Talk:Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain

List?

How about a list of demolished houses by county? It might give an idea of the scale of the destruction, and could link to individual articles on the houses. I keep finding references to 'disappeared' houses and it would be good to have a gathering together of them all somewhere.81.129.133.146 (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• It would be very good idea to have a "list page" linked to from this page; IMO this page is more than long enough already. I did start Category:Britain's lost houses (confined to those lost in the 20th century), with the idea that this page would be the explantatory page to the category.

The thing about categories is that they only point to articles that already exist: a list with all its redlinks would be a spur to article production. Well, that's the theory, anyway.81.129.133.146 (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether something like List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England for the houses would be good - grouping houses by region rather than county to keep the number of lists down, and sortable by date of demolition, name, county, owner etc. and with a pretty photograph or engraving or such like to illustrate. Then even if some of the entries never got expanded into an article there'd still be a good kernel of information for each house.86.152.23.79 (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• This may help: Complete list of lost English country houses Ivolocy (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Earlier lost houses

Also, how about a parallel article on earlier pre-20th century lost houses - those demolished in previous centuries for differing sets of reasons eg Nonsuch Palace, Clifton Maybank etc?81.129.133.146 (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Fancy writing it? I think this page has probably taken me two years so I'm not ready to start a sister page just yet, but it's a great idea. The only problem that I can see is that there is nothing unifying the demolitions - they were just the result of people being "desirous of change" rather than a change in social history. It could be interesting to do a page on houses destroyed in the English Civil War, Corfe Castle imediatly springs to my mind and (is it) Holdenby House where they had a big siege? I know Compton Wynyates was damaged and Basing House was destroyed, I woul dimagine some reearchwould find at least a dozen or so more.  Giacomo  15:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not me mate, I'm no way knowledgeable enough I'm afraid. I had sort of thought of an article per century, as houses got bashed down for all sorts of reasons, but it was just vague musings, really, and probably not very realistic.81.129.133.146 (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC) PS Great work on this one, btw.

I don't think "per century", you would find enough with the necessary detailed information and images to make the page iteresting. The problem is, that before the late 19th/20th century in most cases houses were reuilt or "improved" rather than demolished - there are exceptions, but they are rare and not enought to fill a decent page, but that's only my POV. The Civil War houses has rather grown on me though - sort of "The Country House at War" The first half could be the Civil War, battle stories, damage and demolition; the second half, country houses as hospital, baracks and schools during the two world wars, but photos in copyright would be the problem there as they would not be 100 years old. Dificult, but I quite like the idea. I'm surprised no one's writen a book about it.  Giacomo  19:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd buy it!86.152.23.79 (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

yes, so would I. Perhaps I ought to write and make myelf famous.  Giacomo  15:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Get cracking then! At a lunch in the summer I sat next to a veritable old lady who had been a schoolgirl at Longleat during the war. I wish I could remember more about what she told me but the wine was very good and I wasn't driving.....86.152.23.79 (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

See Also

Are there no other articles that would benefit our readers by being linked to from here? Silverseren^C 00:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hadlow Castle (it wasn't a castle!) is probably worth mentioning. Largely demolished in 1951, the tower, gate lodges and stable block survive. Mjroots (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is there are 750 all worthy of a mention and another 500 odd debatably so; I have already created many minor pages to cover some of the houses mentioned here; where does one stop? I have created category: Britain's lost houses, but as someone said elsewhere, we have to have a page already for a house to be there. We could have a list of houses on a seperate page, linked by a "see also" - how do you feel anout that? I'm sure I have seen somewhere some losts of lost houses by county here already, but I can't find them now - typical!  Giacomo  19:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the odd English country house contents auctions is very pertinent. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Brideshead, and other thoughts

It might well be worth adding in Waugh's comments in his introduction to the 1959 2nd edn., where he explains he had not anticipated that Brideshead would in fact have been absorbed by the heritage industry & had assumed it was doomed. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any mention of the National Trust, nor its cunning diversion from its original mission of preserving landscape. James Lees-Milne & his diaries deserve a plug.

