National Trust visit spoilt by overzealous staff or AIBU?

[Sunshineismyfavourite]

Visited a beautiful NT country house today. Huge 17th century house with Capability Brown landscaped parkland. The house has lots of art by Van Dyck - one of my favourite artists and I was really looking forward to spending a couple of hours with DH wandering around in the beautiful spaces enjoying the peace and quiet. However, every time I stopped to look at a painting one of the staff would come up to me and start talking. This happened several times in every room we wandered into. I totally get the enthusiasm and expertise of the staff but I wasn't really interested in hearing about the Civil War etc., I just wanted to enjoy the paintings in peace. We do visit NT properties occasionally but have never found this to be a problem before.
The staff just seemed to be unable to read my body language as I was trying to walk away or indicate that I didn't want to talk or listen to them by not responding or engaging with them. Short of telling them to shut up it was impossible.
It was a very quiet day with not many visitors so they were probably bored but it was way too much for us.
AIBU by being a miserable bugger (I know I'm quite unsociable at times) or should I be allowed to wander round in peace? Perhaps they should give out 'don't talk to me' badges with the tickets if you want to be left in peace!

Actually, apologies @C8H10N4O2 . I take back that bit where I said "In fact I wondered to myself whether your post might be an instance of the tendency (in all of us) to continue to operate with ageist assumptions even as we age ourselves, and to regard ourselves as exceptions to the rule." I did ponder the persistence of ageism in older age , but it was unfair to say that the pondering was prompted by your post, which is restricted to the changes in the curriculum. I think my mind just dawdled forwards beyond that.

I don't actually understand the point you are trying to make as what you have just posted is basically the same as I said. It's just worded differently.

It's a well known fact that there are certain areas of "culture" or "entertainment" that are not frequented by certain minority groups for a whole variety of reasons. It is a complicated topic and much more complex than just saying "Oh well they don't depict it from a black/gay/BAME/Irish/Scottish perspective".

I have to agree with the other poster that this is not my experience. In fact I taught slavery for all my career both here in the UK and in Commonwealth countries. I was going to go on and try to describe a situation in a class relating to this and perception of the slave trade by black Caribbean children but decided it is too hard to do in this format. It would get slated regardless of how I told it.

As regards the OP I always greet a volunteer in these places purely to acknowledge them and I may ask them something. If I felt someone was pestering me I would say "Thanks for that. I'm going to have a wander now". Surely it's not difficult?

Your post insinuated, through it’s rather aggressive manner, that someone pointing out that a lack of Black perspective would make NT properties less attractive to the Black population necessarily meant that they did not consider other issues could be a factor. My point was - wind your neck in, all that was being said was that it is a factor.

I'm very late to this thread, but - Aargh! - I hear you! That's so annoying. I was in a shop last week - one which sells artisanal goods. The proprietor took it upon herself follow me around and explain the name and function of EVERY SINGLE THING I looked at, despite the fact they were all clearly labelled and I have no problem reading that stuff. I couldn't shake her off! I kept saying, "Yes, I can see from the label, thanks", but she wasn't put off. Eventually, I put back all the things I had been considering buying and left.

I won't " wind my neck in " on your command. 😂

Not to be pedantic, @calicogoose , but the NT link says it is unknown as to whether the child is a depiction of an actual servant owned by the family or meant as a symbol of slavery. There is more than one possible way of looking at the painting, and it is open to interpretation.

Either way, real or symbolic, the child represents slavery in Britain because there would have been no other way for a small Black child to be in 18th century Britain without being a slave.

I'm sorry, but that is 'bleeding obvious', as I've said before. No matter what your education was like or how old you are, it is a matter of general knowledge that Britain's indigenous population is white-skinned, so anyone not white-skinned has to have come here from somewhere else originally. It is also a matter of general knowledge that Britain was heavily involved in the slave trade in the 18th century. I don't think the NT is asking a lot from visitors to make that connection themselves.

I used to volunteer in a NT property behind the scenes many years ago and the reality is that:
a) Individual properties have widely varying budgets for things like displays and labelling, and often have to make very difficult choices about where their money goes - conservation has to be the priority in many properties
b) The curators of NT properties have a huge amount of responsibilities beyond the collections in the buildings. Expecting them to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every object on every surface in the home they manage is utterly unreasonable. They do their best, of course, but some properties have tens of thousands of objects contained within them.

