The National Trust has the purpose of the permanent preservation of lands and buildings of beauty and historic interest - and of promoting them for everybody to enjoy. The Charity Commission is worried that it may surprise some of its supporters
https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/publicandheritagebodies/nt/

Its vision is 'for ever, for everyone'. Taking that seriously may make it difficult to avoid engaging [constructively] with contested questions about buildings of beauty and historic interest, given eg civil wars, faith, race, Empire & social change https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/governance-handbook

One could do this well/badly, in different ways. (Heritage bodies often lack confidence in navigating issues of race, so might do it clunkily). It seems an especially weak argument to say it may be outside its purpose if some traditional supporters are surprised by an outputs.

The report notes 'some members of the public complained'. Take them seriously - but avoid valorising complainants. There are very noisy views at the poles of a Contested History debate, but much broader public appetite for explanation, context, education https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1285656425231011841

Taking purpose seriously shouldn't involve taking sides on political questions - nor pushing any specific view. But nor a "simple" role entailing avoidance of contentful issues, some contentious, of historical & public interest about our national heritage https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1315253424519348225

The National Trust report on the links of colonialism to its properties can be read here. (I have read some sections, but not all of it). https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/addressing-the-histories-of-slavery-and-colonialism-at-the-national-trust#Download%20the%20report

Blog about the NT approach by director of culture and engagement

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/blogs/directors-blog/beautiful-places-challenging-histories

It seems to me self-evident that nobody could present properties like Powis Castle to the public without giving an account of Robert Clive's role in India, where he amassed his collection that is on display.

Most noticed - and criticised - section is this description of Chartwell & Churchill. I do think some of this criticism is merited here. Include Bengal Famine & maybe his backbench vote on the 1935 Govt of India Act, but the overall paragraph seems odd, tonally, and unbalanced.

Earlier thread on this NT report https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1308732838775316480

I feel we need more clarity about the foundational principles of what we should be trying to do with contested history. My take https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1308737480326340608

"It is not expected to become a statutory inquiry" reports the Daily Telegraph, in the 12th paragraph of its page 1 news splash, 'National Trust could face inquiry into its 'purpose'.

The Telegraph also reports that Baroness Stowell will step down from chairing the Charity Commission when her three year term ends in February https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/23/national-trust-could-face-inquiry-purpose/?utm_content=telegraph&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1603485164

'Charity Commission considers complaints about National Trust report - but does not launch inquiry, despite hinting it might during a podcast' could become a contender for a Constantine Award for Tepid Culture War clashes, along with 'Charles Moore doesn't apply for BBC Chair'