The Lady Hope story is a published account containing identifiable innacuracies. The identification of "Lady Hope" with a particular real lady was done later. It assumes the story was not simply a hoax.
The author was identified only as a "consecrated English woman", "Lady Hope", but research by L.G. Pine a former editor of Burke's Peerage found no other Lady Hope other than Elizabeth Hope who was adult in the 1880s and still alive in 1915.This is your idea of a historical fact. A "could maybe with a few changes have happened" event with a "could have been" author who never clearly identified herself. "Historical fact."
In other words, you consult your convenience first and evidence, if any, second when deciding what is fact. Sure you're not a liberal?
Apparently, Lady Hope is correctly identified, as this link documents. However, neither of the two versions of her story look anything like "historical fact." Her fellow evangelist James Fegan, who knew Darwin far better, did not believe her story.
It's truly amazing the things that can become "historical facts" under this sort of flexible definition of reality. In that sense, the assertion that the Lady Hope - Darwin recantation fable is true has about the same validity as claims that, based on "hanging chads" and "rigged" butterfly ballots, Al Gore actually won the 2000 Presidential election.
IOW, what you are witnessing is the sort of "flexible epistemology" so frequently employed by Losers on the Left, who can't accept the fact that the public rejects their fantasy version of reality. The anti-Evo "warriors," waging le guerre savage against the "evils of Evilootion," use the same technique, and for the same purpose.