The National Trust - is it losing ours?

Kali2

it all fitted in nicely together, over a period of time. On thing led to another.

I am sorry, my first para should have appeared as a quote- thus

The history of the Enclosures is so cruel and so deliberate, to find slave labour for the growing industrialisation* Denying that is just nonsense.

If you want to find bias and descrimination you can always find it, but all of us when we are expecting to get rejection, often see it where none existed, the simplest remark can be misinterpreted as offensive when that is what you are expecting. I have done it myself, taken deep offence at some remark that with hindsight I realised what entirely innocent. Victim blaming at its finest, we imagine being ignored, we imagine how we were treated when moving into a very "white" area, we are too sensitive, we misunderstand, when the bullies at school called my daughter "n****r nose" it was meant with great affection. Heard it all before.

^The history of the Enclosures is so cruel and so deliberate, to find slave labour for the growing industrialisation. Denying that is just nonsense.

Wherever you see ridge and furrow- you know there was a peasant village attached to the Hall, and that it was *later enclosed for sheep, the villages destroyed and the peasants sent to act as virtual slave labour in the new industrialised towns.*The Midlands are ful of evidence of that

Not quite what you said before is it ?
Cart, horse ….

Peasblossom

Please theworriedwell or anybody else for that matter, xpkain to me how having people dressed in bright clothes, wearing face paint and glitter, would indicate that Gay people are welcome.

Face paint and glitter are not a symbol of being gay.

Who the hell in the NT thinks they are?

I despair.

Why would it bother you, if it doesn't apply to you just ignore it.

I despair for a completely different reason.

M0nica

I have seen quite a number of Non WASP visitors at NT properties, they didn't seem to be treated any differently to other people. Surely true integration means everyone being treated the same and differences not noticed.

Why would they not be welcome?

Of course there will be occasions when almost any visitor can be treated badly, but the best thing to do is report them. If nobody complains, then nothing can be done.

Why was my husband not welcome?

Maybe they weren't treated any differently or maybe they were and you weren't aware of it or maybe they were and you noticed and thought, "everyone has a bad experience now and then" except for you it might be once in a blue moon and for them it might be once a month or once a week. The point is sometimes minorities don't get welcomed, don't feel welcome. For a short time, is it a month? they want to make a point that people are included, you are always included as am I if I go without DH.

it all fitted in nicely together, over a period of time. On thing led to another.

I suggest that every time we visit a NT house we fill in a form identifying our age, sex. gender, ethnic origin, disability and any other identifying feature and then are shown an appropriate introductory film and are given a guide to the property containing all the material that is relevant to our particular needs.

I fully agree that theworriedwells experience was dreadful, but just because this happened on one occasion at one property does not mean that every national trust property is acting like this all the time - and my experience is that you are now seeing people of all ethnic backgrounds, either locals or tourists visiting NT and other historic houses and are treated just like any other visitor.

If you want to find bias and descrimination you can always find it, but all of us when we are expecting to get rejection, often see it where none existed, the simplest remark can be misinterpreted as offensive when that is what you are expecting. I have done it myself, taken deep offence at some remark that with hindsight I realised what entirely innocent.

This does not, of course, apply to the egregious and gross offences that some people are guilty of.

However I am seeing some very strange history on this thread. Yes, in the 17th century in some cases where manor house and village were contiguous, villages were demolished and rebuilt on another site. One of most famous examples is near where I live and I would think the villagers were very happy moving from a hilltop location with problems over the wateer supply down alongside the main road and with a ready supply of water - and no, the village doesn't flood

However, enclosure was some thing entirely different and the two are not related,although they may have been done as part of a grand reorganisation of land
Enclosure started in the 16th cnetury when rural populationn had not fully recovered from the Black death ....
Absolutely Monica to suggest as Kali2 does that the Enclosure Acts were designed to provide workers for the industrial revolution is putting the cart several centuries before the horse!
The primary reason for enclosure was to improve the efficiency of the agriculture. However, there were other motives too, one example being that the value of the land enclosed would be substantially increased and of course the landowning classes (yeomen farmers as well as the aristocracy) benefited - at the expense of the peasants and cottars (farm labourers in England) who had previously had free grazing access. . There were social consequences to the policy, with many protests at the removal of rights from the common people. Enclosure riots are seen by historians as 'the pre-eminent form' of social protest from the 1530s to 1640s.
I agree that the displacement of a potential labour force from the land to the towns to find work subsequently facilitated the Industrial Revolution but it is not a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc

Sago that was clearly not theworriedwell’s experience which she has described. Not the same at all.

We visit a lot of NT properties, there is no bar or judgement on anybody, however would they welcome a display of support for any particular lobby group?. I think not, they are pretty sensitive to environmental and welfare issues, tenants of their properties have restrictions on what is allowed as well

Agree ? predictive text

I totally are with easybee comments in her last paragraph

Just suppose someone approached the husband of the worried well, dressed in carnival clothes, feather headdress and all.

Would that indicate black peoples are welcome ?

Please theworriedwell or anybody else for that matter, xpkain to me how having people dressed in bright clothes, wearing face paint and glitter, would indicate that Gay people are welcome.

Face paint and glitter are not a symbol of being gay.

Who the hell in the NT thinks they are?

I despair.

I have seen quite a number of Non WASP visitors at NT properties, they didn't seem to be treated any differently to other people. Surely true integration means everyone being treated the same and differences not noticed.

Why would they not be welcome?

