National Trust and JKR

[SlackJawedDisbeliefXY]

National Trust angers its members by covering up feminist artwork after JK Rowling's name was removed | Daily Mail Online

So the feminist statement of stitching a strikethrough of JKR's name is OK to display but another feminist un-stitching the strikethrough is unacceptable for display?

Not all feminist statements are equal

🧐

"Unsurprising. @nationaltrust sent 3 attendees to the Stonewall Workplace Conference 2025 to deliver a presentation. One of them refused to shake @MForstater's proffered hand (reported on @IsntWorkingPod) after sitting at the same table all day! Some nice people working there."

https://x.com/Redalex261/status/1926399582793064503

I recalled something dodgy about the NT and here it is. Small but significant?
It was noted that at the recent Stonewall conference an NT delegate refused to shake hands with Maya Forstater. It leaves me wondering whether someone working/volunteering at the NT had a hand in defacing JKR's name on this tapestry. I do hope that the membership challenge this if so (not a member myself for many years). Disturbing.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5340207-this-isnt-working-podcast-stonewall-conference?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share&utm_source=copylink

My reply from the NT was a repeat of the statement upthread. I do think it makes a difference that Rowling’s name was still visible

Other things that the NT are doing are decidedly questionable - including spending precious resources supporting Stonewall. But I think this might have been spun. The social commentary of her name being crossed out - but she’s still there is quite powerful imo

OK, so it reads as if they're saying they were happy to hang it with two of the seven JKRs overstitched?

Was anybody else's name overstitched by "other participants"? Why did they think it was appropriate to hang it like that?

JKR's name appeared SEVEN times? Wow. Now that's popularity
Were any other names oversewn? Why was it not seen by the NT as damage to be removed before permanent display? [rhetorical question, obviously🙄]

“A Virtuous Woman' was an artwork open to contributions for 8 months and closed in November when the piece was finished and put on public display. During the participation phase, JK Rowling's name was stitched onto the piece seven times and in two instances it was stitched over by other participants. At the time the artwork was completed and subsequently hung, JK Rowling's name appeared five times without any overstitching.'

This part was part of their statement when it first started to hit social media I think.

Sorry, GreySkyBlueSky & Helle I was editing when you replied having reread some of the thread - to clarify, that comment was in response to a repost of the NT statement

NT are already in trouble financially. They treated members badly during covid and lots cancelled their membership then. Now lots of women, who are usually the decision makers on these things, are cancelling. I am guessing most people who cancel never go back as well.
I had friends who were made redundant by NT in 2020 and the homes they lived in were going to be converted to holiday rentals to try and generate some cash. They restructured so roles didn’t have accommodation tied to them, making many of the jobs out of reach for most people because of the areas they are located in.
My friend told me recently her ex property is now run by young posh kids who can afford to take on these jobs.
Its another organisation handing themselves over to progressive youths who think only their opinion counts.
Its only anecdotal but I’ve seen a lot of volunteers are quitting over this (as they are often badly treated anyway it’s been the last straw).
They have little interest in their core audience who clearly who pay their bills.

NT reply to me:
As you will see I have copied your email in to Hardwick, as they are best placed to look into this and respond to you. I’m sure they will contact you soon.

Looks like Mission Control are washing their hands of the whole episode

I don’t think it matters whether five remain untouched. The point remains, they refused to put up a sign about it. It seems no other women’s names were singled out, yet NT believed this was a righteous protest. And a protest about what exactly? Her actions are in line with court judgements and law. So why was this action ever allowed in the first place? Because of special treatment for a particular group.

Agreed Arran2024. Why be so ageist and patronising DustlandFairytaleBeginning? I used to volunteer for the National Trust - because I like history and conservation, not because I was "looking to fill my days", and my brains had dropped out of my head as soon as I reached 60.

All this will drive support to the Restore Trust faction who want the NT to get back to basics.

I doubt it, given the so far 100% failure rate by said Reform Trust to try and make the National Trust pretend that Our Island Story is cutting edge history.

