Talk:Kate Brooke

BLP

I have removed a number of inaccurate, unencyclopedic, and/or contentious “facts” in this article, which is a biography of a living person. In general, the section on Brooke’s "early life and education" was unduly (as well as inaccurately) weighted towards genealogical matters of little or no biological significance. And, in particular:

• "Lady", in relation to the wife of a knight, is merely a courtesy title, which (unlike a peerage or damehood) confers no legal status and which the relevant person is under no obligation to adopt. No source is cited for Brooke’s use of a courtesy title and it is discourteous (and arguably sexist, if not misogynistic) to seek to foist it upon her. Any suggestion that she was "designated" as Lady Lovegrove in the London Gazette is simply incorrect.
• "She has an elder brother" is unencyclopedic.
• Kate Brooke’s father was not "a scion of the Viscounts Brookeborough", but merely a cousin (and not even a first cousin) of the first Viscount.
• Kate Brooke’s relationship to the first Viscount Blakenham was stated twice, for no good reason.
• The Brookes generally (and Kate Brooke, in particular) do not "descend from" Basil Stanlake Brooke, who was born as recently as 1888.
• Brooke is not the "great-great-granddaughter of Bertram Sergison-Brooke".

The errors above are not explained by the sources cited and I am driven to wonder whether some AI-scraping may have been involved. I have also removed reference to the allegation that Brooke’s "The Making of a Lady" was racist. The reference had a cited source, but remains libellous by virtue of the repetition rule applicable under the law of England and Wales (per Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 24th edition, at paras. 21-28 and 21-217).

45ossington (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for starting this discussion. Incidentally, your concerns, especially related to the inclusion of her family background and the courtesy title mirror the concerns brought forward by Kate Brooke herself who created an account last month to remove the same text that you did. She then contacted another editor for help and was informed that her edits are a conflict of interest. Brooke also took an issue with the article lacking her work credentials, and I had some time on my hands. So, I spent the next couple of days expanding the article, bit by bit, which is clearly evident in the recent history. No AI-scrapping, I’m afraid.

To address your other concerns:

I’d hardly call three sentences about her family background “unduly weighted towards genealogical matters.” I did go back to check the sources again and made necessary changes, further shortening the text and making some corrections. These include:

(a) Removed the “scion of Viscounts Brookeborough.” I looked at the family tree again, and you were right to point out that he’s not in line for Viscount succession.

(b) I personally don’t think mentioning the existence of her brother is unencyclopaedic, but I’ve removed that as well.

(c) Viscount Blakenham was mentioned in context of her being the granddaughter of John Hare. I am sure you will agree that’s a good enough reason. I did copy-edit to mention it only once. Also corrected her relationship with Bertram Sergison-Brooke. She’s also his granddaughter (Timothy Mark is his son and Kate Brooke’s father). All of this is supported by the sources added by the way. I’m happy to share page numbers of the books cited, if you’d like further verification.

(d) The Brookes, as you rightly pointed out, don’t descend from Basil Stanlake Brooke (1888) but Basil Brooke (1560s) so I’ve updated to reflect that. Guess I got my Basils confused!

(e) I’ve reinstated the AV Club review. I’m sure you can point me in the direction of where this review has been identified as libellous, in case there has been a lawsuit I’m not aware of. Or are we now claiming that unfavourable reviews from reliable sources are libellous just because?

(f) A bit far-fetched to assert that I’m foisting the courtesy title upon her and also being sexist/misogynistic. The London Gazette was actually the source for her husband being knighted. I’d also like to point out that until last year, the courtesy title was in use (in the legal sense, if you will) until she filed to drop it. Either way, I don’t have any major disagreements about not including it. I’ve simply reinstated a line on the knighthood.

Hope this is helpful. Do let me know if you have any further concerns! Baberoothless (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response and your engagement with my concerns, as well as the corrections you have made. In response to the invitation in your final sentence, I think there are three points which I would raise for your further consideration:

1. I see the argument that the identity of Bertram Sergison-Brooke as Brooke's grandfather is biographically significant, but I am uncomfortable with lumbering her with an expressly "Anglo-Irish" identity which bears little relationship to current reality. Bertram himself (according to his article) was born in London and made his home in Sussex and I have seen nothing which suggests that there was a significant continuing connection between him and Ireland - let alone, between his granddaughter and Ireland. I also think that women who have achieved success on their own merits are sometimes shoehorned into a patrilineal narrative which can be both unfair and demeaning (though I certainly don't suggest that that is your intention). I would therefore ask you to consider removing the following sentence: "The Brookes are a prominent Anglo-Irish family, descending from the English Army captain Basil Brooke, that settled in Northern Ireland before the Plantation of Ulster."

