The English stately home, from rise to fall

Posted on by

If you want to rub elbows with the mystique of British history, you’ll want to explore either a castle or a stately home, also known as a great house. But castles are battered old things these days–they’ve had a rough few centuries–and what’s worse they were never any match for Walt Disney’s imagining of a castle, so for this post let’s stick with stately homes. 

 

Cotehele House, Cornwall. Compliments of Wikimedia, Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license., whatever that means.

The rise

What we’re really talking about when we talk about a great house is an unfortified home fit for a feudal lord. This dates back to the Tudor era, when it became safe for lords to plant themselves and their families in the kind of house where the neighbors could walk up and ring the doorbell. No moats, no battlements. In fact, no doorbells. They hadn’t been invented yet. And I’m not sure about the neighbors, at least not the kind who could knock on the door. That kind of familiarity would’ve been reserved for equals, who wouldn’t have lived next door. Feudal lords had land–estates, thank you very much–surrounding their houses, or formerly their castles. You couldn’t pack them in side by each. The system demanded that they be spread around the country.

Living in an unfortified house was new, even daring, and no doubt more comfortable. But the country looked stable, so out from behind their battlements the lords crept. Which should serve as a reminder that stability is relative and that no one can see what’s coming next.

More great houses were added to England’s collection when Henry VIII confiscated the monasteries. Ever wonder about the word abbey in Jane Austen’s Northanger Abbey? It would’ve once been–yes indeed, folks–an abbey. Ditto Downton Abbey. Fictional ones, admittedly, but still. 

By the time we get to Elizabeth I, it was no longer enough just to have a grand unfortified house. If you had the land and the money and a need to play with the big kids, you had to have an architect design you a house so grand it would make both your name and his own (and yes, it would’ve been a his). They were called prodigy homes, and apparently they still are, although I never ran into the phrase until just now. 

These were about luxury, style, expense.

Skip to Charles I and we find the high and mighty throwing around words like neo-classical, Palladian, baroque, English baroque. Don’t worry about what they mean. Throw them into a sentence and you’ll sound like you know something.

The ultra-rich aren’t the only people trying to impress.

After Charles I, England stumbled, all unprepared, into the Civil War and discovered that those fortified homes still had a use. Some of them were still occupied, or occupiable, and some of them, even today, have bullet holes in the outer walls to demonstrate the uses they were put to. 

 

The country house

By the late 18th and early 19th centuries, a new class was lusting after stately homes–or country houses if you like. Fortunes were being made in trade, in banking, in industry, in slavery. They needed houses to match their money.

Yes, dears, all those slave-related businesses–tobacco, sugar, cotton, the slave trade itself–were the basis of many a British fortune and of many a mansion that modern visitors pay to admire. (We’ll get to that.) In some of them, the captions telling the house’s history will acknowledge those origins, but boy was there ever shouting and finger-wagging when it was first done. 

History was so much nicer when we didn’t talk about that stuff. 

At the time, though, slavery and the money it produced were respectable. The monarchy itself invested. You can’t get more respectable than that. The non-respectable ways to make money were in industry and trade. They weren’t quite the equivalent of today’s drug money, but they were a reason for the old money to look down on the new.

So what would you do if you were one of the newly rich? You’d buy land, because land is what old money has. Land is respectable. And you build some huge country house or renovate one, and you try to outdo everybody else who has a country house. The old money will still look down at you but if you’re rich enough and your house is grand enough–and in good enough taste–it won’t turn down your invitations.

Probably.

Before long, it may even marry one or two of its kids to one or two of yours, trading a title for some cash, because new money’s raking in the cash and the aristocracy is struggling. It might even marry off a kid or two to the offspring of some no-name American tycoon.

I’m not sure which was more desperate, marrying an American or marrying the offspring of an industrialist, but it doesn’t matter. They were both signs of the times and ways the economy was shifting.