Yes, I suppose they are worth a mention, I'll write themin later today, I supose they were part of the solution - Ernest Cook probably deserves a pluf too. written a bit here [1]  Giacomo  07:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I was a touch dubious about the passage on gentry vs magnate houses. So long as the family had resisted the temptation in Victorian times to knock down their nice Georgian box & build something twice the size, I would have thought these were about the safest type of country house, as there has always been a market for neat little manor houses in the 20th century, if only from those who had just knocked down their big, big houses (obviously not just them). It's unmanageable size that has been the killer.

which "gentry vs magnate houses" pasage - I'm not sure what you mean. Looking at all the photos of the 100s that went, there seem quite a few nice Georgian houses too, of all sizes - without a ref for that....

There was some nightmarish piece of legislation under the Atlee government, whereby (possibly unintentionally) if you spent £X repairing your roof or on similar repairs, you had to pay another £X in tax. Don't ask me how they managed that, but one can put nothing beyond the Inland Revenue. I think that took off a good number.

That would be good, if you can find a reff for it, I have not heard of it before.

You might mention Eaton Hall, Cheshire - Dukes of Westminster - 2 Victorian rebuilds, then replaced by a modernist effort in 1960 (designed by the Duke's brother-in-law) which has now been "recased and given the appearance of a French château" in the late 80s. Shows you what money can and can't do!

No, Eton Hall gets a plug for being demolished, but I don't think the Vitorian rebuildings are worth a mention (not here at least), as they are coverd under the mentin of houses neing extended to unmageable size in th 19th century - and the opening houses had been rebuilt throughout history.

But great to see this finally hit articlespace. Johnbod (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied to your posts above  Giacomo  07:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic

I love this article. Great job, all! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal essay, clearly biased

This article seems to set out to place as much of the blame as possible on the owners, rather than on the left-wing politicians and the haters of historical architecture in the 20th century modernistic architectural establishment who were really the two main causes of the demolitions. I am adding a POV tag for this reason, and also an essay tag. The article needs a thorough overhaul and review. Mowsbury (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to give a couple of examples of bias of omission, the article fails to mention that the duke of Sutherland was motivated by the pollution of the River Trent, and that the Bedfords only reduced Woburn in size after being driven to the brink of financial disaster by two massive death duty hits in a decade or so. Mowsbury (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• There is no POV, so I am reverting your tags. It is fully referenced and does not blame solely the owners - perhaps you have not read it properly. If you research your history properly (as I have done) the second set of the Bedford's death duties only came into force on the death/suicide of the Duke who demolished half of Woburn! It was his successor who not only had to pay 2 sets of death duties, but also clearup the mess made by the demolition. Regarding the Duke of Sutherland and the demolition of Trentham - perhaps you need to check your history there too! Giacomo Returned 20:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

This sentence: As far as general opinion was concerned, England's great houses came and they went; so long as their numbers remained, continuing to provide mass employment - I am wondering how England's great houses contributed to "mass employment". I seriously doubt that the jobs they provided were anything but a small fraction of a small fraction of total employment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

For "great houses" you should understand as the term to mean the owner of a house - with even modest houses having several indoor servants, an equal number of gardeners, then progresing outwards to gamekeepers, bailiffs and general agricultural workers - in a rural area (and prior to the 1850s most areas were rural) the local owner of a country house was a major employer - and almost every village (and they are in close proximity in England) had it's own squire/major employer. In fact, often a whole village was owned by the local estate and consisted entirely of tied cottages - so yes, mass employment is what they provided.Giacomo Returned 20:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The only significant employment category there would be "general agricultural workers" - but I don't think these people can really be said to be employed by the "house" but rather by the "land" - i.e. the agricultural job was still there whether or not the owner lived in a huge house or a slightly less huge house. The other guys, the ones who's job actually depended on the existence of a great house, the servants, gardeners and even bailiffs and gamekeepers (who are sort of in between), didn't really comprise numerically significant employment categories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Or to put it more succinctly, when the houses got demolished, that didn't mean that the agricultural workers lost their jobs - the land was still there and that's what they were employed on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but when the estate went it was usually divided as tenant farmers bought their own land, and of course at about that time (1870s onwards) along came the invention of agricultural machines until we have the situation today where 200 acre farms that once employed 15 men, are today unviable and either farmed by one owner/occupier barely making a living or have been amalgameted with neighbouring farms and farmed by contractors. Giacomo Returned 21:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, but whether or not a particular agricultural worker had a job didn't have anything to do with whether there was a great house around or not. If there was, they worked for the great house. If there wasn't they worked the same land which they now owned. So again, I don't think you can say that it was the "great house" which provided mass employment.

