Talk:Hougoumont

2005
From the second paragraph: ... second battalion of the regiment of foot guards, part of General Byng's Brigade of Guards ...

An earlier version capitalized foot ("Foot guards") in the first portion, and then guards ("brigade of Guards") in the second portion.

The phrase "foot guards" seemed to refer to a type of regiment, not a particular regiment, so I decapitalized the word foot in my recent edit.

Brigade of Guards may be a proper name; I capitalized brigade in my recent edit, but that may also be incorrect.

Someone more familiar with the forces that participated in the battle would be better-equipped to determine which of these should be capitalized, if any. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Warpflyght (talk • contribs) 02:49, 18 July 2005  (UTC)


 * The edits seem fine to me and as the original author I am glad that at least one other person has read it :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 08:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The Foot Guards and the Brigade of Guards are proper nouns referring collectively to the guard infantry portions of the British Army. the Household Cavalry is the proper name for the mounted portion of the guards contingent. Winterbadger (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Having looked further at the use of "Brigade of Guards, I changed and the other instance of Anglo-Allied infantry brigade titles to reflect what seems to be common practice in histories of the campaign--to refer to "Xth (nationality) Brigade", since each contingent (British, KGL, Netherlands, Hanoverian) used the same numbers. I also took the liberty of consolidating the references to which units were garrisoning the farm. The sources I had disagreed as to who was posted three where. Nofi suggests that the Nassauers were posted there the night before the battle and the Guards added in the morning, but Hofschroer says the Nassauers were sent over in the morning and were the first troops to actually be situated in the house and grounds, thought he Guards were nearby. He quotes the Nassauers' commanding officer, who also indicates the buildings had already been loopholed and ammunition stockpiled (presumably by the Guards).Winterbadger (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The farm is called Hougoumont. Thundercloud 14:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am rereading Victor Hugo's 'Les Misearables' In his description of Waterloo he indicates that the origins of Hougumont were by an old saxon lord Hugo. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.10.31 (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Where Kellerman's III Cavalry Corps pulled into the Hougomont attacks? I'm not sure - I thought they were a reserve unit that was ordered to join the massed cavalry charges on the Allied centre late in the day. Kellerman's Cavalry may have been positioned close to Hougoumont but what would they be doing attacking a farm via an orchard?. Sherbethead —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

etymology

 * The name "Hougoumont" is derived from "Gomme Mont" which means "Gum hill".

I'm skeptical of this; is there a source? The words gomme and mont are French but combining them in that order is very un-French, and the first syllable is unexplained. —Tamfang (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done for snubbing the 'gomme Mont' etymology, the name Waterloo should be a wakeup call to even housewives has it belies any French etymologies to Southern Brabant now known as by its imperial designition 'Walloon Brabant. Imperialistic little Francophoners love spiking English language wikis. Belgium is sadly and lazily misseen through Francophone eyes. They are oft bold about spiking English language wikis coz they are used to their twisting and spinning blighting history and and truth without hinder. They didn't even bother trying to defend what they said - coz they don't normally ever have to. Well done again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.127.247 (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See below. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Closing of the gates at Hougoumont
It would be nice to display an image of the painting Closing of the gates at Hougoumont by Robert Gibb -- PBS (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but there are several paintings of the topic. There was a very well known Victorian picture, widely reproduced as an engraving, and there is Robert Gibb's picture, both are out of copyright. Paul B (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Gum hill
removed from the article:

The two sentences have been in the article for years and a "citation needed" has been there for over five years. So I have moved it here so that it is not in article space but anyone interested can still be informed that it exists and needs a source before it is put back into the lead. -- PBS (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well said and well done. You would be shocked at the amount of spiking of English language wikis by Francophones. I'm one of the only people I know on the whole wide internet whom as called out Francophone imperialism anent Belgium etymologies and even etymologies of placenames now stuck inside France. I have written about the etymology of so-called 'Walloon Brabant' having its most famous placename (Waterloo) Dutch, and also how comes there are lots of Dutch placenames to the south of 'Lille' (Rijsel) when the Francophone imperialists claim its always been Romance speaking - they have even done a 'Walloon Brabant' and call those abodes something like 'Walloon Flanders' or somesuch? I get the feeling folk are waking up. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.127.247 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See below. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Is Hougoumont to be permanently open?
I think that some clarification would be a good idea in two places in this article.

The introduction states: “Hougoumont[,] which had become dilapidated[,] was fully restored in time for the 200[th] anniversary of the battle and open to the public on 18 June 2015.[1]”

“Open to the public” implies that it was open just for that day. Perhaps the writer of the sentence meant “opened to the public”. This would bring the introduction into greater agreement with the sentence quoted below from the Decay and Restoration section:

“The next day (18 June 2015) Hougoumont was opened to the public on the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo.[1][16]”

If the site was open to the public for just one day, the second sentence above should read “… opened to the public FOR the 200th anniversary of the Battle…”

Neither sentence properly conveys what I think is the true situation, namely that the site is to be permanently opened to the public (otherwise, why spend £3m on restoration?)

The difficulty is that neither of the sources cited clearly states the duration of the opening.

Note 1 Casert’s article does not say anything about the site being open to the public but, in a side panel, this appears:

“The fully restored farm opens to the public on June 18th, 2015, which is the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo.”

“From June 18th” might have been better.

Note 16 Davies, from the Guardian newspaper, merely states: “Up to 200,000 spectators are expected at the site over four days of commemorations…”  She says nothing about whether the site will be permanently open to the public. (Perhaps this note should be moved further up the paragraph so it doesn’t look as though it refers to the opening).

Does anyone have more information (with a firm citation) to clear this up? Freeman501 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There was no need to tag the article, questions such as this are better discussed on talk page. You could have used Google to answer your own question. See this Daily Mail piece Wellington's heroes finally win Waterloo memorial on Belgian battlefield - 100 years after the French got one (dated 20 December 2014) "raised the funds necessary to restore the farmhouse that was at the centre of the Hougoumont fighting and turn it into a state-of-the-art visitor centre. ... Both the farmhouse and the memorial will open to visitors from June."
 * -- PBS (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Etymology, again
I've deleted a chunk of the text in this section, as it is original research, unsupported by the sources given. It was added in June 2015, just after the gum tree story (above) was removed, and claims, without evidence, that the original name was Hogeberg, and cites a work by M Gysseling that mentions neither Hougoumont, nor Goumont, nor Hogeberg, and gives a page number for a different place entirely (Hooglede) which is nowhere near Waterloo. The Fr WP page (which has the same fanciful bollocks, added on the same day by the same editor), also examines the gum tree story, which it attributes to a journalist called La Mayeur, but says it was dismissed by Logie as incorrect; and a claim by Victor Hugo in Les Miserables (p277) that it derives from a nobleman (also called Hugo). I’ve added some detail from there which does seem to have some support, that the name is a late corruption of Goumont, and which can be attested. I trust everyone is OK with that, Moonraker12 (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You very well know the fieldname ‘Hougoumont’ is (without shadow) an Frenchified overname onto an original Dutch/Flemish name. The aforesaid should be byworded. 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:45A1:F89B:B551:B329 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)