Talk:Buckingham Palace

discrepancy

From the intro paragraph: Buckingham palace is the unofficial London residence of the British monarch. From the second paragraph: Buckingham Palace finally became the official royal palace of the British monarch on the accession of Queen Victoria in 1837. Is it the official Royal residence, or not? User:Blaxthos 21 April 2006

Vandalism. RV. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A better word to use than official in the context of Victoria's occupation may be permanent. I quote: "The first reigning Sovereign to live there was Queen Victoria, and it became the permanent London residence of the Royal Family after her accession in 1837." (n.a. The Guards, [Norwich: Jarrold Publishing, 2005. A Pitkin Guide. Originally published by Macmillan in 1972], p. 17) Note however that this book also uses the label "official" for St James's Palace in 1698 (p. 16), and also observes "Today the Queen has a number of homes, both official and private" (p. 16) - -- FClef (Talk) 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Stuck?

Just wondering if you have any information about a girl getting her head stuck in the bars of buckingham palace about 30 years ago or so (give or take a year or two). I got stuck there as a little girl and wondered if there is any information posted anywhere with pictures?

security

This needs methion of security problems and the 2003 "Party". Plus cerimonies carried out at Buck House. Rich Farmbrough 09:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

titles

Regarding editorial changes of Emperor to Tsar, both titles and Czar are equally correct. Giano 15:38, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

do my project for me

I AM DOING A SOCIAL STUDY PROJECT ON BUCKINGHAM PALACE AND WONDERING IF YOU COULD HELP ME OUT WITH SOME RESOURCES, ANYTHING WOULD HELP, I AM IN THE 6 GRADE SO PLEASE MAKE IT EASY FOR ME.

You have made a good start by looking here for information on Buckingham Palace. Wikipedia is a resource, and finding resources is part of the lesson you are learning. That's why we will not do your project for you (especially making it "easy" for you) but we are glad to give you encouragement. --StanZegel 05:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have the definitive book on the palace "Buckingham Palace" by John Harris, Geoffrey de Bellaigue and Oliver Miller. Published by Viking Press INC, New York 1968. Library of Congress catalogue card no: 62-23206. That covers all aspects of the history of the site, construction, design, works of art and paintings. Try and obtain a copy from your local library or perhaps cheaply on Amazon. If that's no help email the palace itself and arrange for them to send you a copy of their smaller guide book, I think its about £7.50. If you leave a message on my talk page, I will check a fact out for you; but I don't have the time (or inclination) to write the study for you. Giano 08:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However do not cite or use Wikipedia as a source for your paper. If you have a decent teacher, he/she will not accept it. Wikipedia is extremely unreliable and should never be used for a documented source. What you should do is scroll down to the references section and obtain reliable information from websites that are not "freely" edited. Anon edit by User: 65.97.8.47

Please do not start a long thread here on this subject. The matter is being discussed with here [1]. Please make any comment there. Thank you Giano 13:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace for featured article?

This page is an important British subject. I would like to bring it up to featured article standard, even if its not featured, but it desperatly needs photographs of the interior, and the garden front that are not copyright - abybody have any? Anybody have any old palace debutante photographs, or anything connected with court life in the palace? Also any suggestions or help in improving the page welcome. I think information should be confined strictly though to the palace as a building, its own history and its function as a royal palace Giano 08:49, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've added the throne room pic which I obtained, with permission, from www.destination-uk.com, which doesn't mention crown copyright. However, if ALL interior pics of the palace are crown copyright then I guess it would need removing. Craigy 04:26, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering

...whether there are already articles (I had a brief look and didn't see any) on the various staff at the palace and castle, eg: Fendersmith, Timekeeper, and so on. Exploding Boy 20:13, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

There's articles on the Lord Chamberlain and the Master of the Horse but there are others which would be good to see - I'm sure there used to be a Yeoman of the Cobwebs or something like that? ♪ Craigy ♫ 03:26, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Exploding Boy 21:23, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I would be glad to help in this effort, but I have to admit that I do not have much knowledge about these positions. -- Emsworth 21:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah me neither. But if we can come up with some way to organize them I think that would help. Perhaps we could start with a list, but what to call it? Probably it would be best to have some kind of generic thing rather than focusing on Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle... Exploding Boy 22:48, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've just added to a table to Master of the Household if that's worth looking at? Craigy (talk) 18:52, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The list would have to be called HM The Queen's household - just one of the useless things I know, but "HM" will be a problem in certain quarters as will capitalizing "T" The and "Q" in Queen. I know nothing other of the subject, and its not my field. So count me out. Giano | talk 21:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Giano, don't you certain quarters me, it's the capital T, that's all. Craigy's table looks very good, but it's indoor staff only, I guess? No Keeper of the Queen's Swans and such. Bishonen | talk 00:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

