Talk:Mentmore Towers

message: Didn't this place recently burn down?
:Not as far as I'm aware. -- Francs2000  09:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There was something odd about this article. Suddenly it dawned on me: it's terse about the architecture. I soon realized that this article was something of a social history, while the inconspicuously linked Plans and interiors of Mentmore was the architectural description. The latter seems a bit wordy, but salvagable; was there a good reason for starting the two articles separately; and if not, is there a good reason to keep them apart now? -- Hoary 08:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *That article was written a long time ago by a new editor, who never got arownd to finishing it off, (I suspect!) before he disapeared. Giano | talk 09:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if I were to compress that article, with the eventual aim of chucking the result into this article and redirecting here? -- Hoary 10:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a card, that User:Ragussa! Frutti di Mare 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine! Whatever you like Hoary, I probably won't ever edit this page again, as I feel insulted and persecuted here by ALoan who has clearly never graced an elite fairway - and a seafood medley (probably elderly calamari), clearly unused to haute cuisine, who obviously crash landed on his/her head while Yogic flying! Giano | talk 12:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, Giano -- don't go off in a huff, or even a minute and a huff! Moreover, you know how it is: you're doomed to produce FAs. It's your destiny; you can't escape it. (Incidentally, what's an "Elite Fairway"? is it perhaps this with walnut trim?) -- baby octopodes washed down with champagne 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why halved?

message: Giano, there's no way we can allow this image in the article when we have a perfectly adequate free replacement :Image:IMG 6402a2 copy.jpg. You might like the non-free image better in this case, but this is clearly a case where we have a free equivalent, and thus is not even close to being permissible. howcheng  {chat} 16:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not perfectly adequate,it is a dreadful photograph that could be of a staircase almost anywhere, it shows nothing of the renaissance architecture which makes this house notable in the first place. Compare for yourself here. Please revert at once, or I shall Giano (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but no. This is a clear-cut case. When we have a free equivalent, we have to use it -- licensing trumps aesthetics every time. However, I will contact the photographer to see what other photos of Mentmore Towers he has. howcheng  {chat} 17:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It is not equivalent! Very well Howcheng, you are so keen to show how strong your powers are by deletng images, you also profess to know so much about architecture write the page yourself! Giano (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Mentmore towers staircase.jpg]] 

message: Did The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (aka Mummy 3) use this place for exterior? --Mato Rei (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know about 3, but 1 and 2 definitely did.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.111.241 (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film location 

message: What was for a long time the interesting but unsourced article Plans and interiors of Mentmore is now Talk:Mentmore Towers/Plans and interiors of Mentmore. Well informed edits are welcome, with an eye to either (a) its restoration as a separate, sourced article or (b) its incorporation as sourced material within this article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Plans and interiors of Mentmore

