Talk:Lydney Park

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lydney Park. 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/20070328234427/http://www.roman-britain.org/places/lydney.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/places/lydney.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 20:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Links to slave trade

@Obscurasky: What happened to "first assume good faith"? I think it is your edit summary that is provocative.

How a country house was purchased or built is absolutely of relevance to its Wikipedia page. There is a legitimate and growing public interest in the links to slavery in Britain, for instance some banks underwent a review on this subject a few years ago (e.g. see this 2007 article on Barclays links or the RBS history hub showing their links to Bristol banks set up by slave traders), Jesus College is currently undergoing a review of its links to slavery, and see this recent Guardian article on Greene King and Lloyds of London in relation to slavery. To deny the relevance of the source of wealth based on 'children are not responsible for the sins of the fathers' is to attempt to obscure such links. Furthermore, to quote the reference I used for my edit, which is a 2013 book written and edited by professional historians for English Heritage, detailing the many and varied ways that English country houses are linked to slavery: p151

"Benjamin Bathurst, governor of the Royal African Company in the 1680s, who died in 1704 and left a fortune sufficient to endow all three of his sons with landed estates".

So the source says the family purchased Lydney Park using wealth from the slave trade. This is relevant to the history of Lydney Park and I will be putting it back in. I am open to discussion on how that is phrased if you think I have misrepresented the source. If you have a source saying different on the history of the purchase then please share it and we can discuss it here. DrThneed (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not sufficiently relevant to an article about the estate and gardens. Include this material by all means at the article about Bathurst - linked from this article - but not this article and certainly not in the lead. No-one is attempting to obscure or deny the links - just to put them in the right place in the encyclopedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Obviously I disagree about the relevance, but maybe I'm out of step. Is there relevant discussion some place that you know of, so I can see how consensus was reached? I mean specifically with regard to whether the source of funds used to buy something are relevant on a page about its history. DrThneed (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The most relevant essay is probably Wikipedia:Relevance emerges. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I read that, and also about scope. I don't think it is as cut and dried as you say, that information about the source of wealth belongs only on the person's page and not the page about the property. In the absence of a specific discussion about it, I thought it relevant to see what the current practice is. I clicked on a handful of links randomly from the List of country houses in England and found plenty of examples, including how wealth and therefore a property was lost:

Broadlands "When Sydenham was ruined by the 18th-century South Sea Bubble, he proceeded to sell Broadlands to Henry Temple, 1st Viscount Palmerston, in 1736."

And also reference to the source of wealth: Cliveden "It shows that in 1237 the land was owned by Geoffrey de Clyveden and by 1300 it had passed to his son, William, who owned fisheries and mills along the Cliveden Reach stretch of the Thames and at nearby Hedsor."

Longleat "Sir Charles Appleton (1515–1580) purchased Longleat for Sir John Thynn in 1541 for £53. Appleton was a builder with experience gained from working on The Old School Baltonsborough, Bedwyn Broil and Somerset House."

Eggington_House "John Reynal built Egglington House in 1696. He was a Huguenot from Montauban in France and became a prosperous tailor in London."

Highgrove_House "In August 1980 the Highgrove estate was purchased by the Duchy of Cornwall for a figure believed to be between £800,000 and £1,000,000 with funds raised for its purchase by the sale of three properties from the duchy's holdings."

And other ways for property to come into a family: Highgrove_House "The estate itself came to the family through the marriage in 1771 of Josiah Paul Tippetts later Paul (his mother's family name, which he adopted under the terms of the will of his uncle, her brother) with Mary Clark, whose father Robert was the local squire."

So I continue to disagree that the information about Bathurst's engagement in the slave trade does not belong on this page. It wasn't in the lede, it was in the beginning of the first section, because that is where Benjamin Bathurst was already referred to. Do we need a separate section on the history? But it would still likely end up near the top of the page. DrThneed (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with DrThneed here that this content is in fact relevant to this article, nor do I see that Wikipedia:Relevance emerges in any way implies that it is not. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that anything was "cut and dried", I gave an opinion. The words "..and from a family with extensive links to the slave trade.." - with a reference that cannot be readily accessed - don't seem to me to add anything to any readers' understanding of the content of the article. I'm sure that the same, or similar, could be said about most large houses and estates in Britain. Do we have sources that suggest that Lydney Park was in any way exceptional or unusual in that respect? Adding background information in this way does not seem to me to be particularly helpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, you gave an opinion and reverted my edit again. I added the reference using the 'automatic' option, and did not realise it does not contain the URL, my apologies. The entire text of the book is available free online from English Heritage. I have explained above why I think it is relevant to have this information on the page, and I stand by that.