Ideally, whether you’re old money or new, you’ll have a place in London as well as one in the country. The country one–the great house–will be for hunting, fishing, shooting (which isn’t the same as hunting but something ends up dead all the same); it’ll be for hosting parties and escaping the noise and grit of London. When the family’s in residence, the great and the grand can spend their time visiting each other’s houses and either envying them or thinking how much better theirs is.

 

The economics of the great house

Ah, but all those grand homes were expensive, not just to design and build and expand and furnish but to run. You needed a staff to go with the house–a big staff: people to cook and clean and garden and serve, to buttle and to maid and to shine the shoes and groom the horses. You needed people to stand around in expensive uniforms looking necessary. And if Historic UK’s to be believed (the link’s above), those big staffs tied a great house into the area’s economy, because when times were hard (and that would’ve been often, or possibly always) great houses provided relatively good jobs–jobs that kept a roof over a servant’s head and food on the table, which was (again, according to Historic UK) the definition of a good job. That tells us a more about how hard times were than about how good the jobs were. English Heritage is less rosy about working in the great houses, and that’s a better match for what I’ve read elsewhere.

Either way, a great house could easily need an indoor staff of 20 and an outdoor staff to match. Those lawns don’t mow themselves, you know. 

But a country estate wasn’t just for show. Even as late as the Victorian age (1837-1901; you’re welcome), it could bring its owner a good income, which added considerably to its appeal. It might be mortgaged up to the windowsills to provide dowries, pay off debts, or fund the ludicrous lifestyle that went with it, but if farm prices stayed steady and money kept coming in, the dance could go on. 

Until, of course, it didn’t. 

From 1815 to 1846 the Corn Laws kept the price of grain high. (Of course you want to know all about the Corn Laws, and for that I refer you to that non-expert, myself. In the meantime, though, let’s settle for a sentence: imported grain would’ve been cheaper than domestic if the Corn Laws hadn’t added a big whackin’ tariff to the imported stuff. That worked well for the people who were selling grain, in this case the owners of those grand estates. But it left the poor hungry–literally–and sometimes starving. Since–you won’t have noticed this, I’m sure–things that benefit the rich are hard to overturn, it took decades of rioting, lobbying, advocating, and assorted other forms of political action to get rid of them. 

Prices didn’t do an immediate nosedive after the Corn Laws were repealed, but by the 1870s and ‘80s, with railroads in the Americas carrying wheat to ports, where it could be shipped, they did fall, and between 1870 and 1900, British food prices dropped by half. For the vast majority of people, and especially for anyone overly familiar with hunger, this was great news. For the owners of those vast estates, it was disastrous. Yes, they were rich, but not so rich that they could lose part of their income. 

And to make it worse, when the estates’ income went down, so did the value of the land. 

If an owner had mortgaged the place, if he was careless about his bookkeeping or his spending, if any one of several other things had happened, he’d find himself selling, say, his art collection to fund his estate. Or his first editions. Or his whole damn property, and someone richer and less indebted would buy it up. Or some public (which, of course means private) school would. Or possibly no one would and the place would end up being torn down, because the land was worth more than the building.

C’mon folks, let’s have a bit of feeling here for the hardships of the formerly immensely rich.

To complete the picture, estate and property taxes started going up in the 1880s. 

 

The twentieth century

Then World War I began and those wonderful jobs in country houses (if indeed they ever were wonderful) were no longer the only jobs on offer. Young young men left for the war, some willingly and some because they were drafted. Women left for factory jobs, which were not only better paid but had predictable hours and allowed for a less restrictive, more independent life. 

After the war, not many people came knocking on the (back) door asking if their old jobs were still open. The upper class had to make do with a reduced staff and had to (gasp) offer better pay to those who remained. They talked about “the servant problem.” Even now, “Just can’t get the staff these days” is a standing joke. It gets a sour sort of laugh–or at least that’s how I hear it, foreigner that I am.

