Avoiding Versailles crowds
Sep 26th 2004, 8:56 am
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Avoiding Versailles crowds
[email protected] writes:
> Where's your web site?
http://www.mxsmanic.com
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Where's your web site?
http://www.mxsmanic.com
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Sep 27th 2004, 4:28 am
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Avoiding Versailles crowds
"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] writes:
>> Are you an escort?
> I give individual tours, if that's what you mean.
>> Maybe she'll take you out for a really nice meal?
> I'm not interested in meals. I'm fat enough already.
Then beware the Hall of Mirrors!
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] writes:
>> Are you an escort?
> I give individual tours, if that's what you mean.
>> Maybe she'll take you out for a really nice meal?
> I'm not interested in meals. I'm fat enough already.
Then beware the Hall of Mirrors!
Sep 27th 2004, 4:28 am
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Avoiding Versailles crowds
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:40:11 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>Ellie C writes:
>>> And those fools didn't even have TV or computers. Imagine that! And
>>> horses instead of cars! Who could have imagined such squalor.
>>One need not imagine it too much after seeing Versailles, as the lower
>>standard of living is obvious. In those days, even kings lived worse
>>than the average person today.
> The King had a bed, a stove, a very nice garden and Marie Antoinette
Say what? The King had Marie Antoinette in the garden?
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:40:11 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>Ellie C writes:
>>> And those fools didn't even have TV or computers. Imagine that! And
>>> horses instead of cars! Who could have imagined such squalor.
>>One need not imagine it too much after seeing Versailles, as the lower
>>standard of living is obvious. In those days, even kings lived worse
>>than the average person today.
> The King had a bed, a stove, a very nice garden and Marie Antoinette
Say what? The King had Marie Antoinette in the garden?
Sep 27th 2004, 5:04 am
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Avoiding Versailles crowds
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:28:42 GMT, "David Gee" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> [email protected] writes:
>>> Are you an escort?
>> I give individual tours, if that's what you mean.
>>> Maybe she'll take you out for a really nice meal?
>> I'm not interested in meals. I'm fat enough already.
>Then beware the Hall of Mirrors!
LOL
wrote:
>"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> [email protected] writes:
>>> Are you an escort?
>> I give individual tours, if that's what you mean.
>>> Maybe she'll take you out for a really nice meal?
>> I'm not interested in meals. I'm fat enough already.
>Then beware the Hall of Mirrors!
LOL
Sep 27th 2004, 5:04 am
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Avoiding Versailles crowds
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:28:43 GMT, "David Gee" <[email protected]>
wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:40:11 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>Ellie C writes:
>>>> And those fools didn't even have TV or computers. Imagine that! And
>>>> horses instead of cars! Who could have imagined such squalor.
>>>One need not imagine it too much after seeing Versailles, as the lower
>>>standard of living is obvious. In those days, even kings lived worse
>>>than the average person today.
>> The King had a bed, a stove, a very nice garden and Marie Antoinette
>Say what? The King had Marie Antoinette in the garden?
Frequently :-)
wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected].. .
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 21:40:11 +0200, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>Ellie C writes:
>>>> And those fools didn't even have TV or computers. Imagine that! And
>>>> horses instead of cars! Who could have imagined such squalor.
>>>One need not imagine it too much after seeing Versailles, as the lower
>>>standard of living is obvious. In those days, even kings lived worse
>>>than the average person today.
>> The King had a bed, a stove, a very nice garden and Marie Antoinette
>Say what? The King had Marie Antoinette in the garden?
Frequently :-)
Sep 27th 2004, 7:41 am
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Avoiding Versailles crowds
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > Neither my wife nor I can think of anybody, who has been disappointed
> > by Versailles.
>
> Disappointment is a strong word, I suppose. More like unimpressed.
> They aren't really unhappy to see Versailles, but in retrospect they
> readily admit that they could have skipped it and spent the time more
> profitably seeing other things.
>
> > American tourists flock to Hearst Castle in large numbers
> > and it is nothing compared to Versailles.
>
> The thing that struck me most about Versailles when I first saw it was
> that things were sure junky and primitive back then, even for the king.
