Talk:Palace of Versailles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history.	Architecture Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.

---

Contents 1 Early discussions 2 Photographs 3 Hall of Mirrors 4 Le hameau de la Reine 5 Cost 6 Lifestyles of the rich and unfamous 7 Het Loo 8 Missing picture 9 Neutrality still disputed? 10 References? 11 Additional Pictures 12 Would be Versailles 13 Poorly balanced article with major omissions 14 Château, it ain't a palace 15 Court etiquette 16 Toilet 17 Cleanup tag applied by User:Ganymead 17.1 Tourist directions? 18 1999 storm

[edit] Early discussions

Palais or chateau? Wetman 00:53, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The french government officials call it a chateau, and the Web site of this suburban manse is www.chateauversailles.fr.

If somebody wants to split hairs yes, it is technically much more than a simple "chateau" and deserves the term "palais". But palais is not the correct name for it in France. AlainV 04:04, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

The Louvre is a palais because it's in the city, like a palazzo. A chateau is a castle (even when it's very open to the gardens) in the country, like a villa. Goes back to Roman usage I think. In England there's only one "palace" besides royal ones (which are urban), and that's Blenheim Palace: part of the specialness of that national gift to Marlborough. In Germany there's the same distinction: you'd not find a palast in the country, no matter how grand. Schhloss means "closed up" like "chateau". I wonder if I'm right about Germany... we'll soon know... Wetman 04:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My guess, and this is only a guess, is that officially it is a chateau now because calling it a palais would imply that a French monarchy still exists, which it does not. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is still an issue even after over 200 years, as you probably know. -- Decumanus 04:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that the Monarchy is an issue nowadays. However, I think that it's called a château... because that's how the people called it in the times of Louis XVI! David.Monniaux 11:01, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The two thick multivolume encyclopedic dictionaries (Quillet and Larousse) I have on hand make no city-country distinction to characterize "un palais". On the other hand when I do a Google image search on "palais" I get nothing but images of buildings in urban settings, albeit with some spectacular gardens sometimes. AlainV 05:31, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

I've done some disambig at chateau and palace I think is historically accurate. Check for correctness and add to them please. Wetman 20:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to add a German section and a Russian section and a Swedish section, and so on to the chateau article, since Versailles ignited a chateau-building war among monarchs. Alas, I have to get a minimum of sleep before going off to work tomorrow (and take marmot-prevention measures on my little plot of land before that) so the three paragraphs I added at the end of the Chateau de Versailles article will have to do for now. AlainV 02:36, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)

Versailles is called in French Château de Versailles. On plans from the 18th century the name appears as Chasteau de Versailles, so this has always been the name that the French used for it. The word palais in French (word of same origin as the word palace in English) is reserved for offcial seats of power, such as a palais royal (royal palace), the palais des papes (palace of the popes), etc. This, I guess, comes from the fact that palais comes from Latin "palatium", which was the name of the palace of the emperor in Rome, seat of the government of the empire, name derived from the hill on which it was located, the Palatium. Now, back to Versailles: as shocking as it may be to many people, Versailles was actually NEVER the royal palace of France. It was the place where the king was living, but France being such a conservative country, the official location of the royal palace was not changed even after the king left to Versailles. The royal palace of France was Le Louvre, inside Paris, now the Louvre Museum. Until the Revolution, the Palais du Louvre was considered the official seat of the monarchy, even if it wasn't actually used. French kings were supposed to stay in Le Louvre for some days after they were crowned, and after they were married, as it was such a symbol. So clearly, in French, Versailles is just a château. Now in English, it really doesn't matter which word is used, as this is not, well, French. The word that should be used is the word that is most common in English to call Versailles. I checked in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 and they use "Palace of Versailles", so I guess this is the traditional way to call Versailles in English, the one that gained currency over time, and my view is that this word should be used, irrelevant of which word is actually used in French. Hardouin 03:48, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hardouin should work that into a note for the entry itself. (Imagine Palace of Fontainbleau!) Wetman 04:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs

The first two photographs are too dark... Don't we have better ones? Should I take my camera and photograph the château? David.Monniaux 11:00, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes! Pick a slightly hazy day. Get some details and the sculptures in the bassins with shots down the allees. Yes! Yes! Wetman 20:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hall of Mirrors

• Aweful article - far too short for such a famous building- there is not even a photograph of the Hall of mirrors; the most famous part. It is the equivalent of writing a short article on the White House and without including a photograph of the west wing! - 2006/Aug

