Christmas at Waddesdon Manor

Waddesdon Manor

Let’s call this the Christmas edition shall we as it is going to be Christmas themed!

A few weeks ago I paid a trip to Waddesdon Manor, together with the WI (I’m not a member, but it’s a rather long story!) in part because of its Christmas attractions but also because I hoped to learn a little about the wider Rothschild family and their home at Waddesdon Manor. However, there was a slight flaw in this plan, as Christmas was very much at the centre of everything and history seems to have been somewhat side lined.

It would appear that the draw for Waddesdon Manor at this time of year is Christmas and it becomes more of a place of entertainment than a typical National Trust property. It has a Christmas market, Christmas themed rooms with large decorated Christmas trees and a wonderful Christmas light show. But it completely takes over. It doesn’t sit alongside everything else and in some ways that was a bit of a shame. For example the Billiard room was turned into the three wise men’s camp with boxes of frankincense, myrrh and gold placed on the chaise-longue. It was cool, but at the same time gimmicky – I’d sort of expected the rooms of the Manor to be done as they would have been by the family at Christmas, rather than with this thematic spin.

Northern Lights inspired tree

Don’t get me wrong, it was great and it definitely put me in the mood for Christmas but the thing I struggled with was the lack of history on offer to read and learn from. Unless you knew that Waddesdon Manor was the home of Baron Ferdinand Rothschild you’d have been unlikely to pick that up anywhere and given that I’d hoped to find out more about them and their history this was slightly disappointing. I think I’ll have to revisit the house re-opens in the spring for a more typical visit.

However, in addition to the Christmassy bits, the Aviary was probably my favourite part. The Rothschild’s are known for being collectors and Ferdinand was fond of birds. There’s an information panel that informs visitors about the history of the Aviary - its establishment by Baron Ferdinand and the contributions of his sister, Alice, its decline during WW2 and finally it’s rejuvenation in the 1970s. It now houses several stud book managed species with a focus on preservation against extinction.

The Aviary

This includes the Rothschild’s Mynah and again an information panel explains how the bird was named after Walter Rothschild shortly after its discovery in 1910. Walter of course, having his own natural history collection not too far away at Tring. The same panel also describes how the Aviary team have been working with the Begawan Foundation and European zoos in an effort to save this critically endangered bird from extinction and I thought this was quite interesting as a reflection of how our attitudes and the priorities in managing the aviary have changed.

The Rothschild Mynah

The Rothschild’s Mynah is endemic to Bali – but because of its beauty it was illegally poached from the wild for the globe pet trade, prices peaking in 1990s at £1000 per bird!!! By 2001 the wild population was believed to be as low as 6 individuals and efforts since to reintroduce captive bred birds have had limited success. A more recent survey in 2012 counted 40 individuals and in order to promote genetic diversity Waddesdon’s Aviary have been involved in a cooperative breeding programme, with some of their birds being reintroduced to the wild and becoming parents themselves.

I have to admit I geeked out at this – the day offered history, Christmas and natural history. What more could this girl ask for? It wasn’t what I’d expected, but I think it’s definitely worth another visit when it reopens in the spring, with the hope that it will be more ‘typically’ National Trust and have some of the information I’m looking for!

Conducting research, with all the challenges and complexities that can entail.

Given that I claim to have made the ‘animal turn’ and specialise in the history of the exotic animal trade during modern British history, I do seem to blog relatively little about it. I couldn’t tell you why that is particularly; I suppose I just use my blog as a way to pen other thoughts, away from the main body of my research. However, in preparing a paper for a conference I’ve been asked to speak at this week, I’ve been revisiting my favourite research topic, Charles Jamrach and his animal trading business, and began formulating ideas for a blog.

Previously, when researching my dissertations, I think it’s safe to say I was caught up with the pressure of deadlines and reading with a particular purpose in mind. I knew what I was looking for, or more specifically what I wasn’t looking for from my sources and I just powered through the material. I did get what I needed, but as so often happen in situations like this, I can’t say I really took everything in.

