Preserving the UK’S past

UNTIL the 19th century, it was commonplace for ancient monuments or historic buildings to be destroyed. The idea that we were but temporary custodians of a heritage that should be passed on to future generations was an alien concept.

Now, concerns have been raised that, in these straitened times, we have once again become careless with the rich legacy of our past. Speaking at the Telegraph Hay Festival, Simon Thurley, the CE of English Heritage, argued that governments have been more interested in spending money to acquire paintings for metropolitan museums than preserving castles or Roman sites.

He makes a good point. As there is limited cash to go around, isn’t it better spent on our own monuments, rather than stopping an Italian Old Master ending up in a US gallery, where it can still be seen?

Thurley claimed that more than 5,000 buildings, battlefields, monuments, gardens and other sites of historical interest are at risk. He is, of course, seeking a bigger share of those scarce funds — but he is right to do so. If we are asked to spend millions on a Titian or a Raphael, we should remember there are neolithic standing stones, Roman mosaics and motte-and-bailey castles more deserving of support. After all, once gone, they can never be recovered. London, May 30