> No air conditioning, no electricity, no decent lighting or bathrooms,
> lots of tawdry decor that looks like gold but often isn't, etc.
It is true that a 700 m long facade was probably impressive in the
17th century but is no more today. The courtyard entrance is more
impressive nevertheless than the better designed and balanced garden
facade because it is more animated with its 2 advancing neoclassical
wings, the opera and chapel vertical masses, the former ministries
blocks on the left and the 2 large stables in front of the palace.
But despite a distance of 3,5 km from the castle to the end of the
grand
canal it is less impressive than the perspective from Capitol hill to
Lincoln memorial in WDC, because the Capitol has a dome, has probably
an as long facade, is on a higher hill, mostly in marble, and because
there is no equivalent to the Lincoln memorial in Versailles. Even
some palaces later made on the model of Versailles and their garden
perspective, like Caserta near Naples, are more impressive. But it is
nevertheless quite nice to see Versailles in a SUNNY day with the
grandes eaux. Without the grandes eaux most of the fountains are very
low and less animated than in Aranjuez for ex. Second, a large part of
the gardens, neglected before during years, were recently replanted,
notably the petit parc just in front of the palace, after the
incredible DEVASTATION made by the last tempest (see the photos on the
restoration pannels in the garden...). It will take years for the
trees to grow again. Third, the design of the garden uses too much
sand on the parterres at the detriment of grass and too much
monotonous alleys in the petit parc. It looks like Schonbrunn or
Postdam. But an important campaign of restoration begun in 1997. This
year 60 million euros will be spent in more than 20 programs. The
Encelade bassin, the water "buffet" (cascades), notably, the colonade
and the three fountains groove, the last restored with the help of the
american
friend of Versailles, have been reopened. But the Appolo groove is
still in a shamefull state, notably after the damages caused by some
disgusting vandales on the exceptional group of sculptures. On the
western (garden) facade which has more suffered from weather, the
lacking
trophies have recently been restablished and the columns replaced, but
more works need to be done. They begun this year to restore the
windows of this facade at the prohibitive cost of nearly 8 million
euros...! (how much for a window ??), the rooves of the South wing and
the mirrors galery (still open). But I've noticed that the painting of
the interior shutters of the Dauphin appartment, restored about 2
years ago, are already decaying !! As you perfectly noticed, the
problem is that in France the restoration are made with exactly the
same materials, technics and above all appearance than the originals,
wich explains the sometimes deceiving aspect and also... enormous
cost. The absolutely needeed modern equipments are hidden as much as
possible. Most of
the time, the result (nailed slates, paintings, "dorures" (always with
real gold leaves), etc...) is rather different from the very neat
aspect that modern people would expect today and that you can find
more easily in Russia, Germany (Charlotenburg) or even the US. The
interior of Versailles has lost many of its original furnitures,
that's right, but is not completely empty, notably the exquisite
king's small appartements. Some rooms were in fact nearly empty too,
at the time, for ex. the guards rooms, some of the State rooms where
were passing many people (traditionaly in France anybody had full
access to the state rooms of the palace and so to the King) or the
"enfilades" of the successive rooms like in the Dauphine appartements.
I think nevertheless that they could had more furniture from the
beautifull and large Louvre collections. Some parts are still
impressive like the opera, the chapel (rarely opened to public
unfortunately : I don't know why), the orangery, the battles
galery, the Hercule drawing room, the king and queen bedrooms for ex.,
less for the Dauphin and Dauphine appartements with their rather
monotonous white decors, but much more than the Capitol interior,
which deceived me a little on this matter on the other hand.
Versailles has not knowned too the impovements that many sovereigns
made
to their appartements in the 19th century, like in Vienna, Moscow,
Naples, Torino, London, Madrid, Bavaria, etc... : the luxurious gilded
interiors of the Tuileries palace were destroyed in 1871.
didier Meurgues
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > Neither my wife nor I can think of anybody, who has been disappointed
> > by Versailles.
>
> Disappointment is a strong word, I suppose. More like unimpressed.
> They aren't really unhappy to see Versailles, but in retrospect they
> readily admit that they could have skipped it and spent the time more
> profitably seeing other things.
