Jump to content

Talk:Clandon Park House

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Clandon Park)

Untitled

[edit]

...a Maori meeting house. This was originally situated near Ritorna in New Zealand and... There is no "Ritorna" in new Zealand. Further more it is an impossible name in the maori language (-rn- is an invalid combination of letters). Given the reference to Mount Tarawera, I'm changing it to "Rotorua" - if anyone thinks otherwise, feel free to change it back 9or to something more likely). [[User:Grutness|Grutness hello? ]] 01:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's interesting. The National Trust's own website makes this claim, and if you search for Clandon and Ritorna on Google, you will find several other references. Could it be a name that has fallen into misuse? Or perhaps a single distortion of fact has been repeated many times! - Jon C
Could be either, I suppose. But The area around Tarawera was full of Maori names, with a few British names, and virtually nothing else. It's not a British name, and it can't be a Maori name (the only paired consonants ever found in Maori are -ng- and -wh-, so -rn- is not possible. Rotorua is the nearest city to Tarawera today, and was the nearest town to it at the time of the eruption. And it would be easy to see how a poorly handwritten Rotorua could be read as Ritorna. My guess is that it was a misreading of someone's letter or notes that has become accepted fact and spread from there.
Actually, I think I've found mention of the actual Maori building - at [1]. If it is the same one, it was at Rotomahana, which makes sense, as the village was largely buried in ash. Still no explanation for why it's referred to as Ritorna, though. [[User:Grutness|Grutness hello? ]]
Sounds like you may be right. I only live a 20 minute drive from Clandon, so will visit at some point soon and see what information might be recorded there. - Jon C
Here's the answer. I found this among the press releases at www.newzealand.com, referring to the Chelsea Flower Show. This is an extract:

"There is a strong link between the Rotorua area, home of the Te Awara people who have inspired the design team, and the London based Maori group, Ngati Ranana. The scenic backdrop in the garden depicts Mount Tarawera, the volcano that erupted in 1886 and the famed pink and white terraces which were buried in the eruption. These terraces have been recreated in the New Zealand garden at Chelsea. The eruption buried the terraces and destroyed a nearby Maori village. The only building left standing was Hinemihi. The building was taken back to London by the British Governor General of the time and it now stands at Clandon Park, a National Trust property near Guilford. The London group of Maori people known as Ngati Ranana use Hinemihi as their special meeting house."

Mystery solved! - Jon C

Small clarification: Hinemihi had been abandoned by the Te Arawa when they moved to Rotorua, where they continued to use their skills as tourist guides amongst the mud-pools and geysers there. The timbers of the meeting house were SOLD to Lord Onslow for 50 guineas. The bill of sale is on display at Clandon. Just in case anyone was thinking that it had been removed forcibly or without consent. Ngaire L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.149.222 (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gifted by Gwendolyn

[edit]

An anon user added this: "Onslow's daughter Gwendolen gifted the house to the National Trust. " at a position where it appears to refer only to the meeting house. I think surely it refers to Clandon Park as a whole rather than just Hinemihi? I will shift it in a day or two if no one has any other views Kahuroa (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The national trust site confirms this so I will change the entry Kahuroa (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clandon Park has never been donated to anyone. It was only Clandon House and seven acres that was donated to the Nation. Clandon Park is an approximately 1000 acre privately owned Parkland Estate that has been owned by the onslow family for more than three centuries. There are errors being made consistently in the description of these two separate properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clandon Park Historian (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of Clandon Park

[edit]

I've been trying to do a bit of thinking outside the box and waited some time before writing to make sure I got this right. You can't restore Clandon Park to anything except a 21st century replica of the original. You can bring in real antique furniture and the like but if you do you repeat the old problem. Any fire or other disaster will destroy a great deal.

Since the house has to be a replica how about getting good furniture restorers, carpet restorers and the like to make good replicas of what was there before. You can give visitors a unique experience, furniture that looks and feels like 18th century or 19th century furniture but where visitors can sit. Visitors can compare the soft chairs, divans the aristocrats enjoyed with the harder chairs in the servants’ quarters. Children can go into a replica 18th century or 19th century nursery, sit where children would have sat then and play with replica toys. (big toys that are not easily stolen). How about a replica school room where children can find out how children used to learn their lessons? Perhaps there could be two schoolrooms since 18th century and 19th century education methods were different.

