Actually, let’s explore this one a little more.

Most people just want a nice day out

First: “most” people? You’ve just made that up, you cannot possibly know what “most” people want. Some do, sure. But if I were to guess, and my guesswork is equally as valid as yours, I would expect that the majority of people who “just want a nice day out” and aren’t interested in the history of the place wouldn’t choose to walk around a stately home in the first place.

Second: Some (from my own anecdotal observations, actually most) people want to learn about the place they’re visiting. So we can either provide information, which caters for both groups (because reading isn’t mandatory), or we can remove information which changes absolutely nothing for the Nice Dayers but robs everyone else the ability to understand what they’re looking at.

“You’re giving us too much information!” is a frankly weird complaint.

Oh, I don’t know why I’m bothering. Discussions with right-wingers only ever go one of three ways. 1) they get angry, 2) they go silent, or 3) they don’t respond and change the subject. And you my friend fall very firmly into number three.

Hey Cakey, here’s a question(s) that I don’t think has been asked yet.

Do you visit these properties on a regular basis? What was the last one you visited? Are you an NT member?

Indeed, have you ever visited one?

I went to have a look at what restore trust are actually asking for and they’ve gone in to detail and it seems pretty reasonable to me and nothing to do with any of the topics discussed in this thread.

1) Disclosure of remuneration of senior NT staff. – I can see there’s a case against, but it doesn’t seem an unreasonable request, even if the members decide they don’t want to do it.

2) Increase in the number of curators which has been reduced in recent years to the detriment of many sites. (Some job titles have changed to make it appear there are more curators now – in fact there are far less.) If they can’t afford this fair enough, but I think most people in this thread agree that detailed descriptions are lacking so I think everyone would agree this is highly desirable even if it not affordable. The supporting statement suggests the direction is dumbing down not adding more detail.

3) Deploring treatment of NT staff and calling on the trust to treat volunteers with thought and respect. The supporting paragraph does have a paragraph about Volunteers not being made to wear political or social symbols but from insiders above that’s not the case anyway – it’s voluntary so as far as I can see no change.

I wouldn’t vote for anyone who ignored history

I think RestoreTrust might be totally in line with your thinking here. Far from dumbing down they want to cover things in more detail:

I was on the learning experience team at Montacute house for 15 years, delivering guided tours to school children aged between four and 16 years old. The content concentrated on the lives of rich and poor Tudors, discussions on the symbolism and meaning of portraits of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, and we looked at the architecture and function of the rooms in the house. Relevant activities were also delivered, such as quilling, heraldry designs, dressing up in Tudor costumes (made by volunteers) and making pot-pourri and bouquet garni bags. The tours took place on most weekdays during the term and were popular with schools, many doing repeat visits. The feedback from the teachers was very good.

Overnight and with little and unsatisfactory explanation, our team was disbanded.

They might have needed to sack curators due to budget but those guys are volunteers.

https://www.restoretrust.org.uk/restore-trust-issues/

https://www.restoretrust.org.uk/

I understand budgets are tight and some of the issues are just matters of taste but almost everything RestoreTrust are advocating seems reasonable to me, some of it seems highly desirable and bang in line with the kind of stuff people are talking about in this thread. The NT shouldn’t be running nice gardens and cake shops, they should be imparting some history too and they’re moving fast away from that.

Do you visit these properties on a regular basis? What was the last one you visited? Are you an NT member?
Indeed, have you ever visited one?

Good question but this is descending into McCarthyism ‘Have you now or have you ever been a member of the NT’

Having a good time means lots of things to lots of different people. I spent a brilliant day walking round an NT property with an academic who did a complete Marxist economic analysis of the landscape and showed how hard nosed the pursuit of beauty was (its all about how you artfully arrange the cash crops and keep the outers far enough away so that they look picturesque but you don’t have to hear or smell them). They then went on to prove what they were saying with the old account ledgers. I can’t imagine it would have been everyones cup of tea but a good walk and coming away with a new way at looking at the world is a day I won’t forget.