>
> > American tourists flock to Hearst Castle in large numbers
> > and it is nothing compared to Versailles.
>
> The thing that struck me most about Versailles when I first saw it was
> that things were sure junky and primitive back then, even for the king.
> No air conditioning, no electricity, no decent lighting or bathrooms,
> lots of tawdry decor that looks like gold but often isn't, etc.
It is true that a 700 m long facade was probably impressive in the
17th century but is no more today. The courtyard entrance is more
impressive nevertheless than the better designed and balanced garden
facade because it is more animated with its 2 advancing neoclassical
wings, the opera and chapel vertical masses, the former ministries
blocks on the left and the 2 large stables in front of the palace.
But despite a distance of 3,5 km from the castle to the end of the
grand
canal it is less impressive than the perspective from Capitol hill to
Lincoln memorial in WDC, because the Capitol has a dome, has probably
an as long facade, is on a higher hill, mostly in marble, and because
there is no equivalent to the Lincoln memorial in Versailles. Even
some palaces later made on the model of Versailles and their garden
perspective, like Caserta near Naples, are more impressive. But it is
nevertheless quite nice to see Versailles in a SUNNY day with the
grandes eaux. Without the grandes eaux most of the fountains are very
low and less animated than in Aranjuez for ex. Second, a large part of
the gardens, neglected before during years, were recently replanted,
notably the petit parc just in front of the palace, after the
incredible DEVASTATION made by the last tempest (see the photos on the
restoration pannels in the garden...). It will take years for the
trees to grow again. Third, the design of the garden uses too much
sand on the parterres at the detriment of grass and too much
monotonous alleys in the petit parc. It looks like Schonbrunn or
Postdam. But an important campaign of restoration begun in 1997. This
year 60 million euros will be spent in more than 20 programs. The
Encelade bassin, the water "buffet" (cascades), notably, the colonade
and the three fountains groove, the last restored with the help of the
american
friend of Versailles, have been reopened. But the Appolo groove is
still in a shamefull state, notably after the damages caused by some
disgusting vandales on the exceptional group of sculptures. On the
western (garden) facade which has more suffered from weather, the
lacking
trophies have recently been restablished and the columns replaced, but
more works need to be done. They begun this year to restore the
windows of this facade at the prohibitive cost of nearly 8 million
euros...! (how much for a window ??), the rooves of the South wing and
the mirrors galery (still open). But I've noticed that the painting of
the interior shutters of the Dauphin appartment, restored about 2
years ago, are already decaying !! As you perfectly noticed, the
problem is that in France the restoration are made with exactly the
same materials, technics and above all appearance than the originals,
wich explains the sometimes deceiving aspect and also... enormous
cost. The absolutely needeed modern equipments are hidden as much as
possible. Most of
the time, the result (nailed slates, paintings, "dorures" (always with
real gold leaves), etc...) is rather different from the very neat
aspect that modern people would expect today and that you can find
more easily in Russia, Germany (Charlotenburg) or even the US. The
interior of Versailles has lost many of its original furnitures,
that's right, but is not completely empty, notably the exquisite
king's small appartements. Some rooms were in fact nearly empty too,
at the time, for ex. the guards rooms, some of the State rooms where
were passing many people (traditionaly in France anybody had full
access to the state rooms of the palace and so to the King) or the
"enfilades" of the successive rooms like in the Dauphine appartements.
I think nevertheless that they could had more furniture from the
beautifull and large Louvre collections. Some parts are still
impressive like the opera, the chapel (rarely opened to public
unfortunately : I don't know why), the orangery, the battles
galery, the Hercule drawing room, the king and queen bedrooms for ex.,
less for the Dauphin and Dauphine appartements with their rather
monotonous white decors, but much more than the Capitol interior,
which deceived me a little on this matter on the other hand.
Versailles has not knowned too the impovements that many sovereigns
made
to their appartements in the 19th century, like in Vienna, Moscow,
Naples, Torino, London, Madrid, Bavaria, etc... : the luxurious gilded
interiors of the Tuileries palace were destroyed in 1871.
didier Meurgues