No fear Bishonen, I'm onto it ;-) It's just the Keeper of the Swan's is part of the Lord Chamberlain's office. Craigy (talk) 17:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ministerial salaries

There was an anecdote in the article which was based on the belief that ministers were unpaid in the 1920s. This is quite wrong, as they have always been paid. Historically MPs were not paid, but salaries were introduced in 1911 [2]. Ministers used to be better paid than they are now. I can't find confirmation of MacDonald's salary as Prime Minister, but I don't think it changed for centuries. If I recall correctly from reading his biography, Pitt the Younger's basic salary was £10,000 a year (though substantial extras were still available at that time), and that was also Churchill's salary in 1944 [3]. Going back further than Pitt, ministers made vast fortunes out of their offices (see Duke of Chandos, as well as most of the leading Tudor courtiers). Inflation and changing attitudes to corruption eroded the income of ministers in relative terms, but £10,000 a year in the 1920s was still double what the Prime Minister earns now adjusted for inflation, and maybe eight or ten times what he earns now relative to average incomes. Cabinet ministers were also paid thousands a year. If the anecdote is not entirely apocryphal, it must relate to some Labour MPs who were not ministers, or other Labour Party or trade union officials. If the anecdote is to be restored, it needs a thorough rewrite, and references. Honbicot 04:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• According to Twentieth Century British Political Facts 1900-2000 the Prime Minister's salary was £5,000 per year from 1831, increasing to £10,000 in 1937 and £14,000 in 1965. Secretaries of State got £5,000 from 1831 to 1965, increasing to £8,500 in 1965. After that the changes became much more rapid. --Gary J 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I added a better version of the 1710 picture. It would be nice to have a picture of the rear facade of the current palace. CalJW 13:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Dimensions De Palais De Buckingham De ==? == je fais un projet sur le palais de Buckingham, mais je ne sais pas les dimensions de lui. Svp aide! Merci � l'avance.

It should be noted that the depication of the South Wing on the plan of the Principal Floor is wildly inaccurate, to the extent of entirely missing out the Ball Supper Room. Comment not signed by GKL

• Which is why the plan was uploaded with the definition "Unscaled and simplified room plan of Buckingham Palace". The object is to present the shape, layout and placement of those rooms of the palace, mentioned in the article. It is not an exact and precise plan of the palace and does not claim to be. There are whole areas of the plan where no rooms at all are shown, this is because in those areas are minor rooms of no interest to the article, as is The Ball Supper Room. Please feel free to ammend plan and page with any information you have. Giano | talk 20:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• The Ball Supper Room is one of the largest State Rooms in the Palace and is used an awful lot more frequently than the Green Drawing or Throne Rooms, and so is most definitely not a 'minor room of no interest to the article'. GKL

• This is a free to edit encyclopedia, you are welcome to make any additions and edits you think will improve the article. Giano | talk 22:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Glitches

There was a significant repetition of text which I have deleted. There was also a howler about most American presidents having stayed in the Belgian Suite. Oh really? Andrew Jackson? U.S. Grant? Theodore Roosevelt? Herbert Hoover? Franklin Roosevelt? Harry Truman? John F. Kennedy? Lyndon Johnson? Well, who? George W.Bush. Surely George W. Bush is not "most American presidents." The trouble with articles like this one -- or any biographical articles on kings and queens -- is that it's so easy to allow the Women's Weekly brigade to co-opt the discussion and fill it up with silliness. Masalai 08:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

BP Plans

Hi, my name is Andrea Crociani, I'm a visual artist currently doing an MA in Fine Art at Saint Martins College, in London. I'm doing an art project about Buckingham Palace and I need the plans of the building. Anyone can help? Giano on this page wrote about the book "Buckingham Palace" by John Harris, Geoffrey de Bellaigue and Oliver Miller. Does it contain any plans? Other titles? Thank you.

Yes it does - many plans but they all very antiquated and out of date. - they do not show the Blore wing at all. The plan on the article here is something based on those, and others given in the "BP" official guide book of 2000. GKL has intimated he knows where the plans here are incorrect, so I suggest you leave a message in his talk page. In the current political climate you are unlikely to find a very detailed modern plan of BP anywhere. If I can help further please leave me a message on my talk page Giano | talk 19:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Room tallies 1850/today

There has to be something wrong with this sentence: "Following the last major extension in 1850, the palace consisted (as it does today) of 19 state rooms, 52 principal bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices, and 78 bathrooms." It is next to impossible that the number of bathrooms with that high in the 19th century, or that it hasn't increased since 1850. It is also very unlikely that the staff accommodation hasn't been rearranged, probably by decreasing the number of bedrooms and making some self contained flats. Without a source I can only guess, but the form, "The palace reached its present dimensions in 1850. In the early 21 century [? source needed] it has 19 state rooms, 52 principal bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices, and 78 bathrooms" sounds more believable. Honbicot 09:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I expect you are right on that. I have amended and sourced with a footnote [4], to remove any ambiguity. Giano | talk 14:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be that the 19 state rooms is the but that hasn't changed. Rich Farmbrough. 23:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead photograph?

