The destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain was the result of a change in social conditions: many country houses of varying architectural merit were demolished by their owners. Collectively termed by several authors "the lost houses", the destruction of these now often-forgotten houses has been described as a cultural tragedy."Lost houses" has been included in the title of many articles and books on the subject.
The British nobility had been demolishing some of their country houses since the 15th century, when comfort replaced fortification as an essential need. For many, demolishing and rebuilding their country homes became a lifelong hobby, in particular during the 18th century when it became fashionable to take the Grand Tour and return home with art treasures, supposedly brought from classical civilizations. During the 19th century, many houses were enlarged to accommodate the increasing numbers of servants needed to create the famed country house lifestyle. Less than a century later, this often meant they were of an unmanageable size.
In the early 20th century, the demolition accelerated, while rebuilding largely ceased. The demolitions were not confined to England, but spread throughout Britain. By the end of the century, even some of the "new" country houses by the architect Edwin Lutyens had been demolished. There were a number of reasons: social, political and, most importantly, financial. In rural areas, the destruction of the country houses and their estates was tantamount to a social revolution. Well into the 20th century, it was common for the local squire to provide large-scale employment, housing, and patronage to the village school, parish church, and a cottage hospital. The "big house" was the bedrock of rural society.
Since 1900, 1,200 country houses have been demolished in England.Worsley, p. 7. In Scotland, the figure is proportionally higher. There, 378 architecturally important country houses have been demolished, 200 of these since the end of World War II in 1945.Binney.Gow. Included in the destruction were works by Robert Adam, including Balbardie House and the monumental Hamilton Palace. One firm, Charles Brand of Dundee, demolished at least 56 country houses in Scotland in the 20 years between 1945 and 1965.RCAHMS. In England, it has been estimated that one in six of all country houses were demolished during the 20th century.
Historical background
Two years before the beginning of World War I, on 4 May 1912, the British magazine Country Life carried a seemingly unremarkable advertisement: the roofing balustrade and urns from the roof of Trentham Hall could be purchased for £200.Country Life. 4 May 1912. Supplement p. iii. Advertisement for the urns and balustrade of Trentham Hall. One of Britain's great ducal country houses, Trentham Hall was demolished with little public comment or interest. It was its owner's property, to do with as he wished. There was no reason for public interest or concern; the same magazine had frequently published in-depth articles on new country houses being built, designed by fashionable architects such as Edwin Lutyens.Country Life. 9 September 1911. p. 377; Country Life. 17 February 1912. p. 244; Country Life. 23 March 1912. p. 430; and Country Life. 11 May 1912. p. 686 all give detailed documentation of the building of new large country houses by among others Norman Shaw and Edwin Lutyens. As far as general opinion was concerned, England's great houses came and they went; as long as their numbers remained, continuing to provide local employment, the public were not largely concerned. The Country Life advertisement, however, was to prove a hint of things to come.
Before World War I only a few houses were demolished, but the pace increased: by 1955, one house was being demolished every five days. As early as 1944, the trustees of Castle Howard, convinced there was no future for Britain's great houses, had begun selling the house's contents.Worsley, p. 95. Increasing taxation and a shortage of staff meant that the old way of life had ended. The wealth and status of the owner provided no protection to the building: even the wealthier owners became keen to free themselves of not only the expense of a large house, but also the trappings of wealth and privilege which the house represented.Mulvagh, p. 321.
Thus, it was not just the smaller country houses of the gentry which were wiped from their – often purposely built – landscapes, but also the huge ducal palaces. Alfred Waterhouse's Gothic Eaton Hall, owned by Britain's wealthiest peer, was razed to the ground in 1963, and replaced by a smaller modern building. Sixteen years earlier the Duke of Bedford had reduced Woburn Abbey to half its original size, destroying façades and interiors by both Henry Flitcroft and Henry Holland. The Duke of Devonshire saved Hardwick Hall by surrendering it to H.M. Treasury in lieu of death duties, which were charged at up to 80% of the total value of an estate,Deborah, Duchess of Devonshire, p. 60. but this solution was rarely acceptable to the government. As late as 1975, the British Labour government refused to save Mentmore, thus causing the dispersal, and emigration, of one of the country's finest art collections..
