Talk:Headquarters House (Boston)

Untitled
Article merged: See old talk-page here

Merger proposal
It was proposed by someone to merge a new, fledgling article about 54 Beacon Street into this article about 55 Beacon Street. Presumably they are across the street from each other, does anyone know? Frankly, i don't like the idea upfront. Both buildings are notable on their own; they have separate histories and construction and architecture, as far as i know. They should both be mentioned in the Beacon Hill, Boston, Massachusetts / Beacon Hill Historic District article, which covers the whole area. Collections of 2 or 3 buildings within the district do not need separate articles; it is natural to have the whole district and to have an article on each building that is individually notable on its own. Why suggest merger? doncram (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe 54 Beacon Street is one side of the same building, 55 is the other? If they were designed and built together and are side-by-side, then yes it would make more sense to consider merging.  Actually i have only seen the dollhouse model of 54 Beacon, which will not appear just like the building, so i am not sure what is what.  Could someone clarify which is 54 and which is 55;  perhaps they both appear in the picture here? doncram (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They do. It is one building. It appears on the architect's designs list as "54-55 Beacon Street". You are looking at 54 (entryway on the right) and 55 (entryway on the left). I am glad someone cares enough to raise these reasonable questions; thank you for doing so. By the way, there are no buildings opposite, only the Boston Common, thus the northern side along this stretch has both odd & even numbers. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Due to lack of further comment and reasonable passage of time, I am proceeding with the merger. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-name and otherwise revise to cover 54 Beacon Street
Merging the former, shortlived 54 Beacon Street article into this one is fine. Glad u just resolved the discussion and implemented it. However, 54 Beacon Street needs to be covered in the title and the article, because 54 Beacon Street is historic and has past residents and would merit an article on its own, I think, if it is not covered in the combined article.

If Headquarters House refers to the whole building, then addressing the 54 Beacon part of the building's history should not be hard, but the article indicates otherwise.

If Headquarters House really refers to just the one half of the building at 55 Beacon Street, then perhaps we do need two articles. Or the article name needs to be changed to something like:
 * "54 and 55 Beacon Street", or
 * "54-55 Beacon Street, including Headquarters House"

Perhaps 54 and 55 Beacon Street is the proper name to use, and the article could start something like: 54 and 55 Beacon Street is a historic two part building. Headquarters House, also known at 55 Beacon Street, is a U.S. National Historic Landmark....

Hope this is helpful. doncram (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings, Don. You pose a perplexing challenge.  The sources all indicate that 55 alone is the designated landmark, registered as HQ House.  The article is primarily about 55, with 54 mentioned in passing, reflecting a relative (and apparently absolute) dearth of available information on 54.  I have been unable to find anything further on it, and there may simply be nothing noteworthy to add.  Perhaps additional information could be unearthed through library research, but I am unable to devote time to that.  The former "54" stub didn't tell us anything about 54 per se, and was really a badly-titled start at covering 54-55, in apparent unawareness of the existing article here. [see postscript below] A new article just for 54 would probably be an exercise in futility.


 * Absent substantial content on 54, I believe the title should remain as it is, and perhaps it needs to stay unchanged anyway to conform with the registered name. (By the way, I have been unable to ascertain the origin of the name "Headquarters House".  If it was someone's headquarters, whose, and when?  Would you happen to know?) I would recommend leaving things be for now.  A redirect is in place, ensuring that anyone looking for "54 Beacon Street" reaches this article.  Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Oops, that was your article, and perhaps I misconstrued your intent in creating it; if so, my apologies. Your reference to "54 Beacon Street, also known as 54-55..." confused me, but also led to a closer look to try and sort things out, and that was beneficial. Having initiated that stub, you probably already know how little there is to say about #54 on its own.


 * If it is possible to say for sure, can you tell me whether the dollhouse in Auburn represents 54 only, 55 only, or the combined building? The way I have it may need to be corrected.  Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

House name
I wish I'd seen these above two discussions earlier. I'm curious about the term "Headquarters House". As someone who has worked in Boston tourism for years, I just don't think I've ever heard this reference before. Colloquially, as well as in all guidebooks and maps, not to mention on the sign on the door, this property is the William Hickling Prescott House. That name also appears on the official web site from the Colonial Dames. What is the source for "Headquarters House"? I am perplexed. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Possible explanation: The website in External links indicates that "the Massachusetts Society purchased it in 1944 as their headquarters." The people at national NSCDA or the museum might be able to say whether the house was once formally called "Headquarters" for that reason.  Also let me suggest that an e-mail or other message to the original editor might bring you the information directly as to why the article was so named. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping the post here would allow for more public discussion. WP:NAMING conventions seem to indicate that the most commonly used names are best for article titles. Having never heard "Headquarters House" before, regardless of what source uses it, I'd like to argue here that the title is inappropriate. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am a member of the group that owns 55 Beacon Street. 54 and 55 have no current connection to each other. The only thing that does connect them is that Asher Benjamin designed them and they were built for siblings. However, William Hickling Prescott is not connected to the original owners of these townhouses. He is the reason that 55 is an historical landmark. A big reason is that he named the Poinsettia.
 * Further, the title, “Headquarters House” should be updated to The William Hickling Prescott House. It contains some of his original furnishings as well as portraits of his family. To the best of my knowledge, 54 is owned by the Carmax family. Msk368 (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Headquaters House (Boston).
This former home of William Hickling Prescott (writer of histories of Mexico, Peru and Spain) has a comment ... Due ″to his blindness (caused by an incident during a bar brawl)″, is incorrect - even by the footnote provided (#4). There are other references that also state he was struck in the eye by a crust of bread while entering (or exiting the commons at Harvard. This is noted by biographers Ticknor, Gardiner and others. A bar brawl indeed. Harrumph. Ron Eddy redd1732@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.114.253 (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)