There seems to be a difference of opinion between myself and User: Arpingstone [5] of which photograph should be in the lead. this one Image:Buckingham.palace.london.arp.jpg taken by Apingstone, which shows the palace at an angle, or this one Image:Buckingham Palace, London, England, 24Jan04.jpg which has been on the page for some time and shows the full front straight on, and to my mind shows the architectural symmetry and scheme of the Victoria memorial. My view is that the latter is the most suitable image for the lead; but being wikipedia we have to, quite rightly, have a consensus, we also have to bear in mind this is a very high profile, much edited, page and a featured article, which is why I view the traditional full on picture as the correct one - So any comments? Giano | talk 08:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the original head-on image (which, I accept is not entirely level, but it is pretty close, shows the formal architectural symmetry much better, and I like the moody sky) rather than the view from off to one side (which does not show the Victoria Memorial, has a perspective that slopes off alarmingly to the right, and has more intrusive foreground clutter). I very nearly reverted myself, but wanted to see what others thought too before doing so. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think of the angle of the building so much, but I prefer the pic with the Victoria memorial because it's more attractive as a design element on the page, IMHO. It draws the reader in to greater interest, with the almost unearthly look of the memorial itself and the subtle pastels of the sky. The "sloping" exists but is a nothing issue, I agree with ALoan there. From the history and the FAC discussion, it looks like it was Giano that designed and illustrated the page as a whole, and I'd like to congratulate him on his sure eye and taste. That's not to say no images can be changed, of course, but I'd need a good reason to want to mess with the arrangement as it is. Frutti di Mare 11:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

I've just uploaded a non-sloping version of the image. Worldtraveller 12:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you upload it to the page, I can't see it on your recent edits - I tried to do it myself but it came out pixelated! Thanks a lot Giano | talk 12:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Did the upload on commons so it's not visible in my contributions here. Caching issues mean the new image might not show up in the article immediately but I purged the cached version of the page so it should be there now. Here's links to the old and new version on the commons: old, new. Now I look at it the rotated version needs sharpening - I'll see what I can do. Worldtraveller 15:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the reversion to a sloping, grainy, slightly off-focus pic if that's what the majority want. I'm very surprised that the writers above want a poor quality pic at the article's start. However, having contributed about 2000 pics to articles, I can afford to lose on this one! (By the way, the comment "The "sloping" exists but is a nothing issue" comment is wrong. Sloping pics are not a non-issue, they make the pic look very amateur) - Adrian Pingstone 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Delighted to meet you too, Arpingstone, what a nice guy. Frutti di Mare 15:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

Frutti, silly comments like yours have no place here. Let's talk like adults. I'm not sure what you were trying to say about me but luckily "what a nice guy" is entirely accurate. Seriously, my comments about the picture are totally sincere. I do truly believe the pic is too poor in quality for a lead but, like I said, I'm not going to cry in a corner if the poorer one remains. Incidentally, my opinion would be identical even if I had not taken the pic - Adrian Pingstone 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was trying to say your post was notably ungracious, Adrian, sorry it wasn't clear. Especially your implications that everybody else who has chimed in is an idiot (or "silly", perhaps?). Everybody — except you — actively "want[s] a poor quality pic", makes comments that are simply "wrong", and so on. Maybe I caught you at a bad moment. I'll take your word for it that you're a nice guy deep down. Frutti di Mare 20:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

Yes, the technical aspects of the other image are better (less sloping, although as noted above, there are hardly two parallel lines in it due to perspective; sharper; better focus); however, the composition is not as good, and that, surely, is more important for an illustration? The technical defects are much less apparent with the small thumbnail in the article than on the full-blown version, by the way.