Of course there will be occasions when almost any visitor can be treated badly, but the best thing to do is report them. If nobody complains, then nothing can be done.

I don’t see why being a visitor of colour need necessarily imply coming from another country! That sort of attitude would count as racist in itself.
As I said I am very sorry you had a bad experience but one swallow does not make a summer, one bad experience need not damn the whole NT as a result.
Likewise gay visitors, the idea of “judging” a person or a couple as heterosexual or gay from one’s observation is discriminatory in itself

MawBe

^I'm not sure why anyone would object to people from minorities having an indication they are welcome^
And how do you indicate that? With friendly courtesy, welcome, good preparation and training for the room stewards so that they can be both knowledgeable and helpful.
Of course - the point of inclusivity is just that- being inclusive = welcoming everybody
You clearly had a bad experience Worried well but I think this was more down to the crass behaviour of the individuals concerned rather than any NT policy.
If I may remind us of my OP and the “mission statement” of the National Trust on its foundation
the original aims of the NT were that it was “established for the purpose of promoting the permanent preservation for the benefit of the nation of lands, and buildings, of beauty or historic interest and lands for the preservation so far as practical of their natural aspect features and animal and plant life “
Time to go back to first principles.

Maybe one of the first principles should be that for the benefit of the nation must include everyone in the nation not just some.

M0nica

Kali I have been studying landscape history for the last 40 years. that is why I promised not to bore on the subject. The main reasons for enclosure were economic.

theworriedwell why would all that glitter etc etc make gay people feel welccome. For some of them it makes their skin crawl. Anyway how can you tell whether a couple or family visiting a NT property are gay? It isn't branded on their forehead, they do not wear little pink stars.

I have visited NT properties with a female friend. DS does it quite a lot (with a male friend). Who can tell whether we are gay or straight. In my youth with DH travelling a lot I often went to NT properties with my sister and my children, how could the NT work out whether we were gay, straight, related or just friends?

Surely the fact that the houses are open for visitors indicates that visitors are welcome. I always find the staff at NT properties friendly and helpful, even overhelpful at times.

I am horrified that anyone met discrimination because of their colour, but that was discrimination because skin colour is visible - and is absolutely no excuse for it.

Some people are more obviously gay than others, I worked with a guy who people would assume was gay and he was, he was also very openly affectionate with his partner.

Why would glitter make them feel welcome? I don't know but the rainbow is a signal that would indicate the place is LGBT friendly. How else would it be indicated?

Surely the fact that the houses are open for visitors indicates that visitors are welcome. I always find the staff at NT properties friendly and helpful, even overhelpful at times. Maybe that is because you aren't black or trans or obviously gay, if you walked round with your arms round your sister gazing into her eyes they might think you are gay. If gay people aren't obviously gay it won't apply but what about a trans woman who people identify as a man in women's clothing, they might be nervous because of how they have been treated elsewhere and find it encouraging. LGBT isn't just men in committed relationships with children, it is a rather broader group.

It is nice that your experience of the world is that people are welcoming and friendly but maybe just spare a thought for people who have other experiences. It isn't harming you if someone wears a rainbow lanyard and it might help someone else.

Blossoming The point I am making is that people are often rude, unwelcoming or grumpy but it’s not necessarily prejudice of any kind.

I'm not sure why anyone would object to people from minorities having an indication they are welcome
And how do you indicate that? With friendly courtesy, welcome, good preparation and training for the room stewards so that they can be both knowledgeable and helpful.
Of course - the point of inclusivity is just that- being inclusive = welcoming everybody
You clearly had a bad experience Worried well but I think this was more down to the crass behaviour of the individuals concerned rather than any NT policy.
If I may remind us of my OP and the “mission statement” of the National Trust on its foundation
the original aims of the NT were that it was “established for the purpose of promoting the permanent preservation for the benefit of the nation of lands, and buildings, of beauty or historic interest and lands for the preservation so far as practical of their natural aspect features and animal and plant life “
Time to go back to first principles.

Kali I have been studying landscape history for the last 40 years. that is why I promised not to bore on the subject. The main reasons for enclosure were economic.

theworriedwell why would all that glitter etc etc make gay people feel welccome. For some of them it makes their skin crawl. Anyway how can you tell whether a couple or family visiting a NT property are gay? It isn't branded on their forehead, they do not wear little pink stars.

I have visited NT properties with a female friend. DS does it quite a lot (with a male friend). Who can tell whether we are gay or straight. In my youth with DH travelling a lot I often went to NT properties with my sister and my children, how could the NT work out whether we were gay, straight, related or just friends?

Surely the fact that the houses are open for visitors indicates that visitors are welcome. I always find the staff at NT properties friendly and helpful, even overhelpful at times.

I am horrified that anyone met discrimination because of their colour, but that was discrimination because skin colour is visible - and is absolutely no excuse for it.

I think I went overboard with indications there. Sorry.

Surely the point of the rainbow and any dressing up isn't to indicate that they think all gay people walk round like that all the time but to indicate they are welcome.

I'm not sure what sign they could give us, as a couple, to indicate we are welcome but it would be nice to have an indication that we are.

I'm not sure why anyone would object to people from minorities having an indication they are welcome.

Blossoming

I think it’s Katherine Howard that flits along the long gallery.

I think they both flit around from time to time Blossoming.
Katherine Howard may have claimed The Gallery, Jane having to make do with the corridor and wandering around the Clock Court.

It's quite busy there, they're not alone.

granny!