TV and Radio permalink
Sissinghurst 1st March
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
I thought I'd start a new thread for this weeks edition of the Sissinghurst story so we can all start again with new ideas.
So what's the verdict this week? Anyone changed their stance? -
Message 2
Posted by Eladekralc (U3040105) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
This programme makes me even more sure that I would not support the NT or RHS, full of self important stick in the muds, who just do not get it!
-
Message 3
Posted by the cycling gardener (U2350416) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
Flip, I missed it. Was out last night and forgot to Sky+. Hope its on 'i' player.
-
Message 4
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
Its repeated this afternoon about 2.15 I think.
I've just watched the first one and at the moment all I can think is that it would make a good training video in 'How not to achieve your goals and objectives by putting everyone's backs up'. This is true on all sides from the chef and gardener to Sarah and less so Adam. -
Message 5
Posted by Sparky (U6716422) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
I thought the chef was a real 'stick-in-the-mud' and the head gardener was quite terrifying. It would take someone of Sarah's strength of character to persevere with that lot. At the moment I don't see anyone coming out of this very positively!
-
Message 6
Posted by Aspidistra (U11680993) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
Yes Carmenwhatsit, I quite agree this would make an excellent how not to do it training video
. I continue to find this series absolutely fascinating, with AN and SR's position currently becoming more and more untenable.
At some point AN was going on about how they had tried living there before and felt unliked. With the way SR in particular is behaving it is really no wonder that they already have a history of getting the backs up of a group of people who have been running Sissinghurst very efficiently. He seems resentful that Sissinghurst is not his and is not run by him and his dearly beloved.
If his family had been a bit more efficient in the past and not just been swanning around Paris etc then they would not have had to hand it over to the NT because they couldn't afford the upkeep. It seems to be extraordinary that the family could own so many acres of land and not be able to keep it all going making sufficient profit to keep up the property.
Despite giving up responsibility for it, AN and his family still get to live there for nothing. Is it any wonder that the NT staff, who work hard for a living and half of whom very likely can't afford a tiny cottage in that area rather resent this family's privileges?
While AN and SR imagine themselves to be modernisers, perhaps they are the ones who ultimately have an outmoded view of the world? They imagine it is okay to have the huge privilege of living there rent free and that somehow, AN's background entitles him and SR to go in and patronize the employees of the NT. AN complains bitterly that he was called a tenant by someone. How very old-fashioned of him to assume that the workers on a property he doesn't own should think of him in any other way.
I have made a couple of very pleasant gardens in houses I have lived in. I wonder whether it would be okay if I go to live in one of them again, rent free, alongside the present owners and in time send future generations of Aspidistras along to do the same thing? I'm sure they wouldn't mind me giving them a few pointers about how the garden ought to look, or maybe what they should be eating for supper.
-
Message 7
Posted by Goldilocks (U2169760) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
When Adam said that the three words "our new tenants" really got to him, I thought it was more a reflection on his emotional baggage than anything else. Who can say whether his children or grandchildren will not just look at the opportunity to live at Sissinghurst as a lucky perk, and let the NT get on with it. Until, that is, one later descendant will get the urge to honour his or her heritage once again by getting involved and trying change things once more, and feel that it is a sort of 'right' that has been denied by a twist of fate when Nigel foolishly surrendered his or her birthright.
Adam and Sarah ARE new tenants, and the NT is the owner, so the employees of the NT were quite right in describing Nigel and Sarah so. -
Message 8
Posted by Paul N (U6451125) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
Nigel didn't foolishly surrender his birthright, he was faced with massive death duties and had no choice.
It's rare that I find myself disagreeing with so many posters on here; I repeat, I find it really fascinating and sympathise with SR and AN in their efforts to turn the place away from a garden of perfection to what they (and Vita SW)believe it should be. After all they have been asked to be advisers even though their advice is largely being ignored by all and sundry. -
Message 9
Posted by Goldilocks (U2169760) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
Quite right Paul, I should not have used the words 'foolishly surrendered'. I should have said Adam and Sarah's descendants might feel that they had been denied their birthright by some injustice or other - death duties, irresponsibility of Vita and Harold in neglecting the place, or whatever, and could not ever really let go if living in the place, reminded every day of what might have been theirs.
And I don't believe that either Adam or Sarah can really be in a position to act as advisers - they have too much personal / emotional interest to do so. It was ill conceived to ask them to take on such a role - who knows - did they push themselves forward for it? And it is no surprise that the head gardener and chef have dug their heels in, quite possibly more so than if anyone other than Adam or Sarah were doing the advising. They don't see Adam and Sarah as advisers but as potential overseers running the place.
