I was watching a episode last night from a documentary series about Highclere Castle in southern England. I happen to know the building reasonably well, though not through visiting it - I wrote about it in my book ‘Building Passions’ as it was re-designed by eminent British architect Sir Charles Barry in the 19th century . You may well recognise it, below, from another TV series Downton Abbey.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Highclere_Castle_(April_2011).jpg
What struck me about the episode was how the narrator had said that the castle required £10,000 gross income per day just to cover its operating costs. That seemed a huge amount of money to me. On thinking about it, I assume this was meant to justify the size of business operations run by the Earl of Caenarvon and his family, which is considerable. As the Earl pointed out, visitors came to Highclere from all over the world and so by implication this helps out the UK tourist industry.
All of this raises the question of when conserving an historic building is about more than just doing that. Someone has to place a value on our cultural heritage and if the authorities can save money by encouraging private owners to assist with this responsibly, then surely everyone benefits. But is this rationale a good one?
I’m in two minds about it. On the one hand, it saves money from the public purse and so we can spend it on other priorities. But on the other, it would seem to encourage already-priviliged families to make more money from assets they have inherited, rather than purchased out of a genuine interest. Is this therefore a moral dilemma? I think it probably is.
What other options might there be? I don’t think nationalising such historic buildings would necessarly help anyone, least of all the families who would be forced to sell up, despite obvious financial compensation to be expected. Is there a hybrid approach? It would probably require some exploration and no doubt already exists for those British aristocrats like the Royal Family who have opened up access to many of their castles and palaces for the national benefit (though the high entrance costs are arguably aimed at foreign tourists rather than average citizens).
Of more interest to me are a full range of financial and other incentives for a much wider number of ‘normal’ historic property owners to at least maintain what they have - as opposed to allowing its gradual demise, and in the most cynical cases, leading to demolition and replacement by a brand new building (easier to sell off?). I’m wondering if the UK Government can take a serious look at this issue, assuming it values the cultural benefits of conserving our built heritage - it certainly fits with a green agenda, if not a broader one about looking after and appreciating key parts of what we already have, before they disappear for ever.