Now, if you have the time and inclination to take a non-sloping, sharp, focussed face-on image of the palace, like the original but better, then be my guest! -- ALoan (Talk) 13:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying "Arpingstone's" photograph is of inferior quality to the one preferred, and I think it does him little credit to publicly criticise another photographer's work. Especially as that Uploader has probably uploaded with the intention of helping the project, and I for one am glad that he did. It appears that so far the contributing editors opinion is that the shot of the palace in the original photograph suits that article better. It may well be in the future that another photograph will be better still. At the PX size required for the page there is little difference in quality between the two anyway. I think the important thing here is to agree, be civil, and above all keep the page stable. This debate can continue for an indefinite period, I am just keen to keep the page stable and at a high standard. Is that the revised image there now? to be honest I never noticed the slope - perhaps I have a lop-sided head! Giano | talk 17:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Giano, how can I comment on a photo unless I say why I don't like it! Was I supposed merely to say "I don't like it" and leave it at that. Immediately someone would have said to me that I must give my reasons! In any case higher up in this discussion I've twice said that the other image can be used and I'll kick up no more fuss. It's unreasonable to say I should not publicly criticise another photographers work, how do I non-publicly criticise and yet everyone can read my writings? My part in this discussion ends here so over and out from Adrian - Adrian Pingstone 17:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Largest

About Buckingham Palace beeing the largest working Royal Palace in the world. I believe the Stockholm Palace is a bit larger. --Dahlis 14:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Stockholm Palace is humungeous, but I'm not sure about the "working", since the royal family doesn't live there any more. They moved out to Drottningholm Palace some years ago. I do see from Stockholm Palace that it still counts as the "official residence", but, well, I would hesitate to call it "working" in the sense that BP is. Bishonen | talk 13:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC).

According to the official site, the opening hours are "Subject to change in conjunction with H.M. The King´s official duties", which would suggest it is still being used. Also found this link which claims "With 608 rooms, the Stockholm Royal Palace is the biggest palace in the world still used by a head of state - King Carl XVI Gustav", although I'm not sure how reliable that source is. jacoplane 10:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I put in that it was the biggest in the World still working. I've forgotten which of the references it was in, I'll look it up and then inline cite it - then we can also mention that Stockholm makes the same claim. Giano | talk 12:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Air conditioning?

Has Buckingham Palace ever had air conditioning installed? Davez621 11:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read this but I don't know if it's been implemented yet. Craigy (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I spent a week working at the palace, when I was there I asked a question about the ventilation and was told that the structure of the palace itself cannot be altered (putting in air vents). So I would believe what this article says. Henners91 06:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

British monarch

Buckingham Palace is the official London residence of the British monarch (or sovereign). The Queen is also the monarch of the Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Fiji etc etc etc. Yet no mention of the fact that is the official London residence of their monarchs. British-centric article. The opening line should disqualify it from being a featured article. --210.86.74.82 03:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Queen, as sovereign of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. has official residences as monarch of those countries in those countries (in Canada, it is Rideau Hall). Contrary to your assertion, it would in fact be anglocentric to claim that the Canadian Queen has an official residence in the UK, in her capacity as Queen of Canada. Fishhead64 05:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace has served as the official London residence of Britain's sovereigns since 1837. From the official site; you may want to have a word with them. --Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured article?

Is it just vandalism or is there a reason all of this article is now a stub? Where is the info? There is only one sentence.

Oh, it was vandalism. Silly me.

Question: how many rooms in the Palace?

Resolved

How many rooms are there in the Palace? Also, I'm wondering if some other stats could be added to the article? --Sumple (Talk) 11:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not always an easy question to answer, even for the larger rooms - see the room tallies section above. But when does a large closet become a room; is a void a room; when does a room with an arch or central columns become two interconnecting rooms? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• It says somewhere how many rooms there are - I remember putting it in. Has some vandal removed it? Giano | talk 12:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• No! It is still there: "The last major extension to the palace was in 1850. In 1999 it was stated [2] the palace contained 19 state rooms, 52 principal bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices, and 78 bathrooms" Giano | talk 12:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah ok. see it now. It's... a little hard to find... --Sumple (Talk) 23:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Egh

Looks like a giant haunted mansion or a prison. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.64.134.36 (talk • contribs) .

I don't know about that, but the pre-1913 facade was much nicer than the current one. Charles 22:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What a retarded comment lawl 217.44.154.159 09:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends on which bit you're talking about. It's a very varied building. Henners91 06:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

What a wonderful article - informative, well-written and engaging. Congratulations to all who worked on it to bring it to FA. Tony Fox 20:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A new lead image?

Image:Buckingham Palace, London, England, 24Jan04.jpg

Image:Buckingham Palace - May 2006.jpg

Image:Buckingham.palace.london.arp.jpg

As I had added a new lead image and was promptly reverted and directed to the talk page, I feel it is time to bring up that ol' issue. We have two or perhaps three candidate images, if Adrian's previous image is considered. My argument is this, and I happen to agree with Adrian previously, in that the current lead image is not straight, sharp or detailed. Some argued previously that the lead image had the benefit of being front-facing and showing the facade, but I'm not sure this is the most important thing. It makes it look extremely messy, particularly since a significant proportion of the building is obscured, particularly the guards and the sense of scale affording by the guards. It does have a slightly more interesting sky, which I admit does work in its favour. My image does not include the facade, but it is extremely high resolution (14 megapixels and downsampled from ~30-40 megapixels), is straight, perspective corrected and shows only Buckingham Palace without distraction from the crowds and the fence. Lets face it, the Palace itself is the focus of this article. Open for discussion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

