Is Blenheim palace worth visiting?
Jul 14th, 2008, 07:46 AM
#21
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it is fair to go sneaking in for free. IF you stick to the footpath, ok, but if you then go wandering all over it's not acceptable to me.
I work as a volunteer at an old house (nowhere near as grand as this) and there is a footpath running on the edge of the grounds. It really pisses us off when we see freeloaders trying to use it to sneak in. Genuine walkers passing through are one thing, but to just use it gain access illegally is another.
I work as a volunteer at an old house (nowhere near as grand as this) and there is a footpath running on the edge of the grounds. It really pisses us off when we see freeloaders trying to use it to sneak in. Genuine walkers passing through are one thing, but to just use it gain access illegally is another.
Jul 14th, 2008, 07:50 AM
#22
"<i>And we will use the secret access to the park which was described by Flanner</i>" If you use the "secret access", that will not get you inside the Palace, just on the grounds.
But you don't even have to go around to the "side entrance" to walk through the grounds - you can just walk in through the gate in Woodstock. Or - unless things have changed in the last year or so, you can even drive in and park your car on the grounds. Then walk anywhere you please. You don't pay until you actually want to enter the bldgs. (and not pay then if you have the GBHP)
But you don't even have to go around to the "side entrance" to walk through the grounds - you can just walk in through the gate in Woodstock. Or - unless things have changed in the last year or so, you can even drive in and park your car on the grounds. Then walk anywhere you please. You don't pay until you actually want to enter the bldgs. (and not pay then if you have the GBHP)
Jul 14th, 2008, 08:05 AM
#23
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The paths across Blenheim are public rights of way. Not just for long-distance walkers, or Britons, or people the Churchills are happy to see using their rights, but the public. All of us and all of you.
They were public rights of way before the Churchills finagled the estate from the nation, and if the Churchills find that difficult to live with today, they can give us our land back. There's no such thing as "freeloaders trying to sneak in": the Churchills are acting on the fringe of the law by even trying to discourage access to those paths. Which they do, regularly - not least when they impose on us with one of their traffic-congesting stunts.
The Churchills - legitimately, but avariciously - charge cars to enter the park, and - legitimately - refuse free pedestrian access through any of the gates in what you might call New Woodstock, unless you've got business at the Palace.
But there are four or five entrances to the estate which - in spite of gallant attempts by the succession of drunkards, drug addicts and downright flakes who've ruin the place over the past 300 years to stop it - we all retain the right to walk over.
They were public rights of way before the Churchills finagled the estate from the nation, and if the Churchills find that difficult to live with today, they can give us our land back. There's no such thing as "freeloaders trying to sneak in": the Churchills are acting on the fringe of the law by even trying to discourage access to those paths. Which they do, regularly - not least when they impose on us with one of their traffic-congesting stunts.
The Churchills - legitimately, but avariciously - charge cars to enter the park, and - legitimately - refuse free pedestrian access through any of the gates in what you might call New Woodstock, unless you've got business at the Palace.
But there are four or five entrances to the estate which - in spite of gallant attempts by the succession of drunkards, drug addicts and downright flakes who've ruin the place over the past 300 years to stop it - we all retain the right to walk over.
Jul 14th, 2008, 08:21 AM
#24
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
amen flanner. next we take back st george's hill. power to the people. he is a foolish man who tries to mess with someone's right to ramble.
the people have spoken and we are free to ramble whether or not we wear gators and put our OS map in a little plastic cover or we just want to wander (on a right of way)onto a property to have a look. nona can't stop us.
the people have spoken and we are free to ramble whether or not we wear gators and put our OS map in a little plastic cover or we just want to wander (on a right of way)onto a property to have a look. nona can't stop us.
Jul 14th, 2008, 08:27 AM
#25
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously, I don't practice in the UK, but our property law is derived from English common law. If there are recognzied public rights of way which cross the estate, of course, you would be well within your rights to use same. However, rights of way are typically limited to an established roadway or footpath, and that wouldn't give you the rigth to go traipsing throughout the entire garden area. So, if I intended to tour the gardens, and use all the footpaths (ancient or not), then I would pay the fee, as otherwise I would most certainly, at some point, end up trespassing by leaving the public right of way and going down some walk that was built by the Churchill's and is not a public right of way.
Jul 14th, 2008, 08:49 AM
#26
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I definitely would go!! My first trip to Blenheim was with an English woman who had befriended me. She said that Blenheim was not to be missed and we made a day of touring the palace and lovely grounds. My other two English friends became engaged on the bridge.
It is an amazingly beautiful place. Do make time to walk through and enjoy Woodstock too...wonderful food, shops, etc.
Enjoy!!!
It is an amazingly beautiful place. Do make time to walk through and enjoy Woodstock too...wonderful food, shops, etc.
Enjoy!!!
Jul 14th, 2008, 09:32 AM
#27
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We thought Blenheim was worth visiting. In addition to all English historical and/or architectural items of interest, we wanted to see it because we had both read "Fortune's Children" which is a great soap-opera type read about the Vanderbilt family. Consuelo was unhappily married off to the Duke of Marlorough and there is a portrait of her at Blenheim.
