By: Tom Turner

Tom Turner — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 05:26:32 +0000

Hedingham Castle is a wonderful building and a ‘wedding garden’ is perfectly valid design objective. I am glad it worked out so well.

By: Helen Moorhouse

Helen Moorhouse — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:02:55 +0000

I want to quote your view:
“The owners’ design objective was to generate dosh by letting the place as weddings venue.
What should they have done? Something better: less costly, more imaginative, more beautiful, more romantic, more appropriate – and designed to create amazing opportunities for wedding photographers”
And then mine.
Hedingham Castle was an amazing wedding venue, and far more genuine than some country houses we considered for our wedding. Unlike Knebworth, Hatfield and Ickworth (which we also considered), we actually got married in the keep of the castle, and had our drinks reception in the main house – at no extra cost.
At the other houses we considered we would have been charged extra to spend time in the historic parts of the grounds and architecture that were advertised as the USP of the venue. At Hedingham, the key photo opportunities included areas of the grounds we actually had our wedding in and spent time with our guests in – in other venues you would pay a premium to pose in front of a building you didn’t actually spend any time in (at all in some venues, or unless you are willing to pay an extra £3k for 1 hour in others).
Hedingham was a beautiful an amazing wedding venue, we feel very privileged to have been married there, the recent landscape developments were beautiful, and we have some very breathtaking photographs of our wedding that were real reflections of how we spent our day rather than what we would have had in other venues.
H Moorhouse

Comments on: The Landscape Man: Matthew Wilson at Hedingham Castle

By: Tom Turner

By: Helen Moorhouse