Talk:Sandringham House/Archive 1

HALLOWEEN
Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.253.151 (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the issue is, here. KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Appleton House
The article suddenly starts talking about Appleton House without clarifying where exactly this is. Other places are also mentioned in a bubbling manner. 194.42.133.227 (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope the style is slightly less bubbling. KJP1 (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Park House
Why is Park House brought up? After going to its very commercial website it is discovered that it is on the grounds, but... so? —N·M—talk 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the house has some relevance, being constructed by Edward VII on the estate, and being the birthplace of Diana. But I've tried to keep it brief. KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

George V
In his Historic Houses of Britain (1979), Mark Girouard includes a quote (but without further sourcing it) from George V: "Dear old Sandringham, the place I love better than anywhere else in the world." (p. 33) This might be worked in somewhere to show the feelings of at least part of the royal family for the place. -- Michael K Smith Talk 11:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Appleton House
What on earth is this doing in an article on Sandringham House, which is supposed to focus on the House, not the Estate. I'm confused on the detail because Appleton House no longer exists. Why do people coming to read about the Queen's winter retreat care about King Olav and Queen Maud of Norway? This information should be put on their pages. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and substantially trimmed. KJP1 (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A free 1896 image of Appleton House seems to be available through British Library. If you agree, we can upload it to Wikimedia. TGCP (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Clarification
Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle are the private property of the Queen, not the Royal Family as a whole. Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, etc. do not own it. The Queen owns it. If Elizabeth II abdicates the throne, she could keep Sandringham and Balmoral as her personal residences; her father had to buy them from Edward VIII. They belong solely to the reigning monarch, not the Royal Family.This point should be made clear. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope this is now clear. KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Ownership
There appears to be confusion about who owns Sandringham, Balmoral, etc. These private properties are *not* owned by "the royal family." They are specifically owned by *one* member of that family, namely the Queen. But she does not own them because she is Queen. She owns them because her father left them to her in his will. Just as *his* father before him left them to -- George's elder brother, Edward VIII.

The official royal residences are all government owned, so they don't change hands when the sovereign dies or resigns. Thus, when Edward VIII abdicated, he had to stop living in Buck House, Windsor Castle, and so on. But he still owned Sandringham, Balmoral, and all of the other privately owned buildings that his father, George V, left to him in his will. Neither was Edward VIII under any obligation to give those properties to his brother, George VI, upon his abdication. On the contrary, probably out of anger for the way his future wife had been treated, he pled poverty and made George VI buy the properties from him for a *lot* of many. George VI later learned that he had been duped; that, in fact, a substantial sum had been settled on Edward VIII and that he did not actually need to make George buy the properties at all. But by the time George found out his brother had lied to him, the payment had already gone through. 50.115.74.132 (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not entirely true. George VI did have to buy the properties from Edward VIII; what he didn't know about was the substantial amount his brother had accumulated and obfuscated when discussing a financial settlement (which was generous) which George VI paid out of his private Duchy of Lancaster funds. Having to purchase Balmoral and Sandringham from Edward VIII had also drained a substantial amount of capital from the new King's private funds as well but they would have been Edward's property had George VI not paid for them. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope this issue of ownership is now clear. KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Listed building status
Historic England have confirmed that Sandringham House is listed, Grade II*. I reproduce below the (name redacted) email for reference, and shall add the listing back in. KJP1 (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Email from Historic England: 23/11/2017

Thank you for your email. There’s no policy against Listing royal residences, Windsor Castle, for example is both Listed and scheduled. Sandringham House is Listed as part of its estate, so if you were searching for Listed buildings specifically, it may not have come up. I have linked to its statutory document below:.

I hope this helps but if you have any questions please let me know and I would be happy to assist.

Heritage List Support Officer Listing Group Historic England The Engine House Fire Fly Avenue Swindon SN2 2EH

Diana, Princess of Wales
I have removed a section on Diana which, apart from her being born there and visiting while PoW, seemed fairly irrelevant to Sandringham. Shall certainly mention her when the QEII section is re-done. KJP1 (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ended up in Park House, which I hope is sufficient. KJP1 (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sandringham House. 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/20090727034523/http://www.sandringhamestate.co.uk/Hmg.asp?S=2&V=1&P=7 to http://www.sandringhamestate.co.uk/Hmg.asp?S=2&V=1&P=7

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) 04:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Marlborough House Set
- Creating space for the editor who is removing this to set out their concerns. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Now redundant, as removed. KJP1 (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Referencing

 * Article cites "Lascelles 1975" - Sources lists "Lascelles, Alan (2006)"
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Article cites "Mackworth-Young & Ransom 1991 - Sources lists "Mackworth-Young, Robin; Ransom, Roger (1993)"
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Sources includes "Lehman, Harvey Eugene (2011)" that is not cited in the article
 * ✅ - Removed.