Your other points about NT properties attracting less diverse populations than London galleries are a little misleading, as you suggest this is proof they are unwelcoming to people of colour. London is the most racially diverse part of the UK. So of course you're going to find a hugely diverse group of people visiting - it's on their doorstep. Most NT properties are situated in rural parts of the UK where the population of people of colour is very low. Less than 20% of the UK population is non-white. Most of this population is centred around the big cities. So on an average day in an NT property in the middle of, say, the Somerset countryside, no, you're probably not going to see any people of colour visiting. Is that because they don't feel welcome? Or is it just because there are so few people of colour living in the area?

I do take umbrage with your insistence that the NT is doing a terrible job of representation because I don't think it's true. Many of their properties have done a thoughtful and considered job of telling the stories of their difficult pasts over the past decade, and there are numerous and regular initiatives to encourage and welcome visitors from a wider range of backgrounds. Nowhere is perfect, but you using one example of a painting you felt was badly displayed to write off a whole organisation's dealings with slavery is more than a little unfair. I think you need to go and see some other properties and how they deal with similar pasts before you make such sweeping judgements.

I also think some onus has to be on visitors to educate themselves. If I'm going somewhere for the day, I will look it up and find out some information before I go, so that I have a base of general knowledge that I can then use to find out more once I'm actually inside. If I can't find out what I want to know from a room guide, I'll take a photo and then look it up myself when I get home. I don't expect to be 'told' everything I want to know, just as I don't expect everyone in the property to know everything about everything on display.

@EnidSpyton If you were a volunteer for the National Trust, you probably have great sympathy for their cause. You explain away other organisations creating more sensitive displays because they are London or wherever. Upton Park is near Birmingham, a very diverse city. It is in the interest of the National Trust to make Upton Park an attractive place to visit, regardless of the ethnicity of visitors. I don't think it is doing that.
I think I am right in saying that The Smith Family was not connected to Upton Park. The most recent owner collected paintings and it is this collection on display. I think the Smith Family painting is far more important as a snapshot of the acceptance of slavery in the eighteenth century Britain than it is as a painting. The painting was pre painted by the artist and the heads of the family added on. It was a cheap way to acquire a family portrait.
If you are having this very poor painting on display, it needs to be set in context.
There are other dodgy paintings in this collection. Many have no connection to the house.
It may be a case of a poor curator just bunging them on display without thinking about the implications. However, I do believe the National Trust has a responsibility to manage sensitively paintings with questionable provenance. It should constantly be challenging itself to make displays relevant and to prompt thoughtful interaction with visitors.
As others have already said, a good volunteer can explain the background to items which are not explained by signs.
As many other posters and you yourself have said, these stately homes were often built using money made by the slave trade. A lot of people will find the existence of these houses troubling. It is the responsibility of the NT to show why they are worth preserving. I don't think the National Trust is managing to do this at Upton Park.

Also @EnidSpyton
You assert that links to the Slave Trade at Upton Park and other NT properties is, and I quote you, 'Bleeding obvious'. Well, I have just looked on line and whether an NT property was built using questionable funds is not at all obvious. Upton Park attributes the money coming from the Shell Oil company. It may have used funds from the Slave Trade but it is certainly not obvious.

I'm sorry, but that is 'bleeding obvious', as I've said before. No matter what your education was like or how old you are, it is a matter of general knowledge that Britain's indigenous population is white-skinned, so anyone not white-skinned has to have come here from somewhere else originally

Sorry but there’s so much wrong with that statement, whether it’s the ignoring of evidence for dark skinned people very early, such as Cheddar Man, or the idea that you haven’t ‘come from here originally’ if you are dark skinned. If you have grown up here you come from here. There have been waves of immigrants of many colours including white; just because you are white doesn’t mean you don’t have ancestors from somewhere else, whether Celts, Saxons, Vikings….

I meant this comment in the context of the appearance of a Black child in an 18thc portrait depicting a wealthy British family, at a time when immigration and globalisation were much more limited in our part of the world. Anyone in the 18thc living in Britain who wasn’t white (or mixed race) would have to have recently been brought or travelled to Britain from somewhere else. I don’t think there’s anything offensive about stating historical fact. Black Britons were not living in this country in large numbers - people born and brought up in the UK to Black parents - before the 20thc. Pretending otherwise is just historically inaccurate.

My advice would be to never visit Audley End House if you don't like being bothered. The House is owned by English Heritage, but the contents are held in trust, so EH have to ensure absolutely nothing is touched, taken or photographed. When the guides are not talking at you, they are watching you like a hawk. There is literally a volunteer every few feet. It get very wearisome quite quickly.

I think it’s worth pointing out NT cut a lot of staff in the last few years. So there may only be a house manager/curator covering several properties and responsible for everything.
When my friend was made redundant they didn’t end up filling her role which had then been downgraded. So there’s probably very little curatorial work going on in her old house now.