Aristocratic farm shops

[jazzactivist]

Hi all, I have been really enjoying myself shopping in the farm shops that are almost on my doorstep. However, now that I have been here a month I am starting to become a bit more discerning based on my principles. The two farm shops closest to me, whilst they sell beautiful produce and prepared food etc, belong to the families that also own the stately homes nearby. So, by shopping there I am putting money into the pockets of the aristocracy, something that I am not too keen on doing at all. One of them runs a project where people experiencing mental health difficulties work on the farm and also host college students studying horticulture. Whilst these are good opportunities it seems to me that wealthy people are again getting cheap or free labour, but under a modern guise. I am very supportive of farm shops on actual farms, or that are community run, but feel uneasy about this type of 'bandwagon' development. For this reason I also don't pay to visit stately homes and gardens that are privately owned. Am I being too finnicky? What is your perspective on this?

[Ivy]

Well they are a part of your history and therefore need protection. After Germany was reunited it was the former nobility that re-built and restored the former castles and started new life in the ruins at their own expense. I suppose many of the stately homes that do not belong to the NT would have been demolished if it wasn't for the TLC of their owners. So -even though I am not a royalist I don't see a problem with supporting them.

[Crocus]

"One of them runs a project where people experiencing mental health difficulties work on the farm and also host college students studying horticulture".

This sounds like a good idea to me Jazz - I wonder, perhaps it's their way of putting something back into the community by "employing" these people? Perhaps they won't get the opportunity otherwise? xx

[Clunkshift]

Jazz,
I'm certainly not a royalist but I prefer aristocracy to big business caring for the land. Near us, the biggest land owner is the Church of England (thanks to the bishop of Winchester being given huge tracts of land in medieval times) and the other big land owners are the Sainsburys and the Heinikens.
I am not keen on the National trust running things either so I would actually support the aristos when they benefit the community as a whole.
The odd aristos that I have accidentally spoken to in the countryside are charming and caring people and not in any way snobbish; they are more likely to be driving a 20 year old Land Rover than anything ostentatiou and they do have a real love for the country and are generally good custodians of it.
Lord Selborne has huge orchards and tries to maintain as many old varieties of apples as he can - and sells to the public through his own shop at Blackmoor.
Another in Wiltshire breeds American Bison and sells the meat in his shop - I'm strangely drawn to eccentrics.

[dragonfly]

I am in the National Trust and pay to visit privately owned ones. I pay for the enjoyment of the visit (and because I am nosy and like to see how the other half lives or did live) and to help to maintain the historical property that would otherwise probably not exist. I think it is good that the aristocracy have to earn their keep these days even if they do have much more than we have. I would not like to open my home to all and sundry.

[Ivy]

They might HAVE more but also they have more responsibility. I do agree with dragonfly about not wanting to open my home to the rest of the world. And Clunk I do agree with you to see the land rather in the hands of those who really care than those who see it as an investment of money. I personally am a member of NT because I think it's a great idea to preserve the stately homes as what they were rather than turning them into hotels and the like. We can't turn back time to change history and it certainly is debatable how those family came into possession of this land but now they have it I think they are doing (mostly) a great job maintaining it as what it has been over centuries- farmland.

[jazzactivist]

The points that you all make are really interesting, and are helping me to work out a balanced view of this. I am not a fan of rich families having gained their wealth from the exploitation of others, here and abroad, and then seeming to continue to benefit from a modern version of this. I agree with you, clunkshift and Ivy, that some members of the aristocracy do care about their land and historic house and try to maintain them in a way that benefits society and future generations. Because of their money they are also able to try out 'new' ideas such as organic farming and building conservation techniques before these become commonly acceptable. However, there are quite a few who do very little for their land or local people, and just seem to jump on the bandwagon of any new development to retain their acreage and home for themselves and their own children. We are all expected to give money, and sometimes even our labour, to keep them in the manner to which they are accustomed, in exchange for the chance to look at the lovely things that they have.

I agree with you that some of the aristocracy that I have spoken with are very pleasant and quite self-effacing, and do wear old clothes and drive old landrovers. However, there is still a strong element of paternalism in whatever they do for the local community or for disadvantaged people, rather than a genuine interest in redressing the balance. I also don't like the idea of big supermarkets of absent business people owning the land either. I guess that my ideal would be for a traditional landowner who cared about their land to share more with their local community eg turning part of their stately home into a housing co-op so that people could get affordable housing in a beautiful setting. I have to be careful here, though, as if it is all too local then there is a risk of a return to serfdom! I am also a member of the National Trust and think that charitable ownership of historic properties is a good way to go. However, even with this, the National Trust started up to buy land and property to protect it from the masses,rather than allow access. Well, I'll meditate more on this while I tuck into my handmade, organic brownie from said farm shop...

[Clunkshift]

I think I should explain my comment about the National Trust, my worry is that as an organisation they have become so big and have so much land, that I honestly fear that the government willl one day realise just how much money they can lay their hands if they sell most of it off.

I can see a government argument that since most property has come into the NT as an avoidance of death duties, tax or simply people dying intestate, that they are entitled to dispose of it for the "national good".

My other feelings about the NT is that they are good with buildings, but they aren't so good at farming. They often end up simply putting cattle that no-one wants on land that no-one can use just to maintain a status quo of plants and what were once busy farm estates are now scarcely productive at all. I believe that most of our landscape has been shaped by man in the course of farming and industry. If you ever see land left to "go back to nature" it is not very scenic and certainly not productive.

I see the countryside and large estates as a national asset and I really don't want the UK to become one big museum for tourists, with everywhere stuck in a time capsule. I love history but for the sake of our children the country needs the vitality and life of a productive farming industry.

a joke:
A vicar was walking past a garden in his parish and saw a man working hard, weeding his vegetable patch.
The vicar called out "you and the Lord ore doing a wonderful work in that garden"
The gardner replied "yes but you should have seen the nettles and brambles when he had it to himself".