Talk:Hagley Park, Worcestershire

Limits of Hagley Park

Copied from my talk page:

Hi, there! I see you've been taking an interest in the articles on Hagley and was intrigued by the question of whether Wychbury Hill (or a part of it at least) was ever part of Hagley Park. I think it was in the 18th century, which is why the obelisk was built there to commemorate the Lyttelton family. In those days the main road from Halesowen came directly down to the Hall, so it would be parkland on either side of it. And since the present Lord Cobham was involved in repairing the monument in 2011, I guess the land still belongs to him, although it may not now be counted part of the park. The A456 is one of the busiest in the county (along which cars rush at 60mph) and getting across it from the present park would be a bit of a hazard! Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a farm at the top the rise as the Hagley Road leaves Hagley from the old cattle market towards Birmingham (Hilltop farm?). This farm was a tenanted farm on the Hagley Hall estate (I do not know if it still belongs to the estate). The farm land is not usually considered to be part of the park although it was/is part of the estate. As far as I know the land on which the obelisk is built still belongs to the estate. BTW one of the follies (a temple) is also to the left (north) of the road between the road and the obelisk. For at least the last 60 years and probably longer the field in which the two follies are located have been pasture.

As to whether Wychburry Hill was ever part of the park, is debatable. I do not know the answer, but the four stones shows that the Lylletelton's were more than willing to place follies beyond the strict limits of what most people would call the park. It was for that reason that I did not change heading "Grounds" back to "Park" in the Hagley Hall article.

You will have to find the answer through reliable secondary sources, and as with all such things what was part of the park in one century/decade may not be considered so in another. -- PBS (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Today I put it to you that most people when they talk about Hagley Hall and its park they mean the area above the Hall on the slopes of Clent Hill "behind" the new dear fence. For example this is how Hagley Hall itself describes the park. The problem is that others like Historic England take the "park" to include all the land in the estate including farm land (Historic England (28 February 1986). "Hagley Hall: A mid C18 landscape park (1000352)". National Heritage List for England.). It makes sense for them to do so as it allows them to cover features that are no longer in the dear park or above it on the slopes of Clent Hill and owned by the estate. It is however still arbitrary as it ignores features no longer (if ever) within the estate eg the four stones which is a folly on the Clent Hills and visible from within the park (as is the obelisk). -- PBS (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

What I had more in mind was the perception of the park limits in the 18th century. I've been looking at the guides mentioned in the article's bibliography and notice that they count the temple and obelisk as part of the prospect from below - as they were meant to be - but all also mention the "park pale" which divides the grounds from Clent Hill. They definitely see Clent Hill and its Druid's Temple as seperate from the domain but, as you say, tend to lump park and estate together. Thomas Maurice, for example, exhorts "Come forth my muse, and wand'ring o'er the green, Mark the fair glories of this living scene" extending from "yon proud Obelisk" and "yonder Fane" (the Temple of Theseus) "down to" the Prince's column - which is indubitably part of the park (p.18). And at that date, too, the column would have been on the other side of the road to Halesowen, which added to the confusion over the park's extent. On the other hand, the prose introduction describing the marked walks around the landscaped park does not go wandering off up the slope. There's generally a distinction between what is best seen at a distance and what is investigated at ground level. The castle, however, serves both purposes and is an ambiguous addition. I notice, by the way, that the Wikipedia article on the obelisk asserts that it does belong to the park while the article on Wychbury Hill counts the entire hill as part of the park. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC) Now sorted Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I've now found the contemporary witness I was after, the anonymous A Companion to the Leasowes, Hagley and Enville, published in 1789. That speaks of the Rectory (there called the Vicarage) as being "a little out of the bounds of the park" and of following a path along its edge from which a turning to the right leads to the Rotunda (pp.52-3). That's pretty much as it is today. The introduction to the book speaks very scornfully of the misleading reporting in other guides, so it's little wonder that there has been uncertainty! Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Poets Corner

While mentioning poets in passing, I do not think that is the most important aspect of the park that mealy confirms that the park was worth visiting because its aesthetic were considered [sublime (literary)|]], and helps to justify the retention of the follies and other features.

Is importance when it was built revolved around its socio-economic effects and also it political usage. Some of the [[Lyttelton family]|Lyttelton]s were very politically involved and at such time the Hall and the Park were important backdrop in helping to support their standing the national political establishment. Eg the visit by Horace Walpole which is record in the "Hagley Hall" article, is interesting not just for what is he said about the park but that it was him who said it. -- PBS (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)