With respect to the status of Lydney Park, I do not know exactly how exceptional it is, but I can say that with regard to Liverpool country houses built by slave traders, only 4 out of 24 were still standing (page 45 of same reference). This would suggest that remaining standing and also still being in the hands of the original family would be a very small group indeed.DrThneed (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrt how unusual Lydney is, you also suggested similar (I assume you mean links to slave trade) could be said about most large houses and estates in Britain. That isn't the case, quote from same ref "the slave-compensation data suggest that in the 1830s 5 to 10 per cent of all British country houses would be expected to have been occupied by slave owners and that in some localities and even some regions the figure would be much higher.". But actually I don't think Lydney has to be unusual in this respect for the information to be relevant to the reader. As linked above, many pages about great houses talk about how their owners came to possess or build them. Why does Lydney have to meet some special standard set by you?DrThneed (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no "special standard" set by me, there are simply the normal considerations about relevance to an article. I'm not clear why the Dresser reference should be specifically added to this article, when the article and book give much greater consideration to other houses and estates, and it would also seem more appropriate to expand references to the slave trade in the articles about the family, rather than this article. The source doesn't say that the house was "occupied by slave owners", simply that the family had "links with slave-related wealth", so your claim doesn't seem to apply. We don't add facts to articles simply because we happen to come across them - we add them if they add understanding to the article, and hopefully try to do that in a reasonably consistent way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You asked questions about whether Lydney is unusual and whether these claims could be made against most houses, and I attempted to answer your questions, despite the fact I think they are irrelevant, as is whether the family occupied the house or not. I fail to see how it matters that my source talks about the links of many country houses to the slave trade, rather than just one. There is a public interest in how people come to own things. It seems pretty common practice elsewhere on Wikipedia for articles about country houses to talk about the source of the wealth used to purchase them, so for consistency it is reasonable for my edit to stand. My original edit was simply to say that Benjamin Bathurst came from a family with extensive links to the slave trade. This is factually correct and supported by a reputable source. Another editor has agreed with me that the information is relevant to the article. DrThneed (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Had you provided a correct link to start with, and not used the word "extensive" - which does not seem justified by the source - in relation to their links to the slave trade, this would perhaps not have become such an issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

In my inexperience I thought that Wikipedia automatic entry for references pulled its data from wikidata, where I had entered the source complete with its URL. Instead the WorldCat entry was inserted. I've fixed it, and now you have the full source, it seems we are only arguing about the word "extensive". So I propose that the edit should be "and from a family with longstanding links to the slave trade". That is supported by the statement from the source "Yet the Bathurst family involvement in the world of Atlantic slavery is both longstanding and politically diverse". DrThneed (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

DrThneed, you're right that assuming good-faith is important. To be clear (although I thought I had been) I removed the text because I believed that edit, made at that time (the day after a BLM protest took place in Bathurst Park) was a deliberate attempt to stoke racial tension in our little town. It was not an attempt to deny anything, although I certainly remain unconvinced that the house's link to money generated by the slave trade is relevant here, and I don't think that Benjamin Bathurst's (1692-1767) support for slavery is sufficiently proven, or relevant, either. Obscurasky (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Obscurasky Your edit summary was only clear about what you assumed my motivations to be. I'm on the other side of the world and know nothing about BLM protests in your village. However, given the number and scale of protests around the world it is hardly surprising there was one. Perhaps if your proximity to the subject in question means you leap to assumptions like this, you should ask yourself if you are being objective here?

Also, I think you are getting confused. My edit was to add "and from a family with extensive links to the slave trade" to the description of Benjamin Bathurst, I didn't mention his support or otherwise for the slave trade at all. I think it is a far more relevant context for current reader for his connections than that he is the son of the cofferer of Queen Anne, which is just one of many positions his father held. And as I have shown above it is common practice for pages about country houses to talk about how they came to be acquired and disposed of. DrThneed (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that the gist of the edit by DrThneed is good. I might reword it to make it clearer that the family's fortune (and thus the monies they spend establishing and maintaining the park and buildings) were at the very least intertwined with the slave trade, if not directly derived from it. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

But, as you say, it's indirect - so I'm still not convinced it's relevant to this particular page. Obscurasky (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

DrThneed is there direct evidence in the source that the monies to establish the estate were derived from the slave trade? Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this question. In short, yes. Apologies for the delay replying, I was seeking out further sources. For ease of discussion, a quote (from a source that is online if anyone wishes to check):

Nuala Zahadieh , in Slavery and the British Country House, Chapter 6: “A small number of merchants were, however, able to exploit the commercial networks that they developed in the slave-based Atlantic trading system to spectacular advantage. They diversified beyond the core trade in plantation commodities into slave-trading, ship-owning, naval contracting, government credit and a range of rent-seeking enterprises which generated large profits especially in times of war.” Footnote (p151) lists some of these merchants, including “Benjamin Bathurst, governor of the Royal African Company in the 1680s, who died in 1704 and left a fortune sufficient to endow all three of his sons with landed estates”.