All this would be cheaper than bringing in real antiques (there could of course be real antiques in a few rooms) and could work with visitors. I suggest at the very least market research to find out the potential appeal of such a restoration. Veronica Roberts (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A replica Victorian dining room could have discriptions of the type dishes the Victorian upper classes would have eaten with menues while the replica kitchen and servants' quarters could describe the food eaten and living conditions of servants. Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management could be useful here. Veronica Roberts (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a new idea. The National Trust have already done it in partnership with the BBC.[1] Although in this case the house is original but the dressing is new. 86.153.135.110 (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not only have you been "thinking outside the box," but you've been thinking outside Wikipedia. Unless we have a reliable source that the National Trust (or anyone else) is considering doing such a thing, all this is just WP:FORUM. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC) The nearest support I can see is e.g. here. But still too soon for any speculation.[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/avebury/our-work/projects/

Edit request

[edit]

Although not marked as such this article appears to be semi protected as I cannot edit it.

In the article lead, the last sentence reads:

'The house was substantially damaged in a fire in April 2015, which left it "essentially a shell".<ref name=BBC32524445/><ref name=GuardClandonShell/>'

This should be changed to:

'The house was substantially damaged in a fire in April 2015, which left it "essentially a shell".' (i.e. delete redundant references.)

Reason: The references supporting the statement are already included in the main body of the article. Since the lead is meant to be a summary of points made in the made part of the article, the repeated referencing is entirely redundant. 86.153.135.110 (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. There is no rule that citations have to be removed from the lede, but they are certainly not necessary if already in the main body. I agree that in this case they are redundant and so I have removed them. Not sure why this article is still protected. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clandon Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name of house

[edit]