It was always going to end up like this. Great viewing, a bit like watching Celebrity Big Brother contestants set against one another for our entertainment. -
Message 10
Posted by Aspidistra (U11680993) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
I have to say, I still think their idea of growing crops on the farmland for the restaurant is a good one and I was under the impression from what we have seen that it was AN and SR's idea - but as Goldilocks says, AN and SR are saddled with what must be a hefty amount of emotional baggage, both from AN's past and their mutual previous attempt to live at Sissers.
Were the death duties unjust, or had the family's dosh just disappeared in a leisurely cloud of smoke, so N.Nicolson and his predessors perhaps bear some responsibility for ending up in that situation? Its better than watching Corrie, the soap of choice for the gardening proletariat. -
Message 11
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
On one hand, taxing the land-rich to distribute wealth more evenly throughout society is something I absolutely believe in. The idea of unearned wealth is anathema to me and AN/SR should feel no right to own the place or live their rent free through an accident of birth (rent-free! Geez - charge the man the market rate for rent like everyone else on the planet and see what he does with it then!) (For the record I have inherited/been gifted absolutely nothing apart from some dodgy physical genes - I have personally earned anything I own)
Somewhat on the other hand, places like Sissinghurst, Tatton, Chatsworth and all the other great estates are part of the physical beauty of this country and I'm glad they exist, despite the dubious sources of wealth that enabled some of them to be created. Otherwise we would have created a country of hovels and small manor houses and then what would we do at the weekend! -
Message 12
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
I feel a soapbox moment heading my way.... Stop me folks...
Have I got this wrong or did SR inherit Perch Hill from her parents? So they can choose one of two divine properties to live in, neither of which they actually had to pay for? -
Message 13
Posted by Aspidistra (U11680993) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
I don't think that's right Trills. I thought they bought it as a run-down place. AN does, mind you (or certainly did, don't know if he still does) own an island off the West Coast of Scotland...
-
Message 14
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
Ah, well my apologies then. Tis always a bad move to post prior to checking one's facts and with a large glass of wine in hand.
-
Message 15
Posted by Aspidistra (U11680993) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
-
Message 16
Posted by Trillium (U2170869) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
I remember being on Skye a few years back and hearing that the Cuillins were for sale. OK so they are no different from a house or a field, but I remember feeling quite incredulous that such a thing could be owned, or be put up for sale.
And now I 'own' a field, or at least, I have a piece of paper that says so. Strange. Feels more like it owns me really - it will surely outlive me.
If GT is listening - that's what a lifetime of Grauniad reading does to you! -
Message 17
Posted by Bluedoyenne (U2341157) on Tuesday, 3rd March 2009
Whilst looking at the programmes aired so far, I cannot forget that fate seems to have been very unkind to Vita Sackville-West and her descendants when it comes to property inheritance. First VS-W's birthright, Knole, is lost to V and her descendants and then there's a double whammy with the loss of Sissinghurst. As neither Vita herself nor the present generation had any part in the loss of these two great houses, it must take some dose of sugar to swallow all of that. Not sure how I would react in similar circumstances.
-
Message 18
Posted by everhopeful (U11289037) on Tuesday, 3rd March 2009
correct me if I'm wrong but did you not get paid for your houses. Think how your grandchildren wld feel if you had given them away
My vote is with Adam and Sarah, when we went to Sissinghurst we went to a local restaurant for lunch in preference to the cafe there. -
Message 19
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Tuesday, 3rd March 2009
My great-great-grandfather gambled and drank away a steel mill the family owned. Am I bovvered? That's as much as my family know about it so I guess the answer is not. Just as well really because I wouldn't have liked to spend my life like Adam obsessing about an exotic ancestor and forever living in her shadow.
Worse than believing that you have a right to an inheritance is believing you have a right to inherited status or even status gained through marriage. I don't have a problem with people who are rich through inheritance or any other (legal and honest) means but I do have a problem if they believe that makes them better qualified or just better than anyone else. How much that relates to Adam and Sarah I am not sure but given that I feel a great sympathy with their aims of good food locally sourced etc. I find it difficult to feel any sympathy for them the way they are portrayed. -
Message 20
Posted by welshcol (U2301689) on Tuesday, 3rd March 2009
Agree with elements of your post Carmen especially the belief and generally ill founded misconception that certain people have about an inherited right to impose their thoughts and beliefs on other people or organisations.