However, it’s been different this time around and I have really read and engaged with  the articles I’ve been examining and if truth be told, have actually found it both quite difficult and infuriating. When you’re dealing with a subject you care about and are confronted with information that is difficult to digest, it’s hard to put into context what you are reading. For example, in one account an author commented on how 80% of a shipment of animals died before making it to their destination – and we’re not talking 10-20 animals or birds, we’re talking hundreds if not thousands. It was an indulgent and exploitative trade driven by imperialism that saw animal dealers, hunters and collectors, mine the earth’s surface for animals to add to their collections, with no real understanding of the long term implications. As one article described, ‘Africa was Jamrach’s nursery’.

It’s also hard to read how a dealer might have received a shipment of animals, the sum of which now equates to that of the surviving population which is now fighting impending extinction. The root of many conservation issues originate in this period and being someone who is aware and concerned about those issues, it was quite thought provoking research. As a historian you have to try and remain objective, weighing up the evidence to draw reasoned and well-argued conclusions, but as a citizen concerned with environmental issues, it was pretty hard stuff and I have to admit to having really struggled to remain impartial on this occasion. I understand that it was of its time, but with a modern mind set, it’s pretty hard to justify.

I think my feelings were also further exacerbated by a recent report on how the bill to ban the use of wild animals in circuses in the UK has been blocked by Tory backbenchers for the final time. Even more frustratingly- we’re not talking a majority. No. Three individuals have repeatedly blocked this going through, one claiming that it’s a “Great British institution…[that] deserves to be defended against the propaganda and exaggerations”. (1) I’m sorry, but I really am of the thought that the time for wild animals to be used as entertainment in a circus setting is over. I struggle to justify the existence of zoos to myself, let alone circuses that have little if anything to do with conservation and the preservation of species. Perhaps it was once the case that this was true, but it is now an outdated practice and I’m not the only one to share this view.

There was a time not that long ago, in early in the twentieth century, when the animal trade supplying circuses and menageries entered a decline because it was replaced by the entertainment that films could provide. And you’d think to some degree this would have continued – what with the potential for HD and new filming techniques to reform the way in which we view animals and allow us to observe them in their natural habitats, in a more unobtrusive way. Is there really a need to train animals for our entertainment? And what is it that still compels us as a society to be drawn to a circus to watch animals perform? I just don’t get it.

Coincidentally, this report came after another which announced that the largest circus provider in America, The Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, declared it would phase out the use of elephants in its shows, amidst growing public sentiment against it. You’d think wouldn’t you, that with such emphasis placed on conservation and the like, that this would have stopped years ago but there are so many more instances like this one where animals are kept and used for entertainment. It makes me shudder. I naively thought when first embarking on this project 3 years ago now, that the commercial animal trade was long gone. How wrong was I?!

Our relationship with animals is such a complex one and in this blog I’ve really just written a gut reaction to this news. It’s not well balanced or researched but highlights just some of the issues I engage with when doing my research. There are so many layers to a topic like this; you have to engage with the history, the legality, the ethics….. the list goes on. Yet, however much I am at times horrified by what I read, I am also fascinated and discovering the history of the exotic animal trade has completely changed the way in which I view the British Empire and its legacy.

(1)    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ban-on-wild-animals-in-circus-blocked-by-tory-backbenchers-10092779.html

(2)    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11453278/American-circus-will-end-elephant-acts-in-response-to-public-criticism.html

Flamingo or Ostrich? St Michaels Mount and the big debate

Having recently joined the working world, I haven’t been visiting as many historic places as I would like recently, but here is a little gem from my archive that I thought I’d share with you while we wait for normal service to resume.



Authors Own Photo

Let me start by posing a simple question; is the bird on the left a flamingo? Or an ostrich?

On a mini getaway to Cornwall earlier in the year, I found myself at the top of St Michael’s Mount staring at a stained glass image of what I was convinced was a flamingo. The shape and colouring of the bird had me convinced (allowing for artistic expression and that this is an old image whose artist may never have actually seen a flamingo before) and I was amused at how wherever I seem to go, I manage to find the exotic animal connection somewhere. So rather chuffed I went back to my friends and shared my discovery, only to be rather surprised when they questioned my identification – the remark, “that’s an ostrich”, sparking the beginning of an on going debate. Needless to say, we then all went and stood in front of the window trying to reach a definitive answer but could only agree that we’d have to do some further research and find the answer.

