Talk:Cliveden

Untitled
I am not Wikipedia Savvy enough to edit pages, but a major error on this page is that Cliveden Estate is most definitely in Buckinghamshire, not Berkshire. Cliveden borders the Thames, which is the border with Berkshire. Cliveden is on the east bank, clearly within Buckinghamshire.


 * I see where the confusion has arisen: Cliveden is in Taplow parish, which is in Buckinghamshire but has a postal address of Maidenhead, Berkshire. I'll amend the links accordingly. -- Francs2000 | Talk  14:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Dealing with the local council always involves starting with the same ten minutes of conversation, explaining that you really do live in Bucks even though you have a Berks. postcode, while they they check before doing any dealings with you. The villages of Taplow and Hedsor have this problem, as I am sure many others nearby do also.

Duke of Westminster
Anyone know when he bought the house? He only become Duke in 1874, so if he bought it before that, he bought it as Marquess. Petsco 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Info box
If this page must have an info box, does it really need to tell us that the place has parking, refeshments and a shop? It would be an odd sort of 5 star hotel if it did not serve refreshments, offer parking and try to sell something. Even so, this is information for a tourist/travel/advertising site - not Wikipedia.  Giano  19:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My inclination would be to delete it all together as redundant. By the time one has scrolled down to it the relevant info has already been conveyed in the lead para (as a lead para should). And it looks ugly :) Nancy  talk  19:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yerse, I agree, but one author has expanded the page, so his view should be listened to and given priority on this. I'm of the view that it's courteous to say the principal/main authors/maintainers want them they can have them. I've only looked in because something (not the info-box) caught my attention - nothing more.  Giano   19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Clocktower??
The 100-foot (30 m)-tall clock tower, which is actually a water tower (still working to this day) was added in 1861 by the architect Henry Clutton. Then why is it shown in the 1851 picture of the second house? --76.105.145.143 (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The image, which is a chromo-lithograph taken from Morris's Country Seats shows the 3rd house (1851) not the second house. The water/clock tower was added in 1861. This lithograph dates from the late 19th century, so therefore can show both elements. Hope that clears things up.Clive5den (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Cliveden War Cemetery
I have added text on Cliveden War Cemetery, within the grounds, in section Astor era, to complement the photo of the memorial statue allegedly modelled on Lady Astor, cited to the CWGC.Cloptonson (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Spring Cottage and the Profumo Affair
The section on Spring Cottage concludes by stating that "the Profumo Affair...led to the fall of the Macmillan government." I don't think such a direct causal link can be made, certainly the main article on the Profumo Affair does not attempt to do so. I would suggest something like,  "the Profumo Affair which so damaged the reputation of the Macmillan government." I'll make the change in a few days if it isn't opposed. KJP1 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cliveden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161011005616/http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/766108.2 to http://www.nationaltrustcollections.org.uk/object/766108.2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110822074700/http://www.rhs.org.uk/Gardens/News/Maze-at-Cliveden to http://www.rhs.org.uk/Gardens/News/Maze-at-Cliveden

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Cliveden as a major NT visitor attraction
This whole section, re-produced below, seems to have some significant problems. Firstly, it is completely unsourced. Second, the tone is promotional throughout: "rose dramatically", "Cliveden was transformed", "an inspired intervention", "much needed family friendly headline attraction". And this in the first four sentences. To be blunt, it reads like it's been written by Cliveden's management. If it is needed at all, it needs rewriting from a NPOV and citations throughout. KJP1 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Between 2008 and 2014 the number of visitors to the gardens and wider grounds at Cliveden rose dramatically. Over that relatively short time period the number of visitors increased from around 180,000 per annum to in excess of 400,000 per annum. Cliveden was transformed into one of the National Trust's busiest pay-for-entry properties.


 * The restoration of the Astor maze was an inspired intervention, providing the gardens with a much needed family-friendly 'headline attraction' that was also historically authentic in that setting. The 'Dolls House' cottage in the Water Garden was converted into a cafe, providing conveniently located visitor facilities adjacent to a new Children's Play Area, the literary-themed 'Storybook Play Den'. To ease the pressure on the formal garden areas, restoration work on the Round Garden was accelerated to provide a new attraction in the wider parkland and a natural play trail was added in the woodlands. The grass in the central walkway of the Long Garden was removed and replaced with artificial turf better able to cope with the wear and tear of very high footfall. Also within the formal gardens the Jellicoe Rose Garden was restored to its former glory, providing another historically authentic feature to boost Cliveden's 'pull' as a visitor attraction.


 * To help facilitate such rapid visitor growth and also to ensure high standards of environmental compliance, a new sewerage system was installed that connected much of the estate for the first time to the public foul sewer via a new pumping station on Spring Drive. This major strategic infrastructure project, although somewhat lacking in glamour, was an absolutely vital element in the Trust's effort to build Cliveden's capacity to host large numbers of visitors into the future.


 * Today NT Cliveden hosts over 500,000 visitors a year. On busy days up to 4000 people may visit which puts considerable pressure on the available car parking space, there being no rail stations within close walking distance, nor a bus service to the property. At such times the estate may close temporarily to further visitors until the on site situation eases.
 * Ideally it should return at about 1/3 the length, minus the peacock. Shouldn't be too hard to source. Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. In terms of providing a full and up-to-date story of Cliveden, the current article would in my view benefit from detailed coverage of three particular aspects of the property's recent history: a) Cliveden's rapid (and indeed remarkable) growth as a visitor attraction over the last decade (achieving the status of one of the National Trust's busiest pay-for-entry properties), b) the new Cliveden Village eco housing development on the site of the former hospital and c) the recent multi-million pound restoration of the South Terrace. The new section removed by KJP1 is a well-meaning attempt to address the first of these important topics. It was not written on behalf of Cliveden's management. It is certainly not intended as a promotional piece and indeed highlights the current car parking capacity challenge faced by Cliveden on busy days and the lack of convenient public transport links. Everything mentioned in the removed section is factually accurate but yes, citations are needed (where these exist - presumably drawing heavily on articles in the press as I am not aware of any books that cover the recent period in question). The hope was that by getting the bones of the story into place, other Wikipedians would step in to assist in that regard. In terms of length, there is no filler in the removed section. Every sentence provides at least one new piece of relevant information. I trust this response is informative and addresses your concerns. With best wishes.Timetraveller1 (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - No problems at all with the suggested topic additions. But they need to be cited, and they need to be neutral. While you may not have intended the section to be promotional, I think the examples I quoted show that it was. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

National Trust pilot
Hello! During late June, July and some of August, I'm working on a paid project sponsored by the National Trust to review and enhance coverage of NT sites. You can find the pilot edits here, as well as a statement and contact details for the National Trust. The second stage of the project, after an assessment period, is to try to address missing references on the pages for some of the Top-10-most-visited properties, of which Cliveden is one. I hope to start this work shortly, but please do let me know if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The pilot was extended by 10 days and I am beginning work to improve the Cliveden page today. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)