Much clearer, though, is this: in his biography of the 3rd Earl of Bathurst, “Earl Bathurst and the British Empire”, Neville Thompson says on p2, talking of Benjamin Bathurst senior “By his death in 1704 he had settled his two younger sons on substantial estates and purchased ones for himself and his heir at Cirencester and Paulspury in Northamptonshire.” The family tree on page xii of the book shows that these two younger sons are Peter Bathurst (Clarendon Park) and Benjamin Bathurst (Lydney Park). Thompson had access to the family papers in writing his biography.

So this means the Lydney estate was purchased by Benjamin Bathurst senior whose connections and longstanding involvement in the slave trade are not, I believe, in doubt (see Zahadieh quote above, but also Benjamin Bathurst). This contradicts the claim on the Lydney Park page that the estate was bought in 1719 by Benjamin Bathurst junior, but as this claim is unsourced it is hard to give it any weight. If anyone has a reliable source for 1719 please share, I would love to see it. Without it, I think we need to rely on the sources we have, and say that the property was bought by Benjamin Bathurst senior.

In rereading the sources, I have realised that a previous owner of the house, William Wynter/Winter of Lydney, also had a slave trading history.

Direct quote from p24 EH book Madge Dresser: “The original Lydney Park was first built in the 1670s by one Charles Winter, but a century before that in the 1570s his ancestor William Winter of Lydney who had bought the two Lydney manors built a house there. This William Winter had been a partner and later rival to James Hawkins and both were involved in slaving voyages between Guinea and the new world, thus linking (as noted earlier) Lydney to Dyrham Park.”

Currently the Lydney Park page does not talk about the existence of the park prior to the Bathurst ownership at all. To be fair to the Bathursts, it might be better to have a “History” section at the top of the page where this previous history can be fleshed out a little (as is done on many other pages of country houses). As a starting point, I suggest something along these lines, input welcome:

“History

In the 1570s William Wynter of Lydney, owner of Dyrham Park, bought two manors in Lydney. Wynter was an admiral and principal officer of the Council of the Marine under Queen Elizabeth I of England and was involved in slaving voyages between Guinea and the New World. His descendant Charles Winter built the first Lydney Park in the 1670s. Winter completed an L-shaped house on the site in 1692.

Lydney Park was purchased by Benjamin Bathurst, who was Cofferer to Queen Anne, and had a long-standing involvement in the slave trade through his investments in, and senior appointment in, the Royal African Company. On Benjamin Bathurst’s death in 1704, the estate passed to his son, also named Benjamin Bathurst. Dresser (2013) reports that “the estate papers of Lydney Park at the Gloucestershire Record Office contain accounts for Barbados, Tobago and Antigua sugar sold in Bristol at the beginning of the 19th Century”, showing that the connection between Lydney Park and industries based on slavery did not end with Benjamin Bathurst senior.

Charles (Bragge) Bathurst took over and refurbished Lydney Park in 1833, adding an orangery and other improvements. That house was demolished in 1876; English Heritage dates the current house, a Grade II listed building by architect Charles Henry Howell, to 1877.”--DrThneed (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

References

I don't see any mention of the slave trade in the article on William Wynter, and I can't see any direct link between him and this article, so that needs some further justification. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the input. Not quite sure I understand what the issue is - are you wanting to make sure the link is to the correct person, or are you questioning whether the claim that William Wynter was involved in the slave trade is correct? Or questioning why he should be mentioned on the Lydney Park page? As you will have noticed there is mention in William Wynter's article about being awarded Lydney, and mention of his involvement with Hawkins. So I am sure this is the correct person. As for the slave trading, the source is explicit about it (as in the longer quote further up: "This William Winter had been a partner and later rival to James Hawkins and both were involved in slaving voyages between Guinea and the new world, thus linking (as noted earlier) Lydney to Dyrham Park.") Lastly, Wynter merits mention on the Lydney Park page as a notable person who was an owner of Lydney. I haven't made any edits on Wynter's page to make the slaving involvement explicit because I didn't think that would be helpful while we were still discussing this edit here. I do intend to do that, but I don't see why it should be a barrier to mentioning Wynter here, as the source is clear. DrThneed (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be very poor practice, at best, to refer to Wynter's involvement in the slave trade in this article, when it is not mentioned at all in his biographical article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Could we please discuss the edit I have proposed here, and not any other pages you think it should be mentioned on. Wikipedia pages evolve, I will be attending to Wynter's page as I have already said, and it will be based on the same source. So. I have a reliable source and am quoting it accurately, what exactly is your problem with it? Besides your perception of good or bad practice. DrThneed (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Because this article is about the estate, not about the activities of its owners. We have separate articles about its owners. Why load this article with material that is not directly relevant? If you have a source about Wynter's involvement in the slave trade, mention it in the article about Wynter. If you have a source about the relationship between the slave trade and English country houses, make sure that the material you add is balanced so that the articles about houses where slave trade involvement was most important receive the most attention. That's simply good practice. If I had a notable ancestor several generations ago, I wouldn't expect to see their activities mentioned in an article about the house I live in now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