On pure first impression, I'd go with Image:Buckingham Palace, London, England, 24Jan04.jpg. Better angle and puts the palace in perspective with its surroundings. DJR (Talk) 11:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer the current one (Image:Buckingham Palace, London, England, 24Jan04.jpg) too. However, as you say, Image:Buckingham Palace - May 2006.jpg, gives a nice unobstructed view of the front elevation, with the guards adding a sense of scale - we should add it somewhere (perhaps replacing Image:Buckingham.palace.london.arp.jpg?), but not in the lead. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer Image:Buckingham Palace - May 2006.jpg. There are no distractions and it gives a good sense of the mass of the palace. Charles 16:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Buckinghampalace.jpg

• • This one from commons is quite good too... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• I much prefer Image:Buckingham Palace, London, England, 24Jan04.jpg, it's beautiful in colour and well-composed, and decorates the page as well as illustrates it. Diliff's point about losing the scale afforded by the guards is well taken, but I don't agree with the other objections to this pic. A part of the building being obscured by the memorial doesn't matter, IMO, since the building is so symmetrical: we "see", from what's on the other side, what the obscured portion looks like. Image:Buckingham Palace - May 2006.jpg is a good picture too, and would work better than either of the (truly messy) remaining two. However, "extremely high resolution" is a non-argument as far as the appearance on this page goes. All those theoretically available pixels won't make it look any better, when it's displayed this small. Bishonen | talk 17:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC).

In a way, the foreground clutter in the other two is the point: the first shows how close pedestrians and traffic can approach; the second illustrates the relationship between gardens, memorial, gates and palace reasonably well, I think. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• The lead image needs to be the most easily recognised and iconic view, which is the full on "big house at the end of The Mall" i.e. Image:Buckingham Palace, London, England, 24Jan04.jpg. We already have at the bottom of the page the angled view - why do we need another at a similar migraine inducing angle? Giano | talk 18:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Two questions

1. This is an excellent article. I do feel it is a little long and unwieldly, though, and there is some subjective writing. Should I clean some of this up?

2. There is a short article called Buckingham Palace Gardens which should be merged with this, I feel. However, the Buckingham Palace Gardens article should be shortened (much of its material belongs in [[Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II], Party at the Palace and Prom at the Palace. I will propose this.

But such merger cannot take place till this article is a little shorter itself. I think the Gardens article belongs in here.

Comments, please? -- FClef 21:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for raising your proposal here first before making major changes. This is a featured article - which areas do you think are long and unwieldy, or subjective, and how do you propose to clean them up? Secondly, given that this article is already "long and unwieldy", why do you think more content needs adding to it? Arguably, Buckingham Palace Gardens should be expanded instead. (Feel free to copy content from there to those other articles, though.) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for swift reply. I realise, Having looked at Giano's talk page, that you guys are "big guns" and obviously don't want to tread on any toes (grovel, grovel). This IS a seriously good article and I say that as a fan of London history. Let me give a couple of examples -

1. Redundancy - though I know there is a subtle diff. of meaning...." It has been a rallying point for British people at times of national rejoicing, national crisis and national grief. " Cut two of the "national"'s. 2. Nounal structures rather than active verbs: "The last major structural additions were made in the late 19th and early 20th Century, with the addition of the large wing facing east towards The Mall, and the removal of the former state entrance, Marble Arch, to its present position near Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park. " Suggest go to active verbs: "when the large East Front facing The Mall was added, and the former state entrance, Marble Arch, was removed to its present pos......" 3. Repetition: The first sentence of the Q. Vic. section occurs in the second paragraph. 4. Citation needed: documentation is great on the whole, but the "it has been said" bit in the first para of the Q Vic section needs citing I feel. 5. Some writing not at the level of the ealier sections - e.g. in World War II the Queen Mother "made her famous quote" ...you can't "make a quote". Suggest: "famously said:...."

I think I possibly feel the article to be a little subjective because it moves from history and architecture to court life, aristocratic minglings and anecdote. But this may be unavoidable.

I feel if some of the wordage were cleaned then the B. Pal Gardens article, which appears to be an un-developable stub), could go in, say at the end. Some of the stuff in B. Pal. Gdns. already appears in here. I have been to B. Pal . about 8 times now and have rarely heard the gdns referred to as BP Gdns. Internet search does not yield much on that label either. It may be misleading to speak of B. Pal. Gdns. Equally, because this is such as self-contained article and obviously so well established, I realise that such merging the article may not be right.