This I think is where the comments about the "sweet grandmothers" may be coming from. The people who do the bulk of the grunt work, and the bulk of the members and visitors, are not particularly interested in the DEI focused agenda, the"decolonising" of the properties, and the weirdly tortured attempts to link every artefact and site to identity politics categories.

That's not why they are there, and the leadership seems massively out of touch with what people value about the whole institution of the NT, and about their built heritage more generally.

They seem like another institution that could very easily undermine or even destroy their own reason for existing.

I am intrigued by the choice of name for the piece. “A virtuous woman” and the instructions were to stitch names of women we would like to celebrate? Is there more context to this I didn’t pick up from the articles I’ve read?

what do people think of when you think virtuous? It’s bringing images of the traditional Christian housewife to my mind. That’s a box we escaped and are fighting being pushed back into. Virtuous would not be my choice of word for the women I feel deserve celebrating. But perhaps people read it like a women of many virtues- meaning many skills and talents?

Wouldn’t it have been it a better option to let the curators know any concerns about an artwork, rather than step over the guide ropes, look after it yourself and potentially cause damage?

I am intrigued by the choice of name for the piece. “A virtuous woman” and the instructions were to stitch names of women we would like to celebrate? Is there more context to this I didn’t pick up from the articles I’ve read?

It's a reference to textile pieces commissioned by Bess of Hardwick, who had Hardwick Hall built and decorated to her taste, depicting noble women of antiquity and their associated virtues. There were five - Lucrecia with Chasteti and Liberaliter (Chastity and Liberality), Penelope with Perseverans and Paciens (Perseverance and Patience), Zenobia with Magnanimitas and Prudentia (Magnanimity and Prudence), and Athemesia with Constans and Pietas (Constancy and Piety). Four survive but one - Cleopatra with Justicia and Fortitudo - was lost.

The Layla Khoo piece was commissioned to "reimagine" this lost piece.

Yeah

thats what should happen, the Vandals shouldn’t have done it and if they hadn’t done it then Jean H wouldn’t have needed to correct it

i wouldnt have been able to do what Jean did, all power to her

You're so cute.

I emailed The National Trust to cancel and told them why, got same answer.

Shame on the NT for letting it happen in the first place and shame on them for ignoring the WRN request for a note to be displayed alongside. I’m glad the overstitching was removed, it’s what galvanised me into cancelling my membership.

From the reporting, it was NT volunteers that defaced the artwork and then boasted about it to their colleagues.

It appears that the NT knew that their own staff had been responsible for the defacement of an artwork but chose to both not repair it and not display a note alongside explaining what had happened.

If a prominent trans campaigner's name had been stitched over I feel that a different course of action would have been taken. I do wonder if part of that response would include branding the defacement as a hate crime.

I complained to the NT and got the standard response which has been shared on here. So I replied that wasn't good enough and apparently it has been referred to head office!

I got the same answer.

I responded that it seemed disingenuous and that my decision on whether or not to cancel membership would be based on whether they can give me assurances that loo facilities signposted women’s or female are adherent to the Supreme Court clarification of what the law has always been and the thorough interim guidance on practical application.

I said my family budget does not stretch to supporting charities that do not follow the law.

I’m waiting for them to get back to me on that one.

It’s dropped out of the news, I doubt they’ve got back to anyone with a follow-up last few days, they are going for a strategy of ignoring it and letting it blow over.

Hope Jean/Vonnie’s dress tour gets it back in the news again.

On reflection, I think the baseline is that the public were invited to embroider the names of women they admire and wanted to celebrate.
I don't think the project included:

'and if you disagree with someone else's choice of woman to admire and celebrate - maybe you think she was a closet imperialist or a middle-class do-gooder or had dodgy opinions on something - part of the project is to cross out the name you don't like by embroidering over it'.

It wasn't a debate about who deserves to be celebrated, with the option of crossing out ones you didn't like, it was a statement by members of the public of a range of women they admired for various reasons - I haven't seen a list of all the names but I bet it is a very varied mix of women.

Presumably the stitching over of JKR's name was taken as a pro-trans political statement and let stand for that reason; well, the same can be said of the unpicking of it by a feminist activist - it was a pro-women political statement, which should be let stand for that same reason.

You reap what you sew, NT