The general transformation of the economy from agriculture-based to manufacturing and then services, or the mechanization of industry, based likewise didn't really have much to do with the existence of these great house either but just general economic trends observed in all today-developed countries. Not really related.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find they were all part and parcel of the same "revolution." Giacomo Returned 21:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But the point is that the above text is misleading. "Great houses" were not providers of "mass employment". The land that the owners of these "great houses" owned was. The existence or demolition of these great houses was pretty much irrelevant for mass employment. I might as well note at this point that the claim is unsourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have a large business, it provides mass employment. If you break up that business into numerous smaller businesses, this does not change the fact that when still one business it provided mass employment. The country house was the centre of the economy; the management office, so to speak, with its own 'admin staff' (servants). The purpose of the estates being the fueling of the House as the centre of government in the area. Its no different in effect to the situation today, with business paying taxes to support local government today - the only difference is that the government then was hereditary (passed down throught the family which owned the House) rather than democratic as it is now. The head of the family functioned as unelected local government (they were often the JP, for example) with the House serving that position whilst the estate served the house's role.LeapUK (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Article issues?

This article is mostly unreferenced and have a unilateral tone that disdains the topic in question. Perhaps more cleanup is needed? --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be pretty sure if you scan through the references supplied you'll be able to find all the article's content included. Yes, there is rather a unilateral tone. If there are reliable sources saying that the building of country houses flourished in Britain through the 20th century, the article could be improved by dealing with this aspect more thoroughly. Thincat (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, the article title is too long to remember; if not for AutoComplete, I wouldn't completely remember the whole title. And "destruction" is not the neutral word, even if correct or right. --George Ho (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

@George Ho: This article is perfectly well referenced! You have not the remotest idea what you are talking about. The page describes and unfortunate, but well acknowledged and much written-up period of British architectural history. Most books describing this architectural catastrophe describe the "Lost Houses" which while fine for the title of a book is not encyclopedic and rather brings to mind Lady Bracknell and her handbag.  Giano  20:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what unilateral means in this context. There is of course room for improvement but the article is quite well written and organised, presenting clear enough reasons for the decline and demolition of these buildings. ProfDEH (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you're right and I'm wrong. I thought more inline references are needed, but I could be wrong. Not all print encyclopedias do inline references, as I'm afraid. By the way, is the lede too long or just right? --George Ho (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The lead is a summary the article which is what it's supposed to be.  Giano  21:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead

WP:LEAD is quite clear. The lead of an article, any article, should be no more than four (normal-sized) paragraphs long. A number of different editors have pointed out that this article is far from compliant, but User:Giano refuses to accept this, and has repeatedly removed the {{lead too long}} tag, claiming the lead is "as it should be". This is patently untrue; there can be no doubt that the lead of the article is considerably too long. None of the Featured Articles on architecture topics that I have seen is anything like as long as this. Even an article on a very broad topic, such as castle, has a lead of only (!) 540 words in 4 paragraphs.

I had hoped that Giano would be prepared to amend the lead as needed, because I am sure that he/she has the best grasp of the article as a whole. It would be particularly helpful if this could be done by Giano, because there appears to be material in the lead that is not covered elsewhere in the article, which should certainly be moved (rather than copied, I would say) to the relevant section lower down. (There should eventually be little need for inline citations in the lead, which should be introducing nothing that is not referenced later.) However, if Giano is unable or unwilling to carry out the remedial work, then I am sure someone else can be found to take it on. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to amend the lead because it does exactly what the lead is supposed to do - introduce and summarise the article. Should I think it necessary, I would even add another paragraph. I shall continue to edit the lead so that it is exactly as it should be. Furthermore, I am not interested in the leads of assorted FAs or even the lead of 'Castle.' It's a matter of horses for courses, and this complex subject needs an accurate lead.  Giano  08:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your opinions are contradicted by the site-wide style guide, which states:

the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs

There is a case for occasionally ignoring rules, but not for riding roughshod over them, or pretending that they don't apply when they do. The lead is not well-written, and does not summarise the article adequately (which entails doing so concisely). This topic is not exceptional, and does not require a seven-paragraph lead; moreover, you have made no meaningful attempt to justify a lead of this length. You claim that the lead needs to be accurate, which is true, but it does not need to be lengthy. Surely, when several different editors independently point out a failing of an article, you ought to give that view some consideration. The majority view here is that the lead is in need of improvement, and, whether you agree with that view or not, you ought to abide by it. That said, it seems that you are unwilling to make the necessary changes yourself. I will work on a better lead, but in the meanwhile, the cleanup tag must be restored (I'll do that, too). Please do not remove it without fixing the problem that undoubtedly does exist. (I, for one, would consider any removal of the cleanup tag without fixing the underlying problems to represent disruptive editing, since the tag is intended to bring about improvement.) --Stemonitis (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your opinion; I don't share it.  Giano  11:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The lead is bad. This is not a question of one person's opinion; it is matter of site-wide consensus. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that consensus is a worrying sign. Your sneaky dig at an unnamed admin in your edit summary could qualify as a personal attack. All in all, I see little evidence that you are capable of compromising in the manner required of a collaborative project such as this. I have tried to demonstrate a fairly simple way of improving the article, but you have rejected it for no reason I know of. In fact, some parts of your edits are unjustifiable, and were clearly part of a (disguised) revert. I can't see that I can do any more, so I will have to leave this article in the sorry state it is currently in.

A word on image sizes: MOS:IMAGES (specifically WP:IMGSIZE) recommends not specifying fixed pixel widths of images, to allow user-set preferences to be implemented; images set to 450 px wide are certainly too large. This is another thing I fixed, but which you have undone. I'm not about to start a fight on this, because I doubt you are open to the change. However, someone else may comment on this in the future. Please don't dismiss their concerns as you have dismissed mine. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The lead is now four paragraphs as you required. You did not fix, you removed. The image has to be 450px in order for the text to be read. secondly, there are no hard and fast rules on image sizes.  Giano  13:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

@Stemonitis. Johnbod changed and shortened the over-long lead quite drastically (and IMO sensibly) earlier today by dividing the material into lead + an "Overview" section. That was a couple of hours before you posted above that "The lead is bad. This is not a question of one person's opinion; it is matter of site-wide consensus." I have trouble with both statements. How can there be any site-wide consensus on the present lead (which remains basically Johnbod's version), when nobody except you yourself has commented on it? Also, I noticed that you edited after Johnbod (surely having studied his version), to add some material. You said then in your edit summary that you're "not sure which solution is better". That's being reasonable. Yet here on talk, later, you're calling the lead bad, in italics, and speaking of the "sorry state" the article is in. I'm confused. Have you assumed Giano has reverted Johnbod's changes? He hasn't. What's wrong with the current lead, in your opinion? Bishonen | talk 13:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC).

At the time of my edit, I wasn't sure which was better. That didn't last long. The purpose of an Overview must be to provide a general background, introducing themes that will be discussed at greater length later in the article. Seen that way, it is just part of the lead, which is therefore now two sections long. Even the material which is in the lead section does not recur anywhere else in the article (there is no later mention of the Grand Tour; there is no later mention of any destruction of buildings by Lutyens; there is no later mention of cottage hospitals; etc.). Neither the first section nor the Overview section is a good summary of the article. So, yes, I think "bad" is appropriate. The consensus I was talking about was the site-wide consensus that a lead should be relatively short; the current state appears better, but I don't think it really follows the spirit of that recomenndation. The "sorry state" also refers to all the other changes I made, but which Giano unthinkingly reverted: no-one with a good command of English would deliberately change "little-known architects" (architects who are not well known) to "little known architects" (architects who are known and who are little, perhaps?), for instance. No-one would want to make the reference formatting less consistent, and yes that is what Giano did, splitting the web citations between the inline citations and the later Bibliography. These are only small things, but they are indicative of Giano's attitude towards this article (see also his dismissal of Randy from Jacksonville's comments below). The {{refimprove}} tag was also removed, but no references were added. There are around ten paragraphs without a single citation, and many more with too few. I could go on and on, but I don't think it would be helpful. Suffice it to say, that yes, the article is in a sorry state. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Due to the massive size of the first two images on this article, the opening paragraphs on my screen are just three words wide in some places (or two in the case of "unmanageable size", which is ironic). It's beyond poor. It's a good job Wikipedia is free is all I can say. You'd never get anyone to willingly subscribe to a product as poorly put together as this, certainly not the sort of person actually interested in article topics like this. I bet this would even annoy the sort of person who comes here to read about the new Doctor Who. Randy from Jacksonville (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The headings "Loss of political power" and "Death duties" are also pushed into the middle of the article by the massive images, whose sole purpose here seem to be to force the reader to agree that any section where text occupies a smaller area than graphics, is a good section. Randy from Jacksonville (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

