Talk:Blenheim Palace/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

John Vanbrugh

• A recent User was tempted to chop the Vanbrugh information out of John Vanbrugh and put it here. Reasons why not are at Talk:John Vanbrugh. The entry Blenheim Palace should certainly have a clear capsule version of Vanbrugh's role here, with a link to John Vanbrugh.

• This entry should also have material on the subsequent history of Blenheim Palace, the evolution of the gardens, Consuelo Vanderbilt as Duchess of Marlborough at Blenheim, the water terrace added by Achille Duchêne in the early 20th century, the Marlborough library and its dispersal at auction, the birth of Winston Churchill at Blenheim. There's plenty to add at Blenheim Palace --Wetman 02:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

April 2005 rewrite

It's great that there is so much new information with this rewrite, but please remember we treat to right from a neutral point of view. The current version is perhaps rather too glowing? Pcb21| Pete 09:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where specifically do you feel it's too glowing? Giano | talk 10:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On reflection may be rather harsh taking the article as a whole but compare the new "Blenheim today" section:

"Though the palace is today open to the public, and contains tourist attractions in the grounds, the atmosphere is still that of a mighty country house, which in essence it remains. The Spencer-Churchill family still dine on special occasions in the saloon, around the great silver centrepiece depicting the 1st Duke of Marlborough on horse back, that same piece that Consuelo Vanderbilt, a mere hundred years ago liked to call the "caché mari" (sic) because during dinner it conveniently hid her detested husband, across the table, from her view. The many residents of Blenheim have each left their mark on the palace, today it is as likely to be the set for a film, as a royal house party; yet is still manages to host both. It remains the tribute to the 1st Duke which both his wife and the architect Sir John Vanbrugh envisaged."

with the old "Blenheim today" section

"The current (11th) Duke of Marlborough resides at the Palace for much of the year. His private quarters are situated in the east wing. Much of the rest of the palace is run as a commercial concern with activities including tours of the palace and grounds with a maze, adventure playground, mini-train and gift shops, fishing, bottling of branded mineral water, corporate events and weddings. Concerts and festivals, such as an annual cheese festival, are also staged in the palace and its grounds. Activities are managed by Sodexho Prestige, a division of Sodexho."

I know the latter is a bit boring.... but I do feel that the former version essentially hides the fact that Blenheim today is essentially a big business run by a big business (Sodexho)... and replaces it with a more romantic vision.

Pcb21| Pete 21:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I see where you are coming from, I thought you meant the whole thing was POV. However, anyone can edit a page as you know, it's certainly not my private page. It should be noted though that Blenheim is still a "private residence" (albeit a very grand one where the public can pay to be admitted) and may still be treated as such by the Duke on a whim. Regarding your preference to the latter paragraph the only comments I would make are "Much of the rest of the palace is run as a commercial concern " is a little misleading, as the vast majority of the rooms at Blenheim remain private, the entire upper floors for instance are all in private use, as are also with the exception of the former "arcade rooms" under the library is the lower ground floor, and it is only some of the rooms, already open to the public, which are available for private hire. The grounds are not commercialised in the same heavy way as are those at Woburn Abbey for instance. I did not mention " Sodexho Prestige, a division of Sodexho" as I thought it sounded a little like an advert for them - presumably though they are employed (I don't know) by the Duke anyway. Whatever, the palace is still under the Duke's complete jurisdiction. I wanted the last paragraph to pull together some references from the preceding, I was also conscious of the article's length, so perhaps I pruned it a little too much. Regarding the length, I think all that is there is necessary to the article, and I hope nobody does start to chop it up, but there's not a lot I can do if that happens. Giano | talk 13:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have made certain changes to reflect Pete's comments. (No, I've not mentioned Sodexho, he can do that himself). While writing the changes, I was dumbfounded, horrified and distressed to spot an addition, amongst the elegant prose, inserted by Bishonen which needs to be referenced, as it may confuse the humourless, and students of sanitary appliances and other conoisseurs of baroque objects d'art. Giano | talk 07:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not touching any toilet paper holders. Interesting to understand your perspective on Sodexho - I didn't think of it as an advert - I more thought of it as illuminating the fact that "public" Blenheim (I appreciate your point that a lot of it is private still) is actually a big business managed by a big business (albeit with the Duke having ultimate authority) these days. There was certainly precious little quaint old England involved when I was handing over a fat cheque to hold my wedding there later this year. Pcb21| Pete 08:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You nutcases, I don't know whether to be deeply moved or frankly appalled that you saw the tphs and left them there. I've removed them, sorry for letting 'em sit so long. [/me goes off grumbling and muttering. "Just wanted to check that those guys were alert...putting "in" jokes in the article space...sheesh..."] --Bishonen | talk 10:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have a nice wedding, we could add a paragraph on it. One word of advice: One should remember when dealing with the British aristocracy, they have survived for a very long time, namely because they have no qualms about taking money from the less priviledged! Giano | talk 12:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both of the three