Shall we carry on this discussion on this talk page or move to mine or yours? I suspect we should meet here so that other contributors can join in. -- FClef 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re subjectivity - I feel that this does creep in in what I would call the anecdotal section (i.e., the rather juicy court gossip coming up to present day). Here is my suggested reworking of the debutantes' section: "Debutantes wore full court dress, with three tall ostrich feathers [DELETE: held precariously] in their hair. They entered the Throne Room, curtsied, performed a choreographed backwards walk and a further curtsey, while [DELETE: perilously] manoeuvring a dress train of a prescribed length. The Queen felt this ceremony, which corresponded to the "court drawing rooms" of earlier reigns, to be elitist and antiquated [CITATION?], and replaced the presentations with [DELETE large and frequent] palace [SUBSTITUTE Royal] Garden Parties [Capitalise initials], to which a [DELETE more varied] cross- section of British society is invited. The late Princess Margaret is reputed to have said of the debutante presentations: "We had to put a stop to it, every tart in London was getting in" [3]. [QUESTION - how do you square this with the foreoing assertation that the presentations were 'elitist' and antiquated] The Throne Room today is used for the reception of formal addresses such as that given to the Queen on her jubilees. [I don't understand the foregoing sentence] It is here on the throne dais that royal wedding photographs are taken. -- FClef 22:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Big guns [blush]. Well, all of your changes sound good to me - it is too easy to get too close to the text to seem improvements. I am still not sure about merging in Buckingham Palace Gardens - but, hey, this is a wiki - edit away! I'm sure someone will complain if they don't like your changes. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly it is The Garden of Buckingham Palace, note garden is in the singular, Buckingham Palace gardens sounds like a housing estate, the Court Circular always refers to The garden of Buckingham Palace. I think there needs to be some mention of the garden here, but a lot of the stuff here could be dumped elsewhere. This page is always growing and growing, with many edits of dubious quality slipping through. It probably by now needs a complete re-write and refering back to FAC, but I'm not going to propose it! Giano | talk 12:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Edits underway and urgent REPETITION problem

Removed last line from intro "It is commonly refered to as 'Buck House' as this was already mentioned in the first paragraph.

Hello, all. I've commenced some - hopefully constructive - rewriting. Have added a subsection for Garden section.

SOURCES: Why is The Strange History of Buckingham Palace not among them? I would like to add it, for I think there are some echoes thereof.

I've identified one aspect of the unwieldiness. At the beginning, the second and third paragraphs represent a summary about BP's history, some bits of which are repeated verbatim in the relevant parts of the History section. Certainly one of the occurrences must deleted, but which one? (hmmm.) Comments, please.?

(Incidentally, I attended Trooping the Colour yesterday and was outside the Palace afterwards...it was magnificent, especially the Welsh-flavoured music  :-D ) -- FClef 20:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to meet the criteria of a Featured article, the lead (introductory section) has to be a prescribed length, and also summarise the content of the article, therefore a certain amount of repetition is going to be inevitable Giano | talk 21:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification and I bid you goodnight (01:36 local time) -- FClef 00:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Court Dress ("court ceremonies")section of Buckingham Palace article

Hi - I believe that Giano has mentioned before that the article shd be confined to history and architecture (forgive me if I have wrongly ascribed views there...). In that connection I wonder if you agree that the whole section giving details of Court Dress - under the "Court ceremonies" section - should be moved to Court uniform and dress? I realise a point is being made about the relaxation of attitudes but the section does seem out of place - what do you think? -- FClef 01:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have just done an edit, changing the reference at the top of this section in the article from court dress to court uniform and dress. Reason: the article court dress apepars to be confined to courts of LAW - whereas court uniform and dress deals with Royal courts. I think a disambiguation page is needed. Additionally, court uniform and dress requires cleanup. -- FClef 01:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)]

Disagree totally with the idea of moving that section. Buckingham Palace is not just a building. It carries a number of meanings. If you want an article just about the building, then create an article called Buckingham Palace (building). This article is about a broader topic than just the building. Court dress is an important part of the topic and has to be included. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with FearÉIREANN which is why I wrote the court dress section, it is all part of the history. Incidentally it should be court dress, women do not wear court uniform.Giano | talk 06:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with both of you about BP not being just a building, etc. Re the title court uniform and dress I know women don't wear uniform but refer you to my reason given above. Would you like me to reverse that edit notwithstanding? :o) -- FClef 19:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Relocated picture in History section

I have moved the image down one paragraph since a recent editor added a para about Blake House (which predates Goring House) at the top of this section. However, if you feel it looks cosmetically better at the top of the section, feel free to revert. -- FClef (Talk) 11:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Regency Style