In the 1960s, historians and public bodies had begun to realise the loss to the nation of this destruction. However, the process of change was long, and it was not until 1984 with the preservation of Calke Abbey that it became obvious that opinion had changed. A large public appeal assured the preservation of Tyntesfield in 2002, and in 2007, Dumfries House and its collection were saved, after protracted appeals and debates. Today, demolition has ceased to be a realistic, or legal, option for listed buildings, and an historic house (particularly one with its contents intact) has become recognized as worthy of retention and preservation. However, many country houses are still at risk, and their security, even as an entirety with their contents, is not guaranteed by any legislation.
Impoverished owners and a plethora of country houses
When Evelyn Waugh's novel Brideshead Revisited, portraying life in the English country house, was published in 1945, its first few chapters offered a glimpse of an exclusive and enviable world, a world of beautiful country houses with magnificent contents, privileged occupants, a profusion of servants and great wealth. Yet, in its final chapters, Brideshead's author accurately documented a changing and fading world, a world in which the country house as a symbol of power, privilege and a natural order, was not to exist.Waugh, Brideshead Revisited, closing chapters.
As early as June 1940, while Britain was embroiled in the early days of World War II, The Times, confident of future victory, advised its readers that "a new order cannot be based on the preservation of privilege, whether the privilege be that of a county, a class, or an individual." Thus it was after the end of the war, as the government handed back the requisitioned, war-torn and frequently dilapidated mansions to their often demoralised and impoverished owners; it was during a period of not just mounting taxation, to pay for a costly war, but also a time when it seemed all too clear that the old order had passed.Bailey, p. 381 and p. 399, and Lees-Milne, p. 132, describe the seeming class warfare and impotence of the aristocracy during this period. In this political climate, many felt it the only option to abandon their ancestral piles. Thus, following the cessation of hostilities, the trickle of demolitions which had begun in the earlier part of the century became a torrent of destruction.
Destroying buildings of national or potential national importance was not an act peculiar to the 20th century in Britain. The demolition in 1874 of Northumberland House, London, a prime example of English Renaissance architecture, passed without significant comment. Town houses such as Northumberland House were highly visible displays of wealth and political power, so consequently more likely to be the victims of changing fashions.
The difference in the 20th century was that the acts of demolition were often acts of desperation and last resort; a demolished house could not be valued for probate duty. A vacant site was attractive to property developers, who would pay a premium for an empty site that could be rebuilt upon and filled with numerous small houses and bungalows, which would return a quick profit. This was especially true in the years immediately following World War II, when Britain was desperate to replace the thousands of homes destroyed. Thus, in many cases, the demolition of the ancestral seat, strongly entwined with the family's history and identity, followed the earlier loss of the family's London house.Worsley, p. 12.
A significant factor, which explained the seeming ease with which a British aristocrat could dispose of his ancestral seat, was the aristocratic habit of only marrying within the aristocracy and whenever possible to a sole heiress. This meant that by the 20th century, many owners of country houses often owned several country mansions.Worsley, p. 10. Thus it became a favoured option to select the most conveniently sited (whether for privacy or sporting reasons), easily managed, or of greatest sentimental value; fill it with the choicest art works from the other properties; and then demolish the less favoured. Thus, one solution not only solved any financial problems, but also removed an unwanted burden.
The vast majority of the houses demolished were of less architectural importance than the great Baroque, Palladian and Neoclassical mansions by the notable architects.See list, Worsley pp. 186–199. Most are by unknown or little known architects. These smaller, but often aesthetically pleasing houses belonged to the gentry rather than the aristocracy; in these cases the owners, little more than gentlemen farmers, often razed the ancestral home to save costs and thankfully moved into a smaller but more comfortable farmhouse or purpose-built new house on the estate.
Occasionally an aristocrat of the first rank did find himself in dire financial troubles. The severely impoverished Duke of Marlborough saved Blenheim Palace by marrying an heiress, tempted from the US by the lure of an old title in return for vast riches.Stuart, p. 135. Not all were so fortunate or seemingly eligible. When 2nd Duke of Buckingham found himself bankrupt in 1848, he sold the contents of Stowe House, one of Britain's grandest houses. It proved to be a temporary solution; his heirs, the 3rd and final Duke of Buckingham and his heirs, the Earls Temple, inherited huge financial problems until finally in 1922 anything left that was moveable, both internal and external, was auctioned off and the house sold, narrowly escaping demolition. It was saved by being transformed into a school.