A question of money

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

And for the rest the National Trust exists. An organisation that exists to rescue the brain dead from the consequences of their own mismanagement. As long as they were born to the right family of course. After all, it is not their fault, centuries of inbreeding have brought us to this .
That was meant tongue-in-cheek, so immediate apologies to anyone upset by it. I realise there are instances of genuine misfortune amongst the tides.

Despite the disclaimer, these remarks really are insulting.

However, while I agree with the aim of the National Trust (preservation of very important buildings) and I can see the historic links that families have to the ancestral pile ("wot-wot"), I can't quite get my head around the moral ambiguity of why a charity should fund people to stay in their own home when a similar family in a different house gets no such support.

Two things: the NT (or the NTS) isn't a charity. It is a not-for profit trust whose sole purpose is the preservation of the nation's architectural and rural heritage. It does not "fund" people to stay in their homes; rather, in some instances, a family may desire to stay on in one wing or in a cottage on the grounds, but this is a matter of negotiation when the trust acquires the property.

IMHO the Trust should simply offer to buy said pile for an approriately large sack of wonga, and if occupancy is desirable, rent it out to a nice nouveau riche essex footballer and his WAG who may even end up looking after the place better. After all the original ancestor of the family was probably a Yahoo too.....

Certainly in Scotland the NTS does rent out many of its properties, from the grandest castle (the Seaton Tower at Fyvvie Castle) to some of the smaller houses-- like Hamilton House in Prestonpans. Houses, great and small, owned by the NT/NTS always fare better when occupied, hence the reason for allowing those owners who want to stay the opportunity to do so, and for renting out other properties. As far as Essex footballers are concerned, by and large they have little or no interest in owning, or living in, a large, rambling pile, miles from the nearest trendy restaurant.

Back to the original question, for those who still own the family castle, Jock and Macmillan have pointed out how it is done, basically as inventively as possible, with your fingers in as many pies as you can. One of the best examples of the type (the business model as it were) is the Marquis of Bath, who has part of his house open to visitors, has a safari park and a tv program about said park amongst other things. His estate is called Longleat. As a bonus the guy is absolutely, endearingly, completely barking mad (and is a fascinating character). For example he wanders around his stately home painting 60's psychadelic style murals on the walls. He has had 74 "wifelets" (He feels it is insulting to call them mistresses or concubines). Also, I love this quote about how he embarrasses his kids, mentioning his daughter Lenka:
I would love to know, from a purely curious point of view of course, how he first broached that subject (and I don't mean the handbags) with his wife.....

Setting aside Bath's obvious eccentricities and artistic forays, which he confines to a few rooms in one wing, he is a nice guy. Longleat is privately owned, and like Lord Montagu's place, Beaulieu Abbey, it was amongst the first of the "stately homes" to turn to commerce in an attempt (successful) to pay off the massive inheritance tax levied on the estate by the government.