I hope this helps. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - They do indeed. Shall attend to them. And thanks for the "Nicholson" correction, I hate to think how many times I'll make that error if I do Sissinghurst. KJP1 (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks again. I don't suppose I could interest you in reviewing it at FAC? Perhaps not your usual avian fare, but they did breed vast numbers of birds on the estate. Unfortunately, only for the purpose of then despatching them but.... In any event, thanks very much for the most useful pick-ups. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Commas and dates

 * In 2019 I saw these edits by, adding commas after dates as in the second version of this sentence, and wondered if they were correct.

... or ...


 * In 2019, I saw these edits by, adding commas after dates as in the second version of this sentence, and wondered if they were correct.

Even when I look at them together now I don't have a very strong sense of rightness about one or the other. It seems partly to depend upon how I want to read the sentence out – which may not be a good guide. (Especially if you heard me speak English, but hey.) Is this actually a rule, is it in the MOS or external styleguides, is there some risk that it is an ENGVAR issue ... or what? I'm not about to indulge in some retributive orgy of correction or hyper-, over- or undercorrection, but I would genuinely like to know what other editors, including SHCarter who is herein pinged, think about this. Thanks and best to all DBaK (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My choice is very much without the comma; it seems to introduce a break where it is unnatural to put one, so i wouldn't. A different matter, though, if it were paranthetical:  "In 2019, while editing randomly, i noticed a series of edits adding commas" would be absolutely fine. Happy days, LindsayHello 21:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - Even my good friends acknowledge that the finer points of grammar aren't my strongest suit. In such circumstances, I would always ask Editor of the Week Mr Riley! Who would promptly tell me that's a false title. KJP1 (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed them now, as part of BRD; SHCarter hasn't responded or defended his edits and, as stated above, i believe they are erroneous. Happy days, LindsayHello 14:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

From : Sorry for my delayed response. I’ve never quite understood how to view and respond to these discussions. I just saw this content today.

The use of a comma after all dates is standard practice in written American English. The comma is required to designate the use of a parenthetical statement. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma#American_usage where it states, “Most style manuals, including The Chicago Manual of Style[16] and the AP Stylebook,[17] also recommend that the year be treated as a parenthetical, requiring a second comma after it: "Feb. 14, 1987, was the target date." A comma is required after abbreviated parenthetical statements like e.g., i.e., and ca. for the same reason. They too are parenthetical statements.
 * Thank for the reply.  I completely agree that a year can be treated as parenthetical ~ when it is part of a full date.  In the cases  highlighted and i undid they were not full dates, and the year cannot in those circumstances be thought of as parenthetical.  If there's not a full date, the comma is only needed in a different sort of parenthetical statement such as In 1977, for her Silver Jubilee, the Queen opened the house and grounds to the public for the first time, which comes from the fourth paragraph.  Thanks. Happy days, LindsayHello 18:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Which brother?
There appears to be a degree of uncertainty about which brother Edward VIII asked to undertake a review of the estate. Initially the article said Prince George, but at that time this would have referred to the Duke of Kent, the future George VI, Duke of York, was known as Prince Albert. Reading their respective biographies he would have been more likely to have delegated this to the Duke of Kent, his aide-de-camp. Can anyone check the source? PatGallacher (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * - I've tried another way of phrasing it, to clarify. The source is very clear, the entry reading, "an analysis of the past seven months, carried out by his brother, the Duke of York (later King George VI), over the summer". I think Walch is highly reliable, it being close to the most recent "official" history, with a foreward by the Duke of Edinburgh. It is, nonetheless, a book with some peculiarities - it doesn't have an isbn, I can't locate it on Worldcat, and it isn't available on Amazon. It appears only to be available from the Sandringham Estate Office, from which I bought my copy. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It was not the wording, I thought there might be a mistake about which brother did it, but thanks for checking. PatGallacher (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Appleton Farm
Louisa Mary Cresswell and her husband had an eighteen year dispute with Sandringham's estate manager which Louisa later published as a book. Another book has been written about the dispute since. I would like to link the (new) Cresswell article with Sandringham. Any suggestions? Victuallers (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * - Hi Victuallers, hope you are keeping well. Mrs Cresswell is mentioned briefly in Walch, (pp=63-64), who records her dispute with the Sandringham Estate as a “fifteen-year running battle [over] Game Damages”. These were payments made by the Estate to tenant farmers to compensate them for the damage caused to their crops by rabbits and hares, which they were not allowed to shoot, due to the desire of the Prince of Wales to have plenty around for his guests to blast away at. Perhaps a mention in the Edward VII section, either in the body of the text or as a footnote. Happy to do it for you, if you don’t have access to Walch. Let me know. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What a nice note - yes do feel free to add it as I think you know more than me. I only discovered her a couple of days ago and I don't think I have your access to Walch. Feel free to ride roughshod over my recent article. I'm thinking of nomming it for DYK and a co-editor would be welcomed. Victuallers (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)-
 * - Have tried a footnote, (h). See what you think. KJP1 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you I have used your text in "my" article too. Nice work.Victuallers (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)