Talk:Matthew Brettingham

Brettingham as architect of Holkham Hall, and lack of many references

When creating this article it was my intention to publicise, a notable, but little known (outside of England) architect. I believe at present (January 2005) this may be the longest internet article on him. A google search reveals many hits, but most sites contain only a few lines concerning him, and much of the information contained there is contradictory. Hence for this article I have attempted to use only reliable authentic written works, however even here dates can differ, largely because the date an architect designed a building, the date building work commenced, and finished can be open to interpretation. Researching this article I bought the only book for sale on the internet which had Matthew Brettingham in its title, (Howell, D (1964). "Matthew Brettingham and the County of Norfolk". Norfolk Archaeology 33, Part III.) while of some help, it is concerned chiefly with the court case over Norwich Shirehall, which is irelevant to his career, and a few facts concerning his early career. The book begins "Matthew Brettingham is a man about whom legends grow", and concludes Robert Adam exaggerated claims about Brettingham, but the book does nothing to dispel or prove either myths or exaggerations. Thus in this article I have confined myself to what is definitely known, or certainly supported by an authoritative source.

One of many the many myths surrounding Brettingham, promoted on the internet, and in some books is that he was the architect of Holkham Hall. He was not. One such site, containing false information [1] dismisses William Kent altogether and in the same page attributes Holkham Hall to Brettingham and Burlington, and then under the caption introduces Colen Campbell another architect who published plans of various houses but was unconnected with Holkham Hall in any other way. Brettingham was an architect employed by Lord Leicester to oversee the building of the project as Clerk of Works. He could possibly be called the "Executive architect" today, but there is no evidence that he altered Kent's and Burlington's plans, certainly they were absentee architects, and Brettingham probably interpreted the plans, and corrected minor faults, he may even have even altered room layouts etc., but it is only "may have" and "probable". All reliable sources credit the design to Kent and Burlington, and many sources (including Brettingham himself) credit Lord Leicester with a large architectural input. It should also be remembered that at the design stage of Holkham Hall, Brettingham was in an early stage in his career, it is unlikely that an unknown "local builder/surveyor", and former bricklayer, would have been permitted much architectural input when two such already illustrious architects were already employed on the design.

Brettingham was though even in the 18th century referred to as "Lord Leicester's architect" (or surveyor which was the commonly used word then), and indeed he was certainly an architect retained by Leicester and "probably" carried out other estate designs for him. He certainly obtained the commission at Kedleston because of his work at Holkham Hall so it is likely even then he was thought of as the architect of Holkham Hall.

It may be that hard reliable evidence proving a real architectural input exists in the Holkham archives, or in a reference book, or even the internet and will come to light in the future - but at the moment either I can't find it or it does not exist.. Thus without concrete evidence while it is accepted his input at Holkham Hall was huge, it must be assumed it was in the capacity of Clerk of Works which was his job description there. Giano 16:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gunton Hall

Was this Gunton Hall in Norfolk, or Suffolk? There was a Gunton Hall in Suffolk (just north of Lowestoft), now demolished. However I don't know whether this is the same as the Gunton Hall in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbronstein (talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in North Norfolk, near Thorpe Market. Though, you're correct to point out that there is another Gunton Hall on the Lowestoft coast. The one associated with Brettingham is more commonly known as Gunton Park, e.g. [2]. Perhaps "Gunton Hall" is used here to indicate that Brettingham worked only on the Hall itself, not on the landscape surrounding it? DrKay (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FA a graphic mess

Authors really need to re-examine the layout. Pictures on a 1680px screen (firefox 2, win XP) are all over the place, overlapping above text etc. Explicit 270px image size may be fine on a 1280 px screen, but you better stick with default image size - it's there for a reason. NVO (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason everything is all over the place is because God knows how many images have been entheusistically added today, with no thought of placement. Simple as that. Tomorrow, everything will be back to normal. Giano (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There, much better now! Giano (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really (I'm looking at your most recent revision [3]) - the pics around Kedleston Hall heading are still in disarray. A compact gallery maybe? NVO (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not in favour of gallery sections, as I prefer to see the image next to the relevant text. DrKay (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So do I. But when the images are taller than the illustrated paragraphs, they are not next to text anymore. NVO (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Isn't there some sort of code "clearall" or some such, which ensures that section breaks occur after an image? Could that be used? DrKay (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Which particular images are you referrng to? They canot all be taller than the text, I have now viewed it on 2 different sized screens and it is fine on both. With one exception there is only 1 image in each section, so there should be no problem with that density of images. So it would help to know which images are too big, Thanks. Giano (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matthew Brettingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120202040800/http://www.eustonhall.co.uk/New/index.php?page=houseandgrounds to http://www.eustonhall.co.uk/new/index.php?page=houseandgrounds

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matthew Brettingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410025635/http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/csu/Planning_Applications_Sub-Committee/Minutes_2007/33-%20Minutes%2025%20October%202007.doc to http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/csu/Planning_Applications_Sub-Committee/Minutes_2007/33-%20Minutes%2025%20October%202007.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010045616/http://www.le.ac.uk/urbanhist/resources/smalltowns/appendices.html to http://www.le.ac.uk/urbanhist/resources/smalltowns/appendices.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 review

I have reviewed this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, an initiative of editors to review older featured articles to ensure that they still meet the featured article criteria. I am concerned that there is a large amount of uncited text, particularily in the legacy section. I have marked these areas with "citation needed" tags. I'm also curious about if there are more recent sources, perhaps at WP:LIBRARY or Google Scholar, that can be used to add information to the article (searches for this person are difficult because his information is mixed with the Younger's results). Is anyone willing to improve this article? @Giano: who seems to be the original FAC nominator, @DrKay: who fixed up the article in one of the FARs. Z1720 (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

As part of this review - currently paused, for which thanks - I'd like to convert the referencing to sfn. Can we discuss any concerns/issues here. KJP1 (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)