Talk:Palace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


He has left out the palaces of Germany in the list, such as Schloss Charlottenburg in Berlin or the palaces of "mad" Ludwig II of Bavaria for instance, please add them.

I have had to return some bits of text to the well-meaning edit of 13 July which swept aside historically accurate text as "questionable claims" and substituted waffle as "reasonable tone". Without picking it apart in detail, I have included as much of the new text as was historically accurate. But indeed, the few non-royal or -episcopal palaces in the country are grand country homes etc etc unnecessarily obscures the point that Blenheim is the only non-episcopal, non-royal palace in England. A point worth making, because it sharpens the meaning of "palace". --Wetman 06:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've tried to work constructively with your points; but I've ended up removing a bunch of what you restored. Let me explain. First, there are lots of bishops with palaces — Lambeth Palace, Bishopthorpe Palace, the former Winchester Palace, the Bishop's Palace in Wells, etc. etc. Next, the Palace of Holyrood House isn't just Scottish — it's also Royal and hence it didn't need to be caveated in that sentence. Finally, I once again "waffled" with your last sentence — aside from the editorializing tone it seemed to take, I don't really get what was it trying to say. "The Crystal Palace didn't seem like the thin edge of the wedge; but in fact it was." Didn't seem like it to whom? How is the Crystal Palace OK but the Alexandra Palace an outrage? etc. Doops | talk 06:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The confident editor may be suprised to learn that the reason "there are lots of bishops with palaces" as the editor has apparently noticed, is that all bishops have palaces, because that's where the administration of the diocese is sited, because that's what palace means. A difficult point to make, it appears. The point of Holyrood being a palace is that it is Scottish, and Scotland is a kingdom, thus with a palace, because that's where the administration of a kingdom is sited. There's that same point again that seems not to have percolated through. When I return to sort this article later, I shall once again have the courtesy to spend time carefully editing rather than reverting. --Wetman 07:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry to be petty and make a big deal about this; but here is the text of that paragraph according to your edit of 02:29, 13 July 2005:
In England, by tacit agreement, there have been no "palaces" other than those used by royalty and the Archbishop of Canterbury. In this sense, the archbishop's "palace" is the center of church government, as the king's is the center of royal government. The Palace of Beaulieu, seemingly an exception, is none: Beaulieu gained its name precisely when Thomas Boleyn sold it to Henry VIII in 1517; previously it had been known as Walkfares. The Palace of Holyrood, it will be noted, is in Scotland, and when the Palace of Blenheim (illustration, right) was the gift of a grateful nation to a great general, the name was part of the extraordinary honor.
As you can see, this version — your version — contains an outright error with respect to the bishops; and the Holyrood comment is a complete non sequitur where it is placed. (Its context is an explanation of why Beaulieu and Blenheim aren't exceptions to the "royalty-only" rule; Holyrood is royal — and of course, being Scottish, doesn't belong in an England ¶ anyway...) Surely you will not argue that these two points didn't deserve to be fixed? When you got on your high horse on this talk page, had you even looked carefully at my edits? In mentioning these two fixes on the talk page, I was just trying to be polite and explain my edits; I wasn't arguing that bishops or Holyrood were counterarguments to your message.
Actually, let me point out that you appear to be heavily invested in that message (that palaces are, by definition, centers of administration). And of course, perhaps you're right about it! Yes, this idea has indeed percolated through, thanks; and I'm always glad to hear interesting ideas. But it really rubs me the wrong way for the article to have a heavily polemical tone; and dare I say that your edit of 2:29 prioritized your personal obsession (palace-as-administration) over good encyclopediacity (if I may coin a word)?
At any rate, I'll go through now and try to make sure that my edits haven't obscured the point about administration. TTFN, Doops | talk 07:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] request...

