Versailles: does anywhere in Paris compare?
 

I have never really been interested in Versailles, but so many people say it is a "must see".

Is it the exterior, interior or just the grandness of Versailles that is so incredible?

Is it so much better than anything in Paris or are there buildings in Paris to compare ie: the Louvre and Napoleon's apartments?

Obviously if I don't go, I won't know what I'm missing, but I guess I want to know will I regret not going?

In my opinion, Versailles is THE palace against which every other palace in the world is measured. And no, there is nothing else like it in Paris or anywhere else. Part of its "specialness" is the sheer size of it as well as the interiors, and the gardens.

I agree. There is good reason other palaces tried to emulate Versailles (Ludwig II's Herrenchiemsee, Peter I's Peterhof) - it set THE standard.

I don't think pictures do Versailles justice. It was much grander in person. The gardens were amazing as well. I took a LONG walk around the pool and it was neat to see Versailles from a totally different perspective. I was prepared to spend a 1/2 day there but spent the entire day. I remarked that I could be a kept woman at that palace any day (a reference to the king's attempt to keep his friends and enemies close to him and away from Paris). I look forward to my return. I hid a little treasure on the grounds which is my "carrot" to return someday. :)

Versailles is one of those places that no matter how much you've read about it, no matter how many pictures you've seen, when you walk behind that chateau and see the extent of the gardens, you say "Holy Cow." (Or your personal equivalent. ;-) ) Ditto for inside the chateau or any of the rest of it.

Well, I think that if you've never really been interested in Versailles, don't make it a priority. Put it down as a "maybe, if I'm in the mood" sight and see how you feel while you're in Paris.

If you have limited time in Paris, I would focus on seeing and doing all the things for which you DO have great interest, and which you KNOW you would regret missing.

Personally, I found the Louvre and Fontainbleau much more enjoyable to explore; I was able to feel a sense of intimacy and history in those two places. On the other hand (and to answer your question) neither compare in grandeur to Versailles, which was purposely built to be the most extravagant palace in Europe.

Whatever you decide, you're sure to have a great time.

kaz11: just to give you another point of view, purely mine, with nothing but my opinion and enjoyment, which most will disagree with, I don't like Versailles. Grandeur, size, opulence are all there for sure.

I'm not sure I see my idea of harmony and beauty, and I've been there a few times.

I agree that nothing compares, but then, I think that nothing should.

If the style of design and decoration appeal to you, as well as the immense wealth and effort and size that come together to at least partially make it what it is, then I would suggest going. But really, if it isn't appealing to you, why go?

I would never tell you to skip the Grand Canyon if you were that close, but Versailles sort of makes me unhappy. Doesn't thrill or move me. This is just me, so no flames, please.

I don't disagree with a thing Tuscanlifeedit says, but I never felt that was the point. I don't "like" Versailles. By the same token visiting the overwhelming wealth and collections of the Vatican museums almost sickens me. But whether I "like" it or not has little to do with whether or not I appreciate seeing it. One doesn't "like" Auschwitz either, but I think it would be a horrible mistake for someone to be near it and not see it. Such places are more about the background and the general historic significance of an area than merely seeing something you "like" or personally appreciate.

tuscanlifeedit:

LOL, I almost used the word "tacky" in my earlier post, but thought better of it. Versailles left a unpleasant taste in my mouth, too, I agree there is a sadness there.

I agree completely with NeoPatrick. Versailles, like the Vatican museums, is "an experience," a totally distasteful one IMHO, but not to be missed if you want to understand how power and wealth operate (well, I guess we can get that from the evening news any day here in the States, but still). Versailles doesn't sicken me quite as much as the Vatican collections because it lacks the totally hypocritical religious connection, but it certainly is awesome in a revolting kind of way, and for that reason alone, worth visiting.

And from a purely architectural point of view, if one can put the blinders on and focus on that, it is decidedly spectacular. And Marie Antoinette's hameau is darling in a really, really perverse way.

Apres London

I know how you feel. I find my trip moments so precious, and my time to really enjoy special things so limited, that I ain't goin where I don't want to! :-d

I do like to see these lively discussions, and Kaz11, I also suggest doing what you really WANT to do, rather than what you feel you "must."

Who knows why you don't really feel drawn there? Each of us must go where we feel drawn, is my opinion.

Go only on a nice day weather-wise and make sure you see the gardens and take the short tour. Otherwise, it's just an extreme version of what you could see in Paris (i.e. Napoleon's Apartments).

If you haven't seen Versailles, you can only understand the French Revolution intellectually. Experiencing it confers a visceral comprehension.

I found Napoleon's apartment too dark and stuffy, but Versailles much more open and airy, due to the big windows, bright lights and mirrors reflecting the lights. However, both very very extravagantly decorated.