An editor is edit warring to change the name from Clandon Park to Clandon House, the house's own website calls it Clandon Park as does [2] if the house is indeed called "Clandon House" then we need a good source and a change of article title. Theroadislong (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Clandon Park Historian: As a historian, you should know that George Onslow became the first Earl of Onslow in 1801 — 216 years ago. Therefore, it is impossible for the park, as you claimed in this edit, to have been "the seat of the Earls of Onslow for over three centuries". Firebrace (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clandon House is clearly differentiated from Clandon Park in the Deed: H.M. Land Registry. Title Number SY157333 dated 18-4-56. This Deed is the original document that transferred the ownership of Clandon House (only) to the National Trust. It is signed by the 6th Earl of Onslow and his Aunt Gwendolyn, Countess of Iveagh. It appears from letters archived at the Surrey History Centre (G97/21/1-11) and at the Clandon Park Estate Office archive, Clandon House could not have been donated to the National Trust as the Trustees were not permitted under the law to donate Clandon House directly themselves. So, as the 6th Earl wished the Nation to be gifted Clandon House with seven acres, he arranged for the Earls Trustees to sell Clandon House to his Aunt. She purchased Clandon House for £1,500.00 (one thousand five hundred pounds as a token consideration) from the Trustees of the Earls of Onslow's Estate. The Onslow family then provided an endowment of £40,500 (forty thousand five hundred pounds) to the National Trust with the aim that the National Trust should maintain Clandon House in perpetuity for the Nation. The Deed that explains this in detail is H.M. Land Registry Title Number SY157333 dated 18th April 1956. There are other documents that led up to this transaction, namely, a Vesting Deed dated 29th April 1926, Probate dated 10th July 1946, Vesting Assent dated 12th December 1946 and a Deed of Declaration dated 11th January 1953 for Clandon House where the house is not referred to as Clandon Park. The term Clandon Park was used either as the address or when referring to the land mass or the Estate including Clandon House. All maps available to the public on the internet or at Surrey History Centre (320/577) & (320/576/1-21) or at the Clandon Park Estate Office archives refer to Clandon House as the house and Clandon Park as the Parkland. I am inexperienced in editing here but it is fundamental that the House is not the Park. This error has been published without challenge for some time but it is clearly wrong. I believe this misinformation had circulated due to incorrect information being copied from pamphlets that already have misinformation in them. Such here-say, having been published about Clandon House, makes it impossible to clearly differentiate Clandon Park as the historic Parkland that it is. Clandon Park is not owned or managed by the National Trust. Clandon Park has been owned and managed by the Baronets Onslow originally from 1688, then Barons Onslow from 1716 and then the Earls of Onslow from 1801 to date . (See Peerage entry for 8th Earl of Onslow, 1st Baronet Onslow, 1st Baron Onslow) or Burkes Peerage 2016. This means Clandon Park has been the Seat of (in the hands of) the Baronet, Baron and Earls of Onslow for 340 years which makes Clandon Park a very important Estate in its own right (separate to Clandon House which the Onslow's built well after acquiring Clandon Park. I would really welcome help as it is a large body of research and having now realised the error in Wikipedia under Clandon Park and Clandon House I cannot seem to alter one without the other for some reason. I do not understand how they are linked in this protective fashion. Clandon Park Historian (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support moving the bulk of this article to Clandon House as plenty of sources call it "Clandon House" or even "Clandon Park House". I have found lots of information about the historic grade-II listed park, which is obviously notable in its own right. By the way, did you know the park is only c. 540 acres in size? It was 1,000 acres in the 16th century, but all land north of the railway was sold in the 19th century, and some land to the east was sold for housing in the 20th century. Firebrace (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clandon Park Deeds held by the 8th Earl of Onslow show 937 acres currently is the holding. This includes the Clandon Park Forests and a Golf Course. Clandon Park Historian (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that deeds are hard and costly to access, and they are contradicted by freely available information. Firebrace (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clandon House is the house that was gifted to the Nation by the Onslows. Clandon Park is a Grade II Listed agricultural Parkland has never been gifted to anyone and is still owned by the Onslows. The maps, Estate charts and Deeds that substantiate this are freely available through the Surrey History Centre and the National Archives. Also see clandonpark.com. The contradictions are being perpetuated by those that do not have any substantiated knowledge of these properties or perhaps they are being promoted by third parties who have other motives. Perhaps the National Trust wishes for Clandon House to appear to own Clandon Park so as to draw in more visitors ? Perhaps they use the Clandon Park as the address of Clandon House. Surely it is not our job as editors to surmise the reason for others "passing off" one property as belonging to another. As editors we should merely edit according to the law or facts that can be substantiated and referenced wherever possible. I am still at a loss as to how to edit this one correctly without appearing to be over zealous. Clandon Park Historian (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that Wikipedia can be mysterious and frustrating. The issue is being dealt with by a formal procedure called a Request For Comment, and it will eventually produce a consensus either for or against moving the article to Clandon House. Firebrace (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please can somebody advise why, on Wikipedia Clandon Park (Grade 11 Listed Park), is bundled with Clandon House (Grade 1 Listed Park which sits on Clandon Park). Clandon Park was in existence at least 100 years before the house even existed ! The descriptions are really muddled yet they are two completely separate properties and owned by different owners. I dare not correct the errors although there are many. I can supply full references from public documents if it helps. I have several edits noted to this and other country house descriptions. Anyone feel they are able to tell me where to start. How about 'Clandon House on Clandon Park' and ' Clandon Park, Historic