|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nonsuch Palace article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Ownership of Nonsuch Palace
In its article Sir Thomas Pride, Wikipedia states that he purchased Nonsuch Palace. His tenure does not appear in Wikipedia information about ownership of the palace, set out under the heading "Through the Ages". Given his place in significant events of the time, his ownership adds to the story of the palace. Something to be updated ? [User: John Pride] 23 February 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The fall of Nonsuch
Barbara, Countess of Castlemaine. She had it demolished from 1682 onwards. -- Is this supported? Why would she demolish a palace? It is thought the palace burnt down, why is this not mentioned? Tubusy 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Barbara Villiers dismantled the palace and sold the masonry to pay off her enormous gambling debts Keith Hazell 21:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Keith, that's very interesting... but there must be more to that story. Have any good references for this? (Further to the linked article.) (The property would have been of priceless value compared to it's pieces, but had it burnt down it may make more sense that she sold the remains.) Either way, the fall deserves further detail. Tubusy 22:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- John Dent, a borough librarian of Epsom and Ewell, wrote a book, The Quest for Nonsuch, first published in 1962 [2nd ed Hutchinson 1970, ISBN 0091051401], that provides a great deal of information on the palace and the excavation, including this. Maybe there was a fire first then sold, can't remember but will try and get the book Keith Hazell 19:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Origin of name
The name refers to Henry VIII's egotistical drive to stump the French king's own conceited fancy the Château de Chambord in that 'no such palace' exists anywhere like it or is comparable. Twobells (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Is calling the remains of the palace "ruins" somewhat overstating what can still be seen? There is nothing there except markers placed by recent archeological investigators. I think "ruins" suggests at least some walls or foundations visible to people the public.22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)