Talk:Fir Hill Manor

Incorrect information
The content of the article in the footnote to the information on the Fir Hill Manor which comes from the colan, Cornwall page and a website given in the article are defamatory and insulting to my family. The article contains much incorrect information and makes statements which are untrue and hurtful to myself and my family. I am requesting that the article be removed from Wikipedia.

Perhaps you can explain which of the stated facts are untrue. It would help if you could provide sources that support your assertion. On another point, when you sign off use 4 of these ~ not 4 of these -. Richard Avery (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I came to see this article wehile reviewing the 'Did You Know?' nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Fir Hill Manor. To me, the article is quite confusing and, because it involves lengthy legal disputes involving real people, needs to be explained carefully and clearly. As for the BBC documentary, I suggest it is described in its own section of the article.
 * BTW the Familyhistoryamystery.com page is a copy of a BBC article which would be a far better source than a private genealogy company. Sionk (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I will provide more accurate facts concerning my family and the issues regarding the estate for the article on the Fir Hill Manor in the next week. My mother and aunt inherited the Figg-Hoblyn estate of which the Fir Hill Manor was a part in June 2011. I think its nice to have an article about the Fir Hill Manor but it seems that it would be important to have it contain information which is true and correct. I would also like to point out that a news article doesn't necessarily contain accurate information and true statements. Sometimes it more accurate to get information from the actual individuals who are being mentioned in the article. The article is confusing and some of the dates don't really even make sense. I have seen the BBC video, and whle it is amusing to see my mother, and grandfather portrayed by actors, hardly contains any verifiable information if you consider that no one who made the video ever talked with any one in John Paget Figg-Hoblyn's family or John Figg-Hoblyn himself (except my aunt briely as my uncle retreated in the background). All of the the information was gotten from rumors and newspapers articles written by people who never even met the Figg-Hoblyns and who are just guessing about why things happened the way they did. The article sounds like something from a gossip magazine like the Star and it would be nice to make it more of a factual piece befitting a source of information like Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen auld (talk • contribs) 16:42, 25 March 2013‎ 108.236.112.195 (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * With your obvious conflict of interest I would suggest the best approach is to post the information here on this talk page and let non-involved editors decide what is appropriate to the article. --Bob Re-born (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are some corrections about the Figg-Hoblyn estate which belonged to my grandfather, my uncle, and now my mother and my aunt. There have been a lot of speculation and rumours and just incorrect information put in the media over the last several decades about the estate and unfortunately some of those articles are being used to verify wikipedia content. People didn't know what was going on with the estate and so were guessing as to what happened. I would just like to remind everyone that newspaper articles and even videos aren't really good ways to back up facts because they themselves are inaccurate and contain information which often is far from factual but is interesting to the public so the newspapers will publish it. The articles are published because they create a sensation and excitement which sells their newspapers. The articles aren't really very dependable sources of information and really are just speculation by people about what John Paget Figg-Hoblyn was doing with his property in Colan. Here are some errors I found in the recent article about the Fir-Hill Mannor. I would like to point out that the name of my grandfather, Francis Figg-Hoblyn, was not Francis Bluett Figg-Hoblyn. Francis Figg-Hoblyn and his son, my uncle, John Paget Figg-Hoblyn, did own the estate and so did not need to sign papers the Official Solicitor wanted them to sign. In fact, to sign them would have been contrary to the legal claim they had been making about the disentailment of the estate and so my uncle did not choose to sign them. John Paget Figg-Hoblyn never sued his father and sisters in court as the article states and he never marrried either. He was not a botanist although he did discover a type of beetle but he was a marin biologist and had a Ph.D. from Stanford University. He was a professor for a time at San Jose State University and San Francsico State University and he worked as a marine biologist for the State of California as well. There was no will written after John Paget Figg-Hoblyn's death rather the Court of Protection wrote a will for him during his life according to what they could determine from his actions and letters to be what his wishes would be. John Paget Figg-Hoblyn never refused to claim the estate but was entangled in legal issues concerning the entailment of the property. He didn't need to sign the papers the Official Solicitor talked about in the press because he was already the heir of the estate. My grandfather and uncle inherited the Fir Hill Manor in quite a dillapidated state, and there was also an underground stream which ran under the house and caused the foundation to be destroyed pretty quickly. During and after the war there was a lot of vandalism so today there is hardly anything left of the materials which were once the buildings. The metal from the roof and windows was stolen and after that the house crumbled. To blame one man for all of this is not really reasonable. The Fir-Hill woods and the ruins of the manor were sold to Charles Hoblyn by John Paget Figg-Hoblyn's two sisters because it was thought he would take could care of them. The Figg-Hoblyn family never gave up the estate and to this day are very proud of it and their heritage. Some of the properties are being sold and the largest piece of land was sold to Lewis Trebilcock whose family has farmed the land for centuries. The Figg-Hoblyn family has not disappeared from England and will be retaining some property from the estate. Some relatives have ambitions to step in an the heir of the estate and, while they are relatives and Hoblyns, they aren't the actual heirs. Many articles have suddenly appeared in the media for some reason which cast John Paget Figg-Hoblyn and his family in a negative light and put forth Charles Hoblyn as the hero who is coming in to save the estate. These claims just aren't true and John Figg-Hoblyn and his family are being subjected to a kind of media bullying. And these articles, which don't always even contain accurate or true content, are being used as footnotes on the Fir Hill Manor wikipedia page. 108.236.112.195 (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * These perceived problems with the Daily Mail article, not the Wikipedia article, aren't they? Whether the article is linked from this page or not, it is freely available online for anyone who wants to look. Presumably they used middle names for some of the characters to help distinguish one Figg-Hoblyn from another?
 * In any case, the Mail article is quite clear the estate fell into disrepair before it was inherited in 1965. The Wikipedia article isn't a place for you to have a lengthy right-to-reply to the Daily Mail, unfortunately. We're simply looking to report the story, according to the published sources, as succinctly as possible. Sionk (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the wikipedia article contains information that is incorrect and footnotes articles which are based on opinion and rumors. If that is the kind of article you want to have on an online encyclopedia, then that's what you have. If you want me to point out which facts are not correct, I can try to do it in the next week or so. Thanks108.236.112.195 (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day, the Daily Mail article is a national newspaper written by professional journalists, so it is the best we have to go on. I've reworded the sentence about the will to make it clear this is the interpretation of the Daily Mail. Personally I take everything the Daily Mail says with a big pinch of salt, though in this case the article comes across as fairly sincere in its attempts to be factual. Other people can decide whether or not they trust this source. Sionk (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I added another source to the footnotes of the Fir Hill Manor page (an article from the Daily Mail Online) and have added to the article while noting the sources I've used. I hope I did this correctly. Please let me know if I didn't! I also wanted to point out the it wasn't John Paget Figg-Hoblyn who sued his sisters and father in high court in the 1880's because he was born until the 1920's but it was William Paget Hoblyn who went to court at that time. This is mentioned in the two articles from [4] and [7] of the footnotes.Kathleen auld (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Court of Protection?
The Court of Protection is the correct court. The estate was not an unclaimed estate and the official solicitor was in contact with John Paget Figg-Hoblyn's solicitor and recieved letters from him every month. John Paget Figg-Hoblyn did not choose to sign the Official Solicitor's papers. They were not left unsigned because he abandoned the estate or because he could not be found.