How can a separate article for the Hall of Mirrors be useful without the Versailles context? How about Candlestands in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles? Wetman 07:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why not? There is quite a lot to be said about this Hall, and it is often mentioned as an entity. After all, there is a great article called "List of statues on Charles Bridge", so why not one about the Hall? olivier 03:46, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, yes, quite a lot could be said. And the Escalier de la Reine too perhaps. And in the garden, the Basin of Diana. Why not, there are Raphael's Stanze and the Sistine Chapel... And the Oval Office... But, at a certain level of reduction, information disappears. You can keep magnifying a map; at a certain point, useable information disappears. List of statues on Charles Bridge does stand out among Wikipedia's lists: it is a complete list. Wetman 05:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Hall of Mirrors is arguably the most notable feature of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles was signed there. It's been internationally famous since it was built. IMO the scope of this article is rather pathetic, given the reams of information on the subject. a Hall of Mirrors article is definitely justified Tenebrous 15:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Le hameau de la Reine

Yes, the most recent photo is better, but what we really need is a public domain photo which gives a good feel of the mock-pastoral village setting in which the Queen liked to play-act as a sheperd girl. Something with several buildings like this: http://lepaingi.free.fr/perso/14.htm Or better still, one of the period paintings: http://rocheville.chez.tiscali.fr/page7/page07.htm

 --AlainV 01:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cost

The statement: "Although it is unknown exactly how much Versailles cost to build because all the documents were destroyed, it is estimated that the cost was around 1 billion livre." was entered by someone wholly unaware that the minutely detailed archives of the Bâtimens du Roi as well as the Menus plaisirs survive and are known to everyone with the least passing interest in Versailles or the architecture and arts of France. The cost of the fringe on the stools in the Galerie des Glaces is known, the date of delivery, the craftsman responsible. Making stuff up like this is the equivalent of forging a signature. --Wetman 06:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Totaly agree. That's why I am deleting it now. Hardouin 11:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where is the "dispute" that has been flagged by User:Tenebrous in the article? --Wetman 21:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lifestyles of the rich and unfamous

"It's interesting to note that the marriage of the daughter of Lakshmi Mittal, the third richest person in the world, was held in this palace. The marriage has been famed as the most costly marriage ever, in the world." Does thisd add to a reader's understanding of versailles?--Wetman 12:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not one bit. There is no mention if the current Versailles museum organisation holds similar receptions, no mention of any date, no mention of where, in the huge Versailles grounds and buildings the mariage was held and which parts (did they just pronounce vows? Was there a reception?) of the mariage were held, no mention of how much the mariage cost and how much was paid to the Versailles museum, etc. etc. --AlainV 17:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Het Loo

Shouldn't the Paleis Het Loo be included in The Would-Be Versailles section?

Isn't it more like a country house than a Versailles? --Wetman 22:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing picture

The article has lots of good pictures, but it could really do with one of the garden facade. A couple of good interior shots would be an asset too. CalJW 22:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Would someone please remove the obscene comment at the very top of the page?

It's gone now. - Nunh-huh 00:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice that in the existing pictures the fountains are turned off. I've got some pictures of the fountains in action (taken by me in 1997). I can upload one of these if it would be useful.John Dalton 12:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality still disputed?

I think that there is nothing in the talk page about the neutrality of the "politics of display" section. Do you agree with removing the neutrality thing? Gakrivas 11:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• The magnificence of Versailles is so blatant that modern tourists are moved to inquire, "How much did it cost?"--a question they are never inspired to ask at Chartres. Unverifiable opinion.

• At Ulm, the townspeople built a cathedral so vast the entire population could stand inside it. This is relevant how?

• The question asked at Versailles is not a genuine historical question, for its subtext, often spoken, is "Was it worth it?" Pure, unadultrated POV.

• The anachronistic assumption underlying this curiosity about the "cost" of Versailles is the perception that it is a greatly expanded house on a royal scale. Even presuming that such an assumption is being made, calling it anachronistic is POV, and the point that is being supported is itself POV.

• Louis XIV himself lived there, and symbolically the central room of the long extensive symmetrical range of buildings was the King's Bedroom (the Chambre du Roi), which itself was centered on the lavish and symbolic state bed, set behind a rich railing not unlike a communion rail. Factual but not relevant to the argument.

• All the power of France emanated from this centre: there were government offices here; as well as the homes of thousands of individuals. By requiring that the noble spend time each year at Versailles, Louis kept them from countering his efforts to centralize the French government in an absolute monarchy. This is clearly answering the question of "How much did it cost?" or maybe the question was "Was Versailles more than just a residence?" Or maybe the question was something else entirely. How about this question: What is this section trying to say? And another: What should it say? I suggest that this paragraph should describe the various reasons for building Versailles.

On a different note, the French article on Versailles looks pretty good; I'll do some translation and see what we can include from there. Tenebrous 15:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm responsible for these rather sensible assessments. I'd better rephrase all these points, in the form of quotations from Pierre Verlet and other really obscure authors. It's hard to underestimate the level that is acceptable. --Wetman 03:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)--Wetmanr

[edit] References?

I'd love to see a good copyedit, references, and some inline citations. Content-wise, I don't think that its too far from FA.

