The National Trust - is it losing ours?

The guide was pretending to be a 17th century plague sufferer. It was awful!
Was he covered in fake boils?

trisher - white face paint, faint voice and a slow gait.

TBF, it seemed some of the other guides were a bit more serious. I guess we were just unlucky!

Alegrias1 ^Example - we went to Mary King's Close in Edinburgh, hoping to learn about the democracy of the common stair and the evolution of housing in Edinburgh. The guide was pretending to be a 17th century plague sufferer. It was awful!^-what on earth did they do? Drop dead?
I think what happens on a tour should be clearly described before hand, so that you know exactlywhat you are getting.

Not wanting something to be encouraged is not the same as banning it, though.

I'm sure the OP can speak for herself, but I got the impression that the question was about the NT allying itself to causes that have nothing to do with its remit.

But if you read the first post it doesn't say they insist it says "encouraged" and "invited" so not sure what the point was if it wasn't that they didn't want people doing it i.e.banning it.

I don't think anyone was asking for a 'ban' on anything, though. On this thread, I mean.

The question was about whether the NT should insist on their staff wearing face paint etc in honour or Pride month, not about anything being banned.

Doodledog

*Imagine the world if we all had the power to ban what we don't like, would there be anything left?*
Well no, as we would all be 'banning' contradictory things. Some would 'ban' token glitter, others would 'ban' those who don't wear it, and so on. The notion of 'banning' things seems to have taken root in recent years. Every TV discussion seems to start with 'should we ban' everything from flip-flops to church bells?

I prefer to just discuss what is happening and whether or not I agree with the logic.

Yes that was my point, people don't want glitter or dressing up at NT so presumably it isn't just that they don't want to see it, they don't want it, maybe I misunderstood.

So yes if we all stopped the things we don't like/don't want there would be very little left as what you might like I might quite happily ban.

Wouldn't it be miserable. Live and let live I say.

Imagine the world if we all had the power to ban what we don't like, would there be anything left?
Well no, as we would all be 'banning' contradictory things. Some would 'ban' token glitter, others would 'ban' those who don't wear it, and so on. The notion of 'banning' things seems to have taken root in recent years. Every TV discussion seems to start with 'should we ban' everything from flip-flops to church bells?

I prefer to just discuss what is happening and whether or not I agree with the logic.

Maybe it's just me trisher, I wouldn't book a tour in costume but some people do, and that's their choice. I don't want to stop them but equally - in reference to the OP - there shouldn't be an expectation that guides have to dress up, especially if they are volunteers.

Example - we went to Mary King's Close in Edinburgh, hoping to learn about the democracy of the common stair and the evolution of housing in Edinburgh. The guide was pretending to be a 17th century plague sufferer. It was awful!

MaizieD

^I doubt if any of us remember that Fosse Way and Watling Street were probably built by slaves under Roman occupation, when we’re driving around.^

Well, that's an interesting thought, Mollygo. Were the roads built by slaves? I'd always thought that they were built by the legionaries as they progressed through Britain. I shall have to go back to my history books... (or google, perhaps)

Google will tell you that the roads were built by Roman legions but it’s a bit of a simplification.
The Legions didn’t come over by themselves. They brought with them civilian support such as engineers, administrative staff, domestic staff and slave labour from already conquered parts the empire.

Soldiers were expected to do a certain amount of physical labour when necessary, but their time was mainly occupied with drills, maintaining equipment and making the Roman presence tangible in local communities.

Galaxy

But in what way are they doing this? We have three NT properties in our area, I have visited many many times. If I want to read the history of the building I will, more often than not I dont because I have read it before, I therefore just walk and probably eat cake. If there is a talk going on I will usually not go over and join it. I dont think the fact that I am not interested should stop the talk from taking place.

I agree, seems weird that people want to stop something other people enjoy just because they don't like it. If I stopped all the things that other people enjoy I'm sure people would be upset, I'd start with alcohol - definite ban can't see the point of it, tobacco the same, noisy motorbikes, horseriders on busy roads, swearing, shellfish (make me ill) in fact the list could go on but I'll leave it there.

Imagine the world if we all had the power to ban what we don't like, would there be anything left?

I doubt if any of us remember that Fosse Way and Watling Street were probably built by slaves under Roman occupation, when we’re driving around.

Well, that's an interesting thought, Mollygo. Were the roads built by slaves? I'd always thought that they were built by the legionaries as they progressed through Britain. I shall have to go back to my history books... (or google, perhaps)

I am saying that there are times when I want to be "educated" and will seek out facts and knowledge and there are times when I just want to gt away from the world and relax. Am I not entitled to do that?

Nobody is forcing you to 'be educated' when you visit an NT property. The 'history' is not exactly emblazoned on massive placards when you walk around the garden... or is it?

But to say that knowing the history spoils the experience?

But then, perhaps I'm just a boring old woke fart who realises that I would have been one of the people weeding the garden for 3d a day rather than one of the beneficiaries of its loveliness. And be grateful that those days have gone for many and I can enjoy the garden too, without having to genuflect to its owners... (thanks to politics)

Alegrias1

trisher I'm not impugning your academic knowledge or ability to share it. But I don't understand how being in costume helps, unless you are acting as the person in question.

