In his valedictory address as inaugural president of the Historic Houses Asso-ciation, Lord Montagu gave a bravura account of his five years in the role. Over the course of those years, he said, a mixed economy approach to country houses had been adopted. No longer was the government at odds with owners. A true partnership was now in place, involving the triangulation of the state with, on the one side, an emboldened and growing National Trust, and on the other the private sector. The formation of the association was essential to the working of this heritage triumvirate; it was, after all, “a coherent and effective lobby to represent private owners … a body representing the private sector which the State could itself consult.” It was in the best interests of private own-ers to keep their houses and to pass them on to their successors. It was equally in the government's interests for this situation to prevail. Therefore, the gov-ernment needed to avoid constantly changing the rules relating to taxation: the “altar of fiscal egalitarianism” that dictated draconian new capital tax policies needed to be shunned if heritage was to survive intact. It was hard enough living in one of these houses, Montagu argued, let alone being bled dry by the tax authorities for the privilege. The government needed to make concessions, or else owners would simply give up the ghost. After all, Montagu went on, “we know the hardships of living above the shop – how much more comfortable we would be in a smaller, warmer house.”

With these words Lord Montagu effectively summarised the existential dilemma faced by those responsible for privately owned country houses. These places were lived-in family homes. Yet their ongoing survival was also dependent on those houses being active places of business, whether as tourist attractions or as hospitality venues. Living above the shop was a practical necessity for anyone born into the life of a country house owner. Owners wanted both to maximise their business revenues and minimise the impact that business activity had on the day-to-day lives of them and their families. They could not depend on direct help from the government: which government, after all, would see their mission as being to enable the owners of stately homes to maintain their lifestyles?