Please forward this newsletter to family members, friends and acquaintances you think might be supportive of our aims to return the National Trust to its statutory aims and charitable ethos, and encourage them to sign up to Restore Trust’s regular newsletter for our latest updates.

Together we can restore trust in the National Trust.

The recently-released Spring 2023 edition of the National Trust’s magazine does little to alleviate the concerns of many members surrounding the Trust’s departure from its statutory objectives.

The “National Trust AGM Report 2022” (pp.20–21) contains an oddly rosy account of the events at last year’s AGM. There is no mention of the fact that card-carrying National Trust members who had wanted to attend the AGM were prevented from doing so, ostensibly due to a shortage of places, although there were many spare seats on the day. Nor is there any indication of the very lively—at times fraught—debate that took place between Trust members and the Trust’s management team, who chose to deflect many of the questions from the floor.

Moreover, the reasons provided in the article for the Trust’s recommendations to vote against the two resolutions put forward by Restore Trust at the AGM do not ring true. With regard to our resolution to create a National Trust ombudsman to ensure that the Trust is accountable to those who support it, we are told that “the Trust explained that it has a robust multi-level structure for complaints, and an ombudsman would duplicate that and cause unnecessary expense”. This is not supported by the evidence. At present Trust volunteers and junior staff do not have a method of seeking redress and their complaints are often ignored or dismissed. We know this because a huge number have written to tell us so, mostly anonymously; a staff member and volunteer who had allowed us to publish their letters on our website with their names were immediately suspended by Trust management.

With regard to our resolution to abolish the Chair’s discretionary proxy vote, the article states simply that “the response was that the use of discretionary proxy vote is common across many organisations”. That may be so, but a) that does not mean it is a democratic system and b) it does not address our point about the fact that discretionary proxy vote was abolished several years ago for the election of Council candidates. In any case, as we know the National Trust brought in a new, even more undemocratic voting system to defeat all member-led attempts at reform at the AGM; perhaps unsurprisingly this crucial fact, which explains the astounding AGM results on which the magazine lays such stress, does not feature at all in the National Trust-approved version of what took place at the AGM.

The magazine also includes articles about Clandon (see next section) and about Sudbury Hall (see penultimate section of newsletter) which give a partial account of the highly controversial National Trust projects.

The full-page blog-like message “From the Director-General”, on p.25 of the magazine, sees Hilary McGrady discuss the work of the National Trust only in terms of nature, without mentioning its critical role in preserving many of our nation’s historic houses. The lack of emphasis coming from the top of the charity on the houses and collections (and even cultivated gardens) that the NT cares for as part of its statutory purpose (Hilary McGrady’s piece is followed by two several-page-long pieces entitled “Let’s talk about nature”, pp.27–31, and “Bring on the blossom”, pp.33–37) raises concerns. One case of Trust neglect which has recently come to our attention, for instance, is the 18th century, Grade II-listed Wool House Barn in Loose, Kent, which according to locals has been left covered in scaffolding for years and is an eyesore (see image below).

OCTAVIA HILL LECTURE 2023: THE RE-TELLING OF HISTORY, AND CLANDON

Why does the National Trust apparently feel more comfortable dealing with nature than with its historic houses? Neil MacGregor seems to provide an answer in his recent Octavia Hill Lecture, during which he talks of “the divergent implications of the Trust's two main purposes, because unlike sites of natural beauty, places of historic interest have the inherent capacity to divide us. For what intrigues us in history is no more fixed and static than the natural beauty of the planting on the Rievaulx Terrace and just as the trees and the shrubs there need to be constantly culled, tended and amended, so the ways in which we present the narratives of the past, our history, need to be regularly re-thought and re-shaped.”

MacGregor proceeds to give as a case study Kedleston Hall in Derbyshire, where he says that “the history and the significance of the house are being re-worked and re-thought with the involvement of British South Asians in the area”. He argues that “a new history” should be told “in which the voices of scholars in the UK and the subcontinent but also the voices of the local population of the diaspora are all heard”.

MacGregor’s defence of the Trust’s attitude and actions is based on a false premise: that the duty of the National Trust is to tell “histories”, rather than to preserve (in a very physical sense of the word) historic places.