Parkland' Clandon Park Historian (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if the conveyance documents of Clandon House were published and referenced ? They are available to view by anyone at the Surrey Archives. Clandon Park Historian (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RELIABLE, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Definition of published: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online." Hope this helps. Firebrace (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been split into Clandon House and Clandon Park. Firebrace (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite ridiculous. The house is called Clandon Park in every reliable source back to the 19th century at least Burke's Peerage, 1865, including its own website National Trust Clandon Park, and that of the National Heritage List for England Historic England list entry. Clandon House is a block of student flats in Finchley occupied by the University of London University of London, Clandon House. If the estate surrounding Clandon Park is notable enough to have an independent article, then the title for that should be Clandon Park Estate. The opinion of a couple of Wikipedia users should not be permitted to override the facts. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Every reliable source" ...except for the hundreds of reliable sources which call it Clandon House or Clandon Park House. Firebrace (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which are these mysterious sources? There really aren't any that come close, that have actually been put forward here or elsewhere. Clearly Clandon Park Historian has a bee in his or her bonnet about it, and probably some sort of personal interest, but they really haven't made a case, and it's mystifying why it should be getting any credence on the evidence they've given. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The park and house have been separate entities since the house was jettisoned by the Onslow family in 1956. The house belongs to the National Trust and is no longer the seat of the Earl of Onslow. Based on available evidence it is clear that Clandon Park is notable in its own right, dating back to the 1500s, designed by Capability Brown, and being Grade II listed. Currently, the article is only a stub, but there is more to say about the park and it will be given substance in due course.
Per WP:NCDAB, "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation", hence Clandon Park and Clandon House are preferable to, for example, Clandon Park (house) and Clandon Park (estate). While User:Clandon Park Historian may or may not be close to the subject, we should keep in mind that the National Trust is also close to the subject, and they are not beyond reproach either. Now a list of reliable sources:
Clandon House
Just search for "Clandon House" (with quotation marks) on Google Books. Here are some notable examples in chronological order:
  • "The church is a small low building at the south east corner of Clandon park … As we proceed through the park we shall pass Clandon House" – W. C. Smith, Rambles round Guildford, with a Topographical and Historical Description of the Town, 1828, p. 206
  • "The Earl of Onslow appealed by his agent against a charge made upon him for window duty and inhabited house duty, in respect of the principal mansion-house attached to his Lordship's estate in Surrey, called Clandon House. The appellant claimed to be exempted from all duty in respect of the said mansion, on the ground of its being unoccupied and unfurnished" – Accounts and Papers, ordered to be published by the House of Commons, 1830, vol. 25, Assessed Taxes: Cases Determined on Appeal, p. 3
  • "Clandon House was erected about the year 1731" - Edward Wedlake Brayley; John Britton, A Topographical History of Surrey, 1841, p. 59–60
  • "… Clandon House, Surrey …" – The Manuscripts of the House of Lords, 1887, p. 259
  • "… Clandon House, Surrey …" – Chamber's Encyclopaedia, 1968, vol. 12, p. 180
  • "… withdrew with his grandparents to Clandon Park where the contrived informality of the landscape was unlike anything George had grown accustomed to in France. As recently as 1776–1777, the lush gardens around Clandon House were redesigned …" – Richard Nelson Franks, George Onslow (1784–1853): A Study of His Life, Family and Works - 1981, vol. 1, p. 167
  • "Chattels at Clandon House" – Works of Art (Taxation), Hansard, House of Commons, 6 July 1984, vol. 63, col. 341W
Clandon Place
The house has often been referred to as Clandon Place.
Clandon Park House
It has also been referred to as Clandon Park House.
"Clandon Park", "Clandon House", "Clandon Park House", and "Clandon Place" all appear in the sources, some of which have made a clear distinction between Clandon Park and Clandon House or Place. We are informed by User:Clandon Park Historian that "Clandon House" is the name on the deeds (H.M. Land Registry. Title Number SY157333, dated 18 April 1956). If that is the case, titling this article by the house’s definitive name is appropriate in order to disambiguate it from Clandon Park, the association between park and house now being entirely historical. Firebrace (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. a few comments
The Clandon Park article needs a disambiguation link to redirect to the article on the house (we can be pretty confident that the majority of users who end up on the "Park" article will actually be looking for the "House".
What User:Clandon Park Historian says the title deeds say - whether true or not - is undoubtedly WP:OR and should not form the basis for this sort of decision. As your sample above of various different names for the place shows, "Clandon House" is not 'the definitive name' by any stretch of the imagination.
Sentences like this, in the article: "Until 1956 the house was set in Clandon Park with landscaped gardens designed by Lancelot 'Capability' Brown in 1781" really are nonsense. Regardless of the ownership since 1956, the house is still set in the park, in any normal English language usage - it hasn't been physically moved elsewhere. Ghughesarch (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages". If the house is named as Clandon House on the deeds, I would say that is pretty definitive. Until just now you seemed to believe that "Clandon Park" was the definitive name, based on nothing more than Burke's Peerage and the National Trust. Surely, the deeds carry more weight? The house and a mere seven acres of land were parceled off to the National Trust in 1956. The other hundreds of acres belong to the Earl of Onslow. Firebrace (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghughesarch: who has a bee in their bonnet now? Firebrace (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages" - correct, one can discuss material that is OR to one's heart's content on talk pages. But the point is that the Original Research in question has been used as the principle justification for a significant change to the article itself.