message: An image used in this article, File:Mentmore towers dining room.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it did have a fair-use rationale. And still does. -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Mentmore towers dining room.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The extract from the 1946 Ordnance Survey map that I posted, available at this link: http://www.npemap.org.uk/tiles/map.html#489,218,1 is part of an ongoing project to make the OS 1" New Popular Edition available online. It happens that users can add postcode data, in order to improve the searchability of the maps, but it is not a postcode map. The full sheet (sheet 146) is also available online from the National Library of Scotland here: http://maps.nls.uk/os/view/?sid=74466945
The map follows the Ordnance Survey convention of showing, stippled in black, "parks and ornamental grounds" (see the key to the New Popular Edition here: http://www.cassinimaps.co.uk/shop/pagelegend.asp )
The map shows the boundaries of the park of Mentmore Towers (not the boundaries of the estate as a whole), as they were at 1946. Clearly this included much of the area now occupied by the golf courses and the claim that the golf courses do not impinge on the park is not correct. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Parks and ornamental grounds" is not "park". Further, there's no comparable map showing where the golf course is so there is no way to verify that what was once "parks and ornamental grounds" is now a golf course.  I do not see any value in adding a map that shows land usage from 65 years ago, when the same land could have undergone several use changes in the interim. For example, that map doesn't show where the stud farm was, yet Mentmore did have a stud farm at least in the 1960s. Risker (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim being made in reverting my additions has been that the golf courses are not in the park, with no differentiation regarding date. They clearly are in the park (as a comparison with the current OS map will show). Incidentally, the 1946 map does show the stud farm, labelled as such. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the map as showing the Crafton stud farm, without mention of the Mentmore one.  I also note that the "model farm" appears to be in the same "stippling" as the rest of the grounds that you are considering the park, so I'd suggest that there are some issues with the legend. But again, we keep coming back to why what the estate looked like in 1946 has any relevance to a golf course built in 1992, when the estate would have undergone multiple changes during that interval. You're drawing a direct line from "park" to "golf course" without any discussion of the land use in the intervening 40-odd years. Now, if you wanted to add the map as an illustration of what the Mentmore estate looked like in 1946, without discussing the golf course in any way, I'd have no issue with that. Risker (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source that states that the estate underwent "multiple changes" between 1946 and 1992 (except for the sale in 1976 when the land ownership was split for the first time)? Is there a reliable source which states, as editors have claimed, that the golf courses are not in the former park? The matter I have an issue with is the claim that has been made that the golf courses are on former farmland (which may have been its last 1976-92 use) and that therefore they are not on former parkland, when they clearly are. The extent of the parkland is also identified and mapped by English Heritage, with a map which also indicates the golf courses, here : http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1000319&searchtype=mapsearch Ghughesarch (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, the difference in quality between the NLS map and the NPE one is really quite remarkable; the latter is quite blurry.  Risker (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,one seems to have been photographed in a fog and the NLS one has been scanned at a decent high resolution. However, we've moved on from that to English Heritage's Register of Historic Parks and Gardens, which states, inter alia, that " A golf course was constructed over much of the park c 1990." Ghughesarch (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Re this revert, the map website is the 1946 OS Map, with the addition of modern postcodes. These can be hidden using the "hide markers" feature at the right of the page when on the map website. The Ordnance Survey is a reliable source when it come to data extrapolated from maps. Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it's irrelevant in this context. There's no map showing the golf courses, so no reliable source.  And land usage from 65 years ago is also not useful as applied with that edit; as a working estate, there's plenty of reason to believe that the land usage changed over time. For example, the stud farm that was present in the 1960s isn't marked on that map, and I daresay it's more relevant since that is temporally more proximal to the time that it ceased being a working estate. Risker (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

text: One wouldn't expect to find 1960s info on a 1940s map. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's kind of my point. Why in heaven's name would we include a 1940s map, except to say "this is what the estate looked like in 1946"?  It's certainly not evidence of where the golf course is in 2012.  Risker (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows that where the golf course now is was the park, and that therefore edits made on the basis that the golf course is not in the park are not accurate nor backed up by the available evidence. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not listening. There's no reliable source that says *where* the golf course is, and whether it is on former farmland or former park. What the land was used for in 1946 is irrelevant. Risker (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you accept google maps as a reliable source? the golf courses are clearly shown in the aerial view: https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=mentmore&hl=en&ll=51.865468,-0.689392&spn=0.029787,0.077162&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=5.270256,10.50293&t=h&hnear=Mentmore,+Buckinghamshire,+United+Kingdom&z=14 and equally clearly occupy a large part of the area marked as park on the 1946 OS map (ie, not "ploughed fields")Ghughesarch (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear, please don't get me going on google maps, particularly for non-urban settings. Let's just say that if I depended on google maps to travel, I'd never find half the places I want to go.  Let's stick to the subject. There's no direct line between "park" and "golf course" since there are 40-odd years intervening, with heaven only knows what land use changes. As an illustration of what the estate looked like in 1946, it is an excellent source, and I would have no problem adding it to the article as such.  Risker (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, here is English Heritage's definition of the boundaries of the park, as identified for planning purposes on the basis of its historic form http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1000319&searchtype=mapsearch Usefully mapped and also showing the location of the golf courses, and indeed stating in the description: The park is divided into three main sections. The area west of the south drive is largely surrounded by belt planting with substantial spinneys and parkland trees. This area contains a golf course (laid out c 1990), with related structures, ponds and planting in the landscape, together with a clubhouse at the centre of the west park and an access drive from the south-east entering from the main avenue on the Cheddington lane. Will that do? Ghughesarch (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Without prejudice to responding or continuing this discussion, I'm going to copy all of this over to the talk page of the article; it was poor form of all of us commenting on this page not to take it to the article talk (I include myself!), as there are some different points being raised, and we're all repeating ourselves as well.  Risker (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. More of the "meat" of the discussion seems to be here than in the parts contained in the original Mentmore Towers talk page discussion, so I'll continue in this section, just to repeat that English Heritages description of the park states that  "A golf course was constructed over much of the park c 1990." This seems to me to be a reliable source, and not one that relies on a smidgeon of original research or comparison between google aeriels views and blurry scans of 1946 maps. I would therefore suggest that the statement on the article's main page that "Former farmland adjacent to the park is home to Mentmore Golf and Country Club" should be edited to "Part of the former parkland is now occupied by the Mentmore Golf and Country Club", with the appropriate supporting reference from the national heritage register. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