The Mount has an interesting history that dates back to around the 12^th century. It’s a site with religious roots, has been a location for historic battles, was once a trading port and remains the ancestral home of the St Aubyn family, as well as a small local community. It’s now also a popular tourist destination which tourists can reach either by walking out too it at low tide, or otherwise hop on a boat for a short cruise across the sea. But where exactly do exotic birds fit into this equation? And is it a flamingo or an ostrich?

St Michael's Mount
Authors Own Photo

The stained glass window is located in the room known as the ‘Chevy Chase’ and it would appear that also within the room is a 16^th/17^th century plasterwork frieze that depicts, rather unusually, the scene of an ostrich hunt. I will therefore have to admit defeat (Congrats Porge!), for it evidently seems more likely that my friend was correct and that the image was in fact that of an ostrich.

The evidence got more compelling when I then discovered that this very topic was the subject Karen La Borde’s PhD (2011). La Borde describes how the ‘imagery has long been interpreted as symbolic of the events of the early English ballad of ‘Chevy Chase’, hence the name of the room and through her PhD aimed to critically analyse this plasterwork frieze and add historical context. La Borde later suggests the work may have been that of Flemish artist Jan van der Straet who was born in Flanders in 1523. He drew inspiration from Roman frescoes and mosaics which also depicted the hunting of exotic animals, imported from all corners of the globe for the entertainment of the crowds gathered for gladiatorial contests. Animals seem to be a timeless interest/source of entertainment as here once again, we find evidence of human fascination with rare and exotic beasts.  

Authors Own Photo

It continues to amaze me just how often animals are evident within history when you start to look and how their depictions continue to reveal fascinating insights into human history. Whether it was intended as a flamingo or an ostrich, this simple piece of stain glass art sparked a discussion that only now, six months later, has reached a resolution.

Reflections on Our Zoo: A Follow Up

As promised I went away and did a little more research on the use of animals by production companies, and in particular those zoological collections who exist merely for that purpose. I will say now, that again I do need to do more research and that these are just thoughts on what I’ve found out since that last blog – they’re not definitive and neither are they completely well informed judgements, but hopefully over time they will be.

So, I didn’t really know what to expect. On the one hand (and perhaps rather optimistically) I had imagined a collection that was the best that a zoo could hope to be; the money they earn from supplying animals to television companies etc. being reinvested into animal welfare and provision within their own collections, or at the very least an investment into some form of conservation work. In my experience, those people who work with animals do so because they are passionate about wildlife and want to do all they can to help species survive; they want to be the best they can be at their jobs, in order to best help their animals. Then on the other hand, I expected something far from what I’d deem acceptable and that would reinforce that feeling of discomfort that had nestled deep in my stomach when watching that first episode of Our Zoo. Unfortunately, it was the latter expectation that was met, and while I wasn’t really surprised that that was the outcome, I have to say I was really disappointed.

I can’t help but think of one of the zookeepers I spoke to for an oral history interview and how he talked about how invested he became in his work, but also the commitment he had to various associations that monitored the standard of zoological collections nationwide. In the later stages of his career he invested so much time and energy into making sure these standards were enforced and that zookeepers were trained to know the best ways to look after their animals. Yet here we are, some 30 years later and things haven’t really changed. Some zoological collections can still get away with cramming big cats into tiny enclosures,  having nocturnal animals out in daylight and active because their routines have been disturbed and having vulnerable and endangered species that aren’t part of breeding programmes.

Again this is something I need to keep digging into to find out more about the legislation and regulations that are in place. It might well be that the problem is actually with the lack of regulations and not the direct actions of the zoological collections, but instinctively I got angry. Maybe the rules for private zoological collections are different, or maybe as a visitor we have different expectations now. Have our sensibilities changed? And now, because we visit them and we take our children, have the public become bigger stakeholders in public zoological collections, and do they plan with us in mind just as much as the animals?  Does what goes on behind closed doors not matter when we are not directly confronted with it? These are all questions I’ve been left asking myself because I just don’t understand how this is still acceptable and I don’t get why it’s still allowed to carry on.