I saw Mary Beard a couple of years ago, talking about ancient Rome. I learnt a lot from it and would have found it very weird indeed if she had been dressed as Empress Livia.

The best explanation is probably when I dress as a suffragette and do a talk or walk about them. People seem to appreciate it but maybe that's because they booked me, or a place on the walk, knowing what I do. Perhaps they all have the capacity of primary school children. It does make it easier for me to explain the colours-I'm wearing them. I can explain how I might have to hide my allegiance, but the colours are also in my brooch. Perhaps some of them just like to see me dressed up, and I have had groups of women who have dressed up as well. If it adds to the enjoyment, widens knowledge of women's history and makes people happy, why not?

Mary Beard is incredible and I wouldn't want to make her dress up, but I'm equally sure she wouldn't mind me doing it.

But in what way are they doing this? We have three NT properties in our area, I have visited many many times. If I want to read the history of the building I will, more often than not I dont because I have read it before, I therefore just walk and probably eat cake. If there is a talk going on I will usually not go over and join it. I dont think the fact that I am not interested should stop the talk from taking place.

GrannyRose15 of course you are entitled to enjoy something without always having its history pushed in your face.
I doubt if any of us remember that Fosse Way and Watling Street were probably built by slaves under Roman occupation, when we’re driving around.

I think that people dressed in historical costume are a red herring the context of this thread.

They are (in my experience at least) at least supposed to be connected to the venue in some way, illustrating the history of the place. If individuals don’t feel that they learn from them they can avoid them. I quite like them, and my children were always delighted to see them, but they don’t foist themselves on people.

A visit to a stately home with no links to gay history is not likely to be enhanced by glittered-up tour guides. If, as is statistically likely, a previous owner was gay, out (less likely) and their sexuality has a ‘story’ attached, by all means have a reference to this in the guide book and teach the guides about it, but otherwise I just don’t see the point of fake campery.

Also, selecting one aspect of a person’s life to highlight is useless unless the other aspects are catered for too. If someone is gay, disabled and poor, their disability and poverty could exclude them from NT properties far more than their sexuality. NT prices are high, and by no means of them are accessible to people with various disabilities. It smacks of tokenism to concentrate on the aspect which costs virtually nothing to highlight, can be seen to be being done, and ignore the others, which may well have a much greater impact on the life of an individual.

MaizieD

^IMO spoiling a lovely walk in a beautiful garden by telling me it was built on slavery is no way to do this.^

Heaven forbid that people's pleasure should be impaired by having to face the ugliness underlying the beauty.

That's not what I meant and you know it.

I am saying that there are times when I want to be "educated" and will seek out facts and knowledge and there are times when I just want to gt away from the world and relax. Am I not entitled to do that?

I think Mary Beard has a gift for relaying history in a way that is interesting, and accessible to non academics like me. I share a dislike of fancy dress, and find it quite patronising. I wonder if the popularity of TV programmes such as Downton Abbey and similar has popularised this. They dress up at our local NT property and I find it quite ridiculous.

Chewbacca

I agree with Alegrias regarding Mary Beard. She's a historian who, without needing recourse to fancy dress outfits, manages perfectly well to impart her interesting, full fact knowledge on to others. As adults, we can surely grasp and understand information that's being offered to us without the pictorial prompts of a guide in fancy dress. I'd rather they saved the dumbing down of historical facts for school parties.

Oh, I don't know. I'm kind of neutral on this.

I recall an Easter visit to Vindolanda on a cold and miserable day. It even snowed. The sight of the poor souls walking around dressed as Roman soldiers and gradually turning blue certainly brought home the downside of life on a northern frontier of the empire...

(though I suspect that real Roman soldiers 'might' have had thick cloaks to combat the weather)

I agree with Alegrias regarding Mary Beard. She's a historian who, without needing recourse to fancy dress outfits, manages perfectly well to impart her interesting, full fact knowledge on to others. As adults, we can surely grasp and understand information that's being offered to us without the pictorial prompts of a guide in fancy dress. I'd rather they saved the dumbing down of historical facts for school parties.

I dont see how you can remove politics, history and politics are intertwined. Life and politics are intertwined.

trisher

I don't think Gertrude Bell was entirely over looked because she opposed women having the vote. I think she is just part of the hidden history of women in society. They are not remembered, their stories are not told, because men write history books and have taught history for the most part. There are hundreds of women, just forgotten and unrecognised who played significant roles in many areas. Rachel Parsons and women engineers for example.

I feel ashamed as I can't remember the name of the wonderful doctor I mentioned. She deserves to be remembered, she had no children to keep her memories alive but I hope there is someone with a better memory than me.

trisher

I don't think Gertrude Bell was entirely over looked because she opposed women having the vote. I think she is just part of the hidden history of women in society. They are not remembered, their stories are not told, because men write history books and have taught history for the most part. There are hundreds of women, just forgotten and unrecognised who played significant roles in many areas. Rachel Parsons and women engineers for example.

I'd heard of her but if you asked me to name her I wouldn't have been able to.

Yes, apart from a few notable exceptions, I think you're right.

trisher I'm not impugning your academic knowledge or ability to share it. But I don't understand how being in costume helps, unless you are acting as the person in question.

I saw Mary Beard a couple of years ago, talking about ancient Rome. I learnt a lot from it and would have found it very weird indeed if she had been dressed as Empress Livia.