If we're talking about erasure and the National Trust
In the light of attacks on historian explor[ing] links between its properties and colonialism, I think some consideration might be given to the way in which that institution has drifted, or, indeed, been hijacked, from the intentions of its original founders. who were worthy late-Victorian reformers Octavia Hill 'social reformer....worked tirelessly to improve urban housing and to protect green spaces, Sir Robert Hunter, who was all about preserving the commons from the landowners, and Canon Hardwick Rawnsley, another passionate social reformer.
It was not until 1937 that it became a scheme of out-relief for the upper classes unable to maintain their stately homes, and enabling them to avoid death duties: the architect of which was the Marquis of Lothian, member of the Cliveden set....
However, in 1939 they did acquire Quarry Bank, one of Britain's greatest industrial heritage sites, home to a complete industrial community.
I note that the National Trust site is perhaps curiously silent about the role of James Lees Milne, who seems to have froliced in some very sus social circles of the 30s (did he really shag both Tom and Diana Mitford???):
In 1936 Lees-Milne was appointed secretary of the Country Houses Committee of the National Trust. He held the position until 1950, apart from a period of military service from 1939 to 1941.... He was instrumental in the first large-scale transfer of country houses from private ownership to the Trust.
See above re out-relief for the aristos, and preventing them being ground under Clem's iron heel.
Do we have a feeling that the original founders might have been rather more sympathetic to historicising the sites for which the Trust is responsible rather than focusing on aesthetics? They were, I am like to suppose, rather on the side of building Jerusalem in England's green and pleasant.
This entry was originally posted at https://oursin.dreamwidth.org/3187975.html. Please comment there using OpenID. View
comments.