It wasn't too high on my list to visit, but it was a case of "you can't not go to Versailles if you go to Paris!" So I went. It was indeed mindboggling, the Palace, and in the back of my mind, I keep telling myself, this is the reason France went bankrupt and started the French Revolution!!!

I actually liked the canal, the vast forested pastorial land of Versailles, so if you do go, do rent a bike or a golf cart, and go and explore the land beyond the gardens. I just found the inside too much, but I really liked the land.

I agree fully with Robe. You must read the history, study the plight of the people, then go see the total vulgar opulence of excessive ostentacion that is Versailles.

I can well understand why the revolutionaries knocked the heads off of anything royal whether it be a statue or a person. Granted the bloodbath with the guillotine was excessive, but given the utter hatred that existed between the royals and the dispossed, there is little wonder about why it happened.

Once you have seen Versailles, or perhaps BEFORE you see Versailles, let me suggest a visit to Fontainebleau where Napolean had his chief residence outside of Paris. Another marvel is Vaux le Vicomte, the residence of Foquet, the minister of finance, for Louis the Tetchy before he was undone and Louis tossed him into permanent incarceration.

The main thing that resulted from the undoing of Foquet was the comandeering (kidnapping??) of the 3 architects of Vaux: Charles le Brun, Andre le Notre, and Louis le Vau. Their charge: Build Versailles and spare no expense. Simply build the grandest palance of all time.

If nothing else, I think we can say that Louis XIV was an ego maniac who thought the sun rose and set on his royal visage.

But Versailles more than just a Hall of Mirrors, and a royal extravaganza, it has also been the scene of some of the most monumental peace settlements in history, including the ruinous Treaty of Versailles that culminated WW I. The terms of that treaty were so harsh that Germany suffered to the extent that a demagogue like Hitler could lure the German people into supporting him: Anything to break the shackles of Versailles.

Also, and in some ways even more important in the history of Western Europe, after the Prussians whipped the French in 1971, the founding of a new German nation had its genesis in the Halls of Versailles.

So yes, to understand 1789 and the excesses of the Reign of Terror, one must visit Versailles and grasp the environment of the royal snobs who dismissed the plight of the people with callous phrases like "Let them eat cake."

"So yes, to understand 1789 and the excesses of the Reign of Terror, one must visit Versailles and grasp the environment of the royal snobs who dismissed the plight of the people with callous phrases like "Let them eat cake."

Well, I can see the 19th legends are still alive. Let's not judge pre-industrial times with our modern (and
mostly eroneous) outlook.

The causes of the French revolution are many, and the luxury of Versailles is a very minor one. The ancien regime collapsed for many reasons, in particular due to its financial difficulties, which had little to do with the expenses Versailles (bad harvests, supporting the American revolution...), which was largely paid for before the revolution arrived.

Historians estimate that in the busiest years, that is in the 1680's (100 years before the revolution) building the chateau represented up to 3 or 4 % of the country's budget, that is far less than maintaining armies, a navy and building fortifications, for something which has largely withstood the test of time, and which the French are still proud of.

There is no need to look at Versailles in a puritanical way. Versailles, the political and administrative capital of France from 1682 to 1789 was, as it is today, a very public place.

No French royal has ever said "let them eat cake". It's totally apocriphic, and part of the "dark legend" of Versailles.

Besides, between the day the royal couple was taken to Paris by the mobs (October 5, 1789) and their final executions (1793 and 1794), so many things could have happened, in partucular the king acceptance of constitutionnal monarchy.

By the way, the appartments at the Louvre are not "Napoleon's". There were designed much later, in the 1850's, under Napoleon III (1852-1870), for the Duc de Morny.

read :
...the 19th century legends...
...the King's acceptance...
...in particular...

I finally went to Versailles after going to Paris probably 20 times. I had two American friends coming over to visit (I live in Switzerland) and they insisted on seeing it. All three of us really loved the grounds, fountains, etc., but were totally turned off by being packed in like sardines and pushed along through each room before getting a chance to really see anything while the tour groups seemed to be given preference. They were allowed to step aside and spend more time with their guide as we were hustled through. Plus in some rooms, three or four tour guides would all be speaking at once, in all different languages and the noise level was incredible. I could't wait to get out of that place!

And in fact, this was the same experience my husband and I had in the Vatican Museums, accompanied by obnoxious Italian guards sshhhing everyone when the noise levels in the Sistine Chapel was too loud. I felt nothing but disgust at the riches of the Catholic Church. Especially since I am from the Massachusetts city that has had the biggest sexual abuse case by a priest and all the young men that I went to school with were victims of Father Birmingham. I had a hard time justifying all those years giving our hard earned money every Sunday to those thieves and molesters and seeing what they actually bought with it. You don't see any Picasso's hanging in my parents' house!