I would query whether you have the right court. The Court of Protection deals with those who ar ementally incompetent. As an unclaimed estate, I would expect it to be adminstered by the Treasury Solicitor. The Chancery Division would have power to deal with the issue of an heir who could not be found, by a decree establishing the presumption that he had died without issue. This would advance the interest of the next person entitled, in this case under the will that created the entail. Such a will inevitably has to provide for the situation where the entail fails; and if it does not, the estate will pass on intestacy; which may well amount to the same thing, since the usual provision would probably be to "my right heirs". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the news source, the Court of Protection wrote a will in the absence of the deceased person. I'm no legal expert so don't know whether that is the correct process or not. They were acting in the interests of someobody else, so I guess it is possible. Sionk (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you 108.236.112.195
Hello, 108.236.112.195, and thank you for reading this article. I started it and I've often wondered who reads what I write, as, you see, I've created a lot of articles on wikipedia. So again, thank you for reading it!

This article started with 5 sentences before it was expanded/edited by approximately a dozen other editors. We are all volunteers; we aim for accuracy; we try to use reliable sources. In my opinion, mostly we get things right, but sometimes we get things wrong.

Please help us understand what parts of the article are inaccurate and/or contentious vs. which are accurate and/or uncontentious. I am hopeful that you'll go through this article -- sentence by sentence -- and copy/paste the uncontentious sentences (whole or part) onto this talk page. You don't need to keep the formatting intact. I'm hoping that 14 days is a sufficient period of time for you to do this, but if not, please suggest an alternate time period. Respectfully, --Rosiestep (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)