A bit more original research might show whether the house was called "Clandon House" on the deeds before it was separated from the rest of the estate in 1956 - either way, the results of such research would not be allowable as part of the article.
@Firebrace: As for bees in their bonnet, well, I've been immensely irritated by various WP rules and procedures in the past, but making sweeping changes to an article on the say-so of someone who, at the very least, appears to have a conflict of interest in the matter, does seem to fly in the face of established convention.
see also WP:UCRN Ghughesarch (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Request for Comment (see below). Why didn't you take part in the discussion? Did you think it wasn't a serious proposal, or something? Feel free to start another RFC arguing the case for reverting the article to its original name and state. Firebrace (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really, because I tend to use Wikipedia far less than I once did, and seem to have missed this until this week. Still, it always astonishes me that two one-line comments in the obscurity of a talk page, and the summing-up, "The proposal though somewhat vague, is supported" should be all it takes. No reasoning, no putting forward of a case, no notice paid of the issues of policies on original research and not using the most common name and so on. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been ongoing since 14 July 2017, nearly eight weeks ago. By the way, I'm not sure that making a decision on what to name the article based on deeds published by HM Land Registry is original research. However, it is a primary source. Original research would be if I did a scientific experiment and then used my results in a Wikipedia article. Or interpreted a primary source in a novel way that is uncorroborated by a secondary source. Firebrace (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Riiiight. But - the new article on Clandon Park basically covers the Capability Brown parkland in the ownership of the Onslows, and (quite rightly, since they're within the boundary of the Brown park) the gardens of the house which now belong to the National Trust and are the only part that give a degree of encyclopaedic notability - otherwise that article would be, and would remain, a small stub of dubious value.
The Onslow estate in the area, we've been told above by [Clandon Park Historian], covers considerably more land than the historic park, so the [Clandon Park] article, as it would be even if a counsel of perfection could be achieved, would not cover either the contiguous landholdings of the Onslows ("the Onslow Estate centred on Clandon in Surrey", for want of a better description), or the entirety of the Brown parkland including the house for which it was designed and the later gardens immediately round the house ("Clandon Park"), thus reducing it to some meaningless thing describing an entity that does not, and never has, existed as a single unit.
The park was laid out for the house (which from at least a substantial number of reliable sources, shared the name Clandon Park). The two may be in split ownership now, but splitting the articles is splitting hairs to nobody's benefit. It should be perfectly possible to merge the limited information in the Clandon Park article back into this one and have a single article. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The house is labeled on Ordnance Survey maps as "Clandon Park House", and the parkland as "Clandon Park".
I would also point out that Historic England in their listing on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens names Clandon House as the "PRINCIPAL BUILDING", and its immediate grounds are headed "GARDENS AND PLEASURE GROUNDS", while the park proper comes under the heading of "PARK". Moreover, we are informed by Historic England: "The House and garden were given to the National Trust in 1956 in whose ownership they remain (2000). The park continues in private ownership." A clear distinction is made between the house and its gardens and pleasure grounds, owned by the National Trust, and the privately owned park. Firebrace (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Historic England in their list entry for the house name the house "Clandon Park" and give the address as "Clandon Park, Clandon Park" (so good they named it twice?). They do the same in the record photographs taken in the 1950s and 60s and now in the archive of Historic England. The present owners of the house and pleasure gardens call it "Clandon Park", and as you say, the Ordnance Survey call it "Clandon Park House", though that does depend on the scale of map you're looking at, at smaller scales it's "Clandon Park", labelled adjacent to the house as a tourist attraction and therefore referring to the house, not Rupert Onslow's estate. So all you've done is show that there's no reason to accept "Clandon House" as the correct name for Wikipedia purposes, and every reason to take "Clandon Park" as complying with WP:UCRN for this article - two "Clandon Parks" to one "Clandon House" and one "Clandon Park House", both of the latter being undermined in other formats by the very organisations you think support the non-"Clandon Park" usage. Really the two articles need to be merged back together under the name Clandon Park. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:UCRN: "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources", and "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others".
It is a complex and probably unique situation. In my view, the only acceptable alternative to Clandon House is Clandon Park House. Whether or not you believe the grounds which are appended to the HE listing for Clandon Park are actually a bit of the park themselves, the house's name is not Clandon Park. The National Trust are an involved party and may or may not have an agenda, just like our historian friend. Maybe they use "Clandon Park" as an abbreviation of "Clandon Park House". The media, fire service, Historic England, West Clandon Parish Council, Surrey Archaeological Society, and whoever submitted that application (one of many) to Guildford Borough Council all seem to think so... Firebrace (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One further comment: This application form submitted to GBC in 2014 by "National Trust, Polesden Lacey, Great Bookham, Dorking, Surrey, RH5 6BD" gives the address of the house as "Clandon Park House, Clandon Park, West Clandon, Guildford, Surrey, GU4 7RQ". Incontrovertible proof that in the National Trust context, "Clandon Park" is an abbreviation of "Clandon Park House". Firebrace (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really "incontrovertible proof", though I'd accept that it is further proof that "Clandon House" comes a very poor third or fourth in the list of contenders for the "right" name. As for the National Trust being an "involved party", with an "agenda", which you've alluded to a couple of times as if it somehow balances the actions and arguments here of User:Clandon Park Historian, I don't see the National Trust or its representatives coming in and edit warring over the content of this page, and then forcing a title change on highly dubious grounds. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the Trust's own admission, Clandon Park House is the building's actual name, which is supported by the widespread use of that name by media, local authorities, and official maps. Clandon Park (when referring to the house) is an abbreviation of Clandon Park House. Firebrace (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. Find a reliable source that says, specifically, "Clandon Park (when referring to the house) is an abbreviation of Clandon Park House". Otherwise, both are used, though "Clandon Park" - for the house - is the most commonly used name, and "Clandon House", the name of this article, comes well down the list of acceptable names. Ghughesarch (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, both names are used, but one is short for the other. Or maybe you can explain why organisations bother typing five extra letters after "Clandon Park" if that is the building's name. Have you seen my note above regarding exceptions to the common name policy? Firebrace (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Castle Park House, Causey Park House, Cowden Park House, Denne Park House, Fetcham Park House, Hotham Park House, Rudding Park House (before it was a hotel), and Worcester Park House. All names are shortened to omit "House" in reliable sources. Firebrace (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but irrelevant, as for this specific case there needs to be a reliable source that explicitly states that "Clandon Park" is an abbreviation for "Clandon Park House". And it doesn't get round either the fact that "Clandon House" is not in common use, whereas "Clandon Park" (for the house) is, or that the article on "Clandon Park" really should be merged back with whatever this article ends up being called, as it's not otherwise notable enough to stand alone.
Might I suggest a single article titled "Clandon Park", the bulk of which - after the lead, (which should basically be "Clandon Park is an agricultural and parkland estate at West Clandon, near Guildford in Surrey. It has been the seat of the Earls of Onslow for over two centuries. Within the estate sits Clandon ((Park) (House)), owned separately by the National Trust since 1956.") - would be the content of this article, under the heading "House", giving the three alternative names, then the material that's presently in the "Clandon Park" article, under the heading "Park" Ghughesarch (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No there doesn't have to be a reliable source which says "Clandon Park" is an abbreviation for "Clandon Park House" because I'm not suggesting we state that in the article. We're deciding what to name the article, and it's perfectly ok to make reasonable assumptions for that purpose in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. I agree on merging Clandon Park back into Clandon Park House. Firebrace (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion was effectively the opposite - merge Clandon House into Clandon Park. The idea of an article titled Clandon Park House which deals with the grounds (and the wider estate) - which are not a house - seems a byzantine way to go about things, whereas an article called Clandon Park which deals with the house of the same name, and the grounds of the same name, and the wider estate of the same name, makes sense. Provided there's a mention within the article of the distinction between the National Trust owned area and the Onslow owned area, I can't see that even Clandon Park Historian would have reasonable grounds to complain. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite: An article titled Clandon Park that deals with the park first and house (which is not a park) second is unacceptable. The house is the primary topic, its gardens are secondary, and the privately owned parkland estate is tertiary. It is fine to cover a nearby but less notable point of interest within an article. See, for example, Blenheim_Palace#Park_and_gardens and Chatsworth_House#Park_and_landscape. Firebrace (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well. We're really going round in circles now. The house is, and has been, called, by a significant number of reliable sources, "Clandon Park", albeit not to the exclusion of at least three other names (Clandon Park House, Clandon House and Clandon Place). "Clandon Park" is the name used in probably the majority of recent sources, certainly in those intended for wide public consumption. To insist that "Clandon Park" is used only as an abbreviation of "Clandon Park House" flies in the face of the facts.
There's no reason - beyond the objections of "Clandon Park Historian" why an article titled "Clandon Park" should not describe the house, the gardens, and the surrounding land, in that order. That is, pretty much, what the article did - before it was split and renamed and otherwise messed about with.
Make it clear, by all means, that the house and garden is now in separate ownership to most of the park, but to go on supporting the tortured logic that is displayed by the current situation with two articles, one destined always to be a stub that doesn't "do what it says on the tin", and one named in such a way that anyone searching for the name that is in general popular use won;t find it, is absurd.Ghughesarch (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're going around in circles because you're feigning ignorance of exceptions to the common name policy. Per WP:UCRN, "Clandon Park" is ambiguous and inaccurate, and such terms "are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used". It refers to two different things, and when a common name has problems, "it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others". The park and gardens have been separated (and are physically separated by fences and hedgerows) since 1956. Historically, everything was the park, which is why Historic England appends the National Trust land to the park, while making it clear that the park, as it stands today, is privately owned. English Heritage in their 2013 At Risk Register also make a distinction: "The house and garden are now owned by the National Trust but the park is privately owned. It is currently unsympathetically managed thus affecting the overall integrity of the design and the setting of the house." [3] House and park share an unnamed access road, which is probably the reason why Clandon Park House is said to be at Clandon Park. Firebrace (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment about moving the article

