Tory Historian put to shame

Posted by Tory Historian Monday, July 27, 2009 ,

Well, at least, not to the sword as would have happened in centuries past. It is always pleasant to receive any kind of response to postings, even if they arrive more than a year later. A recent e-mail about last March's blog on Sir Edwin Lutyens did make Tory Historian feel reasonably happy that there were readers around who took the trouble to write but also bitterly ashamed about two unspeakably bad mistakes.

In the first place, there must have been gremlins in the system on the day and Sir Edwin's name appeared as Sir Edward in the title and in the text. Ashes and sackcloth, methinks.

Secondly, different gremlins intervened in the paragraph about Sir Edwin's family life:

There is something ineffably English about Sir Edward’s family life – the five children, born despite a less than happy marriage; the dottiness of his wife, Lady Emily Lutyens (later Lady Lutyens), who had actually proposed to him and insisted on the marriage and who later became fascinated by theosophy, Eastern religions (only some of them, one presumes) and Juddu Krishnamurti; the children, some of whom turned out to be completely conventional, some less so.
It seems clear to Tory Historian that the intention was to write Lady Emily Lutyens somewhere in that sentence rather than later Lady Lutyens but those gremlins worked hard. More ashes and sackcloth. The fact that other people made the same mistake is not an excuse.

As a propitiating act, Tory Historian would like to draw attention to the site of the Lutyens Trust that deals with Sir Edwin Lutyens, his work and his family in some depth.


Powered by Blogger.




Blog Archive