2. I am not aware that the AV review has previously been identified as libellous, or has been the subject of a lawsuit, but that of course does not mean that the review is not libellous. It seems to me that to describe a work of art as "racist" is seriously defamatory and, if that is right, then the libel is not avoided by attributing the description to an earlier source (hence my reference to the "repetition rule" in English libel law). Would you accept replacement of the offensive word "racist" with some phrase such as "unjustifiably formulaic"?

3. The fact that Brooke's husband, Stephen Lovegrove, has been the UK's National Security Adviser is clearly significant, but the fact that he was awarded a GCMG in 2024 seems to me to be a fact squarely about him, rather than about Brooke. (See above, re successful women and patrilineal narratives...). Would you consider removing the sentence "He was appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George (GCMG) in the 2024 New Year Honours"?

Thanking you in advance, 45ossington (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again for your response and sharing your concerns. Really appreciate your engagement on the topic so far!

1. I acknowledge and agree with your concerns about successful women often being shoehorned into a patrilineal narrative, however, in this case, we have to consider the following things:

The Brookes’ Anglo-Irish identity is long established by numerous factors, most importantly, their settlement in Northern Ireland before the Plantation of Ulster. This is confirmed in the Debrett's peerage and baronetage. I’m pasting the exact text for your reference: “Sir Basil Brooke was one of the Captain of the English Army selected to take reinforcements to Ireland in 1598. He served in Munster and under Lord Docwra in the conquest of Ulster; was a servitor in the Plantation and was one of the commissioners for the settlement of the Irish Church. He was Governer of Donegal country and therein received large grants of land, including the Borough and the castle of Donegal, both of which he rebuilt, and in the banqueting-hall of the latter are still to be seen the arms of the Brookes of Leighton impaling Leycester of Toft.”

The Brookes’ connection to Ireland is also detailed at-length in Viscount Brookeborough. In addition, more details about individual family members (including Bertram whose father was born in Ireland) and mentions of their Anglo-Irish identities can be found on their own Wikipedia pages with reliable sources. With such an unquestionable documented proof of the Brookes’ Anglo-Irish identity that goes back generations, I see no reason to omit this detail from the page.

2. Description of a work of art as “racist” is not necessarily “defamatory.” Plenty of works of art are described as such, and in some cases rightly so. Positing that describing something as “racist” is inherently “defamatory” sets a dangerous precedent, don’t you think? I think a better alternative in this case would be to put racist in quotes to further clarify that it’s a direct quote from the review. What do you think?

3. I think the GCMG award is worth the mention considering that it’s not a run-of-the-mill recognition. I’m failing to see how it takes anything away from Brooke’s body of work considering that the entire article focuses explicitly on that. The whole reason why I decided to expand the article to include her projects was to address similar concerns highlighted by Brooke insofar that the previous version of the page was more focused on her family. At present, her page has less than five sentences that are not about her. Omitting even the slightest information about her family, including her husband, that potentially conveys the existence of societal privilege seems unencyclopaedic.

With all due respect, I feel that we are trying to take a rather PR-like approach to this page by removing anything that doesn't seem favourable to Brooke or her work. Retaining the text under discussion doesn't correlate with the intention to defame or be sexist. Curious to hear your thoughts, ofc! Baberoothless (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello; I've acted on your suggestion of adding inverted commas around the word "racist". The cited reference now appears to be the DNB, rather than a review; apologies if that's a glitch which I inadvertently introduced while editing. On your other points:

• I won't pursue the point further at this juncture, but I think we'll have to agree to differ on whether the history of the Brooke family is biographically significant. (To take an admittedly absurd example: I wouldn't myself include in an article about the founders of Macdonald's the fact that they were descended from an ancient Highland Scottish clan, whose chief had for a number of generations borne the title of Lord of the Isles.)
• Ditto, in respect of Lovegrove's GCMG.
• I have been aiming, not at PR, but at accuracy and balance. On the former, I think you have accepted that a number of amendments were necessary. On the latter, we take different views about the value of information relating to Brooke's connections (the inclusion or removal of which does not seem to me to raise any "PR" issues).

Thank you in any event for your courteous engagement with my concerns. 45ossington (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2026 (UTC)