LOUISA CORNELL

This series of posts will endeavor to explain the different categories and names given to the various historical homes in England. There are specific criteria that define each type of home by the reasons for which it was built and the purpose it served in the lives of those who lived there. However, these designations are not written in stone (pun not really intended,) and they often changed over time based on additions made to them, renovations, architectural design alterations, and changes of ownership. So a manor house could become a stately home or a country house. A castle could become a manor house. A stately home could be called a castle—just ask Castle Howard. Add to that the names by which these homes were known—Chatsworth House, Lyme Park, Shugborough Hall and it can all be a bit confusing. The purpose of this series of posts is to give the reader a sort of guide from which to start when identifying the historic homes of England and perhaps to understand why and when they came to be. Names are important, especially to living, breathing beings, and these marvelous places are indeed very much alive.

The obsession of all three of the authors of this blog with visiting the UK in general and English stately homes in particular is well-documented. If you visit our blog with any frequency I daresay you are as big a fan of English stately homes as we are. One would think any old, elegant, expensive, historic edifice once, and sometimes presently, occupied by a family, usually of aristocratic origins, would be designated a stately home. Perhaps for all intents and purposes that holds true. However, these edifices generally fall into four categories, and only one of those categories is strictly a stately home.

By way of explanation…

What is a stately home?

There are four basic criteria for a mansion like this one to be designated a stately home.

1. Usually built during the 16th, 17th, or 18th centuries (and sometimes the early 19th century) these homes were designed to display the wealth and social status of the owner. In other words, they were showplaces first, a home second.

2. Secondly, the sheer size and grandeur of such an edifice indicates its status as a stately home. They are built on huge estates with extensive grounds. Said grounds are usually set out in large gardens, landscaped woodlands, and designed parks. The houses themselves usually have grand facades, sweeping staircases, and impressive rooms, each designed to strike awe and envy in those who were fortunate enough to be invited to visit by the owners.

3. A third criterion of stately homes would be their architectural style. Some stately homes were inspired by ancient Greek and Roman architecture – all of those Grand Tours no doubt. They can be identified by the classical style, the columns, pediments, and other decorative elements. As with all things fashionable, however, stately homes might also incorporate other architectural styles from Gothic to Baroque to Rococo, depending on what the newest craze of that particular era might be. This also explains why some stately homes exhibit a variety of styles. Each consecutive owner wanted to leave their mark in order to show off both their wealth and their sense of fashion.

4. And fourth, a stately home is defined by its purpose. These homes were built to show off the owner’s wealth, yes, but they were also built to entertain. Some of these owners never visited their stately homes save to throw a ball or a house party in order to support a political cause, aid in a family member’s search for a spouse, conduct an expected seasonal entertainment or other social purpose. They were seldom intended as actual homes. More like a venue for social interactions and grand gestures. That is not to say some families did not occupy these homes for at least part of every year. Some families simply did not care for London life. But the majority spent some time in their country homes and the majority of their time in London or elsewhere.

What is a manor house?

(By the way, I visited Igtham Mote in 1981. It is a spectacular manor house and has been kept as it would have been when built and occupied by the original owner.)

A manor house was built as a home for the lord of the manor who owned most of the land in the surrounding area. Unlike the stately home, the manor house was built primarily as the owner’s residence and as an administration building for the estate. This home was generally the center of economic and social activity for the area.

The criteria for a home to be designated a manor house were:

1. Most manor houses were built in the middle ages, though some were converted into stately homes by those who inherited them.

2. They were generally built in the countryside away from major cities and were surrounded by lands that belong to the owner, lands that were therefore unoccupied save by those who worked the estate as tenants of farm workers.

3. They were built from local materials – stone, timber, or brick whereas stately homes were often built of imported materials.

4. The manor house is a distinctly British architectural style whereas stately homes, castles, and palaces often copied the architectural styles of other countries.

5. A manor house usually was surrounded by a moat. There were fewer rooms in this house than there were in stately homes. The rooms usually included a great hall, living quarters and sleeping rooms for the family, sleeping quarters for the servants, kitchens, and a chapel.

6. The lord of the manor held court there and dealt with disputes dispensed justice where needed. Most of the surrounding land was divided into farms and occupied by tenants who owed their allegiance and much of the profit derived from their endeavors to the lord of the manor.

Are all of those magnificent houses sometimes called stately homes? Of course. However, these houses are more than a label. Each type was built for a specific purpose and in a specific age as a way to mark the history and human progress across Britain.

What about castles, you say? And palaces? And cottages? And… Patience, gentle reader! I will be posting about those specific forms and what makes a castle a castle and why our idea of a cottage does not necessarily mesh with Jane Austen’s idea of a cottage. Stay tuned!

Louisa

The following first-hand account of his attendance at Queen Charlotte’s Drawing Room was recorded by Richard Rush, American Ambassador to Great Britain, in his Memoranda of a Residence at the Court of London, Comprising Incidents Official and Personal from 1819 to 1825 (Lea & Blanchard, 1845. 1st ed.).  If you’ve not read the book, I urge you to do so. Rush had a keen eye and, more importantly, the eye of an outsider, an American, who witnessed the good and the great, important events and the many idiosyncracies of London life during the Regency Period. Thus, he set down details, habits and the minutae of daily life that the native born Englishman might not have considered worthy of being recorded.

February 27 1818 – Yesterday her majesty held a drawing room. It was in celebration of her birth day. My wife was presented to her, by Lady Castlereagh. Besides being a birth day celebration, it was the first drawing room of the season, and the first since the death of the Princess Charlotte. The weather was fine; the sun brilliant. A permit had been sent from the board of green cloth for my carriage to pass into St. James’s Park through the gate on Constitution hill.