MacGregor’s defence of the Trust’s attitude and actions is based on a false premise: that the duty of the National Trust is to tell “histories”, rather than to preserve (in a very physical sense of the word) historic places. “Places of historic interest” do not, contrary to MacGregor’s claim, “have the inherent capacity to divide us”. The historic buildings the National Trust is supposed to look after are beautiful and often awe-inspiring: as long as they are well-looked-after and preserved to a high standard we can all find joy by visiting them, and revel in their beauty, irrespective of our views and outlooks, in the same way that we can all find joy by visiting a well-tended garden or beautifully kept countryside.

Educating people about the history, in a singular and completely factual sense of the word, of its properties does arguably fall under the Trust’s overarching duty “to promote the preservation” of these places. Yet it should be a basic condition that any such historical accounts must be researched and written up by qualified historians, rather than activists as we have sometimes seen in recent years.

In his lecture, MacGregor also seeks to defend the National Trust’s management on the issue of Clandon (the Grade-I listed 18th century country house which was gutted by fire in 2015 and which the NT had promised to restore: a promise on which last year, having received £66 million in insurance money to restore, they announced they would be reneging), which is another of his case studies. “A private owner might have decided to demolish completely”, he says, trying to make us feel grateful that the National Trust’s management have not made the decision to raze to the ground a house that had been entrusted to them to look after for the nation and for future generations and which was ravaged by fire due to negligence on their part.

MacGregor continues: “After much tortuous debate it was decided not to restore the interior of the house or to demolish it but to leave it, to make it safe and to show it in its broken, damaged state.” MacGregor does not mention that this “tortuous debate” seemingly only began after four years of the National Trust promising that they would restore Clandon. Restore Trust followers may recall that when our director Zewditu Gebreyohanes put the question to the National Trust management at the AGM of what new information had come to light since 2019, when they last promised they would restore, to lead to a complete reversal of the Trust’s position on the future of Clandon, they were unable—or unwilling—to give an answer.

The continuing lack of transparency surrounding the decision-making process regarding Clandon and surrounding the insurance application and the £66 million payout is odd, particularly since the National Trust continue to put out articles about Clandon which often raise more questions than they answer. In the National Trust’s Spring magazine, Kent Rawlinson writes in his article about Clandon ( “A new chapter”, p.39) that “most of the carefully salvaged plasterwork from Clandon’s famous ceilings cannot be reused, as it has been permanently damaged by the fire, often crumbling to the touch”. This does not explain why the National Trust cannot employ traditional plaster workers to recreate the ceilings, working from both photographs and these remains. The immediately obvious silver lining of such a devastating incident is surely, after all, that it provides a new generation of artisan craftsmen with training and job opportunities.

MacGregor also claims in his lecture that “the aim [in leaving Clandon as a shell] is absolutely not the contemplation of transience in an elegiac, melancholic way.” This statement betrays ignorance of the National Trust’s aims, which are precisely what he denies: in their press release from July last year, they say that “the Trust’s new approach to Clandon responds to the evocative spaces created by the fire”.

SANGHERA WADES INTO THE DEBATE ON HISTORY

The discussion and Q&A following MacGregor’s Octavia Hill lecture featured journalist Sathnam Sanghera, who claimed that Restore Trust “say there is one view of history. This is our view. We should win. Everyone else, just shut up.” Had he attempted at any point to familiarise himself with our real arguments and read some of our output, he might have had a clearer understanding of what Restore Trust has been calling for: historical rigour, factual accuracy and balance.

Yet perhaps Sanghera’s words should be taken with a pinch of salt. Even as he referred to himself as “an intellectual”, he admitted to never having heard of Kedleston in his life until MacGregor mentioned it in his talk: perhaps particularly worrying given that Sanghera’s Empireland: How Imperialism Has Shaped Modern Britain includes a great many references to Lord Curzon.

COMMENT PIECE: CUSTODIANS SHOULD BE NEUTRAL

In his comment piece for Restore Trust, Christopher Martin (a long-standing member of the National Trust and a supporter of Restore Trust) writes: “I have been involved in an exchange of letters with the Trust, which contains obfuscation on their part. They say they have been misunderstood, through leaks and distortion in the press. They also say that they still uphold their founding principles, and are committed to keeping their properties well-maintained and open. And they do want people to continue to enjoy elegant houses and beautiful gardens. This is not however compatible with lack of consultation with staff or membership over changes; with releasing a large number of well-qualified advisors; making condescending remarks about the ‘outdated mansion experience’; or with an apparent move towards becoming a quasi-political platform.”

