'A visit to Swarthmoor Hall reveals the lifestyle of a wealthy Country Gentry family in the early 17th Century' how far do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer.
‘A visit to Swarthmoor Hall reveals the lifestyle of a wealthy Country Gentry family in the early 17th Century’ how far do you agree with this statement? Give reasons for your answer.
Swarthmoor Hall was built in the 17th Century but since then a lot has happened to it. I both agree and disagree with the above statement due to the restorations, donations, etc the Hall has received.
The great hall was smaller than I expected. The oak panelling on the walls was an expensive thing to have in the 17th century, so it was a way of showing your wealth and status. Although, there may not have been oak panelling in the room originally as we know that after Swarthmoor Hall fell into disrepair, it was done up by Emma Clarke-Abraham – it was her that had the panelling put in place. Any original panelling was possibly stripped and sold off. The Yeoman would have been unlikely to have any panelling, and the nobility would be likely to have more extensively carved panels. The table top is made from a different wood to the legs. The top has a smooth side for posh occasions and a rough side for everyday use. This shows wealth and status as they would have needed servants to keep the tabletop smooth, and it showed they did have important occasions. This is a Country Gentry style thing as the nobility would have had separate rooms for important occasions and their everyday use. The table legs were made of oak, but the table top was made of cedar, an imported wood – this shows a sign of wealth as it would cost a lot to import wood. The stools don’t all match as they would have been gathered when they were needed. The chandelier shows how some of the evidence may not be completely reliable, as it is very unlikely a big object like that would be in a room the size of the hall. It is probably only there because it was donated by a Quaker. This will also be the same for other objects in the house, because the Quakers cannot insult someone by not showing their donated piece. This makes the evidence less reliable. The court cupboard was oak and well detailed in its carvings which is a sign of wealth as it is expensive to carve wood. The carvings do not all match which suggests they were not all done at the same time. Just like the chandelier, the conflict of people donating object comes into play in the fact that there is a dresser and a cupboard. It would have been unlikely to have both. The dresser’s purpose is to display crockery. The imported china on display was used to show wealth, as were the pewter plates as it needs servants to keep pewter shiny.