Most of the NT properties we go to I just go round with the kids and distract them enough to allow Mrs B to read the hand held information boards. My only argument with the current focus on slavery is that it allows people to maintain a Downtonesque fairy tale of how wonderful and fair life in Britain was in the past. The people who built these houses were equal opportunities exploiters. They didn’t really care what colour your skin was everyone ‘below’ them was fair game (more a historically accurate rather than a political statement).

You’ve just made that up, you cannot possibly know what “most” people want. Some do, sure. But if I were to guess, and my guesswork is equally as valid as yours, I would expect that the majority of people who “just want a nice day out” and aren’t interested in the history of the place wouldn’t choose to walk around a stately home in the first place.

It seems to me the people who are interested in the history of these places are *exactly* the people Restore trust are trying to represent here. In contrast the NT seem to be pitching squarely at the cake eaters.

I went to have a look at what restore trust are actually asking for and they’ve gone in to detail and it seems pretty reasonable to me and nothing to do with any of the topics discussed in this thread.

Not all if any of those are down to RestoreTrust. The volunteers thing is a result of the NT not paying the best wages in the game which means that you usually end up with someone fairly green in their late twenties as the volunteers officer trying to manage retirees who on the whole have had professional jobs. Its a clash of idealism, without too much practicality, meeting people who enjoy the company rather than the money and really don’t want to change. The false stories have stirred this up but there is a general issue with taking volunteers for granted and assuming they will jump at the idea of change

As you will have seen from other posts Covid lead to a complete cull of staff who will be needed in the future. It was a short term knee jerk reaction but pretty much in line with the NTs reputation for HR. That resolution to me says treat people better rather than anything too political

FFS, from the NT website how the hell can they recommend voting against “curatorial expertise”.

Members’ resolution about curatorial expertise
Board of Trustees’ position: We recommend members vote against the resolution

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/annual-general-meeting

I went to have a look at what restore trust are actually asking for and they’ve gone in to detail and it seems pretty reasonable to me and nothing to do with any of the topics discussed in this thread.

Are you one of those people who shares Britain First memes on FB about ‘we should be nice to animals, share if you agree’?

Good question but this is descending into McCarthyism ‘Have you now or have you ever been a member of the NT’

I was just curious really as to whether our devourer of sweet baked goods actually had any direct interest or whether he’d just found something to randomly complain about.

Not all if any of those are down to RestoreTrust.

They all are. Linked to the website. There are other resolutions on the NT website from other people.

As you will have seen from other posts Covid lead to a complete cull of staff who will be needed in the future. It was a short term knee jerk reaction but pretty much in line with the NTs reputation for HR. That resolution to me says treat people better rather than anything too political

I’m sure they needed to save money, but surely curators should be last out the door. And surely the NT should be saying they will hire knowledgeable people back when the situation changes. In fact it’s looking far more like they’re deliberately trying to make the NT a theme park business and deliberately dumbing down accordingly.

FFS, from the NT website how the hell can they recommend voting against “curatorial expertise”.

I thought the same at first but it says to vote against “the resolution” and we don’t know what that is. The resolution could be “let’s get rid of cultural expertise” in which case it’s worth voting against.

Or am I overthinking this?

https://nt.global.ssl.fastly.net/documents/agm-2021-booklet.pdf

Pages 16 & 17

I thought the same at first but it says to vote against “the resolution” and we don’t know what that is.

Yes we do, I quoted it and linked to it.

You have to remember the primary purpose of the NT is to help the owners of these houses get the public to pay for their upkeep and to avoid inheritance taxes.

The ‘Common Sense Group’ of Tory MPs – closely allied to Restore Trust, make their feelings about history very plain in this letter.

Telegraph letter from 28 Conservatives, challenging the idea of portraying "multiple perspectives on history" pic.twitter.com/btdY3WO7ze

— Sunder Katwala (@sundersays) November 9, 2020

We are not to teach multiple perspectives about history, and no criticism of anything to do with Churchill will be tolerated. It actually uses the phrases ‘woke agenda’, ‘cultural marxist’ and ‘snowflakes’, in case you weren’t clear where they stand in the culture war.