Going through Hyde Park , I found the whole way from Tyburn to Piccadilly, (about a mile) filled with private carriages, standing still. Persons were in them who had adopted this mode of seeing those who went to court. Tenfold the number went by other approaches, and every approach, I was told, was thronged with double rows of equipages, also filled with spectators. I was to be set down with the rest of the diplomatic corps, and others who had the entré, at a door assigned, within the court yard of the palace. Arrived in its vicinity, my carriage was stopped by those before it. Here we saw, through the trees and avenues of the park, other carriages coming up, in two regular lines from the horse guards and St. James’s. The glitter of the carriages was heightened by the appearance of the numerous servants in glowing livery, there being generally two and often three footmen behind each carriage. The horses were all in the highest condition . . . Trumpets were sounding, and the Park and Tower guns firing. There were ranks of cavalry in scarlet, with their bright helmets and jet black horses; the same we were informed, men and horses, that had been at the battle of Waterloo. Their appearance was in a high degree martial and splendid. The hands of the men grasped their swords in gloves of white buckskin, reaching half way up to the elbow – a prominent part of the equipments that made up the exact uniformity and military beauty of the whole array.

We were soon set down, and entered the great hall. . . We were not out of time, for, by appointment, my carriage reached the palace with Lord Castlereagh’s; but whilst hundreds were still arriving, hundreds were endeavouring to come away. The staircase branched off at the first landing, into two arms and was wide enough to admit a partition, which had been let in. The company ascending took one channel; those descending the other and both channels were full. The whole group stood motionless. The openings through the old carved balusters brought all under view at once, and the paintings on the walls were all seen at the same time. The hoop dresses of the ladies, sparkling with lama; their plumes; their lappets; the fanciful attitudes which the hoops occasioned, some getting out of position as when in Addison’s time they were adjusted to shoot a door; the various costumes of the gentlemen, as they stood pinioning their elbows, and holding in their swords; the common hilarity created by the common dilemma; the bland recognitions passing between those above and below, made up, altogether, an exhibition so picturesque that a painter might give it as illustrative of the English court at that era. Without pausing to describe the incidents during our progress upwards, it may be sufficient to say, that the party to which I was attached, and of which lady Castlereagh towering in her bloom was the leader, reached the summit of the staircase in about three quarters of an hour.

Four rooms were allotted to the ceremony. In the second was the queen. She sat on a velvet chair and cushion, a little raised up . Near her were the princesses, and ladies in waiting. The general company, as they reached the corridor by one arm of the staircase, passed on to the queen. Bowing to her, they regained it, after passing through all the rooms, by an outlet that led to the other arm; which they descended. When my wife was presented, her majesty addressed some conversation to her, as a stranger. . . . The Prince Regent was there and royal family; cabinet ministers and their ladies; foreign ambassadors and ministers with theirs. These, having the entré, remained, if they chose, in the room with the queen. A numerous portion of the nobility were present, their wives and daughters; with others distinguished in life, though bearing neither title nor station.

If the scene in the hall was picturesque, the one up stairs transcended it in all ways. The doors of the rooms were all open. You saw in them a thousand ladies richly dressed. All the colours of nature were mingling their rays, under the fairy designs of art. It was the first occasion of laying by mourning for the Princess Charlotte; so that it was like the bursting out of spring. No lady was without her plume. The whole was a waving field of feathers. Some were blue, like the sky; some tinged with red; here you saw violet and yellow; there shades of green; but the most were of pure white, like tufts of snow. The diamonds encircling them caught the sun through the windows, and threw dazzling beams around. Then, the hoops; these I cannot describe. They should be seen. To see one is nothing; but to see a thousand and their thousand wearers on such a day! Each lady seemed to rise out of a gilded little barricade, or one of silvery texture. This, topped by her plume and the “face divine” interposing, gave to the whole an effect so unique, so fraught with feminine grace and grandeur, that it seemed as if a curtain had risen to show a pageant in another sphere. It was brilliant and joyous. Those to whom it was not new stood at gaze, as I did; Canning for one took it all in. You saw admiration in the gravest statesmen; Lord Liverpool, Huskisson, the lord chancellor – every body. I had already seen in England signs enough of opulence and power. Now I saw, radiating on all sides, British beauty. So appeared to me the drawing room of Queen Charlotte .

The ceremonies of the day being ended as far as myself and suite were concerned, we sought the corridor to come away. In good time we reached the head of the descending channel. Will it be believed! both channels were as full as ever of hoops and plumes. . . . We got down stairs in about the same time it took to get up. As we waited in the hall for our carriage, military bands were playing in the court yard, some mounted on the superb cavalry, some on foot; amidst the strains of which we drove off .   (Hoops were last worn at court on April 23^rd of this year).

From the sublime to the ridiculous, we now turn to The Chronicles of Holland House 1820-1900 (Earl of Ilchester, ed., John Murray 1937). Lady Mary Fox, afterwards Lady Mary Lilford, was presented at Court in 1820, when the whole was presided over by the Prince Regent. She wrote, “The toilet of the Royal person, I fancy, is so laborious and fatiguing, and so laced up is he, that it is impossible for him to stoop low enough to come in contact with the cheek of the young beauties below a certain stature; in consequence of which, such are suddenly lifted up* by the attendants behind them to the level with the Kingly cheek.”

*With a hand under each arm.