Here's an editorial from the guardian in 2010 on the national trust..
"It is difficult to conceive of a body as conservative (with a small c) as the National Trust undergoing its very own cultural revolution. Smashing the liberal bourgeoisie is not the first thought that leaps to mind as you munch your way through a slice of coffee and walnut cake in the orangery. But their new strategy, Going Local, which the trust unveils this morning, would represent something of a sea change in the culture of a body dedicated to preserving heritage, and with it healthy servings of tradition.
The idea of re-establishing the involvement of local communities in the great houses and parks in their midst has much merit. Nearly one-third of the £3m needed to rescue Seaton Delaval Hall in Northumberland, one of England's finest stately homes, was raised locally. So why shouldn't a former miner write in the guidebook about the coal on which much of the Delavals' wealth was founded?
(and here's a comment underneight that sums up the (equally valid IMHHO) counterview..)
10 February 2010 4:08AM
A 'National Trust' that sought to reinvent itself for the contemporary world would surely be concerned not only with matters relating to the preservation of aristocratic and bourgeois icons but also with matters relating to the sustainable development of iconic structures upon which our great grandchildren would gaze with pride.
We may appreciate the grandeur of the great gardens and gazebos paid for by slavery and oppression but will we bequeath, to the 'National Trust', artefacts and architectures that tell a more egalitarian and less imperialist story? What will be the 'Jenkins Legacy' other than the re-preservation of stories of inequity? Do tell!
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/10/national-trust