Vaux le Vicomte, however, I loved. Although we went in a Parisian friend's car so I am not really sure how you would get out there otherwise.

If you are not interested, don't go. The queues are long - it's very hot in the summer queueing outside.

As Robespierre said - "If you haven't seen Versailles, you can only understand the French Revolution intellectually. Experiencing it confers a visceral comprehension."

But I don't think thats going to be a huge issue in this particular circumstance.

I was not thrilled with Versaille and we skipped it this past fall. The grounds are great. but I found the inside tour mostly boring and crowded.

As castles go it is the best ( we have seen them all in the Loire and glad we did too) and definitely worth seeing,but there certainly are plenty of other great sites in Paris and France. It depends on what you like.

I actually liked our tour of a nearby place where he kept his mistresses almost better than Versaille.That and the gardens at Versaille was what I liked most.

I've been to Versaiile twice and was not WOWed as I've been by other sites. However, I'm going to Paris this summer with two gals who have never been so I'm off to the palace once again.

I'm currently reading a history of Marie Antoinette and plan to read about Louis XIV "the Sun King" prior to the upcoming visit in hopes of making it more meaningful to me.

While I agree that the Royal Apartments in the Louvre are not Versaille due to age and size they are probably about as close as you'll find in Paris...

I always thought of Versailles as just another big, extravagant palace (not that I've even seen one extravagant palace).

I wasn't interested in just seeing great wealth, and had no idea about the history of Versailles, or really the french history in general. I was so ignorant.

The responses were fascinating, and I know just from reading these replies that I would like to experience Versailles for myself.

Anyone know any good books on french history and Versailles? I think I need some enlightening.

Merci beaucoup

Karen

Some thoughts.

First, thanks to Trudaine for defusing some misconceptions. I think it is a mistake to judge 17th and 18th Century French history or decorative arts in the context of 21st Century values.

Like it or not, Versailles is a showcase of the finest artists and artisans of the time, both in originality (at the time) and in workmanship. It is historically and culturally important.

There is really no similarity between Versailles and the Napoléon III apartments, which incorporate the eclecticism of the 19th Century.

Only the OP can know whether he/she will regret not going. As shown on this thread, everyone has a different take on it. My field is decorative arts and cultural tourism, so for me there is always something to learn there.

Is it my favorite place? Not at all. Will I go back? Yes, many times.

Hi kaz,

If you do go, do it on a day when the fountains are working and the gardens are in bloom.

http://www.chateauversailles.fr/en/

((I))

Hi

Versailles is pretty amazing. The size of the palace, the history of the place and the garden makes this just unbelievable. I have been to Versailles three times and it is great fun to see it. The last time I went there was in April last year (see the trip report with pictures and links on my homepage http://gardkarlsen.com/Paris_France.htm ) we took a tour of the private apartments and due to this we got to see more of the palace :d You can see the gardens if you take a look at my interactive Google of Paris on this page http://gardkarlsen.com/paris_france_map.htm . Zoom out a couple of times and you will see the marker at Versailles on the left hand side. Zoom in on it to get a better look :d

Regards
Gard
http://gardkarlsen.com - trip reports and pictures

Beaupeep said:
All three of us really loved the grounds, fountains, etc., but were totally turned off by being packed in like sardines and pushed along through each room before getting a chance to really see anything while the tour groups seemed to be given preference. They were allowed to step aside and spend more time with their guide as we were hustled through. Plus in some rooms, three or four tour guides would all be speaking at once, in all different languages and the noise level was incredible. I could't wait to get out of that place!

Imagine when it was actually used by the royal court? After experiencing the crowd, I really appreciated peacefulness of the Grand Triannon and the Petit Triannon. I understand that the Grand Triannon was the King's home away from home when things got too much.

In fact, the crammed State apartements, which 90 % of Versailles visitors limit themselves to, were not lived in. They were mostly used for ceremonies and receptions. They still consist of a succession of interconnecting grand rooms, which were hardly more furnished then than they are today, following the classic order of baroque palaces (guardsroom, antichamber, bedchamber, etc...)The royal family simply walked down these rooms every day to attend mass at the chapel (with everyone bowing along the way...).

Even in the main chateau, there is a more intimate, lived in, Versailles, which can be seen on regular tours (Mesdames appartments- Louis XV's unmarried daughters- and the dauphin's appartments-the heir prince),as well as the king's inner chambers, which can be visited on reservation for small groups.

