It was hundreds of years old and people liked the tree enough that it was featured in photographs and film. It's not terribly complicated.

To many in the region, it was more than just a tree. It was where they proposed, it was where they went to find calm during a tough period, it was where they said their final goodbyes to a loved one etc. To say the tree was iconic would be an understatement. It was a constant in a time of change and a place of undeniable beauty in a world of increasing shit. The kinda place you make a special trip out to once your kids are old enough and show them a part of their local identity, untouched by the passing of time.

At the end of the day, yes it is just a tree. But it is also a many missed memories being made and just one more destruction of something just a little special. It's no surprise people were speculating that some landowner or farmer was refused planning permission after it first happened. Because that is what we're used to, someone selfish taking away something that was just there because it was beautiful.

Read the article, it contain info.

Trees are only significant if you've seen them?

At a minimum, it was owned by the national trust, so in no way was it his tree to cut down.

Not sure why you are being down voted. You are asking for knowledge. Others have provided decent answers though. Again not sure why you are being down voted.