In saying that Sarah and Adam (got it right this time Talley Ho!!) seemed to have acquired an element of "work with" this week rather the the "thou shall because I thing its right" approach on the previous episodes. Their inter personal skills still appear to leave a lot to be desired in an environment where it is an essential attribute and skill which they need. I still advocate that the NT should be sole arbitrators of what should or perhaps more importantly should not happen and they should dictate what the buildings, gardens etc should be like to provide interest and knowledge to the general public now and in the future and in the best way possible whilst balancing budgets etc etc. -
Message 21
Posted by janerowena (U10782401) on Tuesday, 3rd March 2009
The strange thing is, I remember that restaurant as being vegetarian when I lived nearby. The food was wonderful. I went there regularly to meet friends for lunch, around 1990 I suppose. It does look rather sterile to me on the programme, because I am used to seeing it look more natural, but everywhere changes and I'm sure Vita would have been changing lots of things if she had still been around.
-
Message 22
Posted by ArtemisHP (U12217956) on Tuesday, 3rd March 2009
they have been asked to be advisersÂ
Were they, actually, ASKED?? -
Message 23
Posted by Cassandra (U3945701) on Tuesday, 3rd March 2009
According to the Sissinghurst property manager they were never taken on as consultants - in spite of what has been said in the programme.
-
Message 24
Posted by Bluedoyenne (U2341157) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
Another example of the power of television to create a distorted reality.
-
Message 25
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
Finally watched episode 4 and I have to say I am beginning to warm to Adam and his ideas. The new pots and monstrous replacement for the statue were totally ridiculous. Apparently the National Trust moved a lovely but slightly decaying statue indoors and put a new copy in its place!!! Outrageous! And what have they done with the original - put it in a store cupboard so no-one ever sees it again? And as for replacing the beautiful old pots with new ones - words fail me!
-
Message 26
Posted by everhopeful (U11289037) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
Hear hear
-
Message 27
Posted by Aspidistra (U11680993) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
I don't agree - of course old pots/statues look better but the NT does have to consider health and safety angle and in time the new pots will fit in. I know we all loathe the health and safety thing, but a crumbling statue in a garden filled to breaking point with visitors and their children? Its back to the thing that Sissers is no longer a private concern.
If AN wants crumbling statuary, perhaps they could try shoving a few statues up at Perch Hill and then allow them to distress for the benefit of their offspring or maybe just a tour of the masonry of some of our town centres as the credit crunch bites could provide the same sense of decadent decline. I may even be tempted to guerrilla-garden some trailing ivy cultivar around the old Woolies stores to make them more authentically, like, history.
I expect the NT are rightly fearful of being sued - plus the NT woman did have a good point - in one breath, AN wants stuff preserving and that was what they were doing but then he protests. In the first (or maybe second) episode AN was going on about wanting the farm buildings to be the old, muddy places that he remembered - this is a similar, romantic notion for the place. Does he really think it would be a good plan for the hoards of visitors to slide about on cow pats as they enter the granary? -
Message 28
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
I've got an idea. Lets remove all the ancient monuments of the world, the coliseum, the acropolis,
Olympia, etc. put them in storage to protect them (preferably in a country who will look after them properly like Britain has done with the Elgin marbles) and erect a durable, weather-proof, plastic version of them in their place! That way all those revolting, out-of-control, sticky-faced children that run round screaming and climbing on statuary can do so safely. -
Message 29
Posted by Bluedoyenne (U2341157) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
Criticising the Trust for executing its remit - to conserve Sissinghurst and its contents for future generations - does seem rather strange. Leaving a decaying statue 'in situ' to continue its path to disintegration could never be an option for them, and in my opinion, justifiably so. The only choice they had was either to have it repaired or re-site it indoors.
The new statue will weather nicely in time and the original will still be a joy for those wishing to go and admire it. -
Message 30
Posted by JM (U2179966) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
I've just watched 3 and 4 - I hoped they might be less irritating than 1 and 2. It may well be the editing but no-one comes over as particularly likeable. SR seemed determined to be unhappy with everything from the start. And she was. Her husband's family could have kept the house and garden and let it rot naturally if that was what they really wanted, but the National Trust is a conserving institution, so it conserves. It seems odd to kick against that.
-
Message 31
Posted by the cycling gardener (U2350416) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
I didn't see anything in the Perch Hill restaurant presentation that merited all the fuss at Sissinghurst (food excepted - couldn't taste that). The thick lumpy coloured glasses were ghastly, terrible for serving and appreciating wine. Much better to have simple clear stemware. Put fake pewter chargers in the Sissinghurst restuarant and you've got a theme park. Tablecloths are high maintenance and must be constantly changed and laundered at a cost - just not suitable for the number of covers the NT restaurant provides on a revolving basis. Its easier to clean down a wooden table top and much better and more hygienic for the customer than a soiled cloth (yuk).