Yes we do, I quoted it and linked to it.

You quoted what the resolution was?

I’m missing something here, sorry. I don’t really know how these things work, which doesn’t help.

Yes we do, I quoted it and linked to it.

And which takes such little effort to find, effort that good faith actors would bother to expend before slagging people off – plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

Check my post Cougar.

[ actually page 9 in the PDF, as the’ve published DPS as single pages ]

Basically a “they are ruining everything… bean bags… betraying the families who passed the houses on to them… etc” … so they’ve recommend it is rejected because otherwise it would damn those currently running the NT as vandals.

Most people just want a nice day out, not a social justice sermon.

That does sound a bit crap so I am sure you will be able to provide us with the examples of it. I am guessing there is some glitch which has been preventing you doing so so far.

In fact it’s looking far more like they’re deliberately trying to make the NT a theme park business and deliberately dumbing down accordingly.

So why is the cake scoffer upset since they seem to be wanting the NT to be mostly about people having a fun day out rather than that tedious history stuff.

Check my post Cougar.

Why is yours better than mine? The text of the resolutions and the supporting text is identical.

Is it because the NT’s includes their claim to have doubled the number of curators when in fact they made curators redundant and then retitled people in other roles with no expertise whatsoever as curators?

…and if they *really* had doubled the number of curators, couldn’t they still have supported the resolution and said yes, we already have and we will do more of the same in the future when we have budget so we totally support the resolution.

I suspect the RestoreTrust are bang on correct and this is all about the 10 year plan to dumb it down and turn the properties into theme parks for fewer people who are prepared to pay more. They’re not alone in that view:

https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/2020/08/national-trust-defends-restructure-plans/

He rejected the idea that the trust was dumbing down, but said “there are many, many people who most of all just want to enjoy a place and I’m not embarrassed about that at all. I don’t think every visit is about deep learning. I think what we want to do is give people what they want and on the whole, we’re doing that”.

I suspect the RestoreTrust are bang on correct

I bet you do.

Most people just want a nice day out,

That does sound a bit crap so I am sure you will be able to provide us with the examples of it.

It’s exactly the attitude within the NT that Restore Trust are trying to combat, in the words of the NT:

“there are many, many people who most of all just want to enjoy a place and I’m not embarrassed about that at all. I don’t think every visit is about deep learning. I think what we want to do is give people what they want and on the whole, we’re doing that”.

https://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/2020/08/national-trust-defends-restructure-plans/

Why is yours better than mine?

Because I was helping Cougar go straight to the pages describing what the vote is on as regards that resolution, for them to read for themselves, rather than just linking to all the details of the AGM and leaving them to find it themselves (or accepting your edited version).

I find the wording of the supporting evidence for the resolution far more informative than the trustee’s take on it as it happens. Especially after the “bean bags” comment from the guy on PM.

It’s exactly the attitude within the NT that Restore Trust are trying to combat,

And yet its exactly the argument the cake eater who is pro restore trust is arguing for. Its all very confusing and hence why some examples would be useful.
Plus I might be being cynical here but when you have the loony part of the tory party and a religious nutter supporting it I end up being somewhat doubtful about their claims.
Plenty of people have mentioned how they arent completely convinced by what the NT are up to. There is stuff I object to but as a rough rule getting some right wing loons in is unlikely to solve the issue.

Is this kind of “fun day out” designed to attract more people to a NT site, good or bad?

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/lanhydrock/features/cycling-at-lanhydrock

Is this the kind of “attracting more people” that the resolution is trying to stop?

Or it just about things like bean bags to look at ceilings, and the words of poets written on blinds that is too “fun” for them? New ways of getting people to engage with the buildings? Attracting the wrong kind of people (whoever they are) into the houses?

I find the wording of the supporting evidence for the resolution far more informative than the trustee’s take on it as it happens.

That was in my link too.

The only difference was the false claim that they’ve increased curators when they’ve reduced them. (…and that reduction is totally in line with their 10 year plan to dumb everything down and reduce access.)

