Skip to main content

Welcome to Clegg Hall

I get quite a few emails from people who have read my books, which are always very welcome, but occasionally I receive more random contacts, like the people who are researching their family tree, and want to know if I have any information about Tobias Clegg of Wardle b 1738, or something similar. Sadly I never do - I've haven't caught the genealogy bug. I don't even know the names of my great grandparents.

But there is one aspect of my name/local history attached to it that I do know something about. Near where I was born is a ruined manor house called Clegg Hall. This fascinated me as a child, particularly with its well-embellished ghost story, and I've researched the Hall a little since - you can see the details in the article I wrote on the subject.

This quite regularly results in my receiving emails about the Hall, though I am afraid practically everything I know on the subject is in the article.

One recent correspondent seemed convinced I owned it and was in the process of restoring it. Delightful though the idea is, sadly I've nothing to do with it - I don't even know if it's being restored. I hope it is, though. It would be a shame if it were lost forever.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Brian Clegg21 August 2011 at 17:23

    Michael Green wrote:
    HI I MY MICHAEL GREEN CAN YOU TELL ME IF PEOPLE CAN GO IN SIDE CLEGG HALL I WOOD LOVE TO GO INSIDE SO CAN YOU LET ME NO CAN SEND ME THE INFORMATION BY POST TO [Address removed]

    (PS) CAN YOU SEND ME SOME INFORMATION AND PICTURE OF CLEGG HALL PLEASE

    Hello Michael - I have removed your address as it is not a good idea to post your address online. I am afraid I have no connection with Clegg Hall or its new owners. You can see all the information I have about Clegg Hall (and photos) in this article: www.popularscience.co.uk/features/feat2.htm

    ReplyDelete
  2. Easty18 May 2012 at 18:33

    I can officially say Clegg hall is for sale for just less than half a million. Here are recent pictures of the hall and the interior. You might have seen it already. It's quite impressive.

    http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-29664967.html/svr/3108;jsessionid=2E4DB01BBD58BBF9C9484FE2E2157AFB

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg19 May 2012 at 10:00

    Amazing - and so cheap (if you have that kind of money). Don't like the interior, though - strange the way it's so open...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more