\n<\/p>\n
A painting in Dyrham House, a grand mansion in southwest England, offers a panoramic view<\/a> of the port of Bridgetown, Barbados, with sugar plantations dotted along a hillside.<\/p>\n In another room are two carved figures depicting kneeling Black men, holding scallop shells overhead. They are chained at the ankles and neck.<\/p>\n These works belonged to William Blathwayt<\/a>, who owned Dyrham in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, and, as Britain\u2019s auditor general of plantation revenues, oversaw the profits that rolled in from the colonies.<\/p>\n Explaining the history of a place like Dyrham can be contentious, as the National Trust, the nearly 130-year-old charity that manages many of Britain\u2019s prized historic homes, has found out.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n After the organization revamped its displays to highlight the links between dozens of its properties and the exploitation and slavery of the colonial era, it drew the wrath of some right-wing columnists and academics, who accused<\/a> the trust of being \u201cwoke<\/a>,\u201d suggested that it was presenting an \u201canti-British\u201d view of history<\/a>, and began a campaign to roll back some of the changes.<\/p>\n The ensuing battle \u2014 which has echoes of the heated debate over Confederate monuments in the United States<\/a> \u2014 has played out for three years on social media and in right-wing newspapers in Britain.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n So far, the National Trust has resisted the campaign and has stood by its new displays and their references to colonialism and slavery. But the controversy has roiled the trust, whose annual meetings have seen an opaquely funded<\/a> group, Restore Trust, try to put its candidates on the charity\u2019s council, an advisory group that works with the trust\u2019s governing board.<\/p>\n The National Trust was established in 1895 to preserve natural and historic places. It has spent 129 years acquiring stately homes, some owned by families who could no longer maintain them after World War II, as well as miles of coastline and countryside that it opened to the public.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The group\u2019s 5.37 million members pay \u00a391 a year \u2014 around $115 \u2014 for unlimited entry into more than 500 sites. Even if you\u2019ve never been to a National Trust property, you\u2019ve probably seen one in a period drama. Parts of \u201cDownton Abbey\u201d were shot at Lacock<\/a> in Wiltshire, while Basildon Park, near Reading, features in 2005\u2019s \u201cPride & Prejudice\u201d<\/a> and seasons two and three of \u201cBridgerton<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n While the trust works to conserve history, it has always adapted, said Hilary McGrady, its director general, in an interview. \u201cThe very idea that we are potentially changing, I can see why that might feel unnerving,\u201d she said. \u201cThe reality is, the trust has always changed.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n She noted that the houses didn\u2019t always tell the stories of servants who worked \u201cbelow stairs,\u201d and that when they began highlighting those in the 1950s, there was pushback. \u201cYet we now think that\u2019s entirely normal,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n What Ms. McGrady can\u2019t understand, she said, are the claims that the trust is on \u201ca mad campaign to undermine history.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Restore Trust was founded in 2021, a year after the National Trust released a report<\/a> detailing the historical links that 93 of its properties had to colonialism and slavery. On its website, Restore declares that the National Trust is \u201cdriven by modish, divisive ideologies,\u201d and calls for it to \u201crestore a sense of welcome for all visitors without demonizing anyone\u2019s history or heritage.\u201d<\/p>\n Cornelia van der Poll, the current director of Restore \u2014 and a former lecturer in ancient Greek at a private Catholic college at the University of Oxford \u2014 has argued that the view of history presented at some trust properties \u201cstrayed\u201d from its focus<\/a>. In an emailed statement for this article she also pointed to what she said was \u201cthe loss of expert curators and the loss of authority of qualified experts in deciding how properties are managed and presented.\u201d<\/p>\n The trust has said<\/a> that its number of curators has doubled in the last five years.<\/p>\n Mary Beard, the classics expert and former Cambridge professor, told The Times of London that the 2020 report \u201cwas just stating the bleeding obvious: of course some houses have uncomfortable pasts.\u201d She praised Dyrham\u2019s treatment of its history<\/a> as an example of good curation: keeping objects like the statues of the enslaved figures but contextualizing them.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n On its website, Restore says it is \u201cpolitically independent\u201d and was founded by individuals. But the Good Law Project, a British governance watchdog, brought legal action to find out who was behind Restore<\/a> and established that its website was owned by a private company, RT2021<\/a>, incorporated in April 2021 with the stated objective of \u201cMonitoring the activities of the National Trust.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Ian Browne, the legal manager for the Good Law Project, said Restore masqueraded \u201cas a grass-roots organization speaking on behalf of common sense\u201d but had links to other right-wing advocacy groups. From 2021 until January, one of the group\u2019s directors<\/a> was Neil Record, the former chairman of the Institute of Economic Affairs<\/a>, a libertarian think tank, and current chairman of Net Zero Watch, a group that denies<\/a> that the world is in a \u201cclimate emergency.\u201d<\/p>\n Mr. Record did not respond to requests for comment.<\/p>\n Restore also has the endorsement of right-wing figures including Nigel Farage<\/a>, the Brexit campaigner now running for Parliament.<\/p>\n Dr. van der Poll said: \u201cWe receive donations and help from thousands of supporters. We believe that is a fair definition of a grass-roots campaign,\u201d and declined to elaborate on Restore\u2019s funding.<\/p>\n Before the National Trust\u2019s meeting last November, Restore flooded social media with ads and pressed its position in numerous articles and media appearances.<\/p>\n But on the day of the meeting, a record number of National Trust members<\/a> \u2014 156,000 \u2014 cast ballots and rejected all the initiatives and candidates backed by Restore.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Its agenda had stoked some pockets of tension, however. After the result was announced, one man shouted, \u201cYou rigged the vote!\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The broader result may reflect the British public\u2019s disdain for culture wars, experts said, with many telling pollsters that they crave a quieter, more civil political discourse.<\/a><\/p>\n\u2018Modish, Divisive Ideologies\u2019<\/h2>\n