A featured article under the title "Palace of Versailles"? --Wetman 20:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Pictures

I have taken a rather large number of shots of Versailles. I included a link to my gallery in the external links, but if someone wants to look through my gallery and choose a few pics, I would be willing to put them under a creative commons license, and upload them for use in the article. -- Gaijin42 gaijin42 May 12, 2006

[edit] Would be Versailles

The would be versailles section of the article is very long, almost 50% of the page. I think this should be reduced, removed, or reduced with the bulk moved to a seperate article. People are looking for information on Versailles, not other places throughout Europe. Objections to a surgical strike? Gaijin42 18:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Reduce, but don't totally remove. Versailles had a marked effect on various royal courts across Europe. When I think of Versailles, I think of a lot of things inspired by it, whether those are palaces or other buildings. I think it's important. Charles 18:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No objections to some reduction. CalJW 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have made significant reductions, I kept the intro, and the paragraphs that directly claimed provenance from versailles in tact, as the most relevant to the article. I cut the bulk of the fluff and history from the scattered palaces throughout Europe, if people want further information on those, they can read the detailed articles. I removed the referecnes to small palances and failed renovations in England. Gaijin42 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poorly balanced article with major omissions

The whole balance of the article was (and to a lesser degree still is) very bad. It was more like a personal essay explaining why Versailles was a jolly good thing than an encyclopedia article, especially the cost and politics of display sections, and some aspects that aren't relevant to the main authors theme are barely touched on. I am in the process of toning down some of the discursive material and creating some stubby new sections, but I'm not competent to do the extensive additions which are required. CalJW 14:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Château, it ain't a palace

I think that it is incorrect; Château is translated with Castle. A palace is a name only used for a Royad leading Residence in function; or the house of a bisschop. E;g. Royal palace of Amsterdam. In Belgium we do have the royal Palace of Brussels , but where the King and Queen live (private) we speak of a castle. In the Ancien régime, this was a Palais Royal (Paris), and the Louvre -Palace; but versailles was alway a Château, today it is called officialy Domaine et Château .. de Versailles. 213.224.74.30 10:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideas are translated rather than a word having one meaning. Just because we have castle and palace in English doesn't mean there has to be two words in French. In fact, I believe the distinction is that all castles and country palaces are châteaux while all city palaces are palais. Charles 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Court etiquette

I just added the stub section on court etiquette because I think it is an important aspect (rules of conduct, offices held by different nobles...) - Should this be treated in this article or has this already been treated elsewhere?Robin.rueth 23:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toilet

I was just watching a documentry on the History Channel and in it they mentioned that Palace of Versailles doesn't have a single toilet. I thought that unbelievable so I came here to confirm. As there's nothing in the article on it, can anyone confirm that there is indeed no toilets or have I been had. Kripcat 08:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In the time of Louis XIV, there certainly were no toilets... Chamberpots were used, if nothing at all. I assume that there are tourist facilities in the present days. Charles 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

From memory in 1997 there weren't any in the house itself, but there were some in the visitors centre underneath where you go in. It's a pretty vague memory as it was a long time ago. John Dalton 13:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag applied by User:Ganymead

no doubt we can expect momentarily some of User:Ganymead's requirements for this article that are not currently being met. --Wetman 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for not posting these sooner. I was so shocked by the state of this article that I applied the cleanup tag immediately. I'm glad, however, to see that there are some people here interested in this article. Here are the major problems I see with the article.

• There is no section on the history of Versailles. There are facts about its history scattered throughout the text but no coherent history. Glancing at the French article, it begins with the first mention of the town of Versailles in 1038.
• Further, there is no mention of many of the well-known treaties that have been signed and other events that have occurred here. (Ok, I did find the signing the treaty ending WWI, but it was located in an out of the way location.)
• The structure of the article is messy. Perhaps it might be best to structure this more along the lines of the some of the other articles such as the French, Spanish and Italian articles: It discusses the structure chronologically, metioning important features (i.e. The Chapel, Hall of Mirrors, Petit Trianon) as they were constructed.
• Notes need to be added. There are a few statements with "citation needed", though many more could be found that require citations.
• No sources are provided.

My time on here is fairly limited and those visiting my talk page will note that I'm still on wiki-break (I just can't stop visiting daily). I plan to do some work on this and I have some sources readily available, though. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 06:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are certainly fair areas to begin cleaning up. --Wetman 08:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourist directions?

Today, the wise visitor is standing at the entrance to the Grands appartements du Roi at 8:30, not to spend hours in line. By 11 AM the state rooms are as crushed as a Métro rush hour. Tour guides rally their groups with a handkerchief on a stick for visibility in the mob and project simultaneous commentaries. In the summer months, the royal appartements close at 5:30 PM, and the most knowledgeable visitor arrives shortly before 5, pays a reduced price, and is the last to leave.

I removed this paragraph from the post-royal monument/museum section because of its nature — it doesn't seem like what belongs here. Opinions? Nyttend 19:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1999 storm

Why isn't the 1999 storm mentioned? [1] Calbaer 03:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)