From someone who lives 20 mins away from this house. It’s honestly amazing to see In person. I went inside before covid and had a look in the reception area and it’s such a vast open space. They now have finished the roof work I believe
@@PatrickPierceBateman Honestly I wouldn't. I've been in twice, one with the previous owner with rooms, floors and ceilings pratically erroding away and one time under the trust and even though the trust has done amazing stuff to fix it, there is probably a massive amount of work to be done. I'm guessing there are still rooms much worse than what I saw and could probably collapse at any point hahaha I wouldn't take that risk if I was you.
You could have part of it for public visits, another part for hotel, and yet another for large events rental. Can you imagine a wedding in that location? Would be amazing.
things like this need preserving, not many places in the world have buildings like that, also, in 100-200 years time there is no modern building that is going to be worth preserving if its still standing
I disagree, well about modern buildings because I think there is a lot of beauty in modern architecture. Not in the same sense as with these historic structures, but there are very valuable modern buildings that aren't an eyesore. For example, I would suggest you take a look at the gherkin (London) or via 57 west new york. Maybe even the barbican, though that would be quite a controversial pick haha.
I disagree with those who feel that because of issues such as slavery, imperialism, colonialism etc, national monuments should not be preserved or maintained. National monuments represent so much more to both the local and national communities than that. For instance take the Great Wall of China as an example. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of peasant slaves died directly during it's construction. It was meant to protect Chinese imperialism and secure their colonial acquisitions on their western border, and yet you never hear loud voices of protest in the media saying it should not be preserved or maintained because of those reasons. The fact is that the Great Wall of China means so much more than just the often ugly politics of that time period to the Chinese people and nation. The same can be said of historic British monuments. This magnificent building was the center of the local community and a place where thousands met, worked, and played over centuries. It must therefore be protected and preserved as an integral part of our national heritage. And as such, like the Great Wall of China, it rises above the less than perfect era and people that originally created it.
I’m fine with that as long as its part of the tour, that they mention that this home was built with money earned through selling human beings. And we mention that what “the center of a local community” really means, is that everyone who lived in the area worked for, or at this house earning just enough to survive.
@@Deeplycloseted435 "I’m fine with that" I don't know that I am, since I can think of few national monuments where the ugly side of the monuments and their history is emphasized on tours. For instance, let's take the Taj Mahal. Do they talk about horrors of the Mughal invasion of India and the innumerable deaths that occurred because of it? No, of course not, that would ruin the experience of the monument which is known as a place of beauty, and magnificent craftsmanship. Also, they often refer to the Taj as a temple to the love of one woman, but when was the last time they mentioned the fact that Sha Jahan was a polygamist who had many wives, not just the one honoured at the Taj? Do they ever talk about how his other wives might have felt about the building of the Taj Mahal when they take tours there? I highly doubt it. See, that's the problem imo. The point of national monuments is to demonstrate the better side of our nations, not focus on the less than perfect people or era the monument was built in. And why should people in the west denigrate their own heritage monuments in a manner that other nations do not?
This should be preserved and turn into a hotel with museums. Let people have a taste of living in such fine building. Im sure people won’t mind paying for such beautiful place.
I too was momentarily mystified by what she'd said ... a shame they couldn't find someone who can speak English properly to explain the issues threatening the building. An example of lowering standards in basic education.
@@Steven-kq6rw I don't need to turn up the volume ... I'm listening on professional-grade studio equipment with an £850.00 sound card in the PCI slot. The word 'ingress' is described universally on etymological websites as a noun meaning 'The act of entering' or 'The act of going in'.or 'coming in' ... she confuses people by adding 'coming in' after she's said 'ingress'. She has effectively said "to stop the water coming in coming in" ... so the second 'coming in' is superfluous and senseless and is the factor that stops people from instantly comprehending what she has said ... her sentence makes no sense. Her pronunciation of 'ingress' is incorrect as she diminishes the emphasis on the first syllable and compounds the atrocity by almost doing the same on the second syllable. The auto-generated subtitles which appear on the screen have been confused by this precise mispronunciation and could only make "watering rust" out of it. If you enter the word 'ingress' on Google and click on the little speaker icon you will hear the correct pronunciation in RP English and you will hear a distinct 'upwards' emphasis on the first syllable which is missing in the poor diction heard in the video we are discussing.
What an amazing monument to the skilled workers who made this building possible in the first place. Think of the training opportunities and skilled jobs it will require to restore such a building.
This house is of great historical importance. The Wentworth family who lived there previously looked after there staff very well. You shouldn't knock down buildings like this, for one we'll never see nothing like it again. It's actually owned by Clifford Newbold, a retired architect who is currently restoring the house. It's also open to the public. He plans to do much with the house apparently.
@@user-jt1jv8vl9r History and culture is also of importance to society. Museums, libraries are all run at a loss. Brighton Football club built their stadium for £93 million. The Shard in London cost £1200 million to build. The London Eye cost £70 million. £200 million for a restoration isn’t that much, given its sheer size.
James Carlton, sorry to disagree with you Clifford died a few years ago, his son stayed a while longer and then decided to sell the house. It's now owned by the Wentworth Woodhouse Preservation Trust.