"It is unique in being both family home, mausoleum and national monument." is an incorrect use of "both" because it pertains to three things (not two) but I cannot remember the correct phrase. Please could someone literate fix this? --Theo (Talk) 18:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

"a triunity of" ? probably not, but its fixed anyway Giano | talk 21:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Name of 5th Duke of Marlborough

This article links to the 5th Duke of Marlborough (1766-1840) as Charles, 5th Duke of Marlborough. The article Duke of Marlborough links to the same person as George Spencer-Churchill, 5th Duke of Marlborough. Both are redlinks. Anybody know which is correct/better. -- Chris j wood 1 July 2005 19:15 (UTC) --why not just say "...used both as residence and moseleum, as well as national monument..."67.102.97.176 18:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

completion date

This doesn't make sense to me... Following the Duke's death in 1722, completion of the Palace became the Duchess's driving ambition. Vanbrugh's assistant Hawksmoor was recalled and designed in 1723 the "Arch of Triumph", based on the Arch of Titus, at the entrance to the park from Woodstock. Hawksmoor also completed the interior design of the library, the ceilings of many of the state rooms, and other details in numerous other minor rooms, and various outbuildings. Cutting rates of pay to workmen, and using lower quality materials in unobtrusive places, the Duchess finally completed the great house as a tribute to her late husband in 1722. ... how can both dates be 1722? Also the link to episcopal goes to bishop, surely that should go to episcopal. Madhatter1uk 16:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Both dates can't be correct - the point is now fixed, thanks - "The word episcopal is derived from the Greek επισκοπος epískopos, which literally means "overseer"; the word, however, is used in religious and architectural contexts to refer to a bishop" see Category:Episcopal palaces Giano 21:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Size

I would imagine Blenheim is one of the biggest if not the biggest- is there any data on this anywhere? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen it often claimed, though of course both Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are probably larger - Stowe too is pretty big - Woburn Abbey prior to the 1950s was a similar size - so it is probably contraverial territory. Giano 13:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose different ones could be larger in different ways- i.e. the amount of ground area covered by the main building, the amount of ground area enclosed by the main building, or the area of floorspace which would be more difficult to calculate I imagine. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want a cited quote: Historic Houses, Castles and gardens - "England's greatest house for England's greatest man" It was an advert for Blenheim though paid for by the then (10th?) Duke - so not exactly unbiased - but was published so you can add if you wish Giano 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks- it very often is referred to as the grandest- see this google search. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

add it if you wish by all means - I just think it is a little POV, and I can thinker of grander but again thatis my POV. Giano 14:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Pipe organs

There exists an article entitled The Pipe Organs of Blenheim Palace which has been nominated for speedy deletion (current version permalink). This contains two external links which I will include below for your consideration; I am recovering the article from speedy deletion and converting it to a redirect pointing at this article in case there is interest in composing an article to fulfill the title; I would suggest, however, that a subsection of the "Interior" section in this article be composed rather than creating a separate article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The external links:

• The Long Library Organ: Specification of the Long Library organ on the National Pipe Organ Register
• The Chapel Organ: Specification of the chapel organ on the National Pipe Organ Register

The redirection of this page has been reverted and the article expanded. Is there a 'work in progress' template I could use?--Vox Humana 8' 11:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

$2.5m in 1896 is how much today?