-
Message 32
Posted by Obelixx (U2157162) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
Had Sissinghurst, or any other NT property, stayed with its original owners and had they the funds they would surely replace crumbling pots and fix/restore/replace decaying stautuary and muddy farm buildings to keep the place from falling down.
I do applaud the idea of putting the farm back to work for Sissinghurst and, no doubt, making a more natural looking setting and encouraging native flora and fauna but I do think most of SR's plans for the restaurant are unworkable. Table cloths and flowers and dainty salads for the numbers involved are just too impractical. Improving the range and quality of foods is good though, especially with local produce and yes, that chef is a complete misery. -
Message 33
Posted by everhopeful (U11289037) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
Totally agree with you Obelix table cloths are not practical unless say pretty plastic ones with flowers on. Dont like pine tho. A couple of flowers in a jar wld be nice tho. Sarahs food is very good and wholesome and not too difficult to produce. That meiserable chef will never agree. How did he get a job at Sissinghurst.
amjo -
Message 34
Posted by jo4eyes (U13654107) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
Me too on table cloths- at Styal (another NT property- ok not as Sissinghurst) they had plastic ones which are much easier to clean between customers & I expect it'll get pretty busy at times. SR not think that one through.
-
Message 35
Posted by U2331885 (U2331885) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
I understand that a book is available to accompany to series
"Available at all good book sellers for.....
.....£799.95" -
Message 36
Posted by ArtemisHP (U12217956) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
Lets remove all the ancient monuments of the world...the acropolis...put them in storage to protect them (...like Britain has done with the Elgin marbles)...Â
The actual irony is that the Parthenon marbles, (euphemistically called "elgin" marbles) were ripped off the Acropolis in order to adorn someone's private property; though in a round-about way ended up in the British museum, where I have never seen anything British.
The case with the National Trust is quite different, I believe. -
Message 37
Posted by Aspidistra (U11680993) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
I was just reading some of the reviews of AN's book and I discovered it had been a Radio 4 book of the week last year. Shame it isn't downloadable, as I missed it and I don't think I'm going to be forking out the £20 for the book. Did anyone hear it when it was on?
-
Message 38
Posted by Signtimes (U13858608) on Wednesday, 4th March 2009
WOW what a program, there has been numerous posts about have "privileged" Adam is, but I do not envy him having to deal with the overwelming responsibility Sissinghurst Castle, and famous gardens
-
Message 39
Posted by Obelixx (U2157162) on Thursday, 5th March 2009
But that is exactly the point. He doesn't have teh responsibility. The National Trust does. he just gets to live there, free, on the property in perpetuity for him and his descendants. That doesn't stop him feeling propritorial and wanting to run things his way though without any of the responsibility of finding the funds.
His ideas for the farm are good and should be easy to adopt in view of recent changes to NT policy with regard to sustainability and using local produce in its properties but he can only ever be an advisor with wish list. I can quite see that it's frustrating for him but he needs to balanc ethat against the privileges and cost savings of living where he does. -
Message 40
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Thursday, 5th March 2009
Quite an interesting article giving a different slant on it here
-
Message 41
Posted by Cassandra (U3945701) on Thursday, 5th March 2009
Aspidisra,
Here's a link to a discussion on the radio 4 message board when Sissinghurst was the book of the week.
You didn't miss much - as I recall the first episode was OK but then it descended into a long drawn out self-indulgent whine about the NT. As you can see from the thread, this didn't go down very well at all with the listeners.
I should hang on to that £20 if I were you! -
Message 42
Posted by Ken Smart (U1158196) on Thursday, 5th March 2009
I've haven't been following this series, though I have read all the comments on the Board. What I don't understand (yet again), is why such matters are being played out in front of TV cameras, when it would seem certain that the only way genuine concerns can ever be resolved in a half-way satisfactory fashion, is to calmly discuss the salient points in private. That's what sensible people have always done. It would certainly seem from the various comments, that none of the folks involved have done their reputations any good at all, by choosing to 'ham it up' in front of the cameras. In such circumstances, can anyone actually behave in a natural fashion, or when they have something relevant to say, do they then have to wait on a TV camera arriving before they say it? - it's just too farcical for words. Sarah Raven would be far better off counting her blessings, instead of drawing her obvious privileges to the attention of the wider world.
-
Message 43
Posted by Jenks812 (U5452843) on Thursday, 5th March 2009
I agree.
Although I do believe that people like Sarah, who have been in front of the camera for so long, can actually be "natural" in front of it now.
