, there is no reason why specified pages can't be cited as the basis for text you draft about Channon, provided that text is about relevant and significant things, rather than the insignificant - though as your extract makes clear, with Channon it was often the trivial that fascinated him. Sbishop (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. One of the issues raised was whether the diaries were a primary source - which, in view of the editor's added content (nearly a third of the 3,300 pages are footnotes), is itself just possibly debatable. Another was whether, even if it is a primary source, it could still be regarded as reliable. If it is a primary source, I believe any use of it to make a statement about Channon or one of his many acquaintances might be regarded as original research. And so far as I have gathered, with primary sources they should be quoted, or paraphrased, but not relied on to make extended comments on the topic (thus avoiding WP:OR). I am not describing this very well. Thomas Peardew (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The Sudetenland crisis

With all due respect, Sbishop, I appreciate your efforts to improve this article, so please bear that in mind. The Sudetenland crisis was a notable event, and surely a discussion of his role in that crisis linked to reliable sources improves the article. If I understand your objections correctly, you feel that this is too length. It is only one paragraph, so does not seem to be violating the undue weight rule. Furthermore, there is a misconception both at the time and since about the League of the Nations, namely a lot of people seem to think that it had far more power than it actually did. The League of Nations did not have the power to order Great Britain or any other country for that matter to do anything. There are automobile accidents caused by increment weather, automobile accidents caused by a design flaw, and the most numerous (90%) of automobile accidents, those caused by driver error. The League was only as good as the veto-holding members of the League Council were willing to make it good. In this case, there was no chance of the League ordering Britain to go to war for the defense of Czechoslovakia, any more than it had the power to order Britain to go to war for defense of China and Ethiopia. The duties of Channon and the rest of the British delegation were to keep the matter from being raised to spare Britain the embarrassment of having to veto a Czechoslovak request for help should the crisis come to war. Not a lot of people know that, which was why it was included. Finally, it was worthwhile to put this into perspective, to briefly review the attitudes of other states, both pro and contra. To address your concerns, I've let that part out. But seems relevant to include his role in the Sudetenland crisis. To delete all the references to this matter because he was not a significant player is besides the point. This is what he was doing at that movement in time, and surely his role in the Sudetenland crisis is more important than the matter of who was attending his dinner parties. I hope this resolves this issue. Thank you for your time and patience. --A.S. Brown (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sexuality

The Article as at present manages to avoid the words "gay", "bisexual" or "homosexual", though it notes that Channon "began an affair" with Peter Coats in 1939. It fails to mention that this "affair" lasted until Channon's death in 1958, and that the two men had lived together on a permanent basis after Coats' return from military service in India at the close of WWII.

This failure to mention Channon's sexual orientation seems a manifest omission, particularly given the content of the Diaries, which contain innumerable references to his casual encounters with other men, his lengthy sexual friendship with Terence Rattigan, and his final ménage with Coats. For more recent Wikipedia subjects this might not be worth mentioning, but at the time there were severe penalties that could have been imposed had Channon been prosecuted (cf Alan Turing, and Channon's friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu). Thomas Peardew (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Although the label 'bisexual' isn't used in the article, I would have thought that the relationships section makes it fairly clear in overall terms. Ponsonby100 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)