Boscobel Conservation Management Plan v4 Report

7/28/2019 Boscobel Conservation Management Plan v4 Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boscobel-conservation-management-plan-v4-report 1/99

BOSCOBEL HOUSE

AND THE ROYAL OAK

CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN



Boscobel House Conservation Management Plan Page 1 of 98

Boscobel House and Gardensand the Royal Oak

Conservation Management Plan

Nexus Heritage for English Heritage 2014




Nexus Heritage Controlled Document – Commercial-in-Confidence

Report Number 3139.04

Report Status Final report

Prepared by: Paul Belford Date: 12.04.2013

Checked by: Date: 12.04.2013

Approved by: Gerry Wait Date: 12.04.2013

Revision Record

Revision No.

Report Number 3139.04

Report Status Final Report

Prepared by: Nexus Heritage Date: 12.04.2013

Checked by: Win Scutt, Assistant Properties Curator Date: 30.12.2014

Approved by:

English Heritage

29 Queen Square Bristol

BS1 4ND

United Kingdom




Contents

Part 1: Report ................................................................................................................................ 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 7

1. INTRODUCTION ......................... ................................ ............................... ............................... ....................... 8

Site location and scope of work .......................................................................................................................... 8

Aims and objectives ................................................................................................................................................ 8

Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................. 9

2. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE ........................... ............................... ............................... .. 12

Phase 1: pre-1600 .................................................................................................................................................. 12

Phase 2: 1600-1700 ............................................................................................................................................... 13

Phase 3: 1700-1812 ............................................................................................................................................... 14

Phase 4: 1812-1918 ............................................................................................................................................... 14

Phase 5: 1918- ........................................................................................................................................................ 16

3. MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL ........................................................................................................................... 18

Previous restoration and conservation work ........................ ................................ ............................... .......... 18

Current management regime ............................................................................................................................. 21

4. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE.................................... ............................... ............................ ................. 22

Evidential value ....................................................................................................................................................... 22

Historical value ........................ ................................ ............................... ............................... ................................ . 24

Aesthetic value ....................................................................................................................................................... 26

Communal value .................................................................................................................................................... 27

5. RESEARCH AND CONSERVATION MANGEMENT ........................... ................................ .................. 27

Research themes ................................................................................................................................................... 27

Research Theme 1: The pre-dissolution landscape. ......................... ............................... .............................. 28

Research Theme 2. The seventeenth century farm. ............................ ................................ ......................... 28

Research Theme 3. The history of Carolian Tourism. ........................ ................................ ......................... 28

Research Theme 4. Eighteenth century history of the farm. ............................ ................................ .......... 29

Research Theme 5. The nineteenth century. .............................................. ................................ ................... 30

Conservation issues .............................................................................................................................................. 30The Farmyard ......................................................................................................................................................... 35

The Gardens ........................................................................................................................................................... 37

The Landscape ......................... ............................... ............................... ................................ ............................... .. 37

Enhancing the visitor experience ............................ ............................... ............................... ............................. 39

The House ......................... ................................ ............................... ............................... ................................ ........ 40

The Farmyard ......................................................................................................................................................... 40

The Gardens ........................................................................................................................................................... 41

The Landscape ........................... ............................... ............................... ................................ ............................... 42

Special events ......................................................................................................................................................... 43

Access ...................................................................................................................................................................... 44




6. ACTION PLAN .......................... ............................... ................................ ............................... ......................... 45

The House ........................ ............................... ................................ ............................... ............................... .......... 45

The Farmyard ......................................................................................................................................................... 45

Gardens.................................................................................................................................................................... 46

Landscape ................................................................................................................................................................ 46Special events ......................................................................................................................................................... 46

Access ...................................................................................................................................................................... 46

7. REFERENCES ........................... ............................... ............................... ................................ .............................. 47

Appendix 1: List of Consultees ........................ ............................... ............................... ................................ .... 48

Appendix 2: Action Plan in Order of Priority ................................................................................................ 49

Appendix 3: Report on Royal Oak by Neville Fay ......................... ............................... ................................ 51




Part 2: Gazetteer ......................................................................................................................... 58 INTRODUCTION ......................... ............................... ................................ ............................... .............................. 58

LOCATION OF HERITAGE ASSETS ................................................................................................................... 60

GAZETTEER ............................................................................................................................................................... 61

B2: Boscobel House (The Lodge) ........................ ............................... ............................... ................................ 62

B3: Boscobel House (Farmhouse) ........................... ................................ .............................. ............................ 63

B4: Timber-framed barn ...................................................................................................................................... 64

B5: Education Room ............................................................................................................................................. 65

B6: Visitor Admissions Building ......................... ................................ ............................... ............................... ... 66

B7: Implement Shed .............................................................................................................................................. 67

B8: Office and Visitor Toilets ............................................................................................................................. 68

B9: Dovecote and Chicken Shed ....................................................................................................................... 69

B10: Disabled toilets and forge .......................................................................................................................... 70

B11: Small Brick Shed ........................................................................................................................................... 71

B12: Brick Lean-To ............................................................................................................................................... 72

B13: Large Brick Shed ........................ ............................... ............................... ................................ ..................... 73

B14: Privy ................................................................................................................................................................. 74

B15: Brick Garden Wall ............................ ................................ ............................... ............................... ............. 75

B16: Brick Garden Wall ............................ ............................... ................................ .............................. .............. 76

B17: Privy ................................................................................................................................................................. 77

B18: Café ................................................................................................................................................................. 78

B19: Site of Former Brewery ........................... ............................... ............................... ................................ ..... 79B20: Brick Wall ........................ ............................... ............................... ................................ ............................... 80

B21: Farmyard ........................................................................................................................................................ 81

L1 Formal Gardens (Parterre)............................................................................................................................ 82

L2: Formal Gardens (Viewing Mount and Arbour) ......................... ................................ .............................. 84

L3: Hornbeam (Nut) Walk .......................... ............................... ................................ ............................... .......... 85

L4: Paddock ............................................................................................................................................................. 87

L5: Orchard ............................................................................................................................................................ 89

L6: The Royal Oak ................................................................................................................................................ 91

L7: Royal Oak Field ............................................................................................................................................... 93

L8: Pond ................................................................................................................................................................... 95

L9: Land to north of B4 (verges and overspill parking) ........................ ............................... ......................... 96

Concordance .......................................................................................................................................................... 97




FIGURES

Figure 1 Site location map, showing associated sites. ......................... ............................... ...................... 10Figure 2 Boscobel House, Gardens and the Royal Oak, showing the extent of the

Guardianship area. ....................................................................................................................... 11Figure 3 Boscobel House. View of The Lodge (B1) from the Arbour (L2) showing the south

and west sides of the house. The gable behind the chimney is the western end ofthe North Range (B1). This photograph was taken in February 2013 before theremoval of the render. For more detailed views, see Section 5. ......................... ............ 13

Figure 4 Boscobel House. The Lodge (B1) in March 2013. The same view as Figure 3, above,photographed in March 2013 after the removal of render. For more detailedviews, see Section 5. ......................... ............................... ................................ ............................ 15

Figure 5 The farmyard in c.1900, with the North Range (B1) and Farmhouse (B3) in thebackground, the Implement Shed (B7) and Stables (B8) to the left, and theEducation Room (B5) to the right. ......................... ............................... ............................... ... 16

Figure 6 Boscobel House. Phase plan. (Stacey 2011a) .......................... ............................... ................... 17Figure 7 Restoration of the farmhouse. The upper photograph is dated 30th August 1973; the

bottom photograph was taken the following year. Note the work in progress onthe North Range (B1). ......................... ............................... ............................... ......................... 19

Figure 8 Boscobel House viewed from The Royal Oak. The links within the landscapebetween these two features form an essential component of the historic andaesthetic significance of the place. ........................ ................................ ............................... .... 25

Figure 9 Detail of graffiti inscribed on the stone plinth to the railings surrounding the RoyalOak. ................................................................................................................................................. 29

Figure 10 Detail of the south-western corner of The Lodge (B2) at first floor level, showingthe extent of brick cladding and the severely damaged surviving elements of thetimber frame. ................................................................................................................................ 31

Figure 11 Extract from the 1971 survey drawing (NMR: MP/BOS0056), showing extent oftimber framing on the eastern side of B2. ..................................... ................................ ........ 32

Figure 12 The fireplace of the former brewery/wash-house range (B19) demolished in 1969. .... 33Figure 13 Thermographic images and interpretation from the 2012 survey, showing extant

timber framing beneath the rendered surface. .......................... ............................... ............ 34Figure 14 Details of the chimney stack. Left: the north side at first floor level, showing the

patch of earlier render and the relationship between the seventeenth centurybrickwork of the chimney (right) and the later brickwork of the house. Right: thesouth side at second floor level. ......................... ................................ ............................... ....... 34

Figure 15 Detail of the timber-framed barn (B4) showing extensive variation in the style,quality and appearance of the brick infill to the timber frame. ........................ ................. 36

Figure 16 Features within the Farmyard (B21). Left: an area of cobbled surface near to theEducation Room (B5). Centre: gravestone of Joan Penderel. Right: detail of cast-iron manhole cover. .................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 17 The Royal Oak (L6) and the approach to it through the Royal Oak Field (L7),looking south. Boscobel Wood is in the background. ........................... ............................. 39

Figure 18 Elements of the farmyard which have the potential to enhance the visitorexperience. Left: agricultural machinery. Centre: the forge. Right: chickens ................ 41

Figure 19 Interpretation panel in the garden. ........................... .............................. ................................ ... 42Figure 20 White Ladies Priory....................................................................................................................... 43Figure 21 Map showing location of Heritage Assets listed in this Gazetteer. ................................... 60




Part 1: Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is a Conservation Management Plan for Boscobel House. It was prepared in February,March and April 2013 by Nexus Heritage for English Heritage.

The purpose of this report is to consider the significance of the property, risks and opportunities forthe buildings and landscape, to develop a vision for its long-term future and to formulate an action planfor future conservation and management works.

Boscobel House has a unique place in English history, as the scene of events during King Charles’escape from the Battle of Worcester in 1651. These associations are of national significance, and haveinfluenced how the house has been restored and presented in the past. The house also had a regionallysignificant role in the story of post-dissolution recusancy during the seventeenth and early eighteenthcenturies. In its eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century role as a mixed farm, the site also hasparticular local and regional resonance.

Previous interventions and repairs to most of the buildings have been done sympathetically and with

consideration for the historic fabric. However repairs undertaken in the 1980s to the main house wereundertaken with inappropriate materials and have had a detrimental impact on the building. It isrecommended that this work is reversed as much as possible. Attention is also needed to roofs,flashings and rainwater goods in some parts of the complex.

Interpretation and understanding could be enhanced by better use of some of the spaces within thecomplex, notably the main house (including the North Range), the Education Room, the Forge andsome of the barns. Recommendations include the provision of a more active interpretation policy andrefreshment of some displays.

It is recommended that the interpretation of the site focusses on the role the house played in Englishhistory in 1651, but seen through the eyes of the Evans family in the Age of Romanticism. Therestoration of the house and garden, and the house furnishings sought to celebrate national pride in a

key historical event. Secondary to this, the development of the house, farm and landscape in the 18th century should also be interpreted.

The situation of the house and farmyard within the landscape is also an important consideration.Recommendations include purchase of the Royal Oak field in the long term together with selected treeplanting to recreate a ‘woodland pasture’ landscape more evocative of the house’s seventeenth centurysurroundings.




1. INTRODUCTION

This report is a Conservation Management Plan for Boscobel House, Gardens and the Royal Oak. Thefirst part provides an overview of the history and development of the site, past and presentmanagement regimes, a statement of significance and potential future approaches to the site. Thesecond part – the Gazetteer – provides a detailed account of the various individual heritage assets.

Each heritage asset has been given a unique number – these are set out in the Gazetteer and referredto throughout this document.

Site location and scope of work

Boscobel House, Gardens, and the Royal Oak, are located in the parish of Boscobel in Shropshire,close to the Staffordshire border (Ordnance Survey NGR SJ 837 083). They are located to the south ofthe village of Bishops Wood, which is part of Brewood though it shares a parish council withDonnington, Shropshire.

Boscobel House and Gardens are owned by the Department for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS), aremanaged on its behalf by English Heritage and are open to the public. The Royal Oak is held through aDeed of Guardianship that was revised in 2013.

The location of the site, and the current extent of DCMS ownership, and the area of Guardianship, areshown in Figures 1 and 2.

The Conservation Management Plan will consider three related elements of the site, namely BoscobelHouse, the Gardens, and the Royal Oak. Although outside the formal scope of the brief, therelationship with other key sites in the King Charles narrative – notably White Ladies Priory (1.2km tothe west), Moseley Old Hall (11km to the south-east), Evelith Mill near Kemberton (7km to the west)and the so- called ‘King Charles Barns’ in Madeley (12km to the west) will also be considered.

Aims and objectives

The Conservation Management Plan has four principal aims. They are:• to understand the heritage assets of Boscobel House, Gardens and Royal Oak, in the context

of both the history of the site and local, regional and national planning policy and frameworks

• to understand the significance of the asset as a whole

• to highlight how and why the significance of the sites is vulnerable and to suggest ways in whichthe management of the site can be enhanced in the future.

• to offer a long-term vision for the conservation, interpretation and management of the site.

The specific objectives for the Conservation Management Plan are:

• to inform the management of the site in order to continue to protect and sustain itssignificance

• to inform the long term sustainability of the site

• to inform the maintenance of the site to an exemplary conservation standard

• to inform the management of current levels of public access and enjoyment and,where appropriate, to identify additional opportunities in line with current feasibility studies

• to inform the interpretation of the site in a way that enhances the visitor experience withoutadversely impacting on its significance.




Methodology

This Conservation Management Plan has been prepared by Paul Belford, with the assistance of KatePage- Smith. Further contributions were provided by English Heritage staff Nicola Stacey, HeatherSebire, Win Scutt, William du Croz, Alex Page and Alex Dziegel. The process has been divided intoseveral stages, which are reflected in the structure of this document.