Reference: [1]

There are many different measures of inflation. The link above shows six: CPI, GDP deflator, consumer bundle, unskilled wage inflation, nominal GDP per capita and share of overall GDP. However, it doesn't make sense to measure inflation using CPI when talking about the cost of building a palace, because this cost is largely unrelated to the costs of consumer goods like bread, cars and iPods. However, building a palace is labour-intensive, and so the cost to build a similar palace today will probably scale with average unskilled wages. I calculate this to be $300m in 2007 dollars, which sounds like a sensible price for building such a large-scale building. Using the CPI produces a figure of $63m, which is surely too low. Rhebus (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

looks poor

Presentational wise this article is poor - it looks terrible. Perhaps it's a case of 'too many cooks'. Can someone please sort it out - make it look a bit more proffessional. Cheers. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I expect you are correct, too many cooks etc. You obviously have an eye for these things, or you would not have made the comment. This is a collaborative project, we do not say "Can someone please sort it out - make it look a bit more proffessional," we say: I will sort it out - make it look a bit more proffessional." Giano (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

reverting promotional text

I am going to largely revert the changes made in this edit (and this one) by IP 135.196.211.100 which resolves to mailserver.blenheimpalace.com.

The entire tone of the text is that of a tourist brochure, and they would do well to read WP:COI. Referring to the Duke as "His Grace" is also somewhat biased.

That is not to say that there is nothing of value in the edit, but rather than them putting the onus on the rest of us to sift through it working out what of it should be kept and what discarded, I think it is fairer to revert it and put the onus back onto them to come up with a revised version of their addtions which is more within the spirit of Wikipedia.

— Alan^✉ 07:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Number of rooms, halls, etc.. ?

Would be interesting to add this kind of information --193.152.158.39 (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Confused

Its construction was originally intended to be a gift to John Churchill, the 1st Duke of Marlborough from a grateful nation in return for military triumph against the French and Bavarians at the Battle of Blenheim. However, it soon became the subject of political infighting, which led to Marlborough's exile, the fall from power of his Duchess', and irreparable damage to the reputation of the architect Sir John Vanbrugh. Designed in the rare, and short-lived, English baroque style, architectural appreciation of the palace is as divided today as it was in the 1720s.[1] It is unique in its combined usage as a family home, mausoleum and national monument. The palace is also notable as the birthplace and ancestral home of Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.

What led to Marlborough's exile? The constrution of the palace? Marlborough's exile had little to do with Blenhiem Palace, and Sarah's demise had nothing to do with it. 16:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead (per MOS) is supposed to summarise the page. If you read on, all will be revealed. Giano (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation request removed

I've removed a request for citation from 2012 that was at the end of this sentence: "When Henrietta died, the title passed to Marlborough's grandson Charles Spencer, Earl of Sunderland, whose mother was Marlborough's second daughter Anne." The succession of the Dukes of Marlborough has been pretty well established in the last 300 years and I see no reason to call for a citation on it in an article on Blenheim. ~ Brother William (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. If someone is unhappy with that and the Marlborough succession, let them take it up with the College of Heralds. These days Wikipedia seems to be full of ridiculous people wanting cites for the blatantly obvious. Giano (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Blenheim"

The two pronunciations given were contradictory, so I added IPA and pronunciation respelling for the pronunciation given by the OED. The /ɪm/ ending was already reflected by the article and is the one I would hear locally near the house. I have also heard /əm/ elsewhere, possibly by analogy with places ending -ham. -moogsi^(blah) 20:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Image size

The size of the top image's width, takes up over half the article's mainspace widith. Per MOS:IMAGES (yes, I know it's just a manual of style), we should reduce its size. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Life would be so simple if a single set of rules universally applied in all situations. Unfortunately, there is no such nirvana, and common sense is required. The current image is fine. Rather than suggesting the size be changed because the rules say so, please identify an actual problem with this article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The image covers over half the width of the article. We're an encylopedia, not a photo album. GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem with subjective criteria like this, is that one man's (or woman's) photo album is another's well-illustrated article. Add to that that this article is about a palace and that it has to look, well, palatial, you get into conundrums of this type. Size does matter in this case. Palaces have to look big, so do their pictures. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• The whole point of this page is to demonstrate and describe the architecture and history of the building. That architecture cannot be fully appreciated if readers are prevented from viewing that architecture in the simplest possible way - a detailed image that's easy to see. One wonders what sort of people invent these ridiculous rules, and what sort of people spend their lives trying to enforce them. Giano (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No consensus to reduce image's size = keep (500px) status-quo. I hear yas :) GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)