Talk:Cronkhill

Cronkhill and Attingham Park
I would be interested in the views of others as to the commissioner of/patron for Cronkhill. All the sources I have access to state that it was Francis Walford, agent to and friend of Lord Berwick. These sources include Newman and Pevsner's Shropshire, "The house was built for Francis Walford" (p=240); Mansbridge's John Nash: A complete catalogue, "Built for Francis Walford.." (p=101); BLBO, "Cronkhill was built for Francis Walford", here and Historic England, text as before, here. Colvin apparently also says Walford, although I do not have access to this.

However, until I altered it yesterday, the Wikipedia article stated the house was built for Lord Berwick. The bases for this claim appear to be that the land on which Cronkhill was built formed part of the Attingham Park estate; that the Berwicks lived in the house after Walford's departure circa 1820 and that Walford didn't become agent to Lord Berwick until some years after Cronkhill was built. All of this appears be supported by the National Trust website for Attingham Park, here. This states, in a brief pop-up, that the house was "Designed by John Nash for The Second Lord Berwick" and describes the house as "a generous gesture for a friend". In short, this appears to suggest that Berwick commissioned, and paid for, the house and then "loaned/leased" it to Walford, regaining possession when their friendship was severed in 1828. This would appear to be supported by an entry in the National Archive, here, whch talks of Francis Walford of Cronkhill leasing Cronkhill Farm from Lord Berwick.

I would be very grateful for views on the proper attribution for the Cronkhill article. The same issue occurs in the section on Cronkhill in the Attingham Park article. I have copied this enquiry to the WikiProject Architecture Talkpage. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I consider it is more likely Lord Berwick commissioned the building of the house as he was Walford's friend and employer (as estate's agent). Walford would possibly have been occupying the house on a basis of being tied to the job. What could settle the issue is documentary evidence showing whose name was on the architect's contract.Cloptonson (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)