text: The EH description referring to pasture (which often is parkland, grazing animals being compatible with the park use) and arable land refers to the situation current at the time that the park was designated. However, see below - the source (DiCamillo Companion) preferred and cited by the original IP editor (all in the same figure range and all posting from Milton Keynes) states that the park is home to the golf clubs - indeed, apart from the editing of "park" to "former farmland", which is not backed up by a reliable source, the content appears to have been copied and pasted from the DiCamillo Companion at http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=1365 Ghughesarch (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golf Courses 

message: (Note these posts are copied from Risker's talk page, and are copied here to centralize the discussion)Diff
:Re this revert, the map website is the 1946 OS Map, with the addition of modern postcodes. These can be hidden using the "hide markers" feature at the right of the page when on the map website. The Ordnance Survey is a reliable source when it come to data extrapolated from maps. Mjroots (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it's irrelevant in this context. There's no map showing the golf courses, so no reliable source.  And land usage from 65 years ago is also not useful as applied with that edit; as a working estate, there's plenty of reason to believe that the land usage changed over time. For example, the stud farm that was present in the 1960s isn't marked on that map, and I daresay it's more relevant since that is temporally more proximal to the time that it ceased being a working estate. Risker (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One wouldn't expect to find 1960s info on a 1940s map. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's kind of my point. Why in heaven's name would we include a 1940s map, except to say "this is what the estate looked like in 1946"?  It's certainly not evidence of where the golf course is in 2012.  Risker (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows that where the golf course now is was the park, and that therefore edits made on the basis that the golf course is not in the park are not accurate nor backed up by the available evidence. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not listening. There's no reliable source that says *where* the golf course is, and whether it is on former farmland or former park. What the land was used for in 1946 is irrelevant. Risker (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you accept google maps as a reliable source? the golf courses are clearly shown in the aerial view: https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=mentmore&hl=en&ll=51.865468,-0.689392&spn=0.029787,0.077162&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=5.270256,10.50293&t=h&hnear=Mentmore,+Buckinghamshire,+United+Kingdom&z=14 and equally clearly occupy a large part of the area marked as park on the 1946 OS map (ie, not "ploughed fields")Ghughesarch (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear, please don't get me going on google maps, particularly for non-urban settings. Let's just say that if I depended on google maps to travel, I'd never find half the places I want to go.  Let's stick to the subject. There's no direct line between "park" and "golf course" since there are 40-odd years intervening, with heaven only knows what land use changes. As an illustration of what the estate looked like in 1946, it is an excellent source, and I would have no problem adding it to the article as such.  Risker (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, here is English Heritage's definition of the boundaries of the park, as identified for planning purposes on the basis of its historic form http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1000319&searchtype=mapsearch Usefully mapped and also showing the location of the golf courses, and indeed stating in the description: The park is divided into three main sections. The area west of the south drive is largely surrounded by belt planting with substantial spinneys and parkland trees. This area contains a golf course (laid out c 1990), with related structures, ponds and planting in the landscape, together with a clubhouse at the centre of the west park and an access drive from the south-east entering from the main avenue on the Cheddington lane. Will that do? Ghughesarch (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Without prejudice to responding or continuing this discussion, I'm going to copy all of this over to the talk page of the article; it was poor form of all of us commenting on this page not to take it to the article talk (I include myself!), as there are some different points being raised, and we're all repeating ourselves as well.  Risker (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. More of the "meat" of the discussion seems to be here than in the parts contained in the original Mentmore Towers talk page discussion, so I'll continue in this section, just to repeat that English Heritages description of the park states that  "A golf course was constructed over much of the park c 1990." This seems to me to be a reliable source, and not one that relies on a smidgeon of original research or comparison between google aeriels views and blurry scans of 1946 maps. I would therefore suggest that the statement on the article's main page that "Former farmland adjacent to the park is home to Mentmore Golf and Country Club" should be edited to "Part of the former parkland is now occupied by the Mentmore Golf and Country Club", with the appropriate supporting reference from the national heritage register. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