...and "it's a good job that Wikipedia is not dependent on socks and trolls like you for its content.  Giano  21:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: @Stemonitis please take note that, unsurprisingly, the above 'Randy' is now a blocked sock.  Giano  21:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Current title

It is not about the accuracy of the title as much as the convenience of the title or any other, like concisiveness. Why not "20th-century destruction of British country houses"? --George Ho (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would that be better? It doesn't seem so to me. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you John - I agree with your comment. Furthermore, the politics and dynamics of '20th-century Britain' were responsible for the destruction; it was not something that just happened in Britain in the 20th century, but might just as well have happened in any other century in any other country. That is the inference of the title and something I thought I had made quite clear in the article.  Giano  20:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'm trying to find a guideline that handles events occured during the whole century. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) could help, and does the current title obey these guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Would "demolition" be a better word than "destruction"? --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly I think you are just being pedantic. The current title is fine and accurately describes the content of the article.  Giano  07:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Brideshead

"It was impossible to foresee, in the spring of 1944, the present cult of the English country house. It seemed then that the ancestral seats which were our chief national artistic achievement were doomed to decay and spoilation like the monasteries in the sixteenth century. So I piled it on rather, with passionate sincerity. Brideshead today would be open to trippers, its treasures rearranged by expert hands and the fabric better maintained than it was by Lord Marchmain. And the English aristocracy has maintained its identity to a degree that then seemed impossible. The advance of Hooper has been held up at several points. Much of this book therefore is a panegyric preached over an empty coffin. But it would be impossible to bring it up to date without totally destroying it. It is offered to a younger generation of readers as a souvenir of the Second War rather than of the twenties or of the thirties, with which it ostensibly deals."

From Waugh's introduction to the 2nd edition. Though it doesn't reflect the fact that 1957, only two years earlier, is generally reckoned (the catalogue to the 1975 V and A exhibition, or Harris' "No Voice from the Hall" for example) to be the blackest year, with two and a half houses being demolished every week. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Many thanks - I've added the first bit. Not sure we need an edn/page citation, since the intro is short & there are tons of editions. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

From Rebecca (novel)

I found a quote about destroyed houses from the novel (page 264, Harper Perennial paperback edition):

Woman: "Those are nice-looking woods over there, I suppose they're private."

Coast-guard: "Yes, that's all private in there."

Woman: "My husband says all these big estates will be chopped up in time and bungalows built. I wouldn't mind a nice little bungalow up here facing the sea. I don't know that I'd care for this part of the world in the winter though."

--George Ho (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, the woman's husband made a very prescient comment; having such foresight, it's a pity he didn't wander up to Manderley with a fire extinguisher.  Giano  06:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's still a pretty bungalow-free zone there, though Tywardreath and Par, Cornwall a couple of miles along the coast have plenty. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Johnbod: You are assuming that you know where Manderley is? I thought there was no specific location? Fascinating story though; I one tried to form a plan of the house based on the description in the book of the room layout - it doesn't work. It has just a few reception rooms (as in a home of the gentry), but wings of bedrooms (as in a power house). The only way the 2nd Mrs de Winter could have had a room in a wing not facing the sea, would have been to sleep in the servants' quarters. As an architectural historian, I can see that the only sort of house where such a layout was possible would have been a late 19th century house - with split levels and a bachelor wing, but Manderley was supposedly far older. My wife never likes watching a period drama with me because she says I spoil it by being pedantic!  Giano  17:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It was based on the Rashleigh family house at Menabilly, which du Maurier leased with her royalties, & did indeed have a very bad fire during her tenancy, at which point she moved to the dower house I think. I saw her walking round Polkerris, the village on the coast by the house, in 1975. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, you must be even older than me! I thought it was also Milton House, but never really specified.  Giano  18:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

PS: I think I meant Milton Hall!  Giano  18:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Very possibly - I think the house in the book (certainly in the film) is rather grander than Menabilly, but the landscape setting (also used in other books) is pretty close to it. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

