Talk:Gawthorpe Hall

confusion

You have to explain to me how a house dating back to the English Civil War is Elizabethan. 4.249.15.192 (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronounced...

The article states: '"Pronounced "GAW-thrup".' Who made this up? No-one pronounces it that way. This assertion needs support. 80.7.246.179 (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Gawthorpe new.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Gawthorpe new.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 11, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-12-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Gawthorpe Hall is an Elizabethan house in Padiham, in the borough of Burnley, Lancashire, England. It was originally a pele tower, a strong square structure built in the 14th century as a defence against the invading Scots. Around 1600 a Jacobean mansion was dovetailed around the pele, but in 1850 Sir Charles Barry, who later designed the Houses of Parliament, redesigned it to its current state.Photo: Childzy

Seems perfectly fine to me. Was wonderfully suited for the main page. Nice picture by the way. 12.41.255.10 (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed a fine image and one that I'd be very pleased to see as POTD. A lot more pleased, one imagines, than the National Trust, who have assured me, on a number of occasions, that they forbid the use of any image of their property not taken from a viewpoint on public land. They have informed me that are actively "in dispute" with WP over the illicit use of "some images". I wonder if this is one of them. If Wikipedia, or any other organisation, wishes to use an image of National Trust property they are meant to seek permission to use an existing, offically endorsed, image from their own image library, apparently. To me this seems overly restrictve. But maybe some official guidance on this is required? (Also, in case anyone is interested, photography, even soley for private use, is not permitted inside the hall, although you may struggle to find an official source for that fact.) Martinevans123 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Educational brief is unusual?

Between 11 March and 8 July 2012, to mark the 400th anniversary of the Lancashire witch trials, the council staged the exhibition: "Exhibition: A Wonderful Discoverie: Lancashire Witches 1612-2012" at visitlancashire.com It might fairly be said that such exhibitons have "nothing to do with Gawthorpe". But I think this is simply an example of the unique management status of the property, whereby LCC was given a 99-year lease on condition that they use the property for educational purposes. This is unlike most other NT properties. I had assumed that the topicality of the 400th Anniversary of the Witch Trials might have been of interest to Wikipedia in general, and to Gawthorpe, which is of course quite close to Pendle Hill, in particular. But other editors appear to disagree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Ownership

The opening sentence of this article says: "Gawthorpe Hall, a Lancashire County Council property managed by the National Trust.. ". But I thought it was owned by the National Trust, to which it was donated in 1970, and was only tenanted by LCC, on a 99-year lease from 1972, apparently. I think we should be told. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems confirmed in 2006 here: [1], by David Porter, Area Manager for The National Trust, in the local newspaper's letters page. But have not yet seen the original Burnley Express article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The National Trust Guidebook (1988) says: "The 4th Lord Shuttleworth moved to the North of Lancashire in 1953, and in 1970 gave the house and grounds to the National Trust, with a long term lease to Lancashire County Council, for educational use". Although it also says: "The Hall is now administered by Nelson and Colne College" - I assume this last arrangement was probably a temporary one at the time of the guidebooks's publication. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement now in the article is the current NT statement on their website. My guess is that the NT own it legally but took it on with the condition that LCC would fund it, but it's a guess, there is no clear statement from either NT or LCC that explains the legal position. I would certainly think the NT are the legal owners but there is presumably some funding agreement with LCC. I doubt whether it could possibly be self funding from visitors Cj1340 (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is what the guides at the Hall told me when I visited. It's also suggested by the David Porter quote. Eveso, most of the fabrics and furniure has to be stored at the house and cannot be displayed. There was also a definite clause in the original leasing agreement that LCC use the property "for educational purposes". I think the current text is fine, unless better sources emerge. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Location

As the lead section of article says: "Its estate extends into Padiham, with the Stockbridge Drive entrance situated there." And if you are giving directions to a driver, you'd certainly say Padiham. But the official listing at Historic England here says "Parish: Ightenhill." There's also a detailed map here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC) p.s. there is a lot more detail about the history of the park, which became Gawthorpe Hall, at Ightenhill

Here's a map with the parish boundary shown. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: You are quite correct on the present civil parish, as any map that shows parish boundaries will confirm. Hence it appears in Listed buildings in Ightenhill, and only the Stockbridge gatehouse appears in Padiham. It seems one or more people with connections to Padiham, would prefer to connect it to that town by bending the truth, rather than explaining things clearly.