Unfortunately I preferred the old Sarah from Gardeners World. I always found her to be an intelligent and honest presenter.
But in this new series she comes across to me as someone who believes she's more intelligent than everyone else involved in the project. And she gets a strop on like my 6 year son when she doesn't get her own way.
I do believe that someone should let Adam know that it's no longer "his" family home.
He acts like the NT are ruining his home and garden, when in fact, if it weren't for the NT, nothing would be there now. He should be thanking them for preserving as much as they have. Like it's been mentioned before, his family gave it up years ago. And I think he really needs to come to grips with that.
Perhaps you're right Ken. Now that he has the tv crew following him around, he's all of a sudden determined to make all these changes.
He's lived there before, didn't do anything and left.
I suppose this show will help in promoting his book that he's writing.
Or am I being too cynical? -
Message 44
Posted by Obelixx (U2157162) on Thursday, 5th March 2009
Love the article CarmeN Very funny and fairly astute I think. He's definitely hen-pecked poor chap.
I suspect he thinks the NT are a breeze in comparison so it's a good displacement activity for him, trying to get the farm back. -
Message 45
Posted by ArtemisHP (U12217956) on Thursday, 5th March 2009
I've haven't been following this series, though I have read all the comments on the Board. What I don't understand..is why.. are being played out in front of TV cameras, when .. the only way.. is to.. discuss the.. points in private.Â
Money?? -
Message 46
Posted by ArtemisHP (U12217956) on Thursday, 5th March 2009
..AN's book..(on) Radio 4 ...I missed itÂ
Lucky you!
It was on last August and without any hyperbole, it almost became the most trying experience of my life.
Amazon sell it for £14, but I think it's £14 too expensive. -
Message 47
Posted by rainonroses (U10426712) on Thursday, 5th March 2009
i have decided that the only way to watch this series without irration getting the better of me is to regard it as a comedy of manners and, as such, it is packed full of little unexpected pleasures. My favourite so far, unmentioned as yet by contributors, is when Adam's chum from down the road, a fellow devotee of the "bring back the mud" school of thought and a serious countrywoman (obviously - she wears the wax cotton and welly gear) drafts in a "friend" with his ferrets to clear the rabbit problem. There follows an absolutely priceless five minutes during which the two are at first too busy chatting about serious farming matters to attend to what the ferrets and owner are actually doing, cue escaping rabbits, which is then topped by the chum running (with some dificulty in the wellies) up and down, flapping her arms about crying, "I didn't know I would have to DO anything" (or words to that effect). Obvious subtext - that is what minions are for. Adam then has a go but conspicuously fails to despatch his rabbit which minion then has to put out of its misery. Total haul of rabbits while on camera - two. That should solve that problem, then.
Those like me of a trivial turn of mind could profitably run a competition to decide our top three favourite moments. May I also put forward for your consideration the poor NT manager being called to account in front of Adam for removing the crumbling Bacchus - he sitting behind a desk and she with hands folded in front of it - took me right back to school. And the Chef picking at the Mizuma (or was it Mibuna) on the mock pewter plate in front of the wobbling arty glass tumbler. All well worth the licence fee.
PS. Don't mean to offend anyone who is actually taking this seriously - and it does raise a lot of serious issues - but honestly, what else can you do but laugh?
-
Message 48
Posted by Aspidistra (U11680993) on Thursday, 5th March 2009
Thanks for the link, Cassandra, and indeed Artemis, I don't think I'll bother buying it even on Amazon.
.
Carmen, I thought that article was very interesting...I suspect behind the slighty self-deprecating facade, there is more to him than meets the eye, and less to Sarah than I had originally thought. -
Message 49
Posted by Obelixx (U2157162) on Thursday, 5th March 2009
I'm with you ROR. Definitely high comedy.
-
Message 50
Posted by Ariadne Knickerbocker (U4534559) on Thursday, 5th March 2009
I did love the bit where Adam failed to catch rabbit too although I think he did it deliberately so he wouldn't have to break it's neck. I was definitely rooting for the rabbits.
Also the glass goblets. I absolutely hate drinking wine out of coloured glass - eugh, can just about manage water but nothing out of a blue glass. I'm sure that I am far from alone in this.
I laughed out loud when Sarah put the mad hat on again! It looked like a busby someone had squashed.
Actually there are some beautiful pictures of the gardens interspered between the comedy shots.
About this Board
Welcome to the new Gardening Board. If this is your first time, then make sure you check out the
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
Weekdays 09:00-00:00
Weekends 10:00-00:00
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.