Talk:Blenheim Palace

• 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)

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)