Comments on: Historic garden conservation and restoration

By: Sheila Campbell

Sheila Campbell — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 08:28:58 +0000

A garden within an historic site should be as accurate historically as the restoration of the building. Therefore most central areas of castles would not be attractive visually (or in gardening terms) as they were for livestock and the drilling of the soldiery and the protection of the villagers. Pleasure gardens became possible only when siege was less likely and would have been small.
English Heritage should decide whether they want to display the buildings and their sites as nearly accurately as possible or whether they want to create atttractive gardens (of whatever period) set against historic ruins. In this last case the ancient walls become merely the backdrop to the garden.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 05:06:08 +0000

I suspect there are more (badly) re-created Roman gardens in Britain than re-created Medieval Gardens. Readers help welcome on this point! Re medieval gardens, I know of Queen Eleanor’s Garden in Winchester and Prebendal Manor and Mount Grace Priory in Yorkshire. Birmingham Botanical Garden have small and poor examples of re-created Roman and medieval gardens.

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:45:02 +0000

well that’s a point I can’t argue with !

if I’m honest I’d like to see some good examples of pre-capability gardens.

One of the reasons I like Westbury Court Garden is that it’s so different from anywhere else.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:54:59 +0000

Yes and no. If the historic site is dull and nothing is known about its past, then yes: by all means make something good. But at Richmond Castle (1) English Heritage have a pretty good idea what used to be there: a castle garden used mainly for growing fruit and vegetables (2) I know of no example in England where a fair attempt at re-creating a castle garden has been made, and so I think the re-creation should take precedence over having a bit of fun.

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:46:18 +0000

meant to add.

you ask why they “should build contemporary gardens at historic sites”. The answer surely is why not? Of course a well planned and designed garden is the preference. A fine modern garden gives as much pleasure as any historic garden. Admittedly what consitutes a fine modern garden may be harder thing to agree. If the garden at Lullingstone is a fine modern garden then I’ll despair now.

By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:28:29 +0000

Pete, I agree about it being normal and natural for gardens to change and for historic gardens, I think Geoffrey Jellicoe had the best idea: Creative Conservation. See http://www.gardenvisit.com/history_theory/garden_landscape_design_articles/historic_heritage_restoration/creative_conservation_jellicoe_geoffrey
But you must have a talented designer in charge of the garden to risk such a policy!
I visited the National Trust’s Standen at the weekend and was impressed by the way the residents are involved with the house and the garden. It is a good way of managing a historic property. But the quality of the planting design in the garden is C-.

By: pete

pete — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 18:43:06 +0000

I tend to disagree. if the garden had been plonked there a 100 years ago by the duke of xxxx no one would bat an eye lid if its EH or the NT then EEK!!

If historic buildings and gardens were managed in the past as they are today then nothing would have changed. we would have no Chatsworth as the family would never have got planning permission to alter the original Elizabethan house.

I appreciate that we need protection but we need to allow for growth.

my view of gardens is very simple. do I like it? does it make me feel good? Historical accuracy? ok but its not the be all and end all. everything changes.

Where I would agree is when EH won’t allow others to alter for historical accuracy!!