Understanding heritage assets. This stage has comprised historical research and site visits in orderto understand the Heritage Assets of Boscobel House, its associated Gardens, and the Royal Oak, andhow the sites have developed over time. The setting of the sites within the wider landscape has alsobeen considered. No new measured survey work has been undertaken on either buildings orlandscapes. The results of this work are presented in Section 2 of this report (‘Historical Developmentof the Site’), and have also informed Sections 4, 5 and 6.

Management appraisal. This has looked at past and current management regimes on the site, usinginformation supplied by English Heritage. It also considers the current programme of works on the siteand possible future works insofar as they are known to the author at the time of writing. The results ofthis appraisal are presented in Section 3.

Assessment of significance, risks and opportunities. This section has involved both professionalanalysis by the author and formal and informal consultation and discussion with English Heritage staffand other stakeholders. A full list of consultees is presented in Appendix 1. This information has beenused to prepare a Statement of Significance (Section 4). This sets out the significance of individual sitecomponents and groups of site components against their evidential, historic, aesthetic, and communalvalues, for different groups of people for whom Boscobel House is significant. Sections 5 and 6 containan analysis of risks and opportunities, and an Action Plan.

Reporting. This has been undertaken in several phases, in order to enable the results from thevarious consultation processes to be fed into it. The report has been written with reference to thefollowing key documents.

• National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

•

English Heritage Corporate Plan 2011-2015 (2011)

•

English Heritage National Heritage Protection Plan (NHPP) (2011)

• English Heritage Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management ofthe Historic Environment (2008)

• Kate Clark, Informed Conservation, London: English Heritage (2003) A full list of references is

provided in Section 7.




‘King Charles Barns’,Evelith Mill

Boscobel

House Chillington Hall

MadeleyWhite Ladies Priory

Moseley Old Hall

Figure 1 Site location map, showing associated sites.




Figure 2 Boscobel House, Gardens and the Royal Oak, showing the extent of the

Guardianship area.




2. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE

This section describes the historical and archaeological development of the site, in local, regional andnational contexts. This is presented as a chronologically-framed narrative, drawn from existing

secondary sources and some previous survey work and other primary research. It is not intended toprovide an exhaustive history; rather it informs the management issues which are discussed insubsequent sections.

The conventional understanding of the chronology of the development of the site – as described, for inEnglish Heritage drawings (NMR: MP/BOS0115) assumed sixteenth and seventeenth century activitywith a long hiatus before early nineteenth century developments. Recent research by Stacey (2011) hasshown that several elements of the complex were constructed during the eighteenth century, and thatthe nineteenth century chronology is more nuanced than hitherto suggested. A phase plan is shown inFigure 6. (Stacey 2011a).

There are several aspects of the site which are poorly understood. Major and minor maintenance andconservation interventions in the future have the potential to answer a series of research questions,which sit within over-arching Research Themes. These are listed in full in Section 5, and are noted inbold in the text here.

Heritage Assets are numbered according to the scheme set out in the Gazetteer.

Phase 1: pre-1600

Boscobel House is built on land which was originally part of the holdings of White Ladies Priory,approximately 1.5 km to the west. William Skeffington had leased the Priory estate from the Crownafter the Dissolution, and the property passed through his widow Joan to the Throckmorton – aprominent Catholic - family. In 1587 Thomas Throckmorton sold the estate to Edward Giffard, theyounger son of John Giffard of Chillington (Stacey 2011a, 23). He lived at White Ladies. In 1595

Edward Giffard gave the land to his wife, Frances. The Giffards were (and indeed still are) anotherprominent Catholic family.

The present structures all date to the Post-Dissolution period, although it is possible that a farm didexist here before the Dissolution. The possible ridge and furrow in the Royal Oak Field (L7) must bevery much earlier than the rest of the complex, since the area around the tree was recorded as beingdensely wooded from the early seventeenth century until 1791. If ridge and furrow is present, it isquestionable whether it indicates that the area around the house was in open field cultivation in themedieval period, at least in the way this is conventionally understood. It appears to have been anelevated ridge largely capped by boulder clay, which would have been dominated by woodland (orwood pasture) in the medieval period. The surrounding landscape also exhibits signs of assarting,including the surviving, irregularly shaped woodlands, many of which are recognised as ancient

woodlands, and the woodland dominated place names. This would also fit better with the character ofthe area in the 17th century. If present, the ridge and furrow might relate to an episode of assarting ora temporary in-take from the wood, rather than representing the existence of extensive open fieldagriculture. Research Theme 1.

The earliest extant structure on the site is the North Range (B1). Dendrochronological analysisprovided a felling date of c.1595-6 for some of the timbers in the roof, although it is apparent that thestructure has been considerably rebuilt subsequently – with new timbers in the seventeenth, eighteenthand twentieth century (Tyers 2010). The north range was built in two phases, with the easternmostbay a later addition.

It seems reasonable to associate this building with the transfer of ownership from Edward to FrancesGiffard.




Phase 2: 1600-1700

Edward Giffard died in 1606, and his widow Frances died in 1625. Their eldest son, John, inherited theWhite Ladies estate, including Boscobel.

The principal extant structures surviving from this phase are the modified North Range (B1), The

Lodge (B2) and the timber-framed barn (B4).

Dendrochronological analysis of timbers within The Lodge provided a similar range of felling dates tothose in the North Range However the earliest timber (from a queen post in the attic) provided a dateof c.1562-98 (Tyers 2010, 7).

As noted in the dendrochronological report, the dates for The Lodge should be treated with cautiondue to the limited sample size and the extent of later modifications. However it is suggested that TheLodge was not, in fact, built in the 1630s as conventionally assumed, but represents a later remodellingof an earlier structure. Alternatively it could have incorporated re-used timbers (Tyers 2010, 7-8).Research Theme 2.

The conventional chronology of The Lodge is based on a 1660 account by Thomas Blount of King

Charles’ escape from the Battle of Worcester. In this, the house is said to have been built ‘about thirtyyears since’.

In form, the Boscobel tower is roughly square in plan, of three storeys, with one elevation occupied bya substantial chimney. The Lodge has a stone-built cellar, unlike the other elements of the complexwhich are entirely uncellared; the remainder of the building however is timber-framed. An unusualfeature – clearly, on the evidence of the cellar – an original part of the design, is a projection on thenorth-eastern corner now known as the ‘oratory’. This appears, in fact, to have been a stair turret; itwas replaced by the present staircase in the nineteenth century (Weaver 1996, 18). The dormerwindows shown in Hollar’s 1660 engraving (but removed in the eighteenth century) appear not to havebeen part of the original roof structure, and were perhaps added in the 1630s. Research Theme 2.

Figure 3 Boscobel House. View of The Lodge (B1) from the Arbour (L2) showing thesouth and west sides of the house. The gable behind the chimney is the western end of the

North Range (B1). This photograph was taken in February 2013 before the removal of therender. For more detailed views, see Section 5.

According to Blount’s seventeenth century account, Giffard ‘invited Sir Basil Brook[e] with other




friends and neighbours to a house-warming feast; at which time Sir Basil was desired by Mr. Giffard togive the house a name’; he suggested ‘Boscobel (from the Italian bosco bello, which in that languagesignifies fair wood) because seated in the midst of many fair woods’ (Belford forthcoming). Sir BasilBrooke was an industrialist and another prominent Catholic with strong connections to the Royalfamily (Belford forthcoming). Giffard’s Boscobel, a small farm, with stabling, and extensive cooking,

eating and sleeping arrangements, would be suitable for a hunting party. It was also situated withinextensive gently-rolling woodland. In this sense it was firmly in the tradition of the private retreatexemplified by the Lodges of Christopher Hatton, William Cecil and Thomas Tresham, for example(Henderson 2005, 172-73). However, while it may resemble a hunting lodge, its key function may havebeen to serve as a hub for Catholic communication in an era of persecution (Stacey 2011)

John Giffard’s daughter Frances married John Cotton in 1633. Their daughter, Jane, had married BasilFitzherbert – another Catholic – from Swynnerton in north Staffordshire. Jane inherited the WhiteLadies estate in the 1650s and indeed it remained in the Fitzherbert family until the early nineteenthcentury.

The timber-framed barn (B4) is certainly seventeenth century, but it is not clear to which phase in thisperiod it belongs. Other buildings, shown on engravings of 1660 and 1670 appear not to have survived,but there is some potential for further information to be derived through archaeological investigation.Research Theme 2.

Some landscape features are also associated with this period – the most obvious being the Royal Oak(L6), located 137m to the south-west of Boscobel House (although the present tree is a descendant ofthe original) . This had become a target for souvenir hunters as early as the seventeenth century, andby 1680 the Fitzherberts had built a brick wall around it. The walkway to the Royal Oak is likely tohave originated in this period. Research Theme 3.

Phase 3: 1700-1812

The eighteenth century complex has been somewhat neglected in the conventional narrative, falling as

it does between the high romance of the King Charles story and its vivid re-interpretation in thenineteenth century.

Most of the buildings on the site are generally assumed to have been built after 1812 – an assumptionevident in both the Listing descriptions and official English Heritage publications. However it is clearthat in fact many of the farm buildings probably had origins in the eighteenth century. Research

Theme 4.

For example, the construction of the ground floor of the Education Room (B5) indicates an eighteenthcentury date; the bricks are relatively small and some of the detailing is consistent with work of thatperiod at Chillington Hall (Belford 2010). This may be one of the buildings shown on the 1753 map.

Parts of the Farmhouse (B3) are also eighteenth century in date. Elements of the former brewery and

wash-house (B19), demolished in 1969, may also have been constructed during the eighteenth century.The surviving evidence of the fireplace suggests a complex series of alterations to the building; there isconsiderable archaeological potential in this area.

Finally the garden wall (B15) is likely to be substantially pre-1812, on the evidence of its form andconstruction.

Phase 4: 1812-1918

Several substantial alterations to the complex were made during the nineteenth century. Boscobel andWhite Ladies were put up for sale by the Fitzherbert family in 1810, but were not sold until 1812. Theestate was bought by Walter Evans (1764-1839), a cotton manufacturer from Derbyshire, who began a

series of improvements to the farm.Although it has been beyond the scope of this report to undertake a detailed analysis of the chronologyof the site, it is clear that the brick farmyard buildings do not all belong to the early nineteenth century.




There were at least two periods of nineteenth century work, which can be distinguished by the form ofthe bricks and the style of construction. Research Theme 5.

During the early nineteenth century, the North Range (B1) was converted to a dairy, and substantialalterations were made to The Lodge (B2) including much rebuilding in brick, the insertion of newwindows, and internal changes. The intention was to re-create the atmosphere of the house as it wouldhave been in the mid-seventeenth century. Panelling and other fixtures were acquired from elsewhereand installed at Boscobel; some of these elements may have come from White Ladies. An eighteenthcentury Purbeck marble fireplace was installed in the ground floor room, and the over mantle carvedwith scenes from King Charles’ escape.

Figure 4 Boscobel House. The Lodge (B1) in March 2013. The same view as Figure 3,above, photographed in March 2013 after the removal of render. For more detailed views,

see Section 5.

The Farmhouse (B3) was enlarged and extended, and alterations may also have been made to theformer brewery and wash-house (B19). A second storey was added to the Education Room (B5). Thisperiod also saw the construction of the Implement Shed (B7) and Stables (B8), the Dovecote (B9) andForge (B10), the northern garden wall (B16), the two privies (B14 and B17), and perhaps also additionsto the southern garden wall (B15). Research Theme 5.






Figure 6 Boscobel House. Phase plan. (Stacey 2011a)

14




3. MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL

The Ministry of Works acquired the House, farm complex and adjacent gardens on 3 May 1967.

The Guardianship arrangement for the Royal Oak was modified on 11 October 2006 and again in 2013.Both of these modifications increased the Guardianship area around the Tree, formalised the

understanding of the access path to a width of 3 metres and in 2013 provided a vehicle access route tothe tree.

Previous restoration and conservation work

Since 1967 there has been a number of modifications to the site by English Heritage and itspredecessor bodies. Some of these have been quite significant. The following list is in chronologicalorder; it is probably not exhaustive and excludes routine maintenance.

1967: Conversion of the ground floor of the former small stable block (B8) to toilets (NMR:MP/BOS0032; MP/BOS0033, MP/BOS0036). This entailed considerable alteration to the ground floor ofthe building, including the insertion of new arches to the east elevation, the removal and replacement

of the original ceiling, a new concrete floor to a total depth of over 300mm, and the creation ofinternal partitions. The incoming water supply was routed behind this range, returning north-east tothe water main in the road; however it is on a different line to the main incoming water supply notedabove. Drainage from the new toilets was routed via two septic tanks (each comprising 1220mmdiameter concrete tubes sunk to a depth of 1830mm) with run out through a field drain to the east.This installation would have required some excavation which will have disturbed any archaeologicaldeposits in the adjacent field.

c.1970: Demolition of the nineteenth century former brewery, wash-house and accommodation (B19).This is shown in a photograph of 1969 (see Gazetteer, Part 2), and the elevation of the east wall of theLodge (B1) to which it abutted was drawn in 1971 (see Figure 12), so this demolition must haveoccurred between these two dates. The reasons for the demolition are not known.

1972-1975: Restoration of the North Range (B1). This work was preceded by an historic buildingsurvey which was undertaken between January and September 1971 (NMR: MP/BOS0053 –MP/BOS0056). Scaffolding and corrugated iron temporary cover is shown in photographs taken in 1973and 1974 (see Figure 7), but there is no scaffolding on a photograph of 1975. This work entailed re-roofing, the rendering of the east gable wall (it is shown in brick in a 1969 photograph) andreplacement of much of the historic fabric with new machine-sawn timber (Tyers 2010, 4-5). The dairyfixtures and fittings on the ground floor were conserved. It was presumably also at this period that thecurrent arrangements at the east end, where part of the floor was removed to enable visitors to seethe relationship between the North Range and the Lodge (B2). Repainting of the exterior wasundertaken using modern paint.