My point is the same as many other posters - only you can really decide if something is worth seeing and often the reason you go may not be related to anyone else's opinion.
My point is the same as many other posters - only you can really decide if something is worth seeing and often the reason you go may not be related to anyone else's opinion.
Jul 14th, 2008, 09:38 AM
#28
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly let me say as a Welsh man (Wales being in Europe I believe, so that makes me a European) I have been to BP several times and always enjoyed it. Great place to visit in my opinion.
Indeed there are hundreds of similar buildings in the Loire, but this is not the bloody Loire !
Having an interest in Sir Winston It's nice to visit his birthplace and enjoy the wonderful history associated with such a wonderful building. I remember my first visit as a child very fondly, I was amazed at how huge the key was to lock the main door. This image lies deep in my memory.
Regarding public footpaths/rights of way, I believe they should always be honoured, however I don't really think that straying off the footpath and going in the house without paying is playing the game really. The house and it's grounds cost so much to maintain in the condition it is now, by keeping the place alive we can all visit. That's good isn't it?
So in my humble opinion, BP is a great place to spend some time as is Chipping Campden for many different reasons.
But that all depends upon the likes and dislikes of InMiami and has nothing at all to do with what grumpy old Flanner thinks.
;-)
Muck
Indeed there are hundreds of similar buildings in the Loire, but this is not the bloody Loire !
Having an interest in Sir Winston It's nice to visit his birthplace and enjoy the wonderful history associated with such a wonderful building. I remember my first visit as a child very fondly, I was amazed at how huge the key was to lock the main door. This image lies deep in my memory.
Regarding public footpaths/rights of way, I believe they should always be honoured, however I don't really think that straying off the footpath and going in the house without paying is playing the game really. The house and it's grounds cost so much to maintain in the condition it is now, by keeping the place alive we can all visit. That's good isn't it?
So in my humble opinion, BP is a great place to spend some time as is Chipping Campden for many different reasons.
But that all depends upon the likes and dislikes of InMiami and has nothing at all to do with what grumpy old Flanner thinks.
;-)
Muck
Jul 14th, 2008, 10:00 AM
#29
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Muck says, there are all kinds of chateaux in the Loire but I find most of them very empty... seeing places like Blenheim, Castle Howard and Apsley House in London chock full of furniture and fittings gives me more of a feel of what they'd have been like in their time.
Like it or not, Blenheim IS stunning and worth a visit.
Rob
Jul 14th, 2008, 04:06 PM
#30
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all for your feedback.
We were not fans of Versailles because of the crowds but I am assuming that Blenheim will be less congested.
Since we will passing near Blenheim on our Heathrow to Chipping drive it seems to be worth a visit.
luvtotravel, thank you for sharing your photos. Its hard to believe I will be walking through those beautiful settings in just 7 weeks!
We were not fans of Versailles because of the crowds but I am assuming that Blenheim will be less congested.
Since we will passing near Blenheim on our Heathrow to Chipping drive it seems to be worth a visit.
luvtotravel, thank you for sharing your photos. Its hard to believe I will be walking through those beautiful settings in just 7 weeks!
Jul 14th, 2008, 07:41 PM
#31
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>In any case - the thread you and flanner linked is LOTRHP's about architecture in Oxford - nothing to do w/ Blenheim/Woodstock.<<
In which both LOTRHP and I mention our dislike of Blenheim Palace.
It's huge and ostentatious, though the gardens are quite nice. I liked Chatsworth House much more than Blenheim. Mr. Pickle enjoyed both.
As janisj said, if you're getting a Great British Heritage Pass, Blenheim is one of the properties you can visit, so it may be worth your while.
Lee Ann
In which both LOTRHP and I mention our dislike of Blenheim Palace.
It's huge and ostentatious, though the gardens are quite nice. I liked Chatsworth House much more than Blenheim. Mr. Pickle enjoyed both.
As janisj said, if you're getting a Great British Heritage Pass, Blenheim is one of the properties you can visit, so it may be worth your while.
Lee Ann
Jul 14th, 2008, 10:25 PM
#32
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flanner - so if a footpath crossed your garden you wouldn't mind people just using your whole garden as public property and wandering all over it?
Rights of Way are important and things I use a lot myself. But a footpath doesn't permit you to go wandering all over someone's private land wherever you want. Go in on the footpath then you should stick to the footpath.
Using a footpath as an excuse to sneak into a tourist attraction without paying is not exactly a crime against humanity, but a grubby little thing to do imo.
Rights of Way are important and things I use a lot myself. But a footpath doesn't permit you to go wandering all over someone's private land wherever you want. Go in on the footpath then you should stick to the footpath.
Using a footpath as an excuse to sneak into a tourist attraction without paying is not exactly a crime against humanity, but a grubby little thing to do imo.
Jul 15th, 2008, 02:27 AM
#33
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flanneruk's logic is horribly faulty if you actually like architecture. Yes, English baroque architecture is different from continental baroque architecture as English Palladian architecture differs from its Italian models. Seeing the difference is the point.