[edit]
Resolved
 – The proposal though somewhat vague, is supported.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 16:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the bulk of this article be moved to Clandon House? Firebrace (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I would support this. Theroadislong (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to make sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly, yes.- Adam37 Talk 17:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the park

[edit]

While I'm pleased to see the article redirected to a more accurate compromise name, I see we still have the problem of denial that the house (whatever name you choose to give it) is in the park. It is. For example: Historic England list entry for Clandon Park "Gardens and pleasure grounds within a landscaped park" "Clandon House and its surrounding parkland, c 220ha" "PRINCIPAL BUILDING Clandon House (listed grade I) stands in the south-east corner of the park". A substantial number of reliable sources will be needed if the article is going to claim that the house is not in the park. Current ownership has nothing to do with the physical location of the house. The modern Onslow-owned estate extends beyond the park boundaries, and this is not an article about the modern Onslow-owned part of the estate, but about the park and the house standing within it, in split ownership. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zzzzz. I don't care for the opinion of a user who has been blocked four times in one year, including once for abusing multiple accounts. Such a user is not in a position to lay down the law, especially when they have already failed to be convinced by "a substantial number of reliable sources". Firebrace (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shame to have got to the stage where I have to remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. I'm not sure why you find it necessary to go out of your way to ignore an incontrovertible fact that's well-supported, that - regardless of ownership - the house is in the park, and instead support the unreferenced assertions of an editor who has an apparent conflict of interest in the matter. Incidentally, more than half of the National Trust's 14 acre landholding at Clandon came to them in 1973, not 1956 Ghughesarch (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English Heritage At Risk Register

[edit]

@Clandon Park Historian:re [4], If you have a problem with the assessment made by English Heritage, take it up with them. Firebrace (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Trust pilot

[edit]

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. I am leaving this message when I make a first edit to a page; please do get in touch if you have any concerns. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clandon_Park_House&oldid=1206187073"