1973-1974: Restoration of the farmhouse (B3). The most obvious feature of this work was the

reinstatement of the nineteenth century scheme of external paintwork in imitation of ‘black and white’timber framing. As can be seen from the photograph below (Figure 6) this had almost completelyweathered away. The nature of the paint used is not known, but it is unlikely to have been anhistorically- accurate distemper of the sort that would originally have been used in the nineteenthcentury. Internally this restoration also saw the conversion of part of the building into a flat, whichoccupies three floors including a loft. Plumbing and drainage were connected, via an inspectionchamber in the farmyard to the existing drainage arrangements in the field to the east of the visitortoilets (B8).




Figure 7 Restoration of the farmhouse. The upper photograph is dated 30th August 1973;

the bottom photograph was taken the following year. Note the work in progress on the

North Range (B1).

1976: Reconstruction of the pond (L8) (NMR: MP/BOS0063). A recirculation system was installed,with pumps being located in a brick chamber to the north of the pond near to the property boundary;this chamber measures 2515mm by 2520mm in plan overall and extends to a depth of at least 1520mmbelow the present ground surface. Pipework connects the chamber to the pond. Again this installationwould have required considerable groundworks.

1970s: It was probably during this period of major refurbishment that the present mains water andelectricity supplies were installed. These enter the site from the road to the north of the duck pond,

and pass to the east of the pond running diagonally beneath the car park and entering the site throughthe main gate to the north of the timber-framed barn (B4) (NMR: MP/BOS0062). The main surface




water drainage passes between the timber-framed barn (B4) and the offices (B5), running out beneaththe visitor admissions building (B6) to a silt trap in the field to the north.

1980: Photogrammetric building survey by the Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies at theUniversity of York in 1980 (NMR: MP/BOS0100). This shows the rendering treatment to be crackedand patchy in places, particularly on the south elevation. It also shows a patch of render on the west

elevation which is distinguished by a dashed line; this very closely corresponds with the patch of earlierrender discovered during investigations in March 2013 (Figure 14). However the University of Yorksurvey drawing has no annotations to suggest why this particular area of the rendered surface washighlighted at the time.

c.1985: Replacement of render and external decoration to The Lodge (B2). This work is understoodto have been undertaken in c.1985, although the nature of the alterations would be more characteristicof the mid-1970s work. This work comprised the removal of most of any previous surface treatment,and the re-rendering of brick and timber-framed walls on all sides of the building with thick cementrender: the cement content of the original mix was assessed at 23.2% in an analysis by Birmingham CityLaboratories on 29th August 2012. In places this render had been applied directly to the brickwork;where it was over timber-framed elements a mesh (‘metal lath’) was used. Investigations in 2013suggest that there is little or no surviving lath-and-plaster infill where timber framing is extant,moreover the extensive brickwork casing of the nineteenth century has had a significant adverse impacton those timbers which do survive (see Figure 10 on page 27)

1985-1986: Fitting out of the Education Room (B5). This work entailed the insertion of a ceiling and astud-and-plasterboard partition dividing the westernmost bay to create a ‘Practical Area’ (NMR:MP/BOS0146). Water and electricity supplies were also installed. This work also involved substantialconservation works to the building (NMR: MP/BOS0147). This included the cutting out andreplacement of defective brickwork, extensive repointing, some new lintels and the replacement ofplastic rainwater goods with cast iron. This work appears to have been carefully specified in accordancewith good conservation practice.

1987-1988: Conversion of the former stable block (B18) to a Café (NMR: MP/BOS0172). This entailed

the insertion of a ceiling with fibreglass insulation, and substantial alterations to the tack rooms ateither end of the building to provide catering facilities.

1988: Conservation to the pebble mosaic inscription in the garden (L1), by the Birmingham UniversityField Archaeology Unit (Sterenberg 1988, 10).

c.1990-1993. Conversion or refurbishment of the ground floor extension to the Education Room(B5). No specification for this work has been seen. These offices are described in the 1993 AsbestosSurvey as ‘refurbished in the 1990s’.

1992: Installation of Lightning Conductors on the main house (B1, B2 and B3) and the timber-framedbarn (B4) (MNR: MP/BOS0196; MP/BOS0197).

1993: Asbestos Survey by Ayerst Environmental Limited. This found two items, neither of immediate

concern. The first was the corrugated asbestos cement roof of the brick lean-to (B12), which remainsin place. The second was the presence of ‘Chrysotile’ asbestos in the bitumen pads to the sinks on theground and first floor kitchens in the flat (B3); this was renovated in 2009 at which point these padswere presumably safely removed.

2000: Condition survey report (March 2000) by Robert Tolley of S T Walker and Partners.

2000: Wildlife report by D. Wells of English Heritage.

2003: Repairs to the stone plinth and metal railings around the Royal Oak. Photographs show that theplinth was dug out and replaced on new foundations and the railings remounted. This appears to havebeen undertaken as a result of the lightning strike in 2000. It may have been at this time that thecommemorative plaques were removed.

2004: Minor works to ensure compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act. This followed anaccess survey by Purcell Miller Tritton in April 2003 which noted several areas where improvement




was required. Principal work comprised the relaying of garden paths to eliminate steps, and theprovision of accessible gates/latches.

2005: General repairs to the Privy (B17). This entailed re-roofing and the provision of a new seat.

2005-2006: Conversion of part of the smithy building (B10) into disabled toilets. This building wasdescribed at the time as a ‘store’ but it is not clear what (if any) historic features were altered. The

conversion required new internal works and the installation of water, electricity and drainage. Drainagefrom the new toilet was routed via pipework to the earlier installation in the field to the north-east;this would have entailed some excavation which will have disturbed any archaeological deposits in theadjacent field.

2006-2007: Installation of perimeter roadside fencing and gates; replacement of steps to the mound(L2).

2007: Unspecified redecoration to the exterior of the house.

2008: Unspecified redecoration to the interior of the house.

2008-2009: Renovation of the flat (B3). This is described as a ‘general re-fit including provision of newkitchen and bathroom’.

2009: Condition survey report (March 2009) by Mark Pearce of Buttress Fuller Alsop Williams.

2012: Thermographic survey of the south and west elevations of the Lodge (B2) and North Range (B1) by Demaus Building Diagnostics Limited.

2013: Intrusive investigation and removal of external render to south and west elevations of the Lodge(B2) and North Range (B1) by Treasure and Sons.

Current management regime

Maintenance of the building is undertaken according to the Schedule prepared in the most recentCondition Survey (Pearce 2009).

Grounds maintenance is carried out according to a standard schedule, issued in 2002 and revised in2006.




4. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

This Statement of Significance has been prepared in the context of English Heritage ConservationPrinciples (2008). This considers two main aspects:

a. Who values the place, and why they do so? This includes heritage professionals (includinghistorians, archaeologists, conservation professionals, curators and site staff), other interested

professionals (such as nature conservation bodies, rights of way partnerships and local authoritybodies), interested non-professionals, casual visitors, and local people. This information is in partderived from the consultation process

b. What is the heritage value of the place? This looks at temporal and spatial aspects of thesite, relating them to the narrative presented above, and then considers the relative importance of theheritage values which have been identified – both in terms of the fabric of the site itself, and itshistorical associations, its linked collections and objects, its immediate landscape setting and context,and its broader association with other related sites.

The Statement of Significance considers four ‘values’ for each of the groups of people who valueBoscobel House; together the four constitute the heritage value of the place.

•

Evidential value. Derived from the potential of the place to yield evidence about past humanactivity, evidential value also considers the particularly rich historical resource associated withBoscobel.

• Historical value. Derived from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life canbe connected through a place to the present, historical value at Boscobel is primarilyassociative. Thus, being ‘at the place where something momentous happened can increase andintensify understanding through linking historical accounts of events with the place where theyhappened’ (English Heritage 2008, 28). However the very powerful historical associations atBoscobel need to be tempered against the authenticity of the associated material remains.

• Aesthetic value. Derived from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectualstimulation from a place, the aesthetic value of Boscobel lies in the design value of its buildings

and landscape, and their broader setting – and in the interplay between these three elements.

• Communal value. Derived from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, orfor whom it figures in their collective experience or memory, communal value at Boscobel isan important consideration due to the site’s significant role at a genuinely pivotal moment inEnglish history. Thus the social value, as part of national identity, is an important consideration;and to some extent spiritual value, due to its role before and after the Civil War period as afocus for local recusancy.

Although this Statement of Significance deals with the site as a whole, reference should also be made tothe Gazetteer, in which the significance of individual Heritage Assets are assessed. Again, reference ismade here to the Research Themes which are set out in Section 5.

Evidential value

Evidential value ‘derives from the physical or genetic lines that have been inherited from the past’(English Heritage 2008, 28). There is considerable evidential value at Boscobel, deriving both from thebuildings and the landscape.

The Lodge (B2), North Range (B1) and timber-framed barn (B3) are sixteenth and seventeenth centurybuildings which formed part of the original complex on the site. The timber-frame of the barn inparticular is little altered from its seventeenth century form, although some additions and alterationshave been made to the barn (Research Theme 2). The evidential value of the sixteenth centuryNorth Range is to some extent compromised by its 1970s restoration, although it still retains sufficientfabric to enable dendrochronological dating and other analysis which may further elucidate its story.

The seventeenth century form and fabric of The Lodge is quite seriously compromised by alterations inthe eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and what survives is also largely hidden by nineteenth century






contains archaeological earthworks of indeterminate origin; including a number of small banks anddepressions (mostly orientated north-south), two small linear, parallel banks in the south-east corner, achannel running parallel to the eastern field boundary (likely to have been associate with an earlier fieldboundary) and a linear channel with banks on either side running from east to west towards BoscobelHouse. This channel earthwork resembles a former trackway leading towards the house from the east.The earthworks may represent agricultural activity, modern disturbance, evidence of the former park,

or more significant archaeological remains associated with the house, all of which have significantpotential evidential value. Archaeological investigation – including measured earthwork survey,geophysical survey, and excavation – may improve understanding and thus enhance evidential value.

The Royal Oak (L6) is probably the most significant feature on the site in terms of its evidential valuefor the events of 1651 (Research Theme 2). Although a descendant of the original pollard, itnevertheless quite literally contains those ‘genetic lines’ which give it high evidential value. Moreoverthe associated iron railings and stone plinth, the possible archaeological remains of the earlier brickwall, and the track leading through the Royal Oak Field (L7) between the tree and the house, all havehigh evidential value for the post-Restoration popularity of Boscobel as a focus of Carolian tourism(Research Theme 3). Indeed the graffiti inscribed on the stone plinth is direct evidence of this.

Historical value

‘Historical value derives from the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can beconnected through a place to the present. It tends to be illustrative or associative’ (English Heritage2008, 28). Boscobel, its Gardens and the Royal Oak have a particularly high historical value throughtheir association with King Charles, and in their capacity to illustrate both that association and otheraspects of the history of the place.

The Lodge (B2), North Range (B1) and timber-framed barn (B4) are all elements of the complex whichexisted during the seventeenth century. Although all have been altered to some extent, they imbuehigh illustrative historical value as they do largely evoke the atmosphere of the seventeenth centurycomplex, even if the details are not always original or accurately replicated (Research Themes 2 and

3). Thus they have a high historical value, not only in their association with the King Charles story, butalso in their capacity to illustrate the broader narrative of sixteenth and seventeenth centuryrecusancy. The formal garden elements (the parterre (L1), the Viewing Mound and Arbour (L2), andthe Nut Walk (L3) also have historical value as they provide an illustrative and associative connectionbetween both the seventeenth century and nineteenth century gardens and the current layout; theyalso provide a link between the house and the surrounding landscape and contribute significantly to thesetting of the complex as a whole. The garden also has historic value through association as KingCharles spent an afternoon in a ‘pretty Arbor in Boscobel garden, which grew upon a mount andwherein there was a stone table and seats about it’ (Blount 1660, cited in Weaver 1996, 15).

The Latin inscription within the pathway pebbles is another historic reminder of this association. Thisdecorative cobbling is of key significance. The cobbles were laid by Walter Evans’ daughter and

represent a great story of 19th

century romanticisation. They illustrate the engagement of the Evansfamily with the history of the site and its restoration.

The Royal Oak (L6) has significant associative historical value, as it is the descendant of the original treein which King Charles hid (Research Theme 2). However its illustrative value is somewhat lower,due partly to its own decline (see also Aesthetic Value, below) and partly to its current setting in openfields rather than in woodland (Figure 8). Its environs have a high illustrative historical value relating tothe post-Restoration development of Carolian tourism (Research Theme 3). Thus the iron railingsand stone plinth, the possible archaeological remains of the earlier brick wall, and the track leadingthrough the Royal Oak Field (L7) between the tree and the house, all contribute to the historical value.




Figure 8 Boscobel House viewed from The Royal Oak. The links within the landscape

between these two features form an essential component of the historic and aesthetic

significance of the place.

The historical value of the complex in relation to the eighteenth century farm is somewhat lower(Research Theme 4). However some elements of the farm buildings (notably parts of the timber-framed barn (B4) and parts of the Education Room (B5)) date to this period, as does the site of theformer brewery and wash-house building (B19). Earthworks in the Paddock (L4) and the Orchard (L5)also have historical value for this period, and the documentary evidence for the Orchard (L5) as a parkin the eighteenth century is also important.

The farm complex, including all of the agricultural buildings(B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B14, B17, B18, B20, B21), the farmhouse (B3) and formerbrewery and wash house (B19), together with some landscape elements such as the Paddock (L4) andthe Orchard (L5), has a high illustrative historical value. The complex as a whole enables the visitor to

understand the nineteenth century history of the site, and nineteenth century agriculturaldevelopments more widely – although this latter aspect could be expanded (Research Theme 5).The illustrative historical value of some elements of the complex is particularly high. These include thetimber-framed barn (B5), the implement shed (B7) and adjacent buildings (B6 and B8), the Dovecote(B9), the Forge (B10) and the dairy in the North Range (B1). The farm machinery and vehicles alsohave some historical value which could be further developed by a more active strategy ofinterpretation. Again the earthworks in the fields to the south and east of the complex – namely the Paddock (L4) and the Orchard (L5) – also have some historical value in representingfeatures (such as a kitchen garden) associated with the farm in this period. Value could be enhancedhere through archaeological investigation.