I was disambiguating 'Regency', and came upon the line "Many smaller reception rooms are furnished in the Chinese regency style with furniture and fittings brought from the Royal Pavilion at Brighton and from Carlton House following the death of King George IV". I have no idea what to do with this version of the word 'Regency', because we have no article for 'Chinese regency' or 'Chinese regency style' (although Table of Chinese monarchs does list some periods when a Regent was in power), and Google searching for that only comes up with this article and its derivations in other internet sites (and about five other sites total). At this point I'm not touching it, but if somebody who knows what that means could do something with it, I'd appreciate it - if it's not touched when I finish the disambiguation run, I'll probably just unlink it. --Mnemeson 21:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a specific form of Chinoiserie so you can safely dab there untill the happy day there is a specific article on the subject. Giano | talk 22:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful and rapid reply :) --Mnemeson 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead image (again)

Image:Buckingham Palace, London, England, 24Jan04.jpg.

Image:Buckingham_Palace_and_Victoria_Monument_-_September_2006.jpg.

Diliff, I really appreciate your attempts to find a "perfect" image for the lead section, but I am afraid that the new one it not it, for me.

For my money, the old image is better than the new one as the main illustration for this page. The new one is clearly better from a technical viewpoint (focus, pixels, etc); shows the Victoria Memorial well, while avoiding the issue of part of the Palace being obscured by the Memorial; and has some people to give a sense of scale; but it has some distracting tower blocks in the background. The old one still has the, IMHO, critical advantage of being a square-on image, rather than a perspective image from a viewpoint off to one side, and is also has a more interesting sky.

The main objection to the old one seems to be that it is "grainy" and "slightly off-focus", and that there may be too much foreground clutter obscuring the base of the palace facade. As I said before, if you can take a new one from the same position without the technical faults (or, ideally, from a slightly elevated position, to reduce the foreground clutter) that would be excellent. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Complete agreement with ALoan's points, the full square on, image from straight up Tha Mall, is the almost iconic image recognised all over the globe, ask most people for a instant mental image of the palace that is what you get. The other one is very clever etc, but it does not do it for me. Giano | talk 11:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can appreciate your thoughts, but the existing image isn't really looking straight down the mall anyway, its just slightly more straight on than mine. I don't think that you really get a good view of the palace at all from straight down the Mall anyway (see here for example - obviously it isn't the best image either, but thats basically the view), as you get people, traffic lights, street lights and a big monument and statues blocking what is actually the subject in question (the palace). As for taking the same photo from an elevated position, that is basically impossible without access to a helicopter or a crane. As I said, I can appreciate your comments but I don't think that the 'iconic' view isn't necessarily the best view. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the "old" version not being exactly straight on - I would guess it is something like 85°, or possibly 90° but from slightly right of the centreline, whereas your new one is about 60°. But the old one is much more straight on, whereas the new one is clearly an much more oblique perspective. I wonder what the view is like from, say, the top of Admiralty Arch. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all. Just throwing in my 2 cents' worth. Diliff, I've consulted your page and you're obviously a good photographer. But on this occasion I agree with ALoan and Giano. Although the colours and composition are pleasant, the September 06 image has glaring distractions of the high-rise buildings on the left. (This may be due to the angle of the photograph.) One could argue that the view is "true to life", but most people looking at the Palace are focusing straight on and generally their view does not take in those highrises. Another problem with your pic is that the balcony, the central feature, is hard to pick out. Therefore I vote for the other pic, which, although somewhat cluttered, gives a sense of the massivity of the structure and shows the iconic balcony off to advantage. I suggest it be restored to the Lead section. -- FClef (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Diliff's image. Not only is the orignal of a very low res it boasts a very busy and distracting street. Diliffs handles the Victoria Monument better as well IMO. I acutally kinda like the skyscrapers there - gives an interesting perspective on it - like Buckingham Palace is grand and all, but the sky scrapers is almost better! --Fir0002 09:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the street is distracting on the original pic. But Diliff's image shows the front of the Palace plunged in shadow and the architectural features are hard to make out. Additionally, the foreground is shadowed as well. The flowers and road look nice, but it does not show off the Palace so well. -- FClef (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have a few points to make in relation to your criticisms.. Firstly, I don't really think that a single building in the background constitutes a significant distraction. Also, if you actually view the two pictures at 100% size (as anyone should do if they are actually interested in seeing details), you will see that my image shows the balcony and all other elements of the palace in FAR greater detail, as the resolution is much higher. Although the palace is in shadow in my image (I'd like to revisit at sunrise, rather than sunset, as I think the lighting would be far nicer and lighting the front of the palace), I don't think it obscures any detail, and from the angle of my image, you can see that the Palace is far larger than its tourist/mall-facing facade, which I think is actually extremely important, as that side of the Palace, however iconic it may be, is merely one quarter of the palace in total. To portray it as only the front-facing side is very misleading. I can respect everyone's opinion, but I do think that some of the points raised are not very strong. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I entirely accept the point that you make about resolution and image size, but I expect 90% of viewers will only see the image in the article - they will not click through (twice) to the full-definition version. Please don't take any of our comments as strong cricitism of your image - it is just that the pros and the cons of the two as the lead image for this article still me to prefer the old one, despite its recognised faults. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about my points not being "strong" - I am only a writer/editor who has worked in B. Pal and contributed (hopefully) a measurable amount to the Buck Pal article. Also, being not a visually oriented creature and a complete technophobe (ALoan will support me on this), I didn't know that you could view things in 100% size. So having done that, I see what you mean. It's a nice shot but I basically concur with ALoan's last sentence. I have seen your other shots, incl. of Sydney and they look great. -- FClef (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Peppered with demands for citations