There was an interesting article recently that compared the Zoo lates that take place at London Zoo, to a relic of the bygone Victorian age and their desire to reduce animals to spectacle and you can’t really deny that this mentally doesn’t still exist by some of those who work within professions involving animals. I think I’d been quite naïve to it until recently, and now I find my inner moral being questioning a lot more of what I see and hear.

I know there was anger earlier this year when the Queen’s Speech at the State Opening of Parliament omitted mention of the proposed ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses, that it was hoped would come into being at the end of 2015 and I just wonder why that was? I know it’s not top of the political agenda at the moment and there are more pressing issues at hand, but why does there seem to be this hesitation to do anything? Furthermore, why stop at their use in travelling circuses – I get that this will impact people’s livelihoods and change the way of life for people that might have been animal trainers for generations, but surely we are at a point where we need to move past this and those skills people have acquired through their careers utilised elsewhere and for the benefit of the wildlife.

The whole idea of animals being used for entertainment, even if born from the decline of the circus, is outdated. We should be looking elsewhere for sources of entertainment – animals are not put on this earth for that purpose. We should be teaching our children to respect wildlife and the benefits of promoting conservation – not “ooooo” and “ahhhing” as they’re forced to do tricks for a round of applause and chunk of meat!

And then I think about somewhere like ZSL Whipsnade which I visited on Sunday in order to be reminded of the positive work that zoological collections can do. ZSL has come under fire recently for its Zoo Lates and while its motives for holding those events are debateable, it is hard to deny the value of the other programmes and organisations they are involved with and the positive repercussions that come from that involvement. So a group of friends and I went along and had a really nice day. One of the things I like most about Whipsnade is the amount of space they can offer the animals, it’s never going to be as good as their natural environment, but unlike a number of zoos I’ve been too, there is a lot of space for the animals to roam around and to hide from public view if they want to.

And while there, for the first time for a long time, I actually sat and watched one of the scheduled ‘talks’ they hold throughout the day. On this occasion it happened to be the Sea lion one, which normally I would avoid because I don’t like to see animals used for entertainment purposes. It’s the same reason (well that and my fear of clowns) that I won’t go to the circus (I know you could argue this is the entire purpose of zoos – I am wading through murky waters on this one!). But on this occasion I figured that it couldn’t be as bad as I’d seen previously and I was right. The whole talk is built around a narrative that highlights the importance of conservation and looking after our wildlife. So every ‘trick’ is done with that in mind. Fetching hoops with fishing netting on from the bottom of the pool informed the audience of the danger to wildlife when fishing nets are just discarded into the ocean; picking up a plastic bottle and placing it in the recycle bin promoted an anti-littering message and highlighted the importance of recycling; and playing dead wasn’t shown for the purpose of entertainment, but is a ‘exercise’ taught to the animals for the purposes of animal husbandry and to allow keepers close enough to conduct checks on their animals, in this case ultrasounds if the animal happened to be pregnant, or to perhaps also check their teeth. After each exercise each animal was rewarded, but equally if a Sea lion went off and did its own thing, it wasn’t forced to come back (again as I’d seen previously) the keepers just adapted and carried on and that was a notable contrast to those who are taught purely for entertainment – after all time is money in that situation. At the end of the Sea lion talk the keepers remind you that your money helps with the upkeep of the animals at both Whipsnade and London Zoo and also helps fund over 50 conservation programmes with which they are involved and that is a really positive thing to be reminded of.

This whole topic is a complex one that is riddled with moral and ethical questions and I’ve realised to conduct research, I am sometimes going to have to do things that go against my principles. Visiting zoos is sometimes the best source of information but equally, can be a difficult experience. I will therefore continue to watch Our Zoo because I’m interested in the historical aspect the drama is trying to convey – but I will do that by sacrificing my principles because I don’t agree with the training of animals purely for entertainment purposes. In my opinion, to justify their existence zoological collections need to actively be demonstrating commitment to conservation and the preservation of endangered and vulnerable species. There should not still be a desire to ‘own’ animals for the purposes of your own entertainment or for commercial purposes – too many animals are at risk and efforts should be concentrated on encouraging future generations to assist in preserving the world’s wildlife and not viewing it purely for entertainment.

No doubt I will follow up on this blog once I've done further research.