The Heritage War
Birth of an Idea.
In 1895, three noted conservationists came together with a unified ambition — to look after places of historic interest or natural beauty permanently for the benefit of the nation. This would become the official purpose of an organisation in the UK we now call The National Trust.
Over the past 128 years, the Trust has expanded its vision and built a legacy that stretches across 250,000 hectares of historic houses, castles, archeological sites, monuments, gardens, parks, and nature reserves. Whether you care for conservation or not, it’s impossible to deny the impact that the Trust has had on British lives. Unless you’re permanently homebound, you have likely been somewhere that only exists because the Trust has preserved it for your enjoyment. Yet, despite the importance of this organisation for the public, it has recently found itself embroiled in political and ideological debates.
In 2020, the Trust’s research unveiled that nearly one-third of its properties were linked to colonialism and historic slavery. Unsurprisingly (given the UK’s recent insufferable tolerance for colonial denialism), this ignited a significant divide within its community which, much like the discovery of a malignant tumour, led to the existence of ‘Restore Trust’.
The Emergence of Restore Trust
Established in 2021, Restore Trust was a direct response to the National Trust’s report on colonialism and historical slavery. The group presents itself as a forum for members, supporters, and friends of the National Trust to voice their apprehensions about the charity’s direction.
The splinter group’s website claims that they “…want the National Trust’s focus and priorities not to be driven by modish, divisive ideologies but rather solely by its noble mandate.” They also claim to abide by six aims:
- Conservation: To return to the National Trust’s founding purpose to protect and preserve historic and cultural treasures.
- Understanding: To restore a sense of welcome for all visitors without demonising anyone’s history or heritage.
- Aesthetic Experience: To restore the aesthetic experience at Trust properties so that visitors can peacefully enjoy them visually and spatially, without imbalanced interpretation.
- Morale: To restore the confidence of staff and volunteers in the stability and competence of the National Trust.
- A Sense of Place: To restore a distinctive sense of place for each property, focusing on the architecture, collections, gardens, landscape, and families who created them.
- Apolitical Ethos: To restore the Trust’s original apolitical ethos, in the presentation and management of all its properties, and to support the charity in doing what it does best.
On the surface, many of these traits appear admirable. Yet I can’t help draw my eye to mentions of “imbalanced interpretation” and “demonising history or heritage”. As someone who read the Trust’s 2020 report on asset’s connections to colonialism and slavery, I have great respect for the non-biased, informative, and educational writing within the report. Of course, if this obviously underhanded attempt to deny the transgressions of the British Empire doesn’t send shivers up your spine, then perhaps a further review of the apoliticalism of Restore Trust might just do it.
Contenders of Distrust
Restore Trust have been actively nominating candidates for the Trust’s annual council elections. However, suspicions have arisen that Restore Trust might be part of a broader astroturfing campaign, representing undisclosed lobby groups.
In 2021, the group clinched three out of the six available seats in the council elections. By 2022, the origins and motives of Restore Trust were dissected, leading to fervent discussions on platforms like Twitter. Their influence waned that year, with no seats won.
This year, the political dynamics within the National Trust have taken another turn with Nigel Farage’s endorsement of Restore Trust. Farage’s backing isn’t out of the blue, given his close relationship with one of the candidates, Lady Violet Manners.
A closer look at the candidates reveals:
Philip Merricks: A landowner and farmer, Merricks has connections with Andrew Gimson through the Spectator, a politically conservative weekly magazine. He has faced criticism from environmentalists for his alleged association with the grouse shooting industry during his tenure as chair of the Hawk and Owl Trust.
Andrew Gimson: A writer for the Spectator, Gimson penned a book detailing the rise and fall of Boris Johnson. This tome has been critiqued for portraying Boris Johnson in an overly favorable light, despite the various controversies surrounding his tenure.
Philip Gibbs: Beyond his candidacy, Gibbs is known as a former hedge fund manager and an avid art collector, arguably putting this candidate as the only qualified individual for the role.
Lord Jonathan Sumption: An author and historian, Sumption’s appointment to the Supreme Court in 2009 was notable as he hadn’t served as a full-time judge prior. His historical writings often carry a tone that can be interpreted as pro-colonial, sparking debates in academic circles.
Lady Violet Manners: Beyond her aristocratic ties, Manners is a model, marketing consultant, and socialite. However, her values and stance on various issues remain largely undisclosed.
It’s noteworthy that most, if not all, of these five candidates share a pro-hunting stance, further highlighting the ideological alignment within this group.
Very apolitical.
But of course, politics isn’t everything. What do these candidates stand for? Well, according to the Restore Trust webpage, there are two key pledges that they are focused on. The preservation of polluted coastlines? Nope. The push for sustainable initiatives across National Trust assets? Think again.
- Removal of the “Quick Vote” Feature: A common feature in AGMs across the country, the “quick vote” has been labeled “undemocratic” by the Restore Trust group. Tensions are expected to be high on this subject, especially since the National Trust does not recommend any member of the Restore Trust group, thereby penalising them by default.
- Restoration of Clandon House: Clandon House, a property that suffered a devastating fire in 2015, has been a point of contention. The Earl of Onslow, owner of the park where Clandon House stands and related to its last owners, believes the Trust should use the insurance money to preserve another endangered property rather than restoring Clandon House.
Of all the pledges they could be making, it seems almost lazy that these are two of their biggest priorities. The removal of a pretty standard feature for no reason other than the fact that they disagree with it, and the restoration of a building that has already been condemned. Surely there are better uses for the National Trust council’s time, but apparently not for this conservatively malodorous wannabe band.
What Lies Ahead
As the UK’s largest private landowner, the National Trust wields considerable influence. They’ve recently committed to a net-zero transition for their properties by 2030 and are dedicated to providing historically accurate information about their holdings. For the Trust, it’s clear that their priority lies in building a bridge both to a healthy, sustainable future, while connecting visitors to the calamities that occurred in our colonial past. Despite right-wing tendencies to develop denial fever on matters like slavery, the reality is that we must have accurate and honest conversations about our history lest we risk future generations repeating the same mistakes.
Additionally, the involvement of political figures like Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees Mogg in the National Trust’s council elections could potentially undermine the organisation’s apolitical stance and commitment to conservation; not to mention it completely negates Restore Trust’s aim of apoliticalism. The persistent efforts of Restore Trust to sway the National Trust’s council elections have evoked memories of political movements, such as UKIP’s endeavors within the EU parliament and the Conservative Party.
With the 11th November 2023 AGM on the horizon, the unfolding political dynamics promise to shape the National Trust’s future in profound ways. To ensure the National Trust continues to fulfill its mission of preserving historical and natural sites, it is crucial for members to engage actively in the upcoming elections, voting for candidates who prioritiSe conservation, transparency, and inclusivity. Something that this rogue ship clearly does not represent.
If you are a member of the National Trust and are still unsure as to where your votes should be cast, ask yourself… what does heritage, culture, and preservation mean for you? If it isn’t vanity projects that benefit a minority, a pro-hunting collective left responsible for land that is rich in biodiversity, and a desire to move away the accurate reporting of our history — both the good, and the bad — then you should probably use Restore Trust’s candidates as a guide of who to avoid.