Aesthetic value

‘Aesthetic value derives from the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation froma place’ (English Heritage 2008, 30). Aesthetic value might be the result of intended design, or it mayhave come about more or less fortuitously as a result of the evolution of a place over time. Boscobelas a whole has a high aesthetic value.

Pevsner (1958, 77-78) considered the house (referring to B1, B2, B3 and B19 as a whole) to be of ‘littleinterest either externally or internally’ in architectural terms. Certainly in terms of formal design thisstatement probably still stands; however subsequent research has placed Boscobel within a widertradition of sixteenth and seventeenth century retreats (not necessarily ‘hunting lodges’ asconventionally understood), and there are several local parallels – such as Penkridge Hall (Shropshire),Madeley Lodge (Shropshire) and Moseley Old Hall (Staffordshire) – with historical links to the Giffardfamily (Stacey 2011b; Belford forthcoming). All of these have limited design value, emerging more orless from the local vernacular, but they do have considerable charm and an appealing aesthetic quality.The same is true of Boscobel, with its many gables, variable roof lines and different elements. Otheraesthetic qualities, such as patina, are generally absent from the buildings due to the extensiverestorations of the 1970s and 1980s; indeed the cement render applied to parts of The Lodge (B2) andthe North Range (B2) actually detracts from the aesthetic value.

To modern eyes, the farm complex (which was completely ignored by Pevsner) has a high aestheticvalue. The design value is variable. Some buildings, such as the timber-framed barn (B5), are entirelyvernacular; others, such as the former stables (B8) are extremely pretty buildings that display a well-developed architectural vocabulary. Some individual elements – such as the quoins on the EducationRoom (B5) or the rounded bricks on the pillars of the Implement Shed (B7) – are deliberate designfeatures which go beyond the purely functional; nevertheless, as a whole, the design of the place isinformed by function rather than any desire for symbolic or impressive display. Aesthetically Boscobelbenefits from not having been developed in a single phase as a ‘model farm’; the juxtaposition ofdifferent buildings of different periods and styles, the weathering of timbers and roof coverings, wear atdoor and window openings, and original fixtures and fittings in many of the buildings, are all fortuitouscontributions to the aesthetic value. The interior of the timber-framed barn (B5) and the Forge (B10)

are particular gems. The aesthetic value of the farmyard is further enhanced by the varied historicsurfaces (B21), and the presence of animals would add further to the scene. In this context it is alsoworth noting the Pond (L8), which has no evidential or communal value, and very limited illustrativehistorical value, but does have high aesthetic value.

The formal gardens (the parterre (L1), the Viewing Mound and Arbour (L2)) have significant aestheticvalue due to their design value (composition and layout of the garden), and sensory stimulation (plantsand materials featured within the garden). The Arbour, mound and pebble inscription also provideintellectual stimulation due to their apparent association with King Charles. The Nut Walk (L3) is anattractive visual feature of the garden and it creates a bridge between the formal garden (L1) and thesurrounding landscape. The walk provides a visitor with the sense of a woodland ride which wouldhave been the experience of the seventeenth and eighteenth century visitor.

In their current form, both the Paddock (L4) and the Orchard (L5) are an extension of the surroundingagricultural pasture landscape, although historically they may have formed part of the gardenssurrounding the building complex. As well as being pleasant enough fields in their own right, theiraesthetic value lies in providing a relatively open setting which enables the visitor to appreciate moredistant views of the house; the same is also true of the Royal Oak Field (L7) (Figure 8, above).

Considered as a tree, the Royal Oak (L6) does not have a high aesthetic value: forlornly isolated, boundtightly with iron straps, lopsided and half-rotten, it is no longer fit for anyone to sit in with beer andcheese, let alone a King. However, its setting – including the stone plinth and railings, the path throughthe Royal Oak Field (L7), and the relationship between it and the house – are dramatic, and thereforetaken as a whole, the aesthetic value is increased.

The possible ridge and furrow earthworks in the field (L7) are a visual reminder of medieval agriculturalactivity and therefore have some aesthetic value.




Communal value

Communal value ‘derives from the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it’ and is thereforeperhaps the most subjective of the four values discussed here (English Heritage 2008, 31). Communalvalue may be commemorative, symbolic, social or spiritual. Several elements of the complex have both

commemorative and symbolic value, due to their historical association (see above) with King Charles(Research Theme 2). Thus The Lodge (B2), and to a lesser extent the North Range (B1), togetherwith the Royal Oak (L6), all have a communal value. This value is exceptionally high as it is a story ofnational importance: it is learnt by every schoolchild and is universally known; the ‘Royal Oak’ is thesecond most common pub name in England (after the ‘Red Lion’). The tree is a symbol of national prideand identity. The formal gardens (the Parterre (L1), the Viewing Mound and Arbour (L2)) also sharethese communal values. In addition, all of these features, together with the walk through the Royal OakField (L7) have a high commemorative and social communal value as a result of the long-establishedtourist appeal of the site (Research Theme 3). The graffiti on the stone plinth surrounding the tree isa reminder of previous visitors and draws upon a collective memory

The house (again principally B2) also has a significant spiritual communal value due to its long

association in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with Catholic worship and meeting. The sameis also true of White Ladies Priory, which had a post-Dissolution use as a recusant burial ground inaddition to its earlier monastic functions.

The farmyard complex has some communal value as it commemorates a now-vanished era inagricultural history; this historic aspect also provides some social value (Research Theme 5).

The current role of the site also provides a high social communal value. This particularly applies to thefarmyard (including its animals) and to the gardens, which have a universal communal value aside fromany historical or evidential values: these spaces are able to provide collective experiences such aspicnics and exploring the grounds, social interaction is more important in these contexts than historicaltruth. People can also draw upon a collective memory of other similar gardens. The experience ofvisiting the house also provides social communal value, but its potential audience is perhaps more

limited.

Finally the occasional temporary use of the Paddock (L4) for Scout camps gives it a transient communalvalue during these periods. Again this is not associated with any historic significance.

5. RESEARCH AND CONSERVATION MANGEMENT

The purpose of this section is to identify potential threats, challenges and opportunities to the futuremanagement of Boscobel House, Royal Oak, gardens and associated landscape features.

Research themes

Several research themes have been identified. These are noted in Section 2 above and elsewhere, andare set out more fully here.

The purpose of these research themes is to provide an intellectual framework within which futureconservation and management of the site can be framed. There are many gaps in our understanding ofthe development and evolution of Boscobel and its landscape. Some of these gaps can be filled byrelatively minor archaeological research during routine maintenance or conservation works.

Opportunities to undertake archaeological monitoring, dendrochronological analysis or historicbuilding recording should always be considered as part of the project planning process.




Research Theme 1: The pre-dissolution landscape.

The possible ridge and furrow in Royal Oak Field probably pre-dates the planting of the woodlandhere. The trees in the wood were sufficiently large to hide King Charles in 1651, and must have beensufficiently prominent for Sir Basil Brooke to have exclaimed ‘bosco bello’ in the 1630s. They wereonly cut down in 1791, by which time open-field farming of the sort which gave rise to ridge and

furrow was no longer in use in this part of the world. Therefore agricultural use of this land probablypre-dates the seventeenth century, and is very likely to be earlier than that. This perhaps implies thatthere was an earlier farm on this site. Opportunities to investigate this are limited, but there is somepotential for the archaeology of earlier buildings (if they existed) to survive beneath the currentfarmyard and elsewhere.

Research Theme 2. The seventeenth century farm.

Despite this period being the principal focus of historians and guide-book writers alike, relatively littleis in fact known about many important aspects of the site during this period. Particular questionsinclude:

•

When was The Lodge (B2) actually built, and what is the construction sequence? For examplethe dormers are very likely to have been later additions (perhaps from the 1630s); there arealso several unanswered questions about later additions and modifications. The originalarrangement of the stair turret is also not known. The evidence of the timber frame itself doessurvive in places, and a co-ordinated programme of archaeological recording anddendrochronological analysis should be implemented alongside future conservation works.

• When was the timber-framed barn (B4) built? This was recorded in considerable detail in 1979(NMR: MP/BOS0064 – MP/BOS0084), but no further work appears to have been undertaken.Dendrochronological analysis would be particularly useful here.

• What other seventeenth century buildings were on site? Some of these may survivearchaeologically, beneath the present farmyard and elsewhere; others may have been

incorporated into other buildings – either by new buildings being built on the foundations ofolder ones, or by the re-use of roof timbers.

• It is assumed that the present gardens are a nineteenth century creation. To what extent is thisactually the case? Are there elements of the seventeenth century gardens that do, in fact,survive?

•

What were the relationships between all of these different features (and the Royal Oak, at thattime situated in woodland) during the seventeenth century?

Research Theme 3. The history of Carolian Tourism.

It is evident that popular appreciation of, and enthusiasm for, the romantic story of King Charles’escape from the Battle of Worcester has attracted visitors to the site since the Restoration. Severalelements of this survive. Apart from the Royal Oak itself there are the railings of 1817 and theirassociated plinth which is carved with nearly 200 years of graffiti (Figure 9). There is some scope tofurther investigate whether this plinth is on the foundation of the brick wall of 1680, or whether thefoundations of the wall survive elsewhere. A limited investigation in 2002 was inconclusive.






perceived by visitors? What was the impact of the felling of the woodland in the 1790s?

Research Theme 5. The nineteenth century.

Although this is probably the best-documented and most clearly understood period of the site’s

history, there is still potential for further information to be gleaned which can aid interpretation. Againthe relationship between changing national, regional and local farming practices and the alterationsmade to the farm could be developed further. The construction of implement sheds, stables and thedairy suggests a mixed farming economy. The sometimes difficult relations between landlord and tenantare another part of the story. Research questions include:

• What was the full extent of the modifications and alterations to The Lodge (B2) during thisperiod?

• What was the original purpose of the now-blocked archway in the Farmhouse (B3) and whatwas its relationship to the other buildings on the site?

• What was the role of the former brewery/wash-house (B19), and how did this function relate

to the conversion of the North Range to a dairy? Why was communication with The Lodgeonly at first-floor level?

Conservation issues

There are a number of conservation issues. These concern the house (B1, B2, B3 and B19), thefarmyard (B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B14, B17, B18, B20, B21 and L8), the gardens(B15, B16, L1, L2 and L3) and the surrounding landscape (L4, L5, L6, L7 and L9). Specific conservationactions are identified in bold in the text here, and set out in numerical order in the Action Plan inSection 6, and in order of priority in Appendix 2.

The House

The fabric of the house has been severely compromised by nineteenth and twentieth centuryalterations. The reconstruction of the house during the nineteenth century involved the replacement ofmuch of the timber framing with brick, and the use of brick as an external cladding. This was thenrendered. In c.1985 the whole structure was re-rendered using a commercial cement-based system(Action Plan 1).

Both of these interventions have together adversely affected the survival, extent and condition of thetimber frame. In the south and west elevations of The Lodge, very little of the timber framing appearsto have survived. Some of the principal timbers were retained and encased in brickwork during thenineteenth century; the consequence of this work has been the extensive retention of damp within thestructure, lack of ventilation, and the rotting of the timber frame (Figure 10, on the following page).Further investigation of this is ongoing, however it is clear that serious remedial work – and perhapsrebuilding of substantial parts of these elevations – will be required (Action Plan 1).




Figure 10 Detail of the south-western corner of The Lodge (B2) at first floor level, showing

the extent of brick cladding and the severely damaged surviving elements of the timber

frame.

Elsewhere the timber frame may survive in better condition. After removal of the formerbrewery/wash- house (B19) in 1969, the exposed eastern elevation of The Lodge was recorded by theDepartment of the Environment Ancient Monuments Branch (NMR: MP/BOS0056). This drawing(Figure 11 Extract from the 1971 survey drawing (NMR: MP/BOS0056), showing extent of timberframing on the eastern side of B2.) shows the east elevation of the Lodge (B2) to be timber-framed.The framework comprises close- studded timbers with evidence of previous openings, including twowindows on the ground floor which were probably part of the original structure. There is a window onthe first floor, partly blocked with brick, and a doorway – presumably inserted in the eighteenth ornineteenth century when the brewery/wash-house was constructed.

In addition, the former stair turret (the so-called ‘Oratory’) is also shown to be largely timber-framed,

albeit with some brick infill to the lower parts of the structure. It is not known to what extent thistimber frame was repaired, replaced or otherwise altered during the 1970s restoration works.

These surfaces were covered in a cement-based render system in c.1985. This will have adverselyimpacted on the ability of the structure to breathe and so some damage may have been caused bydamp. However the extent of nineteenth century rebuilding and encasement appears – at least on theevidence of the 1971 drawing – to have been much less than that on the south and west elevations.Therefore there is considerable potential for this timber-framing to have survived in relatively goodorder.




Figure 11 Extract from the 1971 survey drawing (NMR: MP/BOS0056), showing extent of

timber framing on the eastern side of B2.

Removal of the render here is strongly recommended in order to assess the nature, extent, and state ofpreservation of the timber frame (Action Plan 1).

Considerable care needs to be taken when undertaking work in this area, as this is the location of theformer brewery/wash-house structure (B19). The only extant above-ground element of this structure isa ground-floor fireplace (Figure 12, on the following page).

Five or six phases of construction and rebuilding are evident. Despite the demolition there is potentialto recover more information about this building, including both its relationship to the main house and itsfunction and use. It is also possible that it may have incorporated earlier structures.

A programme of desk-based assessment and below-ground archaeology in this area, in conjunction withthe conservation of the above-ground structures (including the east wall of B2), would enhanceunderstanding of the development of the site during all periods, and particularly in the eighteenth andnineteenth centuries (Action Plan 7).

