THE Imperial War Museum has announced the closure of the Ashcroft Gallery, opened by the Princess Royal in 2010. It housed the bulk of the private collection of Lord Ashcroft, who has amassed 240 Victoria Crosses and 41 George Crosses, and included other gallantry decorations given or lent to the museum. A group of living holders of the VC and GC toured the gallery for one last time with Lord Ashcroft before it closed on May 31 and expressed their outrage at the decision. Lord Ashcroft has threatened legal action if the gallery does not remain open throughout the summer school holidays.
So what happens to the collection? Lord Ashcroft had planned to leave his entire holding to the nation but has now decided it is not safe to do so and the medals and decorations will return to him, as the loan agreement with the IWM expires this year. Lord Ashcroft has suggested that his collection may go on show abroad.
The expiry of the loan agreement partly explains the closure of the gallery, as museums in general are wary of loans: the items involved have to be insured for their full market value at considerable cost, security has to be upgraded at further cost and there can be disputes over ownership among families which involve considerable legal wrangling. The IWM’s collection of VCs and GCs will, it seems, be distributed around the various branches – London, Manchester, Duxford and the Cabinet War Rooms – incorporated into other displays. The advantage is that more people will see a few of the medals; but the disadvantage is that the ‘shock and awe’ effect of such a large group is lost.
I visited the gallery myself before covid kicked in. As I expected, the collection was magnificent, and the bravery these decorations represent made me, as a former soldier, feel very humble. I have to say, though, that the interpretation of the displays was, at that point, disappointing. Many groups included other decorations and service medals which needed explanation and perhaps some images of the campaigns involved. This may have been added later but at the time, I felt the museum had not done full justice to the exhibits. Even so, the gallery has definitely been a crowd-puller.
Why has it been closed? Partly, as I explained above, the expiry of the loan agreement. Otherwise, the explanation seems to be the desire to open new exhibitions. Of course, the museum is free to do as it likes with its holdings, within legal limits, but as an ‘arm’s-length body’, fully funded by the taxpayer and free for British people and foreigners to enter at no charge, it must surely take account of the views of those who pay the bills? One of Lord Ashcroft’s biggest complaints – and he is quite right so to complain – has been the lack of any consultation with him from the Trustees of the Museum. This, I fear, is what happens when military museums are run by ‘museum professionals’: people with plenty of experience in that specialised field, but no experience whatsoever of military service or even training in military history. The board of trustees should take a view on such things but, as they will have appointed those museum professionals to their posts, can they be trusted to do so? The National Army Museum went through this in 2017 when its revamp inspired outrage from veterans. I recall my own shock at visiting the new museum, having known the old one for many years, and coming away with the sense that I was supposed to be ashamed of my service, my Army and my country. The then director resigned and was replaced by a distinguished retired military officer. Happily, the new director has taken great strides in putting matters right.
In which direction will the IWM go now? Is it sending the message that bravery and the defence of the nation are best hidden away?
Editor’s note: Lt Gen Riley, whose ‘coal face’ military career spans six tours of Northern Ireland, five tours in the Balkans, two operations in Iraq, one in Afghanistan and one in Sierra Leone, holds the Distinguished Service Order, the Queen’s Commendation for Valuable Service and the American Legion of Merit.
