'Culture' now means the background of the visitors, not the significance of our heritage

Hello reader,

Over the past few days the National Trust has generated a cluster of headlines, not about restoring historic buildings or caring for collections, but about activism, branding, and patronising 'inclusion' messaging.

The Trust has launched an expensive advertising campaign with the message 'Nature = Future' urging people to write to their MP. 

Meanwhile, the leadership continues to frame 'inclusion' through patronising stereotypes, asserting that people 'don't know what to wear' in the countryside. Meanwhile, the charity talks less about history and heritage and more about 'culture' and 'values', whatever that means, and fewer resources are directed to the task of looking after properties.

The issue running through all of this is mission drift: members pay to support the stewardship of houses, gardens, collections and landscapes, but what they get is political campaigning.

Do you want to change this? Then don't give up your National Trust membership, but stay and have your say at the AGM. 

With our best wishes for a happy Easter

Cornelia

The National Trust tells the public to write to MPs

The National Trust has taken the unusual step of urging the public to contact MPs as part of its 'Nature = Future' campaign, arguing that nature is in 'freefall' and calling for stronger government action.

The Trust increasingly behaves like a political pressure group while taking ideologically motivared risks with members' funds. We told The Times, 

'In recent years, the trust has been reinventing itself as a nature and even climate charity. Our worry is that it’s neglecting pressing concerns of a more immediate kind. When you go around properties, you see a lot of damage and you see things that are not being fixed... As a charity, it’s the National Trust’s duty to look after its charitable funds and not to take unnecessary risks.'

'People from ethnic backgrounds don't feel confident in the countryside'

This isn’t just about adverts. Alongside the political push, the Trust is also promoting programmes such as its 'Global Majority walk leaders initiative', a further sign that it is focusing on social engineering rather than stewardship.

Hilary McGrady told LBC that people from ethnic backgrounds are saying they 'don’t feel confident' in the countryside, and that the National Trust must respond because it is 'here for everyone' and this is 'part of our charitable purpose'. She listed a 'whole raft of reasons', including:

'They don’t necessarily know, "what am I meant to wear, how do I behave, what’s a countryside code?"'

In the same interview she also defended the Trust’s language shift from 'ethnic minorities' to 'global majority', saying it was based on research and 'respectful'.

Our former colleague Zewditu Gebreyohanes disagrees, saying,

'Some institutions have already stopped talking about the 'global majority, having realised that such divisive rhetoric does the very opposite of solving the supposed societal problems it claims to address. But why would sensible institutions have so uncritically accepted these weird phrases in the first place? They should surely be doing other things, fulfilling their actual functions might be a good place to begin.'

Whatever terminology is used, many people, including those the Trust claims to speak for, see this approach as patronising and detached from reality. 

Taken together, the 'write to your MP' campaign, targeted programmes, and this style of messaging point to a wider shift in what the National Trust thinks it is for.

The National Trust’s diversity drive is deeply patronising

While roofs leak and paint peels from woodwork, the National Trust's website announces,

When you join this movement you become part of something immense: a bond of trust that reaches across time and place. Embracing the traditions of different cultures. The stories of different histories. The ideas of a million minds. Alive. Open.

We don't know what this is supposed to mean either, but it does not bode well for the many properties that need love and maintenance.

The Telegraph reported that an internal 'brand and values' video was circulated to staff and volunteers. The video is not about conservation or history. Instead, historic houses are used as backdrops for 'embracing the traditions of different cultures', including Hindu-themed set-dressing. The video has now been taken down and no longer appears in any news outlet. What does the National Trust want to hide from the public?

Bharat Sarollia, a British Hindu businessman, is unconvinced. The last thing ethnic minorities need, he says, is for the National Trust to repackage British history into a synthetic, identity-politics frame to make people feel 'welcome'. He argues that historic houses transport you into another world and the Trust should trust visitors to explore and learn, rather than lecture. Mr Sarollia's point is that this isn’t inclusion; it is patronising, and it risks alienating supporters while dissolving what makes the Trust distinctive.

Alka Sehgal-Cuthbert and Calvin Po also explain why the National Trust is wrong to obsess about the ethnicity and cultural background of its visitors in a podcast produced by Artsfirst. 

Francis Terry writes in the Architects' Journal that the National Trust's shortsighted scheme for Clandon Park fails the UK’s brilliant craftspeople.

Please support the Georgian Group as they object to proposals to concrete over the tranquil landscape around Rousham in Oxfordshire. 

Help us get our message out
Please forward this newsletter to anyone who would like to follow our campaign.