In the 1920s and ‘30s, more country houses were sold off or demolished. 

During World War II, some were requisitioned to be used as hospitals, military headquarters, supply depots, you name it. At the end of the war, they were handed back, not necessarily in good shape. 

In 1945, a Labour government was elected and got to work crafting a welfare state in a country that the war had pretty well bankrupted. Taxes went up on country estates.The coal industry was nationalized, cutting off the income some owners had gotten from coal rents. Even where an estate was still making a profit, its owners didn’t necessarily want to pour money into the house itself–or live there, for that matter. 

It’s at this point that the nation began to see the great houses as a bit (a large and expensive bit) of its history, which should be preserved, so heirs who couldn’t pay the inheritance tax could hand over land and houses to the treasury instead, ridding them of an expensive and now useless inheritance. Assorted nonprofit organizations were set up to restore and maintain them and open them to the (paying) public.  

Stately homes have turned out to be profitable. Visitors pay to wander through to gawp (I’ve done it myself), to disapprove, or to wish themselves back to that era, forgetting how few of us would be playing billiards instead of shining shoes. Then they (that’s the visitors in case you’ve lost track) move on to buy sandwiches, tea, cakes, maybe scones, sitting at tables in the courtyard and hoping it doesn’t rain. They stop at the gift shop and buy china teacups, nicely packaged candies, walking sticks. It all adds up to a successful enough business model that privately owned houses have followed the pattern. 

To round out the picture, some great houses have been turned into hotels, schools, wedding venues, and before this all sounds like too much fun, nursing homes.

47 thoughts on “The English stately home, from rise to fall”

  2. In the 19th century the elite in the US copied the British with summer homes and large estates. Peter Widener had a 100 room mansion built in eastern Pa.! If that name sounds familiar his son and grandson went down with the Titanic refusing to get on a lifeboat with their wife and fiancée, the inspiration for many Titanic movies. My own great great grandfather, William Bucknell had a summer lodge built on the shores of Lake Saranac. His wife learned to row on that lake and later rowed Titanic lifeboat number 8. My dad also learned to row on that lake and taught me how, but that is off topic. Now the US rich elite have second and third estates that are tax deductions!

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply ↓

  3. That journey from agricultural fortunes to cheap grain crashing estate land values is such a fascinating economic breakdown! Reading through the comment section was wild—peterwetherill’s story about Titanic lifeboat #8 and your dry follow-up reply had me laughing out loud. Loved this post, Ellen!

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

  6. As that cliché, retired and a member of the National Trust, I find that I’m ambivalent about the use of these old buildings as tourist attractions. Clearly, they are hugely popular with visitors, either from the UK or abroad and arguably, they entertain and educate people. They’re very expensive to maintain, however, and honestly, although I’m interested in architecture, art and design, a lot of them aren’t very appealing. The understandable desire to preserve decoration and furniture leads to a lot of places keeping the blinds down, so you can’t see much. Timed and targeted lighting is fine but you don’t get a good idea of the whole when that’s used. And some places aren’t fully furnished because the contents have been sold off. I much prefer the gardens, fresh air, trees, flowers and a good walk.
    Maybe I’m a cultural snob but much of the art isn’t up to much and being rich, as the owners were, doesn’t necessarily mean they had good taste. I would certainly not have wanted to have to work in a stately home and probably not live in one as a member of the family. I like my modern comforts! At the risk of being expelled from the NT for heresy, could it be that conversion to apartments (albeit for the prosperous) might be a better use of some of these buildings?
    Jeannie

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

    • Interesting comment. None of the ones I’ve been to have been dark, and if some of the contents have been sold off I’ve been too clueless to notice. I do wonder what people carry away from their visits. Different things, probably, ranging from an interest in the history to a sort of wish to crawl back into a fantasy of olde times and live there. I’m with you on not wanting to either have worked there or been part of the upper crust. Either side of the equation strikes me as miserable. How odd that the ultra rich manage to take their money and build themselves such constricting lives.