I’m not really having a pop at the NT here, I suspect they’re feeling the pinch and they have to go down the theme park route to survive. BUT curators are not a big cost in the grand scheme of things and volunteer educations teams are literally free – they even provide their own resources.

…and again, even if that’s not possible they could still accept these things are desirable even if they don’t have the budget.

Reading up this thread a common desire is not to dumb down but to provide *more* information and the 10 year Plan is squarely focussed on going the opposite way fast.

That was in my link too.

I know, that’s where I got it from. I was just trying to save others the hunt! Jesus, you’re tetchy.

…and again, even if that’s not possible they could still accept these things are desirable even if they don’t have the budget.

The resolution isn’t that “curators are a good thing, on which we can all agree”. It is saying that sites are being ruined by the actions of the trustees and estate managers. They aren’t going to encourage people to support that sentiment, are they? It is a no confidence vote on how the NT is being run.

From the resolution (not even the supporting text)…

the Trust has made some reckless decisions on the presentation of its properties.

Bean bags being one of the examples in the supporting text. Which was six years ago, to allow, people a good look at an intricate ceiling. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Still, that was also the example cited by one of the disgruntled snowflakes of Restore Trust on Radio4 today. Doesn’t sound hugely reckless.

Is this kind of “fun day out” designed to attract more people to a NT site, good or bad?

Not sure it matters. The point is a few volunteer educators costs nothing and doesn’t impede the kind of fun day out you’re looking for.

Equally, you can go and have some cake and “enjoy a place” and you won’t be bothered by an excess of “curatorial expertise”, you won’t even notice it. If you don’t like information leaflets don’t pick them up.

It doesn’t have to be either/or.

Agree with that comment 100%.

I’ve never ridden those trails though, but been in the house and gardens many times. Recommended. But read the supporting text of the resolution again, they are basically snobs complaining about attempts to make the properties attract and engage more people, in ways they don’t like.

. I was just trying to save others the hunt!

Hmmmm, you just happened to choose a source that included and outright lie that had already been debunked… but actually I do fully accept that it ought to reasonable to quote the NT’s own document on this, I just picked a clumsy way to point out the curator lie.

The resolution isn’t that “curators are a good thing, on which we can all agree”. It is saying that sites are being ruined by the actions of the trustees and estate managers. They aren’t going to encourage people to support that sentiment, are they? It is a no confidence vote on how the NT is being run.

That would be a perfectly reasonable thing for the NT to argue. They could say “We regard curatorial expertise as desirable but this resolution strays outside that into criticism of the NT”. …But they’re not, and they summarise the resolution as the “curatorial expertise” resolution not the ‘defacto no confidence’ resolution.

The reality is the reason they can’t say anything positive about “curatorial expertise” is because they have a 10 year plan that involves reducing it and they’ve already got rid of the curators and they won’t be rehiring.

Agree with that comment 100%.

I’ve never ridden those trails though, but been in the house and gardens many times. Recommended. But read the supporting text of the resolution again, they are basically snobs complaining about attempts to make the properties attract and engage more people, in ways they don’t like.

This place is hilarious. All day people have been saying the NT need to provide more information. Then someone checks and it turns out the NT are firmly on the opposite side of the ‘more information’ argument and now a curator, a few volunteer educators and a handful of leaflets telling people about stuff is dismissed as “snobbery”. Classic STW.

But as I say (and you agreed for one line before disagreeing again): “A few volunteer educators costs nothing and doesn’t impede the kind of fun day out you’re looking for. Equally, you can go and have some cake and “enjoy a place” and you won’t be bothered by an excess of “curatorial expertise”, you won’t even notice it. If you don’t like information leaflets don’t pick them up. It doesn’t have to be either/or.”

Check my post Cougar.

[ actually page 9 in the PDF, as the’ve published DPS as single pages ]

Found it now. Apologies, when you said page 16 I foolishly looked at page 16. (-: (and it’s page 9 but PDF page 5…)

So,

FFS, from the NT website how the hell can they recommend voting against “curatorial expertise”.

