On 27/08/07 6:19, in article k1k4d351avj14jbn7piq43notq5aphfho3@4ax.com,
"Mxsmanic" wrote:
> If you are staying for five days, and you really want to see Versailles, you
> should go. If the idea of looking at a palace without furniture and pretty
> gardens doesn't thrill you, it might not be worth it. Some people drool over
> Versailles, others find that it puts them to sleep, so you can't go by what
> other people say.
Seeing it gives one a feeling of why there was a revolution more than most
other of the Chateaux of France. Next, I can not imagine "la vie de
Chateau" there, it is too large to "live" in even in the grand style
that that expression means. My favorite of the major ones is Chaumont
(voir http://www.chaumont-jardin.com/site/page/chateau/chateau.php)
which is small, has a drawbridge and has a retro style because,
appears authentically from the middle ages, not refined as those
constructed later. Versailles for me is a symbol of the decadence
that French nobility suffered from. Fontainbleau has the advantage of
having been constructed in several stages, originally a hunting
chateau, and exhibits some authenticity in that regard.
Of course, in touring around France one runs into chateaux to visit
out in the middle of "nowhere" which are "small" and delightful to
visit and stay in when that is possible. The one message that gets
through in staying at even the small ones is that cost of maintaining
even a small structure. What does one do with 30 rooms?
Chambord, one of the largest, has 440 rooms and 365 fireplaces,
|