“It is worth noting that on Trustpilot recently, out of 487 reviews of the National Trust, 79% were Bad, and 7% were Poor. This speaks for itself. In founding the National Trust in 1895, Octavia Hill wanted to preserve historic places and treasures ‘for ever, for everyone’. These treasures are our treasures. They are not the property of a partisan group with a controversial agenda of their own.”

“It is worth noting that on Trustpilot recently, out of 487 reviews of the National Trust, 79% were Bad, and 7% were Poor. This speaks for itself. In founding the National Trust in 1895, Octavia Hill wanted to preserve historic places and treasures ‘for ever, for everyone’. These treasures are our treasures. They are not the property of a partisan group with a controversial agenda of their own.”

In a recent interview with Russell Hargrave for Third Sector, Hilary McGrady had posited that “most of the things that Restore Trust had a concern about were things we have been doing since our inception”. That is, of course, not true at all. As Christopher notes, the current crisis of confidence within the National Trust stems from the very fact that, thanks to recent policies enacted by its current management, the organisation has strayed away from its statutory aims and founding charitable ethos.

Read Christopher’s comment piece in full here.

If you would like to submit a comment piece for publication on our website, please write in to us at contact@restoretrust.org.uk

BBC SPREADS MISINFORMATION ABOUT RESTORE TRUST

Michael Berkeley, in conversation with Simon Thurley on BBC Radio 3’s Private Passions on 12th February, said the following about Restore Trust: “In the autumn a campaign group mounted a vigorous attempt to win seats on the National Trust’s Council, angry about a so-called “woke takeover” of the Trust and particularly critical of the foregrounding of the role of the slave trade in generating the money to build some of our best-loved country houses.”

As anyone who followed our campaign or even took a quick look at our members’ resolutions on our website would have known, the main two issues on which we campaigned at last year’s AGM were democracy and accountability within the National Trust. We have never objected to the balanced and accurate presentation of any aspect of the history of properties, but only to presentation which is biassed, selective or based on one-sided scholarship.

We would not expect the BBC to be taken in by, let alone help spread, misinformation, and we are disappointed by its low standards in this instance.

THE REALITY ABOUT SUDBURY HALL

The fact that, as with their experiment at Clandon, those at the top of the National Trust feel that they have to control the narrative on their experiment at Sudbury Hall in Derbyshire (which they attempt to do in the Spring magazine with a glowing four-page article: pp.53–56) betrays their growing realisation that an increasing number of members are concerned by what has taken place there.

One could write an essay about what is so wrong about the National Trust’s reinvention of Sudbury Hall as the ‘Children’s Country House’. Instead of doing so, here is one picture which perhaps puts into perspective the scale of issues there. Whereas one might have expected the paintings in the magnificent Long Gallery (now transformed into a children’s play area) to have basic details—perhaps the painter’s name and the date of the painting—underneath each painting, instead we find speech bubbles with inane, often downright offensive, invented quotations from the sitters.

The speech bubble beneath the portrait reads as follows: “They said this pose would highlight my importance and dignity but do you think I just look like I have indigestion? My dad built Sudbury Hall, I have to look the part!” This ‘quotation’ both trivialises the subject, Henry Vernon, and patronises the visitor.

We leave it to you to consider whether the above is a useful way to teach children about history; is respectful to the descendants of Lord Vernon (the last of whom bequeathed Sudbury to the nation); or indeed is a justifiable way to spend valuable National Trust funds, particularly when we are constantly reminded by the National Trust that it has insufficient money to carry out its core functions to a high standard.

FEATURED LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

In his letter to the editor, Michael Anderson from the Cotswolds raises serious concerns about the National Trust’s neglect of Gibside in Tyne and Wear. He reports that “when I asked what was being done about the house, I was told the NT didn’t have any money to spend on it”, noting that “the NT has however found money to put in a high quality play area at the top of the site, plus a rope course through the woods.” This approach, straying away from its core functions and charitable ethos, is one that the National Trust’s management seem to be following elsewhere too; Devon Live reported last week that “exciting plans for Devon National Trust property [Knightshayes] include ziplines”. Read Michael’s full letter here.

Judith Warrender, a National Trust Life Member since the 1970s, calls for the National Trust to bring back its working holidays, “which have given me such pleasure – in varied company, task or location – over the last twelve years since sadly widowed. But they no longer exist, neither in England or Scotland (as Thistle camps) – the staff having been made redundant in Covid, and the infrastructure no doubt dismantled.” Read her letter here.

Your generous donations make our work possible. Please support us by donating.

Follow us on Twitter

Find us on Facebook