I didn't really care for Versailles, so if if you don't find it appealing I wouldn't bother going. When I was there in the summer the gardens were not kept up well at all, the fountains were not working.

Thanks Trudaine for the clarifications, I'm also a fan of french history. The perception that it was the poor rising up against the rich is a simplification that has been around for a long time.

I have been twice, and would go back to finish visiting the grounds and the outlying buildings.

If you go, I would recommend going on your ow, first thing in the morning, in order to get there before the tour buses. The fountian show is also good, and I believe they also have music performances some nights.

Versailles is like no other building in the Paris area, and because of its key part in centuries of french history, the architecture, the craftsmanship,etc.. I don't think it should be left out of a longer trip to Paris. On a short trip, I would only go if it is something that you are passionate about.

I'll refrain from commenting on some of the opinions on the wealth of the Vatican, they can best be adressed in the Lounge. We should be wary of applying today's morality to events that occured in a different time, when the world was a different place.

Anya, that is too bad that you went when the fountains weren't operating. I believe the fountains only operate on certain days and at certain times, so research and planning to find out the ideal time to see the fountains are always a good idea.

I found the gardens pretty well kept, compared to my own gardens and my neighbourhoods. :D

If it wasn't for the riches of the Catholic Church, much of the artwork that we view today would not have happened, so perhaps that's the upside to the downside. Versailles is incredible to see. I wonder how many people it took to lay those thousands and thousands of cobblestones and to think they were all formed by hand, one by one by one. The sculputer and the carvings, cut and polished, all by hand, no electric tools. It's all just amazing. You can imagine, as you walk toward the palace, what it must have been like for visitors at that time to see that building and they were riding down the tree lined boulevard. The wealth and grandeur of France before them. Versailles was a "show piece". I did some research on the history of Versailles after my last visit. The kind also made those who wanted an audience with him, pay for the privledge. It helped weaken his enimies or those who might want to challenge him. He tried to keep them broke.

If you get your hands on a copy of Margaret MacMillan's "Paris 1919: Six Months that changed the World" you can get an indepth review of the Paris Peace Conference, and also photographs of Versailles at that time.

Ms. MacMillan's prizewinning book "forces us to reexamine our assumptions about the supposed myopia of Georges Clemenceau, David Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson...." (Sunday Telegraph, London.)

In particular, she compares the reparation payments demanded OF the Germans (after WW1) with the reparation payments demanded BY the Germans (after the Franco-Prussian war) and comes to some interesting conclusions.

We had the Paris museum pass, and didn't need to stand in the long line.

We had great advice to get there early, and not go through the palace first but go on one of the other tours. We picked the Baroque theater (only one of three in existence). After that fantastic tour (and tour guide), the palace was less crowded, and we were able to take our time through the rooms.

Outside was gorgeous, and we walked almost the whole grounds. It was a really pleasant day, and I did feel a more visceral understanding of the revolution.

About the Vatacan and the "obnoxious" shushers, my husband was pretty enamored of that job and wants to know how he can apply. Although he was confused why noise might offend God. Also, my young daughter was lying on the floor in front of the "Do Not Lie On the Floor" sign, but the guards let it slide.

Not visiting Versailles is not going to make your time spent in France any less valuable. Nor is it going to make your life any less rich.

If you want to go, go. If you don't want to go, don't. C'est tres simple!

If seeing Versailles Palace & grounds has an affect on you, then be sure to also visit La Conciergerie on Ile-de-la-Cite, to see the direct contrast of where Marie Antoinette had to spend the rest of her days before execution.

I agree with Bill_I, that is a great look at the two "chapters" in that part of history.
We really enjoyed our visit to Versailles, the train was easy, the walk was nice, the place is , well , it's Versailles! nothing else like it.
We never went back but I was glad I went.
Although I might go back in the summer to see fireworks and the gardens in bloom, we were there in the fall.

Thanks to Michel Paris for adding a note of perspective to the unreasoning prejudice against the European art of 20 centuries because of the actions of contemporary American priests. Refusing to look at either the Vatican Museums or, in this case, Versailles, could suggest a refusal to understand history. And like the man said, those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.

...in Summer School.

good one, R.

Kaz11

I am impressed that your mind was changed a bit. That is why I said I like these lively discussions. Very cool indeed.

It is great to know that you are planning to investigate the topic further.

This is what make Fodors so great to me.

For people who don't like crowds, you might try going on a rainy day. We didn't have any choice (it rained every day on that one trip) but it turned out to be a blessing. The gardens were completely empty - not even a single person other than me (I have pictures to prove it!). There were maybe 100 people milling around in the main courtyard and another 100-200 people touring inside. That was it. It felt almost deserted. In hindsight, I'm kinda glad it rained that day.