Location, location, location. I’ve heard it said that’s the most important
part of house buying, and as my husband and I consider downsizing, we’re
finding it to be true. But location wasn’t
the only factor important to the families who went up to London for the Season
in the nineteenth century, that time between Easter and the end of summer when anyone
who was anyone ventured up to London for the rounds of parties, balls, and
matchmaking among the upper class.
Families who were nobly born had a London house as well as an estate in
the country and perhaps a hunting lodge somewhere they might reasonably expect
to find small creatures to persecute, I mean hunt. The rest of the aristocratic families did
what many of us do today--they rented or leased.
Much of the land in London once belonged to large estates
dating back to the middle ages. The
mighty families who owned these estates later developed them, keeping the land
itself, but building houses on it they would then lease to suitably wealthy and
pedigreed tenants. For example, much of
Mayfair, that area near Hyde Park devoted to the aristocracy in the early
nineteenth century, was developed from lands belonging to the Grosvenor
family.
Some leases lasted only a Season. Others lasted as long as a hundred
years. As you can imagine, if your
family held one of those longer leases, generations would come to consider the
house “theirs.”
Within these leased houses were several types. There was the terraced house, must like today's townhouses, like these in
Bath:
Most of these homes had only a few rooms suitable for
entertaining. They were perfect for
sitting with a few friends and having a nice coz. If you hoped to entertain, you would be better
served to lease a larger townhouse with a small plot of land, enough for a garden,
like Apsley House, home of the Duke of Wellington:
Such houses might boast a gallery suitable for a large
dinner or perhaps a small soiree. If you
wanted to host your own ball, you’d have to locate a mansion with more
extensive grounds. This last type was
the most rare in London, kept in the family so to speak, and was the most
expensive to lease. They might also be a bit outside London proper, like Holland House:
The larger the home, the larger the upkeep as well. Larger houses required more servants, more
furnishings and artwork. Gardens
required gardeners; stables necessitated grooms. Sometimes smaller was more efficient. However, larger was certainly more
impressive.
So, what will your preference be, my lords and ladies? What sort of home would you prefer this Season?
4 comments:
I want one of those terraced houses. I loved seeing them when I visited Bath.
Those are my favorites too, QNPoohBear. I look at the larger houses and think, "Who's going to clean all that?" :-) Of course, if I could afford one, I could probably afford the staff to manage it as well!
I actually would prefer the second for the season. I like small garden and it's just a little less crowded.
Good thought, J. Grace! A quiet garden and a little more space might be a welcome relief from the social bustle.
Post a Comment