      That said, I’m still for keeping them open to the public. Or most of them, anyway. There are surely some that don’t add much to the state of the nation.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

      • There are a few that have been rebuilt at huge expense after a fire, to the benefit of craftspeople who have the old skills. Is it a good use of money and resources? I could make a case for reconstruction or for complete demolition or for stabilisation of the ruins as an attraction in their own right. Which would be the right decision, I don’t know…
        Jeannie

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply ↓

        • In favor of reconstruction, the houses do seem to pull in enough money that the trusts running them can afford to do that. On the other side–well, you’ve made the case against, which isn’t one I ever thought of before. I’m sure I’ll be mulling that over for some time now. (Not that anyone’s asked for my opinion, but I do kind of want to have one.)

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply ↓

          • Everyone should have an opinion!
            And I have to admit that when it comes to buildings, I’m definitely more Barcelona Pavilion than Blenheim Palace, which undoubtedly colours my opinions on stately homes.
            Jeannie

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply ↓

  7. Aren’t the majority of these homes purposely owned by the national trust and investors from outside the Uk. I’m sure the majority of these homes don’t turn a profit but it would be interesting to do a follow up article to provide the proof so we know and the information is easily accessible if not a FOI away

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply ↓

    • Interesting comment. It seems (from my very limited survey) that every country teaches a history that sets the home country at the center and everything else is at best at the edges. I grew up in the US and I didn’t hear about the Norman invasion until I was an adult. It wasn’t the central event of my world, but still, it does seem like it would’ve been worth a mention. I don’t know how anyone would find enough time in the curriculum to open history up to a view of the world, but wouldn’t it be nice to really educate our kids? There’s a whole interconnected world out there, kidlets. Go forth and learn!

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

      • I learned a lot about British history, likely because we have a closer connection. My impression is that Americans really only learn about the US.
        However, education here is less than it was. I went to a class not so long ago with younger Canadians, 20-30ish, and found they’d missed geography somehow. Of 20 world capitals a lot of them could only name two or three. Ottawa was one and some others didn’t know what country it was in!!

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply ↓

        • I remember coloring in maps as a kid, but other than that I don’t remember learning any geography. Oops. We did learn snatches on non-US history, but the textbooks were so bad that I can’t say I learned much. A list of 3 causes of World War I; a paragraph of two on the South Sea Bubble (totally incomprehensible but at least the name stuck with me); and so forth. So yes, the focus was most definitely on the US, but a few bits of international interest tossed in for seasoning. I don’t think Canada got a mention except for the slogan “44 40 or fight,” which was explained roughly as well as the South Sea Bubble. And maybe a mention or two in connection with the American Revolution. It’s a wonder we knew Canada was up there.

          Sorry–how badly history’s taught is one of my favorite rants. I’ll stop now.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply ↓

    • Well, yes, they do. Memberships, entry fees, gift shops, cafes. And no doubt donations and grants. I can’t imagine what the heating bills look like. Those places aren’t just huge, the windows are either original or very like the originals–in other words, leaky–and the damn doors keep opening to let people in and out.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

  15. Just a comment in passing ~ British History includes diversity in Wales most of Ireland back in the day and Scotland. So many English people refer to Britain and exclude the outer (quite interesting parts) that don’t fit the model …. Unless Englishmen have taken it over with the blessing of the crown.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply ↓

    • Thanks for saying that. For the sake of my sanity, I try to limit the blog to English history. The full range of British history is more than I can manage, although where they inevitably overlap I pull my hair out a bit and do my best to take them in. The truth is that the full range of English history alone is more than I can manage but setting that limit does at least help. I don’t mean to slight the other nations. In fact, I live in Cornwall, which has its own history and doesn’t want it forgotten, although it gets swept under the rug far more than Irish, Scottish, and Welsh.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

Talk to me