The results of this work could then feed into improved interpretation for this part of the site. Atpresent there is no on-site explanation of the fireplace shown in Figure 12, and only a cursory note inthe Guide Book.




Figure 12 The fireplace of the former brewery/wash-house range (B19) demolished in 1969.

As noted above, the south and west elevations of The Lodge (B2) are problematic. However the westelevation of the North Range (B1) does appear to retain significant elements of its timber frame. This ispartly visible internally, but was also revealed by a thermographic survey undertaken by Demaus Building

Diagnostics Ltd on 28th May 2012 (Figure 13, on the following page).The survey shows very strong indications of a close-studded timber frame to the second floor (gable)level, and there are some indications of surviving timbers in the first floor level. Again, temporaryremoval of the modern cement render is strongly recommended to enable the full extent of thesurviving timbers to be assessed. Where possible the frame should be conserved using appropriatematerials (Action Plan 1).

The opportunity to involve a buildings archaeologist to undertake a building recording exercise duringthe works should be taken. This has the potential to resolve important questions about the structuralhistory and archaeology of the house, and the scaffold will afford ideal access. (Action Plan 7)

The flashings, roof and rainwater goods need to be renewed (Action Plan 1). Some thought also needs

to be given to the provision of suitable overhangs and the treatment of window apertures to enableadequate throw of water away from the surface of the building.

The chimney, of brick with stone quoins (Figure 14, on the following page) survives in good condition.This is shown as un-rendered in early views, and it has been suggested that it may have been decoratedwith terracotta emblems (Stacey 2011b, 36). The top appears to have been rebuilt, perhaps in thenineteenth century. Conservation of the chimney would be best served by replacing the render. Therender and finish must be specified and detailed to exemplary conservation standards. (Action Plan 3).




Figure 13 Thermographic images and interpretation from the 2012 survey, showing extanttimber framing beneath the rendered surface.

Figure 14 Details of the chimney stack. Left: the north side at first floor level, showing the

patch of earlier render and the relationship between the seventeenth century brickwork of

the chimney (right) and the later brickwork of the house. Right: the south side at secondfloor level.




Internally, the North Range (B1) retains a largely intact series of nineteenth century dairy features onthe ground floor. There are no obvious conservation issues here, although there may be concerns aboutsome of the equipment if a more active programme of interpretation is adopted. The first floor of theNorth Range hosts a children’s activity area in the east bay, with the remainder of the building givenover to a somewhat sparse display of historic images. Again, there are no immediate conservationconcerns; however if more active use is made of this space – as suggested below – then considerationmay need to be given to protecting parts of the floor and walls (Action Plan 4).

The Lodge (B2) retains its internal appearance as a nineteenth century imagining of a seventeenth

century house. Very little of the original layout or fabric survives or is visible due to eighteenth centuryand later changes to the subdivision of rooms, the locations of staircases and so-on. However items offabric such as the fireplace and panelling, whilst not original to the house, are certainly in keeping withthe period and may have been imported from White Ladies so there is a provenance associated with theGiffards and the King Charles story. Conservation issues for the fabric revolve around damp andventilation, which have been addressed above (Action Plan 1).

One significant concern is the condition of the collections housed within the building. These includefabrics, Carolian memorabilia, paintings, prints and engravings, and books. Monitoring of humidity andtemperature appears to be intermittent and this needs to be addressed (Action Plan 5). Once adetailed long-term record of fluctuations in atmospheric conditions has been made (ideally over thecourse of a full year, but certainly no less than six months including both high summer and periods of

prolonged wet weather) then the likely impact on collections can be assessed and appropriate actiontaken. Consideration should be given to relocating some of the more delicate items to other parts ofthe complex where appropriate and stable environmental conditions can be sustained (Action Plan 6).

The Farmhouse (B3) is largely occupied by a recently-refitted flat. However part of the ground floor isused as an exhibition space and waiting area for visitors. There are no conservation issues apparenthere.

The Farmyard

Overall, the farmyard is in good order and there are few significant conservation issues requiring majorwork.

The timber-framed barn (B4) has suffered from a series of alterations in the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies, most particularly brick infill to the frame. Some of this work has been undertaken usingcement mortar (Figure 15, on the following page). There is evidence of water ingress around the edgesof the brick panels, with adverse effects on the timber. In addition, the weight of the brick panels willcause long- term stress on the building.

The timber frame was recorded in considerable detail in 1979, but this study could be augmented with afuture programme of dendrochronological sampling and analysis (Action Plan 15)

It should be noted that some graffiti survives on the internal walls of the cow-shed. For the most partthis appears to be simple arithmetic. However the potential of farmyard graffiti to reveal considerabledetail about nineteenth century life has been shown in studies in North Yorkshire (Giles and Giles 2007)

and elsewhere, including at nearby Chillington Hall – where considerable information about croprotation could be gleaned (Belford 2010). Moreover the possibility for more personal graffiti to surviveshould not be ruled out. It is therefore recommended that this graffiti is recorded fully before the wallsurfaces deteriorate further and before any alteration or work is done to the building (Action Plan

14).




Figure 15 Detail of the timber-framed barn (B4) showing extensive variation in the style,

quality and appearance of the brick infill to the timber frame.

The Education Room (B5) is a complex building which requires further analysis to fully understand thesequence of construction and alteration (Action Plan 16). The building is generally in good order.

Since it serves partly as a publicly-accessible space and partly as offices, it is likely that internal upgradingwill occur periodically, including the re-routing of services and other works likely to cause moderatedisruption to elements of the historic fabric. Where possible the opportunity should be taken toundertake historic building recording in association with such works (Action Plan 17).

Consideration should be given to using the ground floor under the Education Room as an exhibitionspace for the display of collections. A new floor and electrical services will be required. (Action Plan

13).

The Forge (B10) needs some conservation work internally, although the exterior of the structureappears to be in good order. The interior contains the hearth, bellows, anvils and tools, as well as asecond set of spare bellows. These items are currently not in an environment which is suitable for theirlong-term conservation. The forge is an unusual survival, but these items are not, of themselves unusual

or irreplaceable. It is suggested that limited active use of the forge (perhaps through a third-partyprovider such as a local blacksmith) is considered as the best option for sustaining this equipment(Action Plan 18). Use will of course result in wear, but it will also ensure that the fabric, fixtures andfittings will be maintained and repaired.

The Café (B18) is in generally good order, but any future improvements must aim to avoid any furtherloss of historic fabric (Action Plan 19).

The farmyard itself (B21) contains a variety of historic and modern surface treatments, including cobbledareas, all of which require a certain amount of maintenance. The historic manhole covers are relativelyrare survivals – these are the only known ‘Edge and Sons’ covers known to survive. In addition there is agravestone, propped against the north wall of B5. This appears to have been removed from WhiteLadies Priory which was formerly used for occasional Catholic burials after the dissolution (Weaver1996, 37- 38). It is a nineteenth century replacement of a memorial to Joan Penderel, wife of WilliamPenderel. Particular care needs to be taken to ensure that these features are retained (Action Plan

20).








management regime can be perpetuated (Action Plan 37). Consideration should be given to plantingthe field with managed oak wood pasture in order to reinstate the eighteenth and nineteenth centurylandscape (Action Plan 38). The 1st edition 1:2,500 OS map suggests that the field contained moretrees in the 1880s than it currently does, although these would appear to have been removed by thetime the 2nd edition map was published in c.1901. The 1st edition map could therefore provide astarting point for a planting plan. This would create a stronger link between the house, the Royal Oakand the still-extant stretch of Boscobel Wood to the south.

Figure 17 The Royal Oak (L6) and the approach to it through the Royal Oak Field

(L7), looking south. Boscobel Wood is in the background.

Other landscape elements in the immediate vicinity include Boscobel Wood, already noted above, andthe open pasture to the south and west. The hedgerow bounding the road to the east is substantial and

contains a number of standards, providing a ‘woodland’ barrier which complements the setting of thehouse, and it would be desirable that this is retained, while making the entrance more welcoming tovisitors. (Action Plan 39).

Enhancing the visitor experience

Although visitors may be initially drawn to the site for its historical associations, the farmyard andsurrounding landscape also provide an attractive amenity for picnics, walks and other experiences thatmay not be framed by the historical context.

Historical interpretation is provided through five principal channels:

• A Guide Book, recently revised and updated (Stacey 2011a), which provides general historical

background and a description of both Boscobel and White Ladies Priory. This costs £3.50 inaddition to the admission price.

• Formal guided tours of the house. These take place at 11am and 2pm in the main season and lastfor about an hour; during this period the house is closed to visitors who are not booked on thetour. In the winter season the house can only be viewed by guided tour. The tours are includedin the admission price.

• Interpretation panels. There are a number of interpretation panels around the ground, and anintroductory room in the Farmhouse (B3) with five panels which outline the broader history,predominantly focused on the King Charles story. In addition there is a series of historic viewsmounted on easels in the first floor of the North Range (B1). Many items of farm machinery aretagged with small hand-made labels which record the collection number and are not intended as

visitor interpretation.

• Informal contact with staff and volunteers within the rooms of the house, and to a lesser extentin the grounds.




The visitor experience at Boscobel today revolves around two principal historical periods: the KingCharles story of the seventeenth century, and the nineteenth century romanticisation of it. A thirdstrand, somewhat more in the background, is the farm during the nineteenth century.

The House

Externally, The Lodge is currently rendered. For conservation reasons (see above) the removal of thisrender is an urgent priority. Removal of selected areas of render in March 2013 revealed that substantial

parts of at least the west and south elevations had been rebuilt in brick in the nineteenth century,resulting in significant deterioration of the surviving timber elements. Nevertheless some significantareas of timber framing survive. While visitor understanding of the construction and evolution of thestructure would be improved by revealing the timber framing and other elements of the structure, itwould compromise the aesthetic value and would detract from the 19th century historical perspective.The concealed timber frame could be interpreted through a model, real or digital, as a centrepiece in anew interpretative scheme. (Action Plan 1).

Internally, the house is currently furnished in an approximation of the way it might have been furnishedduring the nineteenth century. None of the furniture is original to the house. Consideration should begiven to removing the rope barriers, at first on a trial basis, to improve the visitors’ experience of thehouse.

The cellar is an interesting part of the house which not only reveals the original form of the building, butalso displays evidence for its modification and use in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. At presentit is divided into two with separate access; moreover access is difficult. However the cellar could bedeveloped as an additional component of the house for visitors to see (Action Plan 9).

The first floor of the North Range is currently under-used. There is a children’s activity area in the eastbay, with the remainder of the building given over to a display of historic images mounted on easels.Much better use could be made of this space, both as an aid to interpretation and as a visitor amenity.Consideration should be given to installing additional interpretation here – perhaps discussing the post-nineteenth century history of the house as a means of explaining to visitors how English Heritage caresfor and conserves its properties, and why informed conservation is an important concept. The facilitiesfor children could be enhanced, and corresponding facilities for adults could be installed. These couldinclude comfortable sofas or chairs, and a range of relevant books; this would provide an informal dry-weather space for families (Action Plan 10).

It is suggested that the guided tour element of the interpretation strategy is reviewed (Action Plan

11). An audio guide could be provided and also perhaps a mobile phone application which provides amuch more dynamic form of interpretation including reconstructions of rooms and analytical detail(Action Plan 12).

The Farmyard

The farmyard is an important element of Boscobel’s history, and although it is described in the

guidebook, it takes second place to the story of the house. In total description of the farmyard occupiesonly four of 40 pages in the guidebook.

The farmyard has the potential to tell the much wider story of agrarian improvement during theseventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Action Plan 23). It contains buildings from all ofthese periods, and a considerable amount of evidence about how those buildings were transformed overtime. As noted above, further research and recording could reveal many of the nuances of thesedevelopments, and could tie them closely to wider local, regional and national trends in agrarian history.

There are several areas where fixed interpretation is very limited, and where more work could be done.These include the timber-framed barn (B4), the Education Room (B5) and the Café (B18). As notedabove, the site of the former brewery and wash-house complex (B19) currently has no interpretation atall; yet this very simple multi-phase fireplace has the potential to generate visitor understanding of the

complexities inherent in historic structures and their interpretation.






Figure 19 Interpretation panel in the garden.

The Landscape

The replanting of the Orchard (L4) as noted above for conservation reasons, would enable the

introduction of older varieties of apple and pear, and perhaps fruits such as damson and quince as well(Action Plan 33).

The walk to the Royal Oak (L6) offers the visitor the opportunity to consider the setting of the houseand how it has changed. In the short- to medium-term, better use could be made of interpretationpanels at the Royal Oak itself (Action Plan 40). These can explain why the Guardianship area has beenextended, what the landscape would have looked like in the middle ages, the wooded landscape before1791, and the modern landscape. There is also an opportunity to provide more general informationabout historic woodland management regimes.

In the longer term, consideration might be given to purchasing the Royal Oak Field (L7) and perhapsrestoring it to wooded pasture (Action Plan 37 and Action Plan 38). This would provide a visual link

between the house and the relict portion of Boscobel Wood to the south (see Figure 18 above).The views from the Royal Oak take in the Wrekin, Clee Hills and the Long Mynd in Shropshire, andinterpretation of these hills could also be provided here (Action Plan 36 and Action Plan 40).






Whilst weddings are probably beyond the scope of the facilities at Boscobel, there is certainly theopportunity for concerts or performances (either in the open air or in the barn); period music ortravelling Shakespearean players would be entirely appropriate evening entertainment.

Re-enactment groups – many of whom have a particular enthusiasm for the Civil War period – couldalso be engaged to provide daytime entertainment for visitors in the high season, as already happensfrom time-to-time at Stokesay Castle, for example.

Access

There are some issues with access to Boscobel House. A DDA report was prepared in 2003 and it doesnot need reviewing; however some further progress could be made on some of the issues which itraises.

Little can be done physically about mobility issues – such as steep stairs, uneven ground and so-on –without unacceptable compromise to the historic fabric. In the shop there is a virtual tour to enable lessmobile visitors to virtually ‘reach’ parts of the house (Action Plan 44).