You are slightly less correct about the connection between Ightenhill Park and Gawthorpe (but right to point to that article). The hall was not inside the park, historically it marked one corner of a considerably larger Habergham Eaves, as a result the part of Burnley near the Habergham Drive Lodge is called Habergham. Several old marker stones nearby are also listed. The history is a little complex (I've written about it in the Governance section in Ightenhill), but boundary changes over 90 years ago brought the hall within Ightenhill civil parish. Perhaps I will ask the parish council to put a new marker at the appropriate point along the Stockbridge Drive.TiB chat 11:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi there Trapped. Hope you are safe and well, now that we are all trapped somewhere. Many thanks for clarifying that. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm doing OK thanks, the same thoughts to you. I am of course deeply hoping that we are seeing the beginning of the end of this pandemic. Another thought that occurs is that Padiham has arguably stronger historical connections to the Starkie's of Huntroyde. There is a similar boundary issue there, with changes in 1985 putting Simonstone into Ribble Valley district. And yet it seems nobody has an issue with that.TiB chat 12:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps because it doesn't involve a very popular National Trust property? Let's hope this pandemic of contentious article edits is also near its end. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's a link to an Ordnance Survey map (in case anyone doesn't trust Google Maps) that shows the parish boundary as a row of dots: https://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=380687&y=434091&z=115&sv=380687,434091&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&dn=805&ax=380687&ay=434091&lm=0 -- Dr Greg  talk  14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Ovinus (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

‘Pele tower’

There are serious doubts amongst local historians that Gawthorpe Hall originated as a Pele tower, as both an employee for Lancashire County Council who occasionally works at Gawthorpe Hall and a writer about local history I can state that this is an on-going topic of conversation at the moment.

It is unlikely the true answer will be found but research is currently underway to determine whether it was or not, as there is uncertainty about this I personally think the relevant section should be edited or removed until a more definitive answer is found. ModFob (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

ModFob - That’s not actually how Wikipedia works. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. We currently have a Reliable source stating that its origin was as a pele tower. So that’s what we report. That local historians may think otherwise is not relevant, unless and until their research is also published in a reliable source. Then, we could change the article to say something like, “traditionally thought to have been a pele tower, historians now think XXX”. Or whatever the published findings indicate. KJP1 (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I have added this ref (Champness, J. (2008). The Building of Gawthorpe Hall. Lancaster Archaeological & Historical Society, 31, 33-41. https://lahs.archaeologyuk.org/Contrebis/Vol%2031%20Champness.pdf) which has a lot of detail and calls Pevsner's Peel/pele tower stuff into question and reworded slightly. Feel free to change anything etc if this is not welcome. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC))

Msrasnw - On the contrary, very welcome! A great reference, with a lot of very interesting information. And I think your wording conveys the uncertainty very well. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks KJP1. It seems to me a very nice ref. And has lots of interesting stuff that could be added to WP- if only we had time. Perhaps after my next visit to the Hall I might inspired...  :) Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC))

  I have the Malcolm Airs which Champness references but it’s unfortunately boxed up at present. When I can access it, I’ll see what it says. KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Thanks KJP1 Whilst Airs would be more authoritative if he was writing on Gawthorpe I think from how I read Champness he might not say so much (His book might be nice too: Champness, John. Country Houses of Lancashire and Their Builders. Centre for North-West Regional Studies, Lancaster University.) There is lots in Champness's article though and his conclusion seems nice: It is difficult to avoid what Sir James would have regarded as an outrageously impertinent suggestion, namely that the Kay-Shuttleworths believed in a peel-tower because they wanted to. Whereas the Elizabethan Shuttleworths had built a modem house to emphasise their new status, their Victorian descendants insisted on the age of their house. They did have an old house, but it was only 250 and not 500 years old, which would have been twice as good." Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC))

Yes - that’s a very nice quote. And it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a bunch of aristos had exaggerated the extent of their pedigree and the antiquity of their ancestral home. KJP1 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)