So we're back to relevance, and now you think that besides editing Wynter's page before this one, I should also edit the pages of other houses with "more important" slave trade links, before I get to this one. This house was owned by two different families who were both connected to the slave trade. English Heritage think these sorts of connections are important enough to commission an entire book on. I am not trying to edit a page about some other property of the Wynter's or Bathurst's to talk about Lydney Park, I am trying to talk about the history of this house. Two other editors have agreed with me that the information is relevant to the page. Again, if you have a specific suggestion to improve the suggested edit or other sources to add please say so. Otherwise you just appear to be being obstructive.DrThneed (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

So, you want to include these sentences: "In the 1570s William Wynter of Lydney, owner of Dyrham Park, bought two manors in Lydney. Wynter was an admiral and principal officer of the Council of the Marine under Queen Elizabeth I of England and was involved in slaving voyages between Guinea and the New World." Now, that (if properly sourced) is relevant to the encyclopedia. But you have still not explained why it is relevant to this particular article. Is one of the manors this site? You don't say it is. Yes, his descendant built the house. But, so what? It's a WP:COATRACK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The initial proposed text looks great to me! As per the William Wynter article, I've started a discussion on the talk page about getting slavery discussed in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The proposed history section would contribute greatly to the article. We should add it to the article. A mention about slavery somewhere in the history section is likely fine when contextualizing the owners. OurStreets (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrt the query about whether the two Lydney manors bought by William Wynter are on the same site as the later house, the reputable source says "The original Lydney Park was first built in the 1670s by one Charles Winter, but a century before that in the 1570s his ancestor William Winter of Lydney who had bought the two Lydney manors built a house there." (emphasis mine) This is a professional historian writing about the history of Lydney Park, if you think they made a mistake please do share your sources so we can improve the page. One further source (DNB entry) says Wynter bought the manor of Lydney from the Earl of Pembroke in 1561 (I believe that would be this Earl), so I propose we include that information also, as being relevant to the history of the site.

Thanks for the input everyone. It looks like we have more people thinking this is relevant than not. DrThneed (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVOTE. Sourced information about the history of the site is of course relevant and should be included. Statements about the purported involvement in the slave trade of the owners' ancestors are of little relevance, especially when it is not mentioned in the article about that person himself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

"Sourced information about the history of the site is of course relevant and should be included." I don't think we disagree on that, just on what parts of the edit that covers. Perhaps a useful way forward would be to identify which bits of the proposed edit you do agree with (or suggest alternative wording or other sources of course) so that we can find some common ground? Currently the page intimates the estate dates from the Bathurst purchase in 1719, which I think we can improve on, if we agree that the source for Winter purchasing from the Earl of Pembroke in 1561 is reliable (do we?). DrThneed (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: A recent article in the Bulletin of the History of Archaeology cites the above discussion as evidence for the claim that "When Wikipedia centres whiteness or excludes people of colour and their histories, that action is transmitted globally, as are the connected racial (and gender) biases of editors. A discussion on the ‘Talk’ page of the English country house, Lydney Park, shows how resistant some editors can be to the inclusion of new narratives: in this case the connection between the house and the slave trade ...." Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: The above discussion has been referenced in Note b in the article on Penrhyn Castle. KJP1 (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

COI tag (March 2023)

See discussion on talk page about suppression of mentions how this links back to the slave trade. Schwede66 22:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Schwede66 - I don't get why this article has been tagged for COI. I'm unaware of any suggestion that contributors are personally connected to the estate. If, as I think, the tag is related to a perceived lack of Neutrality, would one of the {{POV}} templates be more suitable? KJP1 (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The situation may arise from a COI but I cannot know whether that is the case; regardless, the POV tag describes what is going on here. Thanks for raising the issue, KJP1. Schwede66 18:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)