Provision for those with visual and auditory impairments is currently poor. There are no signs in braille,no alternative formats for guide books, and no audio description. Consideration needs to be given toreviewing these facilities (Action Plan 45).




6. ACTION PLAN

This Action Plan sets out a series of objectives for the future management of the site. These are specificactions, drawing on discussion in Sections 3, 4 and 5 above. This list of specific actions is arrangednumerically, and the Action Plan objectives are given as urgent (to be undertaken within 1 year), high(within 1-2 years), medium (within 2-5 years) and low (in 5 years or more) priorities. A second list,which is arranged in order of priority, is provided in Appendix 2. This Conservation Management Plan,and the recommendations made within it, should be reviewed in five years’ time.

The House 1. Removal of all cement render from house, replacement of flashings and improvement of

drainage arrangements to B1 and B2. Repair to timber frame where appropriate. Re- renderingusing appropriate materials. Urgent priority.

2. Investigate the area of B19 to enable better understanding of the relationships between itand B1 and B2. Medium priority.

3. Removal of render from chimney, repointing and re-rendering. Urgent priority.

4. Reinterpretation of the interior of B1 and B2. Medium priority.

5. Monitoring of internal environmental conditions. High priority.

6. Relocation of collections where necessary (as a result of H5). Medium priority.7. Undertake a building recording exercise during the repair of the external render. Urgent

priority

8. Remove rope barriers within the house. Medium priority

9. Open up the cellar of B2 for visitor access. Low priority.

10. Make better use of the first floor of B1 for interpretation. Medium priority

11. Review the overall interpretation strategy, considering free-flow or guided tours. Mediumpriority

12. Develop a suite of digital interpretation as mobile telephone applications. Low priority.

The Farmyard

13. Consider using the ground-floor under the Education Room (B5) as an exhibition space for thedisplay of collections. A new floor and electrical services would be required. Low priority.

14. Record internal graffiti in the timber-framed barn (B4). High priority.

15. Dendrochronological analysis of timber-framed barn (B4). Low priority.

16. Structural analysis and historic building recording of the Education Room (B5). Low priority.

17. Monitoring of improvement works in the Education Room (B5) to ensure minimal loss ofhistoric fabric or information derived from it. Low priority.

18. Consider regular part-time use of the forge (B10) by a (third-party) blacksmith to enhance thevisitor experience and ensure conservation of fixtures and fittings. Medium priority.

19. Reopen the Café to visitors. Ensure minimal loss to historic fabric during any improvements orrenovation (B18). High priority.

20. Ensure retention of historic features within the farmyard such as historic surfaces and otherfeatures. Low priority.

21. Consider implementing a programme of regular maintenance to the historic machinery. Lowpriority.

22. Ecological survey comprising a protected species survey targeted at areas where works areplanned. High priority.

23. Consider reviewing the interpretation within the farmyard overall to provide better visitorunderstanding of these important and increasingly rare farm buildings and post-medieval farmingpractice; and consider presenting the site as a small model farm. Medium priority.




24. Reintroduction of a wider range of animals, including historic breeds, and consideration ofactivities such as horse rides. Medium priority.

25. Consider allowing visitor access to the sheds B12 and B13 and developing a semi-permanentdisplay which relates to agriculture; possible working ‘experience days’ or volunteerengagement. Medium priority.

Gardens

26. Demolition and replacement of the Arbour in L1 according to information from early

illustrations. Urgent priority.

27. Archaeological investigation to determine extent of surviving seventeenth century remains in L1 and L2, especially in association with the Arbour. Medium priority.

28. Clean and conserve the commemorative inscription laid in white cobbles “Sext Id Sept 1651….”High Priority

29. The limited interpretation in the garden areas L1 and L2 could be improved. Consider the use ofseventeenth century varieties with appropriate accompanying information about the history ofgarden development. Medium priority.

30. Review the management regime for the Nut Walk (L3). Consider additional planting in the NutWalk (L3) to enhance the ‘woodland’ experience. Medium priority.

31. Possible scope to develop a sensory element to the garden in L1 and L2. Low priority.

Landscape

32. Archaeological survey/investigation of earthwork features in the Paddock (L4), the Orchard (L5) and the Royal Oak Field (L7) to enhance understanding. Medium priority.

33. Replanting using historic species in the Orchard (L5). Medium priority.

34. Royal Oak (L6): ensure the survival of the present tree if possible – however alternatives couldbe considered, including the replacement of the present tree with a descendant plant. EnglishHeritage will try to influence Natural England’s policies on Higher Level Stewardship for thisarea. High priority.

35. Replace the current temporary palings around the Royal Oak (L6) with new fence to demarcatethe enhanced Guardianship area. Medium priority.

36. Ensure retention of wider landscape views from the Royal Oak (L6). Low priority.

37. Consider purchase of the Royal Oak Field (L7). Low priority.

38. Following landscape survey using archaeological and historical evidence, consider reinstatementof wood pasture to the Royal Oak Field (L7). Low priority.

39. Try and ensure retention of roadside hedgerow to east of the complex, while making theentrance more welcoming. Low priority.

40. Improve interpretation of both the tree and the historic elements of the tourist landscape at and

around the Royal Oak (L6) and the Royal Oak Field (L7). Reinstate the original historic sign forthe Royal Oak, given its high scrap value, at a location close to the house. Medium priority.

41. Record the graffiti on the plinth of the railings at the Royal Oak (L6). Medium priority.

42. Develop a strategy for closer connections with other relevant sites, particularly White Ladiesand Moseley Old Hall (a National Trust property which regularly requests leaflets). Devise andpromote a walking route. Medium priority.

Special events

43. Consider special events both inside and outside regular opening hours. Medium priority.

Access

44. Alternative visualisation methods for visitors with mobility issues. Medium priority.

45. Attention to provision for hearing and visually impaired visitors. Medium priority.




7. REFERENCES

Belford, P. 2010, Chillington Hall: Stable and Coach House Range (South Range) - Historic Building Recording ,unpublished report, Nexus Heritage 3060.01.

Belford, forthcoming. Catholicism and industry in sixteenth and seventeenth century Shropshire. PhD Thesis,University of York.

Clark, K. 2003, Informed Conservation, London: English Heritage.

Department for Communities and Local Government 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, London:HMSO.

English Heritage 2011, Corporate Plan 2011-2015, London: English Heritage.

English Heritage 2012, The National Heritage Protection Plan Action Plan 2011-15: English Heritage Revision 1:September 2012 – March 2015, London: English Heritage.

English Heritage 2008, Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of theHistoric Environment, London: English Heritage.

Fay, N. 2011, Royal Oak, Boscobel House: Preliminary Arboricultural Assessment, unpublished report for

English Heritage by Treework Environmental Practice.Giles, K. and Giles, M. 2007, ‘The writing on the wall: the concealed communities of the East Yorkshirehorselads’, International Journal of Historical Archaeology , 11(4).

Henderson, P. 2005, The Tudor House and Garden: Architecture and Landscape in the Sixteenth and EarlySeventeenth Centuries, New Haven and London: Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, YaleCenter for British Art, and Yale University Press.

Mawrey, G. and Groves, L. 2010, The Gardens of English Heritage, London: Frances Lincoln Limited.

Newman, J. and Pevsner, N. 2006. Buildings of England: Shropshire, London: Penguin.

Pevsner, N. 1958, Buildings of England: Shropshire, London: Penguin.

Stacey, N. 2011a, Boscobel House, English Heritage Guidebook, London: English Heritage.

Stacey, N. 2011b, ‘An Obscure Habitation: Boscobel House and its Recusant Background’, EnglishHeritage Historical Review , 6.

Sterenberg J. 1988, BUFAU Annual Report No.10, Birmingham: University of Birmingham FieldArchaeology Unit.

Tyers, I. 2010, Boscobel House, near Brewood, Shropshire. Dendrochronological Analysis of Oak Timbers,English Heritage Research Department Report series, 12-2010.

Weaver, O.J. 1996, Boscobel House and White Ladies Priory , London: English Heritage.

Wells, D. 2000, Wildlife Statement for Boscobel House and Royal Oak, Shropshire, unpublished report,

English Heritage.








Walk (L3) to enhance the ‘woodland’ experience.

32. Archaeological survey/investigation of earthwork features in the Paddock (L4), the Orchard (L5)

and the Royal Oak Field (L7) to enhance understanding.

33. Replanting using historic species in the Orchard (L5).

35. Replace the current temporary palings around the Royal Oak (L6) with new fence to demarcate theenhanced Guardianship area.

40.

Improve interpretation of both the tree and the historic elements of the tourist landscape at andaround the Royal Oak (L6) and the Royal Oak Field (L7). Reinstate the original historic sign for theRoyal Oak, given its high scrap value, at a location close to the house.

41. Record the graffiti on the plinth of the railings at the Royal Oak (L6).

42. Develop a strategy for closer connections with other relevant sites, particularly White Ladies andMoseley Old Hall. Devise and promote a walking route.

43. Consider special events both inside and outside regular opening hours.

44. Alternative visualisation methods for visitors with mobility issues.

45. Attention to provision for hearing and visually impaired visitors.

Low: in 5 years or more

9. Open up the cellar of B2 for visitor access.

12. Develop a suite of digital interpretation such as mobile telephone applications.

13. Consider using the ground floor under the Education Room as an exhibition space for the display

of collections. A new floor and electrical services would be required.

15. Dendrochronological analysis of timber-framed barn (B4).

16. Structural analysis and historic building recording of the Education Room (B5).

17. Monitoring of improvement works in the Education Room (B5) to ensure minimal loss of historic

fabric or information derived from it.

20. Ensure retention of historic features within the farmyard such as historic surfaces and otherfeatures.

21. Consider implementing a programme of regular maintenance to the historic machinery.

31. Possible scope to develop a sensory element to the garden in L1 and L2.

36. Ensure retention of wider landscape views from the Royal Oak (L6).

37. Consider purchase of the Royal Oak Field (L7).

38. Following landscape survey using archaeological and historical evidence, consider reinstatement ofwood pasture to the Royal Oak Field (L7).

39. Try and ensure retention of roadside hedgerow to east of the complex, while making the entrancemore welcoming.










chose a tree from whose vantage point, once installed, he would have a good view (“we couldsee round about...for they would certainly search the wood”) and once “in the tree” there was agood enough view to see “soldiers going up and down in the thickest part of the wood...now andthen peeping out of the woods”.

1.2.4 The great oak was described as being “in a pretty plain place”, implying that perhaps there wasnothing particular to draw attention to the specific tree (it was one of many similar specimens)and /or that the place was sufficiently open to have a view of other wooded areas, more akin towhat is now termed wood-pasture, grazed landscape with open grown trees.

1.2.5

While Charles’ account to Samuel Pepys describes that the two hidden in copious regrowthproduced from past cutting back of the old oak (it “had been lopped some three or four yearsbefore and so was grown out very bushy and thick”1) might point to the tree being a coppice(i.e. managed by cutting close to ground level), that the two climbed into the tree and carried upprovisions (they “carried up...some victual for the whole day") more likely indicates the “greatoak” to be a pollard. Despite Wencelaus Hollar’s engraving, this evidence points to the RoyalOak being a managed old pollard within an open area of wood pasture probably with otherssimilar pollards nearby, a view supported by others (Stamper, 2002. Morton, 1986).

1.2.6 The Royal Oak’s fame led to its demise: a wall had to be constructed around the original tree in

1700 to protect it from Royalist souvenir collectors. But this was insufficient to save the tree,which was reported by Evelyn to have died by 1706. There were two successor trees, apparentlyderived from original parent Royal Oak acorns, and only the younger of these survived tobecome the current Boscobel Royal Oak (the older suffering a similar fate from souvenircollectors).

1.2.7 The present Royal Oak at Boscobel is thought to be the direct seed descendant of the one inwhich King Charles II was said to have hidden from the Parliamentarians following the defeat ofthe Battle of Worcester in 1651. The acorn was said to have germinated close to the edge andwithin the wall enclosure that had been constructed to protect the original Royal Oak. This wallwas rebuilt in 1787 and finally replaced with circular metal railings set into stone footings in 1817(Hislop, 2002).

2 THE ASSESSMENT OF THE TREE

2.1.1 The Boscobel Royal Oak in its current setting

2.1.2 The tree is an open grown pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.) of likely maiden (non- pollard)form. The tree is approximately 10m tall to the upper periphery, with the main trunk rising toapproximately 7m and the few structural limbs and crown outgrowth rising to a further 3m. Thetrunk girth is 4.37m, measured at 1.5m height. On the basis that the tree has grown for perhapshalf of its life in fairly benign circumstances, the girth indicates the age of the tree to be between250 (assuming average growing conditions) and 290 years (assuming poor growing conditions2),growing in poor conditions could be attributed to ground and root disturbance.

2.1.3 The crown of the tree occupies approximately one third of the height; the trunk representing

approximately two thirds of the height. However, the tree’s current overall height is probably amere third of its total height 20 years ago before suffering the first catastrophic storm impact.This first major destructive storm event is understood to have occurred on 27 October 2000,when the Royal Oak was struck by lightning, splitting off a large upper crown section (Stamper,2002). Due to relatively recent events, including storm damage and pruning, the crown branchesnow mainly occupy the northern hemisphere of the once entire spherical canopy, and thistherefore presents a significant weight bias to the north and northwest.

2.1.4 The tree is surrounded by 2.3m high (individually 2.5cm square cross-section) Victorian ironrailings set vertically at 4.30m radius from trunk centre. The railings form a circle atapproximately 100mm spacing between verticals, and these are set into a circular stone footing,up to approximately 200mm high above local ground level. The stone footing in turn is founded

on top of two to three courses of brick foundations (Hislop, 2002). The brick foundations, whileneeding excavation to set these into the ground, have perhaps, to a limited extent,accommodated pre-existing lateral roots in the construction.






above ground level or basal trunk flaring connected to superficial roots.