All right, moving on... Shall the novel be included as example in this article? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's the sole quote by a complete nonentity in the book. There are such (an far better) references in many books. We already have the more scholarly and socially documenting Brideshead Revisited mentioned; I can't see the point of list of books; it's not as though proof is needed that the demolitions and social changes happened.  Giano  07:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I was mischievously going to suggest having a section "In popular culture" but I see Pigs in popular culture is heading for snow keep[2] so why not have Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain in popular culture? Thincat (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Most amusing! Why don't you start the page? You could start with Mandeley, then Arnwood and work your through to a Hetton?  Giano  12:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Section first. Seriously, the proposed title is too long, and I'm unsure if the pop culture refs are notable independently. Probably this page is too long? --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh I think it could be a marvelous page - what was the name of the country house in the Forsyte Saga where Soames lived? It caught fire and an oil painting fell out of the window, bonked him on the head and killed him. Then there's that house in Jane Eyre which was burnt down by the demented wife with the hyena laugh - Catherine Cookson's book too must have loads of houses being pulled down - not much to smile about in those books. Then there was that TV mini-series where the woman owned a department store, but before that has been a maid in a big house, so she bought the house and pulled it down - this coudl be one hell of a great page - well done Thincat.  Giano  20:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm gathering valuable research material and I think we would best expand the scope slightly to cover the 21st century as well. Here, from a normally very reliable source, is the sort of content we should endeavour to include. Thincat (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Gosh yes! I had forgotten that one. Fire started by mad people does seem to be underlying problem. It will need a section on demented pyromaniacs.  Giano  13:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The new article is coming together really well. I think it should be sent straight to FA. I am working on the necessary infoboxes as a matter of top priority – unfortunately our best expertise on that seems not to be available just at the moment. Thincat (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Every cloud has a silver lining.  Giano  16:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Images in lede

Are they too big or enough for people to see? I see images interfering the prose, so I can't shrink them without a consensus here. --George Ho (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

They are fine as they are - they need to be seen.  Giano  22:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Beaupre Hall3.jpg

File:Beaupre Hall3.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This image has undetermined date, and I don't know when it was created and/or published. It should be called possibly unfree. --George Ho (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This image is listed as possibly unfree. --George Ho (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The author/photographer C W Rutter died in Wisbech (his home town) in June 1929. (84 years ago) His death certificate can be found in Volume 3b Page 614 of the British records of death. The building is described as being a ruin for 'several' decades prior to its 1966 demolition; this would suggest that the photograph was taken no later than 1900. Therefore, this image is in the public domain.

Furthermore, even if this image were deemed to be a depiction of a copyrighted three-dimensional work or building, the subject is is the object of discussion in an article. The building was demolished in 1966; it's not possible to take another photograph - so is still elligable for retention in an educational article and project such as Wikipedia.  Giano  09:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

[3].  Giano  00:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

In the UK, unlike say Germany, architects can't claim that sort of copyright, at least for photos taken from a public highway (not totally sure about houses secluded in private grounds). Any such copyright would surely have expired long ago anyway. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John. Yes, the copyright has expired and its now established because the picture is well over a hundred years old and its photographer long dead. It's puzzling to know why it was ever nominated for deletion anyway. Wikipedia is a strange place sometimes.  Giano  09:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Novels by Daphne du Maurier; inclusion of "Brideshead Revisited"

I did request that quote from Rebecca be added, but it got rejected. Probably, since Brideshead Revisited is used, perhaps add comparisons of destroyed real-life houses and du Maurier's novels, Rebecca and Hungry Hill? I found sources: [4][5][6][7]. If not needed, then which quotes and pages from few final chapters Brideshead indicate the fall of power? --George Ho (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a page about the decline of the country house in fiction. It is a page based on hard fact and real life. It is not a page designed for explaining the works of Auberon Waugh, Daphne du Maurier or Enid Blyton. I'm sure if you read the entire series of novels, you will find some reason for the inclusion of Toad Hall - but there would be no benefit. We could include poor Jane Eyre and Mr Rochester's house burning down, but we are not going to.  Giano  10:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Images

While the choice of images and their captions is certainly interesting, they are all in different sizes. It makes for a rather uneven and rambling appearance. Can this be improved somehow? Gryffindor (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@Gryffindor:Stop stalking me and trolling or I will make a complaint.  Giano  09:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you feeling threatened by this discussion? Gryffindor (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all; I know this subject inside out and back to front - where upon you are only here to see what trouble you can cause. That's not really very threatening.  Giano 

Big list of country houses

In anyone was curious. Many of these don't have wikipedia articles but there are photos on the internet of them. http://lh.matthewbeckett.com/lh_complete_list.html --98.246.156.76 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Article improvement: European comparisons?