I have discouraged people on this list who have mobility or time issues from Blenheim Palace. I would not discourage an architecture or history buff.
I have discouraged people on this list who have mobility or time issues from Blenheim Palace. I would not discourage an architecture or history buff.
Jul 15th, 2008, 03:14 AM
#34
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't Blenheim Palace designed by John Vanbrugh? His informal epitaph was:
"Lie heavy on him, earth, for he
Laid many a heavy load on thee."
Which does fit Blenheim Palace rather well.
On the other hand, the landscaped park is lovely, and of course the whole shebang has plenty of historical interest.
"Lie heavy on him, earth, for he
Laid many a heavy load on thee."
Which does fit Blenheim Palace rather well.
On the other hand, the landscaped park is lovely, and of course the whole shebang has plenty of historical interest.
Jul 15th, 2008, 03:35 AM
#35
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is very helpful for me, because we will be in the area next week.
Firstly, I have got an impression what to expect - and this not in spite of but BECAUSE of controversial views.
Secondly, Flanner's description of the footpath into the park is very helpful for us - just to have an opportunity to explore this ancient English legal curiosity.
>>>Using a footpath as an excuse to sneak into a tourist attraction without paying is not exactly a crime against humanity, but a grubby little thing to do imo.<<<
Why should it be grubby? It is a law, and even if you do not like a law you have to obey it. You may start a legislative initiative to change this particular law (e.g. you may found a new party) but as long as this law exists, everybody has to obey.
IMO, the right of way-law is very fundamental in granting civil rights. The right of way was introduced to protect citizens against despotism of feudal - in our age: capitalist - landowners. If you consider such a right as "grubby" you are denying a civil liberty.
I am saying this because there is a similar case at Land's End.
I also admire the French who granted the public access to all beaches. In Germany, everybody has the right to walk through forests - including privately owned forests. Let's keep these civil achievements alive.
Firstly, I have got an impression what to expect - and this not in spite of but BECAUSE of controversial views.
Secondly, Flanner's description of the footpath into the park is very helpful for us - just to have an opportunity to explore this ancient English legal curiosity.
>>>Using a footpath as an excuse to sneak into a tourist attraction without paying is not exactly a crime against humanity, but a grubby little thing to do imo.<<<
Why should it be grubby? It is a law, and even if you do not like a law you have to obey it. You may start a legislative initiative to change this particular law (e.g. you may found a new party) but as long as this law exists, everybody has to obey.
IMO, the right of way-law is very fundamental in granting civil rights. The right of way was introduced to protect citizens against despotism of feudal - in our age: capitalist - landowners. If you consider such a right as "grubby" you are denying a civil liberty.
I am saying this because there is a similar case at Land's End.
I also admire the French who granted the public access to all beaches. In Germany, everybody has the right to walk through forests - including privately owned forests. Let's keep these civil achievements alive.
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:20 AM
#36
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
traveller - what are you on about? I have no problem with people using a footpath as a legal right of way. Just stick to the footpath. Rights of way are extremely important and things I use a lot.
What I object to is people using a footpath to gain entry and then wander all over the private land, which is NOT what rights of way allow you to do. If you want to take a wander along a footpath and enjoy what you see from there, fine. If you want to wander freely, then pay for your entry. Simple. Otherwise you might as well just bunk in over the wall. Grubby.
What I object to is people using a footpath to gain entry and then wander all over the private land, which is NOT what rights of way allow you to do. If you want to take a wander along a footpath and enjoy what you see from there, fine. If you want to wander freely, then pay for your entry. Simple. Otherwise you might as well just bunk in over the wall. Grubby.
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:33 AM
#37
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nona...are you sure that the grounds of blenheim palace are not public and open? i can't recall from my one (rather boring) visit there. i did pay my entry so i didn't notice the rules for the grounds.
i think flanner said that they imply you must pay and make it inconvenient to visit the grounds without paying. but is it really off limits? can anyone clarify?
anyway, you did imply that you had a problem with people using footpaths to take a peek even if they remain on the path. something about 'real' long distance walkers being ok but not the rest.
i think flanner said that they imply you must pay and make it inconvenient to visit the grounds without paying. but is it really off limits? can anyone clarify?
anyway, you did imply that you had a problem with people using footpaths to take a peek even if they remain on the path. something about 'real' long distance walkers being ok but not the rest.
Jul 15th, 2008, 04:36 AM
#38
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
traveller1959: A right of way is not a license to enter on property general. If you enter on the right of way and stay on the right of way, that is what the law contemplates. When you enter on the right of way, and veer off into other parts of the garden, you are trespassing.
Jul 15th, 2008, 05:19 AM
#40
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thank you twk...i think everyone agrees that wondering off a path and onto private land is not legal and not a fair use of the right of way act.
i think the discussion has been more around subtler points like is it ok or 'grubby' to use the footpaths on this property without being a long distance walker or whether the grounds were open or not.
i think the discussion has been more around subtler points like is it ok or 'grubby' to use the footpaths on this property without being a long distance walker or whether the grounds were open or not.