2.2.3 It is therefore considered likely that the installation of the footings will have disturbed therooting area close to the tree, severed lateral roots (the larger of which are expected over theyears to have decayed) and set in motion the course of biological events that led to moreextensive hollowing and decay on the southern aspect.

2.3 The trunk

2.3.1 From my inspection, the presence and disposition of historic damage and outer dead trunk tissue

is consistent with wounding characteristic of a severe lightning strike that caused catastrophicfailure to a major portion of the crown of the Boscobel Oak. I estimate this event took placesome ten years ago. Whatever the cause of the failure at that time, the event resulted in a majorlongitudinal split along the axis of the main trunk, following a more or less vertical plane,principally across the west to the east- south east faces.

2.3.2 At 5m, above the recently installed upper restraining band on the south-eastern face, there is ahorizontal shear fracture plane. This is most likely where a substantial part of the upper crown,having split along the grain, then fractured across the grain, leading to the failure of a largesouthern portion of the crown. More recently, in 2010, the remnant crown, buffeted by strongwinds, further cleaved away from the southern moribund husk of the trunk, causing separationthat followed more or less along the line of the older callus growth.

2.3.3

Between the two restraining bands, at around 3.5m on the southeast face, is an elliptical holeapproximately 150mm diameter, formed from historic loss of a major limb, which subsequentlydecayed and formed callus rolls around the margin, occluding a far larger wound area over time.

2.3.4 Following the original split on the west trunk face, an outer longitudinal callus formed fromapproximately 6.5m height down to ground level. The force flow from the top on the west facedescends and curves round a hole (the site of a long-lost branch). Where the new callus growthformed, it followed a sinuous line from the west at top to west- north-west at base. The callus,over the years, expanded and developed to form structural and functional wound wood (aswelling of live conductive tissue) which at the base is fairly substantial, some 100mm thick.There is similar callus, though of smaller dimensions, seen on the more or less opposite face. Ingeneral, these features and the character of the dead tissue on the trunk and the breakage reflect

the ‘body language’ of a lightning strike.

2.3.5 The trunk can be notionally pictured as a cylinder, with a living northern half and dead southernhalf. The two halves have historically separated from the top down to some extent. The branchsystem supported by the dead section has either died off or been shed. The interface betweenthe live and dead tissue corresponds with the presence of callus-wound wood.

2.3.6 The dead trunk section, though presenting areas of desiccated, bark-free wood, remainsotherwise substantially covered with long-dead bark. At the southern base of the dead sectionare copious honey fungus fruiting bodies (Armillaria spp.). The presence of honey fungus indicatesvery long-standing decay, which may in part derive from the catastrophic failure event, or likelyhave originated from historic root damage – becoming more or less endemic in the root zoneand opportunising areas of dead tissue (i.e. functioning saprotrophically). Associated with thelightning strike margins at base (northwest face) is a major hollow up to 0.75m and bark-freedesiccated wood, which follows the lightning effect of dead bark. This original event led to thefailure of the central ascending main portion of the crown and several branches about an easternarc.

2.3.7 The main trunk on the northern half of the ‘cylinder’ appears to have healthy looking bark and

functioning sapwood throughout its height and this connection is maintained to the principalarchitectural branches and all the subsidiary growth they support. The callus-wound wood seamthat defines the sinuous longitudinal margin traces the fracture line of the original lightning strikeor storm event of at least a decade ago and appears to be actively functioning (transportingnutrients and water) and developing structural characteristics. This is more pronounced on thewestern face than on the eastern face, possibly attributable to higher levels of root damage on

this aspect.

2.3.8 The lower trunk is hollow and there is a major basal cavity on the western face from groundlevel up to 0.75m. Accumulating within the trunk and at the base is a large volume of decaying




and decayed heart wood showing characteristic cubical brown rot typical of beefsteak fungus(Fistulina hepatica). There are also indications of another brown rot decay agent, Chicken of theWoods (Laetiporus sulphureus). As this decaying material breaks free and builds up in the base ofthe trunk, it forms a rich and fairly rare type of deadwood habitat. In combination, the hollowtrunk, various cavities about the trunk and the decaying wood present considerable habitat value.

Fig 2: The Royal Oak around the turn of the 18th century: Showing changes in crowndevelopment and morphology

ReferencesStamper, P. (2002) “The Tree that Hid a King: The Royal Oak at Boscobel,” Shropshire Landscapes, 1, pp.19-34.

White, J. (1998) Estimating the Age of Large and Veteran Trees in Britain Information Note, Forestry

Commission, Edinburgh.












B2: Boscobel House (The Lodge)

EH Asset number: 085-001

Type of Asset: standing building

Protection: Listed Building II* (1273964); Scheduled Ancient Monument (1003018) HER number: 01078

Description: Three-storey (plus cellar) largely timber-framed residential building, erroneously calleda hunting lodge, abuts to S of B1 and formerly abutted by B19 to E. Cellar originally of stone, later

(C19?) rebuilt in brick. Substantial stone and brick chimney (later rendered) to W elevation, former

stair turret (‘the Oratory’) to NE

corner. Jettied S elevation. Some evidence for survival of originaltimber-framing, but heavily compromised by later modifications and repairs. Substantial alterations in

early C19, including fenestration, internal partitions and panelling; further modifications in C20

including cement render c.1986.

Interpretation: Residential building

Statement of significance: A building of immense national significance, representing a key element of

the story of King Charles’ flight from the Battle of Worcester. Other associations include its role in

local/regional recusancy in the C17. Evidential value of C17 structure perhaps compromised by C19and C20 modifications.

Criteria Value Notes

Survival / Condition Med Water ingress in various locations; C20 cement render

Fragility / Vulnerability Med Cement render needs to be removed and replaced

Rarity High Although by no means the best recusant hunting lodge in the country, its association with King Charles is unique

Group Value High An important component of the group formed by B1, B2 and B3

Diversity High Numerous phases of construction and modification

Potential Med Some scope to improve the condition of the building and the interior interpretation

Amenity value High This is the primary visitor attraction










B6: Visitor Admissions Building

EH Asset number: 085-007 Type of Asset: standing building

Protection: Listed Building II (1273965); Scheduled Ancient Monument (1003018) HER number:

26167

Description: N end of range of three buildings including B7 and B8, also abutted by B20. Single-

storey open-fronted implement shed of 4 bays, with brick walls to N and E sides (S wall formed byN wall of B7); timber posts to W side. Projecting brick plinth course; double door in gable end.

Probably late C19 or early C20, with extensive internal alterations (insertion of wall, doors, floor

and ceiling to create Visitor Admissions Building) in late C20.

Interpretation: Former implement shed, now the Visitor Admissions Building.

Statement of significance: Probably the final addition to the farmyard complex, this building brings

the east range out level with the barn (B4). Group value.


Survival / Condition High Extensively repaired during conversion to present function

Fragility / Vulnerability Low

Rarity Low Relatively common building type locally

Group Value High Completes courtyard range

Diversity Low Single phase of construction

Potential Low Already in use as Visitor Admissions Building, little scope todevelop the building further.

Amenity value High Visitor Admissions Building






B8: Office and Visitor Toilets


Protection: Listed Building II (1273965); Scheduled Ancient Monument (1003018) HER number: 26167

Description: S of range of three buildings including B6 and B7. Very attractive two-storey brick building.External staircase at S end (former under-stair space later blocked), central window to first floorelevation. Early C19; built at same time as B8. Originally functioned as stables; ground floor now visitortoilets. Handrail to steps a later addition. Cobbled area to W incorporates early manhole cover (see alsoB21).

Interpretation: Former small stable block

Statement of significance: Fairly common building type, but with unusually high standards of design

and construction, with important group value as part of the farmyard as a whole.


Survival / Condition High In generally excellent condition


Rarity Med

Group Value High An important component of the farmyard ensemble


Potential Low Some use could perhaps of the first floor space, although access

via the stairs could be difficult

Amenity value High Visitor toilets. However, at some distance from the café






B10: Disabled toilets and forge



Description: S part of a small single-storey brick-built range, including B9 to the N. Early C19, and probably built in a single phase with B9. Two bays: disabled toilets in N bay (probably

formerly another smithing hearth, or ancillary area for the forge); forge in S bay. The forge retains complete smithy interior in very good condition – comprising two sets of bellows, main

hearth, small portable hearth, anvil, vice and tools. Externally is a cast-iron plate for use in fixing

tyres to cart wheels. Note that this is mis-labelled in the 2009 Condition Report.

Interpretation: Forge

Statement of significance: This is a rare survival of a small-scale farmyard forge in more-or-

less

working condition.


Survival / Condition High In generally excellent condition

Fragility / Vulnerability Med Lack of use will reduce integrity of historic forge items: leather in the bellows will deteriorate, tools will rust

Rarity High An unusual survival in excellent condition

Group Value High An important component of the farmyard ensemble


Potential High Considerable potential for live displays by a blacksmith, whichwould not only help conservation but will enhance interpretation and understanding for visitors

Amenity value Med Potentially a valuable addition to the visitor experience




B11: Small Brick Shed



Description: One of three smaller brick-built single-storey farm buildings to the S of B10; this group alsoincludes B12 and B13. B11 is small free-standing shed, with door in W gable and window in E gable. LaterC19 or even early C20; almost certainly not ‘early C19’ as suggested in listing description.

Interpretation: Shed

Statement of significance: A pleasing but simple building of relatively low significance in understanding the later aspects of the story of the farmyard.


Survival / Condition High Good condition


Rarity Low

Group Value Med

Diversity Low

Potential Med

Amenity value Low




B12: Brick Lean-To

EH Asset number: none Type of Asset: standing building


Description: One of three smaller brick-built single-storey farm buildings to the S of B10; this group

also includes B11 and B13. B12 is lean-to at W end of B13, probably early C20 with later glazing; it

replaced an earlier lean-to in a similar location which had a pitched roof (wall scar evident).Certainly not ‘early C19’ as suggested in listing description.

Interpretation: Lean-to

Statement of significance: A pleasing but simple building of relatively low significance in

understanding the later aspects of the story of the farmyard.


Survival / Condition High


Rarity Low

Group Value Med

Diversity Low

Potential Med

Amenity value Low




B13: Large Brick Shed

EH Asset number: none Type of Asset: standing building


Description: One of three smaller brick-built single-storey farm buildings to the S of B10; this groupalso includes B11 and B12. B13 is relatively large shed with former pitched-roof extension to W end

now replaced by B12. Later C19 or even early C20 in date, with later C20 ‘Crittall’ windows to S

elevation; almost certainly not ‘early C19’ as suggested in listing description.

Interpretation: Shed, now used as gardener’s workshop

Statement of significance: A pleasing but simple building of relatively low significance in understanding the later aspects of the story of the farmyard.


Survival / Condition High In generally good condition


Rarity Low

Group Value Med

Diversity Low

Potential Med Potential to develop visitor attraction as part of the garden maintenance area – plant sales or demonstrations, for

example

Amenity value Low Currently low, but potential to improve










B17: Privy



Description: Brick-built single-storey, single-seater privy, abutting B15 and probably constructed inC19. Retains original door and other features.

Interpretation: Privy

Statement of significance: Group value as part of the C19 farm complex, and in association with B14.



Fragility / Vulnerability Low Good condition

Rarity Med Survival of interior features unusual

Group Value Med In association with B14, B15 and B16


Potential Low

Amenity value Low




B18: Café



Protection: none. HER number: 26167

Description: Single-storey brick building at W edge of farmyard, divided into three spaces internally – tack rooms (now kitchen facilities) at N and S ends, with stables (now café eating

area) in centre. Central room retains stalls and troughs, and Staffordshire blue brick floor; walls

recently whitewashed. Mid or late C19.

Interpretation: Former stable and tack rooms, now a café

Statement of significance: A well-built and solid late addition to the farmyard; relatively common

building type and of low significance.


Survival / Condition High Excellent condition


Rarity Low

Group Value Med Later addition at this side of the farmyard, and separated fromother buildings by high walls


Potential Med Some potential for enhancement of facilities

Amenity value High Café. However, at some distance from the toilets




B19: Site of Former Brewery

EH Asset number: none



Description: Area of ground to S of B1, site of C19 brick two-storey building abutting B1 and B2.

Identified by EH as ‘Brewery’ although photographic evidence suggests multiple functions includingperhaps laundry and accommodation. Demolished post-1969. Extant remains of former S fireplace

and associated features above ground, with at least five phases of construction and modification.Archaeological potential.

Interpretation: Site of former brewery

Statement of significance: The surviving fabric represents the only survival of an essential element ofC19 farm complex. Highly significant.


Survival / Condition Med Extant remains in fair condition; possible below-ground

survival

Fragility / Vulnerability Med Some conservation work needed to upstanding elements; below-ground remains need to be taken into account if groundworks are envisaged here

Rarity Med

Group Value Med Later addition at this side of the farmyard, and separated fromother buildings by high walls

Diversity High Many phases evident in upstanding remains

Potential High Considerable archaeological potential to discover the origins, evolution and development of this building; later post-med

material culture likely to be recovered

Amenity value Low Café. However, at some distance from the toilets




B20: Brick Wall


Type of Asset: standing structure

Protection: none

HER number: n/a

Description: Low brick wall at entrance to site, approx. 1.3m high and 10m long. Abuts B4 and B6. LateC19 date with late C20 rebuild in E half. Supports gate.

Interpretation: Wall

Statement of significance: Relatively late addition to the site. Enables the farmyard to be n‘closed’, but

otherwise of low significance.




Rarity Low

Group Value Low

Diversity Low

Potential Low

Amenity value Med Gate and wall




B21: Farmyard


Type of Asset: Farm yard

Protection: none

HER number: 26167

Description: Loose Courtyard with farm buildings on four sides of the yard. Partly cobbled surface,largely compacted gravel and laid to grass at NW end. Machinery at W end – side- delivery rake byNicholson of Newark, expanding hay-rake by Harrison of Leicester, potato plough (maker unknown) andsingle-furrow plough (maker unknown). Gravestone against N wall of B5 extension (see above). Largestone trough and stone components of a cider press or similar at N end of B1. Two cast-iron manhole

covers, one ‘Edge and Sons Coalport Works Shifnal Salop’ the other not certain but probably similar(Edge’s works in existence c.1850 to c.1900). Numerous C20 telephone fixtures and fittings.