text: The EH description referring to pasture (which often is parkland, grazing animals being compatible with the park use) and arable land refers to the situation current at the time that the park was designated. However, see below - the source (DiCamillo Companion) preferred and cited by the original IP editor (all in the same figure range and all posting from Milton Keynes) states that the park is home to the golf clubs - indeed, apart from the editing of "park" to "former farmland", which is not backed up by a reliable source, the content appears to have been copied and pasted from the DiCamillo Companion at http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=1365 Ghughesarch (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from Risker's talk page

message: ::*The land ownership was not split for the first time in 1976. The farmland on which the golf courses are sited (under the banner of Model Farm) was sold to the the Society of Merchant Venturers by Lord Rosebery on the late 1940s/early 1950s. He sold it because it did not form part of the park and could easily be detatched from the main body of the estate. The Merchant Venturers sold the farmland to a private farmer in the late 1970s - that person founded the golf courses. 86.164.144.42 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but unless you have a reliable source for that (and English Heritage is a reliable source that states exactly the opposite - that the golf course was constructed in, not adjacent to, the park), then it can't be added to the article. Ghughesarch (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Sorry - where in the link you have provided (to an amateur enthusiast's website which would not usually be considered a more reliable source than that provided by the government's historic environment advisers) does it say that? And please note http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1000319&searchtype=mapsearch which clearly states: "A golf course was constructed over much of the park c 1990." and  "PARK The park is divided into three main sections. The area west of the south drive is largely surrounded by belt planting with substantial spinneys and parkland trees. This area contains a golf course (laid out c 1990), with related structures, ponds and planting in the landscape, together with a clubhouse at the centre of the west park and an access drive from the south-east entering from the main avenue on the Cheddington lane."  In any case, who owned the land in the run up to the golf courses being created has no bearing on whether it was parkland or not - and English Heritage say it was.Ghughesarch (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on 'History / Gardens & Park / Movies'; if that's not wnough for you I suuuest that you peruse the records of Hamnett Raffety, the land agents to the Earls of Rosebery which are now deposited in the National Archives. You will find that they have full coverage of this matter.  RedSign (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes! And if you click on 'Gardens and Park', you'll also find that the DiCamillo Companion agrees with English Heritage's records: "The Park is home to Mentmore Golf and Country Club (www.mentmoregolf.co.uk), established in 1992 with two 18-hole golf courses: the Rothschild Course and the Rosebery Course." Ghughesarch (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, hold on now.  If the golf course land was severed (as we now have a reasonable source for), and has been for 68 years, why would the golf course even be mentioned in the article? Instead, we should be specifying that the property surrounding Mentmore Towers (which is the building) was sold to xxx in 1944.  Mentmore Park has apparently not been contiguous with Mentmore Towers since that time.  Risker (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, remove all reference to the golf course. But as it's certainly in the area designated as being the historic park, don't expect it not to get added back, with reliable sources saying that that is the case. Someone is bound to add it back (it won't be me), and if that says and cites sources for it being in the former park, that's fine. But if it's re-added with the untrue claim that it's not in the park, then we're back where we started. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I suggest this compromise: Much of the historic park (English Heritage cited) was sold off in 1944 (DICamillo Companion cited) and reverted to agricultural use (source needed) before becoming a golf club in 1992 (source needed) Ghughesarch (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds entirely on-target to me; I might even go so far as to simply say "sold off in 1944 to xxx, and was subsequently redeveloped as a golf and country club in 1992."  Risker (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a source is needed for the (as yet only alleged) reversion to agricultural use between 1944 and 1992, I'm happy to wait for comments from the IP editor and Redsign before the change is made, say 24 hours? Ghughesarch (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Interesting, but 3900 acres is vastly more (about ten times) than the area identified and mapped by English Heritage as being the Park (which according to EH includes the golf courses), so again a more specific source is needed for the claim that the golf courses do not occupy parts of the park (whereas DiCamillo and English Heritage are clear that they are on former parkland) Ghughesarch (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The ownership of the farmland on which the golf courses are constructed was slit from the mentmore estate years before the Mentmore sale.