I have fixed some mis"corrections" but I have left the article peppered with and a running barrage of aggressive and clearly hostile commented-out challenges on numerous minor points. If a printed source contradicts some of the mainstream assessments in the article, by all means let us add it to the References and edit in some sourced alternative views on that basis. But this behavior is perfectly transparent tasteless harassment, and someone should speak up. --Wetman 06:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more Wetman. I have removed most of the inline comments, and cited where possible the demands for cites. However, I refuse to add a cite in order to justify calling a Yeoman of the Guard's uniform anachronistic - if people cannot work that out for themselves then they are probably not reading wikipedia but "Janet and John". I gave removed large chunks inserted by other editors of facts that I know and suspect are true but I have no way of meeting the demands for citations demanded. I have removed one whole section because it was uncited, and rewritten the final section to provide a readable conclusion. IF the people on FARC want more than this then they will just have to de-feature it - because the article will suffer even more as a consequence. Giano 13:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The rm of graphic reconstruction is an improvement, IMO. Could "BP" in the last ref be clarified? For consistency, Rose and Blaikie should be moved from Notes to References and pp assigned to their cites. And there's one last hidden comment on Vermeer.

The article has been kept. Marskell 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So I would espect Marskell. Please feel free to make the changes you suggest. Giano 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? Marskell 18:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Rose and Blaikie should be moved from Notes to References and pp assigned to their cites. And there's one last hidden comment on Vermeer" I sorted the Vermeer most of the paintings have a temp. spell in the gallery at one time or another - you can make the other changes. Giano 18:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Added Internal Links

I have added Internal Links to this article. Kathleen.wright5 16:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Jamie 1982 [6] - Oct 2007

I have made these edits [7] mostly stylistic and grammatical to the recent edits by Jamie 1984. I have left the information on the page as I know it to be true. However it should really be cited. As this information is not generally known that may be difficult. I removed the section detailing the Queens's intended destination for her diaries and that her lights are the last to be turned out as this may not be the case. If this page is again nominated for WP:FARC then if this information remains uncited then it must be removed. Giano 12:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Jamie, I have just made these small changes to your latest edit [8] However, are you quite sure the room contains two four poster beds? Also are you possitive the furniture is Renaissance - perhaps you could explain exactly what that is? Please ask for help if you want assistance citing any of this information. Giano 15:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Jamie, I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of this article [9] it is not to discuss the Queen's, un referenced, dietry habbits but to be a page about Buckingham Palace, its history and architecture. Ypur information is very interesting but would be better placed on the Queens' owm page where I'm sure it will be welcomed. So I am reverting it from here. Sorry. Giano 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• There is begining to be a limit even to my good nature [10]. Giano 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive? or misdirected?

User contributions (Special:Contributions/Kellyknowles2007) raise the possibility that this is a new account opened specifically in order to disrupt editing at Buckingham Palace.--Wetman (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it is a sock of the above. Who has been editing and adding "inside information" I did question him about this some time ago and ask if he was supposed to be doing it [11], he now seems to want to remove it all. I have removed it for him [12] it was all unreferenced and should have been, so it is not really harming the page. Hopefully we won't be seeing anymore of him - if he wants it oversighted (removed from the history) he had better leave a request here and then email his reasons (which I can imagine relate to his future employment, the Royal household take a dim view of the staff "talking" about even trivial stuff like this) to the appropriate person. Giano (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

you are correct and i was informed taht information must be removed by an assistent to the master of the household.it is indeed fine to talk of state rooms and official rooms in the palace but to talk and mention private facts about the queens personal rooms is indeed against the rules.even though certain books have mentioned and clips from documentrys shown.however this is only snipets and to write full information is wrong.i was advised to remove what i had added which was done with no harm intent simply i thought it would provide a insight to the private rooms not seen at the palace.sorry for any trouble and im glad its removed.the rest of the page has been looked over by staff of the master of the household to see the type of info on here and it all is above board bar certain bits which have now been removed.