Interpretation: Farm yard

Statement of significance: At the heart of the C19 farm complex, and an important element of the

aesthetic setting for the Heritage Assets surrounding it. Also retains some heritage value in terms of

fixtures, fittings and machinery.



Fragility / Vulnerability Low Any suggestions for ‘improvement’ (e.g. for DDA) needs carefulconsideration so as not to destroy authenticity and patina

Rarity Low

Group Value Med

Diversity High A wide range of surfaces, fixtures, fittings and machinery

Potential Med

Amenity value Low




L1 Formal Gardens (Parterre)

EH Asset number: 085-002; 085-003

Type of Asset: historic garden

Protection: Parks and Gardens Register II (1001115); Scheduled Ancient Monument (1003018)

HER number: 07507

Description: Reconstructed formal garden associated with Boscobel House. The garden is located alongthe west and south sides of the house. It is entered via a door in a 2.5m tall brick wall (B16) which forms

the garden’s north-west boundary. There are two additional entrances; one along the western boundaryproviding access to the Royal Oak and the other located in the centre of the southern boundary formingthe northern extent of the Nut Walk. The western and southern boundary of the garden consists of atall mature and well maintained box holly hedge. The eastern boundary is a 3.5m high brick fruit wall(B15).The north-eastern boundary is adjacent to the house and there is a flower border.

The garden is separated into two distinct areas; the northern half of the garden consists of grass lawnsand flower beds divided up by intricately patterned low box hedging, rose bushes are located along thegarden fences and climbing plants have established up the brick walls. The southern area consists of afour-sided prospect mound in the south-west corner (L2) and a rectangular compartment defined by a1m high box hedge containing fruit trees arranged in two rows of five. The main paths in the garden areof red quarry tiles edged with pebbles. Within the pebbles there is an inscription from associated with

the Evans family from... which reads ‘‘Sext id sept 1651 in hac domo Carolus Secundus tutela quinque fratrumde stirpe Penderel potitus est eorumque denique ope incolumis evasit’. In the centre of the parterre the pathconsists of malthouse drying-floor tiles, all of nineteenth century date.

Interpretation: The garden is a 19th century reconstruction of Hollar’s 1660 view of Boscobel.

Statement of significance: The garden is good example of a 17th century reconstruction. It is a fairlyaccurate portrayal: the general layout is authentic but some of the plant species could be revised. Thegarden is also a good example of a 19th century creation, which is contemporary with the rebuilding ofthe house.




Statement of significance:


Survival/Condition High Well maintained. The inscription in the pebbles is not particularlyvisible and some of the plant species could be revised.

Fragility/Vulnerability Low As long as the garden continues to be regularly looked after it willremain in good condition.

Rarity High Good quality example of 19th century reconstruction of a 17thcentury garden.

Group Value High The garden is associated with the 19th century reconstruction ofthe 17th century Boscobel House for visitors. It is alsocontemporary with the farmyard.

Diversity Med Several phases of construction.

Potential High The garden could feature more plants from the 17th century andprovide information to visitors about the history of gardendevelopment. This would enable the garden to become a heritageasset of its own accord, not simply because of its association withthe house.

Amenity value Med The garden is well kept and it is a pleasant place for visitors torelax and enjoy the garden and the house. However, there is no

interpretation within the garden (explaining it is a reconstruction, 19th century photos, identification and

reasoning of plant species) and this could improve the visitors

understanding of the House, its landscape and garden

development.




L2: Formal Gardens (Viewing Mount and Arbour)


Type of Asset: historic garden

Protection: Parks and Gardens Register II (1001115); Scheduled Ancient Monument (1003018) HERnumber: 07507

Description: Situated in the south-west corner of the formal 19th century garden reconstruction

(L1) is the Mount. This is a four-sided prospect mound with worn sandstone steps on the northernside leading to a timber-framed, plank-walled, north-west-facing arbour. The present structure wasbuilt c 1950 and replaced an earlier structure, which was depicted in Hollar’s 1660

view of Boscobel.

Interpretation: The mount is a viewing platform over the surrounding landscape, house and gardens. The

mount was present in 1651 during Charles II and William Careless visit to Boscobel. Charles spent anafternoon in a pretty Arbor in Boscobel garden, which grew upon a mount and wherein there was a stone tableand seats about it (EH guidebook, 1996).

Statement of significance: The mount is an important feature of the 19th century reconstruction of a

17th century garden. However, in the late 18th century the structure was less substantial andcovered with climbing plants, as described by a late18th century visitor.


Survival/Condition Med The recent structure requires some maintenance; the paint is

peeling and the structure is crooked and looks fragile.Fragility/Vulnerability Med See above.Rarity High Good quality example of 19th century reconstruction of a 17th

century garden feature. Group Value High The garden is associated with the 19th century reconstruction

of the 17th century Boscobel House for visitors. It is also

contemporary with the farmyard. Diversity Low Single phase of construction. Potential High The current structure has no interpretation and as a result it

could be perceived as a modern shed with no heritage value. Amenity value Low More active interpretation strategy (19th century photos,

description) would improve visitor engagement and

understanding.










Group Value n/a Archaeological remains in the paddock associated with the Houseand gardens would have high group value – however, the presenceof archaeological remains in the paddock is unknown.

Diversity n/a The diversity of the paddock is unknown until further

investigation. Potential High Archaeological remains associated with the House and gardens

have great potential for greater understanding of the complex.

Excavations could be publicised and made into a special eventfor visitors to view. The results could be used in the

interpretation of the site and to inform what to do with thispaddock.

Amenity value Low Currently the paddock is used for grazing and occasionally as acamp site for scouts. Investigation into this field would inform

how this field could be further used.




L5: Orchard

EH Asset number: n/a Type of Asset: historic garden/landscape feature

Protection: Parks and Gardens Register II (1001115); Scheduled Ancient Monument (1003018) HERnumber: n/a

Description: Along the east side of the house and gardens is a former orchard, now a grass paddockwith a few skeletal fruit trees, mostly in the northern half of the field. The northern part of thepaddock is slightly higher than the southern half and may have been levelled at some point. The

paddock contains archaeological earthworks of indeterminate origin. There are a number of small

banks and depressions (mostly all orientated north-south), but the majority of the earthworks on

first inspection are irregular undulations. The most apparent earthworks include two small linear,parallel banks in the south-east corner of the paddock, a channel running parallel to the eastern field

boundary and a linear channel with banks on either side running from east to west towardsBoscobel House.

To the south-west is a small paddock and the hornbeam walk. To the south is a pasture field leading intowoodland. To the north-west the house and farmyard and to the north is the car park surrounded bytrees. To the east is an arable field that occupies the peak of the hill and a road surrounded by trees andhedgerow.

Interpretation: In 1753 the Orchard was called the Park. The two distinct areas in the Orchard (theraised, levelled northern end with fruit trees and the slightly sloped pasture area) were likely to have

been two separate paddocks at some point. The linear channel parallel to the eastern boundary is

likely to be associated with an earlier field boundary. The linear, east-west orientated channel and

adjacent banks in the northern part of the orchard resembles a former trackway leading towardsthe house. The remaining earthworks may be tree throws or areas of disturbance, but further

investigation may reveal more significant archaeological remains.

Statement of significance: The orchard in its current state is in poor condition and resembles a paddock with a few trees rather than an orchard. The earthworks may represent agricultural

activity, modern disturbance, evidence of the former park, or more significant archaeological remains associated with the house. Further investigation is necessary to assess the significance of theorchard.

Criteria Value NotesSurvival/Condition Low The orchard is in a poor condition, the few trees present are in a skeletal state.









Survival/Condition Low The Royal Oak is in a critical condition and is mostly dead or decaying.

Fragility/Vulnerability High The Royal Oak is in a critical condition and is mostly dead or decaying. It is extremely vulnerable and fragile.

Rarity High Due to its connection with Charles II it is of nationalimportance and is unique.

Group Value High Boscobel House and the Royal Oak are intertwined with

Charles II legendary escape. The Royal Oak is also a symbol ofnational identity and has a connection with publican houses of

the same name. Diversity Med The assets surrounding the Royal Oak consist of a diverse range

of elements and alterations. Potential Med The Royal Oak should be an impressive tree symbolising

national identity. However, the tree is ancient and will die. The

tree could be replaced with another sapling but should this be

installed in the same place (within the iron railings and earthenbank) to replicate the former tree or off to one side to

memorialise the earlier tree.

Amenity value Med Visitors are directed to the Royal Oak from the house. However, amodern wooden fence prevents visitors from accessing the vicinityof the oak and its surrounding paraphernalia. The graffiti on thestone plinth surrounding the tree would provide an interestingfeature for visitors.Enabling visitors to access the confines of the Royal Oak would

allow them to see the tree up close and get a sense of theVictorian formalised earthen pathway to the tree, which is most

impressive at the point where it meets the railings.




L7: Royal Oak Field

EH Asset number: 085-019 Type of Asset: landscape feature

Protection: n/a

HER number: n/a

Description: Located to the south and west of Boscobel House is a pasture field which contains the

Royal Oak. There are a few other isolated trees within the field, which is grass and grazed by sheep.The field boundary to the east is a matured hedgerow, to the north-east is a holly hedge associatedwith Boscobel House gardens, and to the north is a line of trees partially concealing a farmhouse. To

the south and west the field boundaries consist of wooden and wire fences, providing a continuous,

largely unobscured view of the landscape beyond.

Running north-south across the field is an earthen path way formed by ditches on either side. The path is well-worn and consequently there is a depression in the centre of the path. The path way extends from Boscobel House gardens to the Royal Oak. At the Oak the path circles

the tree with earthen banks on the outside instead of a ditch. The earthworks are more visible here – either because they have been better preserved or because they were higher features to

begin with.

Evident across the field are ridge and furrow earthworks orientated north-east to south-west. In the

south-eastern corner of this field Hollar depicted in 1660 an octagonal stone table with a stool-like

seat on the edge of the woodland.

To the east of the current field is an arable field and a road, to the south is woodland formerly RoyalOak Wood, Old Coppice and Spring Coppice and to the north is another road and a farmhouse. To thewest the landscape slopes gradually to the south-west revealing an expansive area extending to theWrekin, Clee Hills and the Long Mynd in Shropshire.

Interpretation: The ridge and furrow earthworks reveal that the field has been ploughed, but not recently. The path way was created to establish a connection between the House and the Royal Oak, most likely in the 19th century but perhaps earlier. A map of 1753 shows that at that time Boscobel Wood extended c 100m further north than it does in the late 20th century and that the Royal Oak, in its square-walled enclosure, was located to its north boundary.

Statement of significance: The ridge and furrow earthworks are a symbol of the agricultural activityof this area and are connected to the19th century farmyard. The path way is associated with the

Royal Oak and its status as a 19th century visitor attraction.





Survival/Condition Med The field and the ridge and furrow earthworks are in a stable condition but the path way is well worn and will gradually disappear.

Fragility/Vulnerability Med The path way requires some stabilisation or enhancement to

prevent it from being trodden out.

Rarity Med The path way itself is not unique but its association with

Boscobel House and the Royal Oak increases its significance. The continued use of the field as pasture has preserved the ridge and furrow earthworks within it, where as they have beenploughed out in surrounding fields.

Group Value High The pathway connects Boscobel House and the Royal Oak. Theridge and furrow earthworks are connected to the19th centuryfarm.

Diversity Med The field contains a diverse range of elements and alterations.

Potential High The ridge and furrow earthworks show that the 19th century

farm extended further than the farmyard. The path way not only connects Boscobel House and the Royal Oak, but it also

creates a formal walk way enhancing the visitor experience. Thepath way could be enhanced as it is currently a subtle feature.

The woodland to the south could also be utilised for woodland

walks, trails etc. to enhance the visitors experience. Currentlythere is no connection between the Oak and the woodland and

there is no sense of how the landscape would have looked in

the 17th century.

Amenity value Med The field is currently used to provide access from Boscobel House to the Royal Oak. Further use or interpretation of the field and the path way could be utilised to enhance the visitorsunderstanding and enjoyment of the complex.




L8: Pond

EH Asset number: 085-020 Type of Asset: Pond

Protection: none

HER number: n/a

Description: Pond. Located to the north of BoscobelHouse. Probably 18th century serving the farmyard.

Appears on Ordnance Survey map 1888-1913 (right)

Interpretation: A pond probably to serve the

farmyard.

Statement of significance: If part of the farmyard, it is an important and integral part of the 18th/19th

century farmyard.



Fragility / Vulnerability Med Prone to silting up. Will gradually reduce in depth and extent if notmaintained.

Rarity Low

Group Value Med Important part of the farmyard group.

Diversity Low

Potential Low

Amenity value Med




L9: Land to north of B4 (verges and overspill parking)

EH Asset number: 085-021 Type of Asset: not historic Protection: none

HER number: n/a Description: Grassed area north of B4

Interpretation: Open area outside main farmyard. A well is shown close by in adjacent field.

Statement of significance: There is some potential for buried archaeology.


Survival / Condition Low Grassed

Fragility / Vulnerability Low Subject to disturbance by parking when wet.

Rarity Low

Group Value Low

Diversity Low

Potential Low

Amenity value Med





English Heritage Assets that are not Heritage Assets and which are consequently not described in thisGazetteer.

EH Asset number Description Rationale for non-inclusion in the Gazetteer

085-015 Site furniture Modern proprietary garden furniture

085-016 (part) Boundary fences Recent post-and-rail fencing

085-018 Car park Modern car park of compacted gravel

085-022 Drainage and septic tank Modern features, below ground

085-023 Freestanding signage Modern EH signage and interpretation panels

Documents

Boscobel Conservation Management Plan v4 Report