This is a fascinating article. However, I can't help but wonder how it fits into what was happening the big houses elsewhere in Europe. Was the British experience exceptional or was there a Europe-wide destruction of big houses in the 20th century? I don't have French, German, Spanish or Italian to be able to find the answer myself. The article would benefit hugely from this context. 188.141.10.11 (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As the title suggests, this article is specifically about British houses. However, losses may have been greater in certain parts of Europe Europe, if only because of war, invasion, revolution and general political upheaval - especially in eastern Europe. Why this subject is unusual, in Britain, even though the country was relatively politically secure both the Government, people and many (not all) owners allowed the demolitions to take place with little concern for the nation's heritage. Giano (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the exceptional prosperity of Britain from say 1700-1920 meant that were proportionately more large country houses here than elsewhere. There are surely more 19th-century churches. Heaven knows if there are figures. Also, might the Communist take-over in Central and Eastern Europe have actually preserved numbers of buildings that were taken over for public use? Sources are needed for all this. I associate France Germany and Italy more with relatively small 19th-century country houses, small enough to remain marketable if they escaped fire, war and revolution. But that might be wrong. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

My own theory is (without one shred of supporting evidence) is that it was easier for owners to make money by selling for redevelopment in the UK than it was elsewhere. Elsewhere, in western Europe, there was less demand for housing developments and urban expansions, so owners just allowed their properties to sink into a graceful and slow decline until ruined. In Eastern Europe, I would immagine that for every one house preserved as a retreat for a Soviet politician or convalescent home for sick comrades, another five were looted and destroyed during revolution and successive wars. It would be very interesting to know - perhaps Ghirlandajo or Piotrus are better informed than me. Giano (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

In Russia and Ukraine, about 95% country houses were destroyed. Most surviving villas from the 18th century look like this (see the illustrations). The situation is markedly better in Poland, Estonia and Latvia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ghirla; it looks like my guess of 1 in 5 was a long way off; I was just looking at the plans for that house (Петровское-Алабино; I like the Villa Capra idea with canted corners - what do we call that: Palladian-Baroque? - any chance of a translation for us. What happened to it during its "state protection"? Giano (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

While I'd like to see the ref for 95%, Ghirla is right - majority of such buildings in communist countries were, if not outright destroyed, than poorly maintained and let to fall into disrepair. Many were converted, for examples, into State Agricultural Farms. Hard numbers are hard to come by. In case of Polish dwór (manor house), most wooden ones didn't survive the two World Wars, but I don't think that the destruction ratio for stone/brick ones is really as high. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's all very sad. I doubt there are enough reliable reffs to write a similar page as this on buildings of the former Russian Empire - that would be a fascinating page - worthy of a book. I am visiting Russia (for the first time) this year, but I don't suppose I will have the opportunity to see or study anything of this or, disappointingly, have a wiki-meet with Ghirla - now that would have been interesting. Giano (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Well User:Piotrus, it appears that we have a reff for Ghirla's statement that about 95% of Russian country houses were destroyed; it's here; I am currently reading this book (which is far more scholarly and small print) than my usual bed-time reading - it's excellent. I haven't reached the page that states 95% yet, but when I do, I'll reff it properly. Ghirla, you need to read this book, it's the best and most balanced on the Revolution I've ever read. It's opened my eyes completely. Giano (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Page 280: "By the end of World War II, a staggering 95% of Russia's country estates had disappeared. Some had been targeted for destruction; most however, were simply abandoned, plundered and then forgotten, left to rot, decay and fall into ruin. An entire cultural legacy had been wiped from the face of the earth." attributed to: Okhrana i restavratsiia, 24 Russkaia usad 'ba, 145, 155; Poliakova, "Usadebnaia kul'tura 19.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060825134010/http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/architecture/past/save/index.html to http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/architecture/past/save/index.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Dus2kPHo?url=http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/listing/listed-buildings/ to http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/listing/listed-buildings/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)