Can some please add something about the Grand Palace in Thailand in this article? Thanks. --Dara 23:59, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Gryffindor 02:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with German language

It says that in German "Schloss" and "Palast" are used. But the word "Palais" also exists, which is not the same as Schloss or Palast though. I think a differentiation is needed, does anyone know more about this dilemna and how we could solve it? Gryffindor 02:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Of 'Palais' and 'Chateaux'

The article points out that French makes a distinction between urban 'palais' and rural 'chateaux'. This is fair enough as a semantic distinction in French, but as the article is about palaces as that term is used in English, then surely the list of palaces should include Versailles, which is regarded as a palace in English. Is it correct to rigidly force the French meaning on an English-language article? Bathrobe 11:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rigid, perhaps. Certainly knowledgable. The "Palace of Versailles" English-language Wikipedia title is a minor gaffe among those who kinow better. It betrays unfamiliarity with the subject. What's the point of looking up something in an encyclopedia, if you aren't being given the actual distinctions, ones that have arisen out of their own history, which you find outlined for you? Doubtless, it would be reassuring to read a reflection of one's own casual chit-chat usages; but you couldn't move forward that way. --Wetman 23:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
But now the page is schizophrenic: as far as palace/palais/palast/palazzo is concerned, the page is all about making a point. It has a thesis. (I don't disagree with this thesis; but of course it could be argued that it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia page to have one.) It goes on, however, to cover palaces from other cultures around the world, where the word "palace" doesn't enter into things.
When you think of it, perhaps here's the schizophrenia: except for Europe, this article is about palaces. But where Europe is concerned, it's about the word "palace." (To be fair, I see that there's some discussion under "China" of the words involved there.) Perhaps there should be a § about the term, to which Wetman's point could be confined, and the rest of the article could be about the buildings themselves? (Including, arguably, Versailles.) Doops | talk 23:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Except for the history and development of the idea of "palace" in Europe, the rest is merely a list. My investment is in information: any enrichment or correction is enthusiastically awaited. Perhaps Doops will permit corrected information to stand ("perhaps there should be a § about the term"), and now add the history and development of the idea of "palace" outside Europe, thus curing any tendencies towards "schizophrenia". --Wetman 04:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Doops about the schizophrenia. In fact, I originally looked up this article after a visit to Europe in the company of some Chinese who were most curious as to which was larger, Versailles or the Forbidden City. These are comparisons that people make and they do make sense in their own way. It seemed strange to me that a comparison would be considered somehow 'invalid' because Versailles is a 'chateau' and the Forbidden City is a 'palace'.

However, I do appreciate Wetman's point that the distinction between 'palais' and 'chateau' is a knowledgeable one (the article certainly enriched my knowledge). I certainly don't advocate throwing it out. I merely felt that the list of palaces should include links to chateaux, such as Versailles, perhaps by splitting the French links into palaces proper ('palais') and 'chateaux'.Bathrobe 14:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uh, Luxemborg?

The writer forgot to include Luxemborg Palace. Wonderful place. Please add.

[edit] "Emir's Palace"

I doubt that the image of "Emir's Palace" from Syriana qualifies as fair use, especially as the image is not credited or labelled properly. 131.111.8.103 01:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Apartments?

Hello. I'd like to know if there's any interest in adding a section about "Royal Apartments" to this article? I've searched around a bit but I can't find a good page. The material is probably inappropriate for the Apartment page. For your convienence here's the google/Wikipedia search. Ewlyahoocom 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palaces in North America

I was wondering if maybe, under the 'palaces elsewhere' heading, we should add a refrence to the American continent in somewhere -as it was closely linked to Europe and its royalty...??? I'd like to add a little piece on Chapultepec Palace in Mexico. It had a history before Emperor Maximilian of Mexico and Empress Carlota, but they made it into their official Palace in the 1860's during the Second Mexican Empire. It is the only dwelling built (or remodeled... ; ] ) for Royalty in the Americas. Let me know...Cali567 10:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Editors of this article forgot to provide reliable references for this article. Please add them. Squash Racket (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)