@@terriescharf7656 no she married the eldest son of the Duke of Devonshire William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington May 6, 1944 but he was killed 4 months later in the war. She was having an affair with Peter the 8th Earl Fitzwilliam but both were killed when the plane they were in crashed during a storm in the south of France May 1948. Lord Fitzwilliam was in the process of divorcing his wife so he could marry Kathleen. Kathleen’s mother Rose already upset her daughter married an Anglican hit the roof when she found out about her affair with Peter also Anglican and married. She warned her daughter if she married Peter that would be the end of any relationship with her or any other members of the Kennedy family.
In 1906 it was said the the 7th Earl Fitzwilliam was worth what today would be £3 billon pounds or $6 billion dollars. Most from the coal found on their land & they owned about 80,000 acres most in England & Ireland. His son the 8th Earl died in a plane crash May 1948 on bored was Kathleen Kennedy who he was having an affair and hoping to marry after he divorced his wife Olive. Kathleen was the sister of President Kennedy. Peter had no son so the title went to his 2nd cousin. Most of the land 80,000 acres & magnificent art collection to Lady Juliet Peter’s daughter and only child. She doesn’t own Wentworth Woodhouse but is still one of the richest people in the United Kingdom. The coal mines went to the corrupt Government. The 9th Earl leased the house to a woman’s college. The lease end in the 70’s the 10th & last Earl sold the house & died in 1979.
I recall how an Italian aristocrat (in a book called The Leopard) explains what's the difference between a palace and a mere mansion. If live there and you've been to every single room, it's just a mansion....
It is so sad that this things happen and this is in FRANCE also.......So many BEAUTIFUL HUGE HOMES left and are falling apart.......What the problem is MONEY
What I never understood is how billionaires don’t live in such opulent castles? I mean with billions your secured for life and many generations over? Most billionaires have small mansions which is weird. I mean isn’t this what many people want to live in?
@@acrobaticcripple8176 what do YOU MEAN.....These BEAUTIFUL place’s that are left and let’s not forget the things in there.....Worth a lot of money.....It’s just sad....
@@acrobaticcripple8176 So your idea of a better world is one without beautiful architecture? If you value practicality so much, check out what the Soviet Union used to look like, I wouldn't want to live there. Art is important my man.
Because only multy billionaries can affrod to have a house that will be always on lose of money and the craftman work and material avaliable today are very diferent. There is a house in Florida i think that was an attempt to be a replica of Versailles, is tacky and cheap looking even when you can see it cost millions.
The primary reason is that people don't entertain the same way anymore. First off, the wealthiest people today don't have 20 or 30 guests coming to spend the weekend (or the summer), so having 15 or 20 bedrooms is no longer necessary. Second, monthly dinners with 40 or 50 people aren't common, so dining halls have been replaced with smaller dining rooms. Third, the seasonal parties with 200 to 500 people have pretty much disappeared, so ballrooms are generally no longer common. Also, as a result, less live-in staff is required, kitchens are smaller, and of course, stables, collieries, and the like are gone. Of course, modern houses have added tons of new features such as pools and patios, theaters and bars, and more intimate areas for entertaining. So they aren't necessarily building smaller houses than this; just houses that are laid out differently.
True...but i think it was the time period. These ppl had huge producing estates, the land was where their wealth came from. Many staff..it must hv been a busy place back then
Turn it in to a very high end luxury spa / hotel with multiple bars and restaurants. You can also host corporate events and weddings there. It would turn over tens of millions each year.
Not only was it a sign of wealth and status, but they operated like businesses too: you could hire hundreds of people to look after the house, everyone from the head butler to the under-gardeners and the housekeeper to the scullery maids. Remember, people couldn't commute for work hundreds of years ago like we do today, it was too difficult and dangerous. It also provided work for labourers like carpenters, stonemasons, etc. who would build/do repair work on the house. It's why they built 'follies': it provided work for the local builders.
@@nighthasfallen456 much like a mini state. I’ve read somewhere how labour was used like this to build palaces in India. Come to think of it, this was quite an efficient system to keep things running.
The fourth Earl, William Fitzwilliam, was a prominent Whig politician and served as Lord President of the Council and as Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. In 1782 he inherited the Watson-Wentworth estates (including Wentworth Woodhouse) on the death of his uncle Lord Rockingham, which made him one of the greatest landowners in the country. When he died the titles passed to his son, the fifth Earl
@@langraman8756 coal mines were huge source of their vast wealth. When the 6th Earl died in 1906 his wealth would translate today to about 3 billion pounds.
@@langraman8756 What is your evidence? All I can find is the 5th & 7th earls married into the Dundas family who did own slave plantations in the Caribbean but that’s a stretch to say the Fitzwilliam family profited from slavery or the slave trade.
First RU-vid creates a problem by inserting endless ads in all their content. When we finally cave and pay their monthly shake-down fee to get rid of the ads, they start just slapping giant ads right OVER the content.