message: This article has numerous infractions of WP:MOSIMAGES.  The captions are overly long. The photos are not placed next to the content they illustrate. They start the section on the left. They extend beyond the section they are placed in etc. I suggest some changes are in order to bring them in to compliance. -- — Keithbob • Talk •  01:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, it was a bit of a mess. Looks better now . God knows why the image of Wollaton was plonked there at the top - people can click on it if they want to know what that looked like. In the absence of an interior section (there'a limit to what can be written about an empty, decaying house that no one is allowed inside) the long captions suffice very well. I think I did write a big section about the interiors years ago; I'll see of I can find it. Perhaps it can be incorporated somewhere, although it was written before the days of references - and of course there are no publicly published references for of this house's interiors - anyway it's only an empty mausoleum now.  Giano  10:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah here we are Plans and interiors of Mentmore - except some over officious little twat of an admin has deleted it for reasons bets known to himself - I'll see if we can find someone to let us have a look at what it said - some of may be referencable - I think I was the only editor.  Giano  10:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi folks, and thanks for responding to my concerns about the photos. Yesterday I upgraded the Maharishi era section by removing unsourced text that was tagged cite needed for 2-3 years and replaced it with text that I extracted from sources I could find on a subscription news service.  As the section got smaller it created chaos with the photo arrangement and I had to create a gallery for the photos that didn't fit anywhere anymore.  I should have given this explanation earlier, my apologies.  Now in the present Giano has done a nice job of organizing the photos on the left so things look tidy but unfortunately that flys in the face of the WP:MOSIMAGES guideline which says images on the left should not begin start the section.  If we moved all the photos to the right that would fix that 'violation' so to speak. Is that OK with everyone? -- — Keithbob • Talk •  15:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh that was very silly; pruning the Transcendentalists was not a good idea at all. It will attract them to swarm back like bees saying they've been short changed and adding their ten pennyworth back. Very odd people indeed - claimed they could fly at Mentmore you know - even invited me to do a course in it. All I could see was some strange hopping up and down - I said to them, you start flying London to Frankfurt and I may be interested. At my age, bouncing up and down on a bean bag is not to be advised - anyway none of them ever had a drink, not even the odd  gin and Dubonnet - told me my mind would be more receptive and aware without it - sozzled I may be by 6.30pm, but at least I'm not sitting there going 'hum hum diddy bum ad nauseum' thinking I'm flying round the room. You see encouraging them back is not a good idea at all. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Bugger the MOS. It's not possible for every page to comply with it - live dangerously and ignore it - I frequently do. It's more pleasing to the eye to have them on the left.  Giano  16:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: "the Director of the V&A, who hoped that Mentmore would become a 'branch' of his museum for 19th-century decorative arts as Ham House was for the 17th-century and Osterley was for the 18th-century.[19] The government refused to spend such large sums from the fund, and the sale fell through." what sale? what was the asking price? how much was the british government willing to spend on it? Bumblebritches57 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Sale? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mentmore Towers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140101122442/http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=1365 to http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=1365
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140101122442/http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=1365 to http://www.dicamillocompanion.com/houses_detail.asp?ID=1365
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mentmore Towers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001172422/http://www.epr.co.uk/architect_hotels_mentmore.html to http://www.epr.co.uk/architect_hotels_mentmore.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article currently says "Following the death of the sixth earl in 1973, the Labour government of James Callaghan refused to accept the contents in lieu of inheritance taxes..." This statement is unsourced. It is somewhat dubious, as the PM in 1973 was Edward Heath, Labour under Wilson formed a govt late in 1974, and Callaghan did not become PM until 1976. DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Quickly found this: "When the sixth Lord Rosebury died in 1974 death duties of over £4 million became due. The Department of the Environment refused the house and contents in lieu of these because upkeep would have been too much of a liability" Illustrated London News (1 March 1977). Supports everything but the date and who was PM, but it's common for these things to drag out over a number of years and the eventual sale was in 1977. The Guardian (1 February 1977) says Govt "recently refused". The Times (7 February 1977) indicates Govt considering offer in 1977 (readers letter but quotes Hansard). wjematherplease leave a message... 12:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite correct. The final decision not to buy Mentmore in its entirety  for approx £3m, but spend over £2m on just three artworks was finally taken in early 1977, when Callaghan was PM. Recently one table from the house sold for £1.75m and two Turners for over £50m. It was a curious decision even then. Giano   (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government refusal