I thought the same at first but it says to vote against “the resolution” and we don’t know what that is. The resolution could be “let’s get rid of cultural expertise” in which case it’s worth voting against.

The resolution says this:
“Presentation is to change ‘from evolution to revolution’, by ‘moving objects or taking them off display where needed’, in order to ‘flex our mansion offer to create more active, fun and useful experiences’. “

and the NT’s response is:
“The resolution and supporting statement make unsubstantiated allegations that have little basis in fact.”

This reads to me a bit he said / she said and I don’t know where the truth actually lies. But rather than suggesting voting against expertise, the resolution appears to be “we don’t have any experts so stop pretending we do” with a(n understandable) side order of sour grapes. It’s fairly clear why they’d want members to vote against it, it’s all a bit Boaty McBoatface.

Hmmmm, you just happened to choose a source that included and outright lie that had already been debunked

It was your source. I just pointed to the page in it for the resolution you selective quoted from, so we could read it all.

a few volunteer educators and a handful of leaflets telling people about stuff is dismissed as “snobbery”

Absolutely not. That stuff is core to what the NT do and will always do. I called those rallying against “attracting more people” (or as they put it to make it sound out of control and negative “ever-increasing visitor numbers”) to NT properties snobs.

As you said…

It doesn’t have to be either/or.

History and fun days out. We all want the NT to do both, don’t we?

This reads to me a bit he said / she said and I don’t know where the truth actually lies. But rather than suggesting voting against expertise, the resolution appears to be “we don’t have any experts so stop pretending we do” with a(n understandable) side order of sour grapes. It’s fairly clear why they’d want members to vote against it, it’s all a bit Boaty McBoatface.

Actually yeah, the resolution doesn’t request hiring more Curators just wines about sacking the old ones which is whiney bollocks,.it should have said ‘Please hire X new curators over the next 10 years’. (Maybe the rules don’t allow that sort of specificity) But doesn’t really change my point, I’ve already agreed the NT couldn’t support it, but they could have acknowledged curators were a good thing and also refused to support it, something I’ve said above in more detail. And the NT themselves summarised the whole resolution as the “curatorial expertise” so they clearly understood and accepted the point being made.

I’ve already agreed the NT couldn’t support it, but they could have acknowledged curators were a good thing and also refused to support it

Is that not exactly what their response to AGM says? It makes it clear they consider curators as not only a “a good thing” but essential and central to what they do.

That stuff is core to what the NT do and will always do.

I don’t think the 10year plan says what you think it does and you have certainly forgotten which roles they’ve already made redundant.

curators will continue to ensure that we tell the rich history of each place as fully as possible

Can I just quickly introduce a point of order?

Part of what I do involves school visits to a Tudor building, doing exactly what was previously described. We likewise had a schools programme that was burgeoning, a great tour with brilliant ‘hands on’ activities that had great feedback from every school that came, repeat visits etc – and then we were absolutely knocked for six by Gove’s reforms of the National Curriculum.

The Tudor ‘element’ of the KS2 Curriculum was entirely removed, and our school bookings literally dropped off a cliff. We talked to other local ‘providers’ that basically just gave up, where we started pushing a ‘Great Fire of London’ tour alternative.

We are nowhere near getting back the levels of yesteryear – obviously Covid has played its part in that, but other factors were in play way before that.

So when you hear a disaffected soul say of something eerily familiar –

Overnight and with little and unsatisfactory explanation, our team was disbanded.

– one wonders whether it was actually perfectly well satisfactorily explained, but not accepted well.

This from someone who has no love for the NT, and has ways of making you love them less.

Two thoughts. There’s an inherent conflict between “maintaining a house or property” as it was conceived or lived in sometimes by generations and exploring history (always messy and usually contested).

It is perfectly feasible for Restore Trust to put forward proposals that superficially align with reasonable behaviour. This in no way means that the intentions of Restore Trust are “straight down the bat”.

I’m not a fan of the Disneyfication of the U.K. by the NT but equally I’d have to recognise how much the NT has done in preserving public assets. I’m quite certain that the attempt to co-opt our collective history by chancers like Restore Trust is not cool and should be called out.