It is actually being done by a private corporation, though this thing will become a public museum. You just need to pay to enter and see its exhibits. Also, no SPRAY PAINTING!!!
Why not get investors and turn it into a hotel? Nothing else can get the kind of money it needs for repair, maintenance, regular upkeep and costs. With 360+ rooms, it can serve as a hotel easily.
£200 million in repairs! Wow! No wonder so many large houses were demolished in the 20thC. Is a shame though. 365 rooms or one for each day of the year. It's difficult to comprehend such large houses being built in the first place. Why on earth would you ever need that many rooms!?
Most of them are for service. The kitchens, laundries, workshops and mess areas. The main apartments would occupy a smaller area of the floor plan most likely in the grandest central part of the building.
It sickens me that this used to be one person's/one family's property, and probably not the only one on top of that. Nowadays they're saying that it's literally too big to have only one purpose and it used to be someone's house.
If only this house could talk! A film should be made about this house and the fitzwilliam family who owned it. History, and a revealing insight to how the aristocracy lived and lorded it over in this country. Fascinating the way they lived and, the things they got away with.
It’s nice but the idea to sponsor a message on the roof slates is a bit tacky; I wish houses like this could still be held in private ownership, like in the glory years
@@tamaracarter1836 They are not, actually. They have been taken over by the National Trust and the original owners kicked out. The reason is that after WWII there was a concerted effort to kill off the "ruling class" by taxing them so steeply in inheritance taxes that "their pips squeaked" and they could not afford to stay in their own houses. That was the term used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was accomplished, and now the only "trade" Britain has is tourists who want to see the old houses and the Empire is gone. Be careful what you wish for.
@@mrschuyler Yes they absolutely are still lived in (of course not all, but a HUGE majority). Where do you think our aristocracy live? The Dukes, Earls, Barons etc... they live at the family seat (i.e. a castle/ stately home). Please do some research.
@@mrschuyler Here are a few examples: - Duke of Devonshire - Chatsworth House (very grand baroque house; mostly built between 1687-1707), - Duke of Marlborough - Blenheim Palace (extravagant UNESCO Baroque Palace; built between 1705-1722), - Duke of Norfolk - Arundel Castle (very large medieval castle that dates back to 1067, with modifications in the 18th/19th centuries). Earl/ Countess: - Earl of Carlisle - Castle Howard (very grand Baroque house; mostly built between 1699-1709), - Earl of Leicester - Holkham Hall (grand Palladian house; built between 1734-1764), - Earl of Harewood - Harewood House (grand Palladian house; built between 1759-1771). Marquess/ Marchioness: - Marquess of Exeter - Burghley House (very grand Elizabethan Prodigy house; built 1555-1587), - Marquess of Bath - Longleat House (very grand Elizabethan Prodigy House; built 1567-1579), - Marquess of Cholmondeley - Houghton Hall (grand Palladian House; built 1722-1729).
Beautiful if I’d had the money I’d buy it on the spot without knowing the down sides of this or just build one exactly like this one... why can’t we build building and houses more this way and not with little twigs like over here in the us doesn’t this creat more jobs... I mean I know it’s more expensive but still
Let’s do the maths. Assume £20 per person to enter. Assume 500 visitors a day, for 300 days a year, that’s 150,000 visitors, or £3m a year purely from ticket sales. So if this is a 20 year period of return, they need to make £10m a year, so they’re a fair bit short. They’d need to make up the £7m a year from selling food, drinks, programmes, gifts, key rings etc. It is doable. But it isn’t a cash cow.
@@SuperKillaki yeah it’s all just numbers which you can vary but no matter what they do, I don’t think this would ever be a viable commercial enterprise. However... that’s why I love what these guys are doing. It’s about so much more than the money. It’s history. This is why I feel proud of Britain. You can’t manufacture time or history - these buildings need to be protected in my opinion so I’m glad they’re working so hard to do so 👍🏻
A house like this never paid for itself, nor did the landed estate around it. The owners got their wealth in less respectable ways, and covered their tracks by pretending to be feudal magnates. The house was a "statement" of a kind that billionaires no longer make. That's why noble (or in this case formerly noble) families are glad to be rid of them. Would the American equivalent of the National Trust buy Michael Jackson's Neverland estate and try to run it as a children's amusement park? That was not quite its original purpose, and would not work now.
#blackdiamonds Read the book. Also I find it hilarious that the very council that requisitioned land practically up to the house mined it for coal destabilizing the foundations of this palace. Also the ran a huge motorway in front of the house which they have cleverly hidden from this shot. The council real forked up on Wentworth and why should be a huge visitor attraction has turned into a bunch of nutters playing games with the house since the FitzWilliam trustees sold it on decades ago. Now they are looking at 30-30 years to finish the renovation. Lol I’m surprised they have not just demolished it like so many stately homes in ex industrial areas. They really can’t make up their minds these councils. They are toddlers with idiotic class hatred issues and have forgotten the bloody magnify architecture. I mean something like this could never be be built again. They are so ignorant the jobs this palace could have created as an attraction. It’s simply baffling. I guess in 20 years they will start getting some furniture and working with the family that used to own it for info. Idiots.
